Jump to content

What is the value of novelty in appreciating photographs?


Recommended Posts

<p>There are very strong images showing situations and places we are not familiar with.</p>

<p>Besides their compositional elements, they hit us because of their novelty.</p>

<p>Novelty as something we are not used to, something uncommon to us, outside clichés.</p>

<p>How important is novelty in appreciating photographs?</p>

<p>Do we consider that a situation or place which is new to us, might be a cliché to somebody else who is daily exposed to the same situation?</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>The value of novelty is huge in photography. Numerous photographers have made careers by being among the first to shoot places and events. It sells well !<br>

However, maybe, more interesting is the novelty not of things, places or events, but novelty of the vision. Maybe, the most challenging objective one can set oneself is to shoot places and events in ways that noone else have been able to realize. Shooting the most known places is representing the greatest challenges for such a vision.<br>

If photography is an art it is because of this latter "novelty" - rare as it is.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>If I am going to look for novelty, I often appreciate novelty of approach and presentation, novelty of perspective and vision, novelty of style. That said, presenting a penetrating look at something new or something we've not been very exposed to can be a significant achievement. But it will likely depend on the sensibility and vision as to how I receive it.</p>

<p>Some novelties are just that, novelties, like we might find in a dime store. There can sometimes be an element of triviality in the newness, a fleeting kind of amusement but a lack of depth.</p>

<p>Originality might suggest more substance than novelty but even originality can often be overrated. Not everyone is going to present or find something original or even present it with an original vision. Sometimes conscious influence, continuity with other photographers and sensibilities can be of great value and can provide insight and significance.</p>

<p>Uncommon subjects, scenes, and situations can be handled in a clichéd manner and common subjects, scenes, and situations can be handled in original ways.</p>

<p>I have seen novelty mistaken for good or interesting or compelling photography. "I hiked miles and miles to photograph this part of the terrain that few people have seen." That can still lead to a big yawn of a photograph, even though the hiking and adventurousness may be quite worthwhile in its own right.</p>

<p>In most cases, I look toward the strength and type of connection to the photograph and, in part, to the subject of the photograph more than to the novelty factor related to the subject or content.</p>

<p>On the flip side of this, photos have a long tradition of exposing us to persons, places, things, and situations we might not otherwise see for ourselves. I wouldn't discount that. It also very much depends on the photo, its purpose as I may perceive it, and the context in which I might find the photo. [i recognize that some photos have no purpose other than to be appreciated.]</p>

<p>.</p>

<p> </p><div>00aGXz-457675584.jpg.9e98970a309ab41cf09d179b089d5e93.jpg</div>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Luca, if I read you correctly, you are talking about novel situations and places we are not familiar with, not approach and presentation, novelty of perspective and vision, style or anything else, so I'll leave that out. </p>

<p>This emphasis has been around in photography since the outset and continues to this day. Worse, a lot of photographers place value on how difficult it is to access certain things that are hardly novel. We can see this here on a regular basis with photographers who believe extraordinary work results from going to certain geographical locations or cities, or gaining access to subcultures or groups. We see this in all photographic genres, landscapes, portraits, street photography, etc. </p>

<p>This is a tradition in photography of long standing, and it is not surprising that people that want a clear-cut signifier or marker of success in photography, specially the competitive types, or viewers collectors who want something simple and easy to grasp cherish things like this.</p>

<p>It is natural that seeing something normally not seen gets attention, but there's a difference from gawk-candy to good photography (never mind art).</p>

<p>The lessons of Orientalism are still largely unlearned. I'm as curious as the next guy, but is it important to me? No. Is it important to millions of photographers and viewers? Of course. So are many other markers and signifiers. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Good topic. How novelty effects or motivates photographers is no different than for other pursuits. We become alternately jaded or exhausted by life in our times.<br /> I have to break the idea into types of novelty to think about it. There is the universal strange and the parochial strange i.e the literally "sensationally" unique and the exotic. They further spit into ways of depicting the familiar by abstraction or by context (Picasso/found object sort of thing) All novelty becomes familiar, loses its wonder, and joins the mundane only to reappear for a new audience or simply in an un-refurbished state hoping to stand out from the background noise. <br /> <em>Originality</em> is another way of framing the novelty question. The need to be original underlies the motive for some. It gets in the way of more intellectually honest efforts.<br /> Photographers (I see no distinction among all media) are generally admired for their imagination and their skill at rendering their subject. Lacking one talent or another some might go for shock instead of substance. Is there nothing new under the sun? It seems not possible. DADA-like randomness (or monkey cam) is the closest to becoming truly novel. Even then the not novel result is about chance not about its fated object.<br /> The large Cindy Sherman photograph was moved from its own space in the gallery and placed on top of a garishly papered wall in order, I suppose, to shock those who'd gotten too comfortable looking at it. I revised it further with a new frame and re-sized it - a novel and intellectually sound choice.</p><div>00aGZs-457717684.jpg.afeb4c49fce674c51d5877e798211e80.jpg</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Novel things (people, places, practices, etc.), which is what they question appears to have been about before it got re-interpreted as "creative," has always been interesting in photographs. It doesn't matter what the quality of the photographs, if it's something one hasn't seen, it's often interesting. This is called "curiosity" in humans and to put it down is basically putting down the human spirit.<br>

<br />If space aliens landed tomorrow in Tierra Del Fuego and the only photos were blurry, ill-composed snaps from a five year old phone, nobody would say they weren't interested because they weren't well-taken. Most of us would look because of the sheer novelty. If someone gets the space alien photos at extreme difficulty or because they had special access, we wouldn't change our minds about looking, we would still look.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>We get blurry pictures of aliens and flying saucers all the time. From reactions on PN, most people look -- and laugh.</p>

<p>As Alan points out, novelty has a severely brief lifespan. People gawk at car accidents and wardrobe malfunctions, that's human nature, too. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Here's a picture by a photographer who just posted here recently. You may or may not like the composition, but the angle is different and "novel" than what you ordinarily see in waterfalls. http://www.photo.net/photo/15511932<br>

I think we all, well I do, want to create something that's unique, different; we all want "atta boys". What I found is that when looking at so many really good pictures by ordinary people here and on other sites, it really becomes a little disappointing trying to be different, better, etc. I think it was easier in the "old" pre-web days when you only saw "pro" pictures in books etc. At least you could say that well I'm not a pro. Now you have all these non-pros who shoot better.</p>

<p>So I think one has to be satisfied with your own work by bringing joy to yourself and to the people around you. If you share your photo with family and friends and they enjoy it, then you accomplished something. There's great pleasure in that.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>we all want "atta boys"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do we all?</p>

<p>_________________________</p>

<p>There's a lot that's wonderful that's not novel or original. Let's take the question as originally posed and consider subject matter or situation. There's nothing terribly novel about photographing nudes (or making portraits for that matter), for example. That doesn't undermine either genre or individual nude photos or portraits, even if they're not shot in a unique manner or from a novel perspective. What I often look for is connection, intimacy. (There are other qualities that may work as well.) If I feel such a connection or intimacy, I am moved and don't necessarily need to be shown or made to feel something new. Sometimes it's the depth of feeling, even from a tried and true subject, that's significant.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Luca, novelty and originality/creativity are certainly not synonyms; they're in opposition*.</p>

<p><strong>Novelty diagram</strong>: (from) it --------------> (to) you (surprise!)</p>

<p><strong>Originality/creativity diagram</strong>: (from) you ---------------> (to) it</p>

<p>However -- and I suspect this is what you're really interested in, there is, once the music really gets going:</p>

<p>(from) it --------------> (to) you [surprise! thinking, thinking ... ] (from) you --------------> (to) it</p>

<p>And where the thing that you --------------> make/it can surprise you (you discover it as it appears it --------------> you ) this goes on until your mom tells you its time for bed right NOW and the fun has to stop.</p>

<p>[* the dichotomy police will be along shortly to remind all of us that there is a CONTINUUM! and we must not forget it! [duh!] (even when having discussions using WORDS that necesssarily aren't CONTINUUMS).]</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Luca - </strong>"In any case my idea is very broad, and includes originality.<br /> Maybe the two concepts are not synonyms, but I was thinking of the uncommon, the unusual, the unseen."</p>

<p>The value of novelty is in its newness. The less you know, understand and have seen of photography, the more new things you are going to run across, and maybe rate more highly. That value is <em>transitory</em>. Historically less so, but how many people really know much or give a fig about photographic history? Who took the first photograph known from inside a tree (back to trunk) looking out? Firsts are fleeting.</p>

<p>Now that Luca has expanded on what he meant in his OP, his concerns appear to be very close to those of Modernism. I do not place much emphasis on novelty. Originality I see along the same line as fingerprints. Over six billion people on this planet, nearly <em>400 billion </em>photographs made in 2011, how many of those are "original", and where they can be seen? Not many. </p>

<p>The unseen is what <em>you do not see, </em>or are aware of, so how can that be gauged? For me, it is not originality as much as it is about individuation. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>The unseen is what you do not see, or are aware of, so how can that be gauged?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I assume Luca meant "the <em>previously</em> unseen" in talking about newness or novelty.</p>

<p>But, I actually think the unseen itself is a fascinating aspect of photography. The implied, the suggested which has been left out of the frame, the below-the-surface. I don't know about gauging that but I think it can be considered, and often has a role even if it's not considered or the photographer and viewer are not aware of the role. Now there's a trivial sense in which the unseen is ubiquitous enough where we could say everything that is not pictured is unseen and that's way too broad. There's a less trivial sense in which the unseen relates to the seen and felt . . . it's in the periphery, just off the page, just under the radar as it were. </p>

<p>The unseen or implied can make even the most oft-shot subject novel. It can certainly play a role in a photographer's originality. It can be used like many other tools. </p>

<p>The unseen can even be a kind of gestalt, a whole greater than the sum of its parts, or it can be the suggestion of just a tiny visual detail not shown but pointed to outside the frame. The photographer can often be the unseen, whose presence is nevertheless felt, sometimes quite distinctly.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Luca - </strong>"In any case my idea is very broad, and includes originality.<br /> Maybe the two concepts are not synonyms, but I was thinking of the uncommon, the unusual, the unseen."</p>

<p>The value of novelty is in its newness. The less you know, understand and have seen of photography, the more new things you are going to run across, and maybe rate more highly. That value is <em>transitory</em>. Historically less so, but how many people really know much or give a fig about photographic history? Who took the first photograph known from inside a tree (back to trunk) looking out? Firsts are fleeting.</p>

<p>Now that Luca has expanded on what he meant in his OP, his concerns appear to be very close to those of Modernism. I do not place much emphasis on novelty. Originality I see along the same line as fingerprints. Over six billion people on this planet, nearly <em>400 billion </em>photographs made in 2011, how many of those are "original", and where they can be seen? Not many. </p>

<p>The unseen is what <em>you do not see, </em>or are aware of, so how can that be gauged? For me, it is not originality as much as it is about individuation. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>The unseen can even be a kind of gestalt, a whole greater than the sum of its parts, or it can be the suggestion of just a tiny visual detail not shown but pointed to outside the frame. "</p>

<p>Similar to negative space, it can be considered, talked about, even when not implied, in absentia. Is it novel? Even if we know behind us, great oceans lie undiscovered (Thanks, Newton). If nothing else, it's the big context, the still undetectable dark matter/energy of photography. The argument can easily be made that the unseen is the obvious, what lies all around us that we are desensitized to, therefore blind to as well. Different categories of unseens: Seen unseens, unseen seens, seen seens, and unseen unseens! (Thanks Rummy!). <br>

______________________________________________</p>

<p><strong>Jeff Spirer - "</strong>A complete misreading of my post. Or unpleasant snarky response. One or the other, the point was ignored and the attempt to demean is a fail."</p>

<p>Neither, though to you there are obviously no other (unseen) possibilities other than being misunderstood or attacked (not to mention your perceived 'enemy' failing). I simply meant that the world already is full of alien and saucer pictures (bigfoot, Nessies, et al.), and there is no way to discern which are true and which are not. There's no novelty there. Signal and noise can not be differentiated.<br>

____________________________________________</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Is it novel?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not necessarily, though it can be. I was assuming Luca meant the <em>previously</em> unseen in terms of novelty and then I just decided to riff on the unseen in photography, novel or not.</p>

<p>I actually think the unseen as a factor may be novel to a lot of people, but whether or not it is as novel as, say, a previously unphotographed subject (if there is such a thing), I don't know. The unseen is important to me, but not so much because of any novelty factor.</p>

<p>The idea of novelty seems to be associated, for example, with lands as yet unvisited by the viewer, cultures one hasn't been exposed to, etc. As I said, photography has a significant role in that but I also think there can be a premium put on novelty and originality, or the expectation that art or good photography is necessarily original, that isn't necessarily warranted. I get off on things familiar that connect strongly with me or that are approached with a personal sort of intimacy, novelty and originality notwithstanding.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>More pertaining to novelty as "something we are not used to," I think many photographers, especially when trying very hard to be "creative," try to show something novel in their photographs. For example using unusual angles, strange lighting, unusual poses or situations, etc. I suppose this is an attempt to get the viewer to notice the image. This can be important in advertising photography. For "art" purposes this practice can, to me, often seem forced and make the image less impressive. But, I also think novelty can be done well. Skillfully done juxtapositions of elements, chance, imagination that doesn't seem over the top or forced just for effect, impresses me more than the aforementioned type of novelty. I have done some forms of novelty myself and have had positive reactions.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Novelty:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"But if our sensory-motor schemata jam or break, then a different type of image can appear: a pure optical-sound image, the whole image without metaphor, brings out the thing in itself, literally, in its excess of horror or beauty, in its radical or unjustifiable character ... " -- <em>Gilles Deleuze</em></p>

</blockquote>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The thing in itself . . . well at least we've moved up a century from Descartes. LOL!</p>

<p>When our sensory-motor schemata break, we have more concerns than a pure optical-sound image.</p>

<p>Keep me away from such purity. I want to remain human and finite, with all its impurities, metaphors, and contexts.</p>

<p>Novelty is no more pure than were Landrum Kelly's nudes.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>""But if our sensory-motor schemata jam or break, then..."</strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong>...catatonia follows?<br>

<strong><br /></strong><br>

<strong>Julie - "</strong>Do I care what you want?"</p>

<p>Meow.<br>

___________________________________________________</p>

<p>Novelty is not only transitory, but by its nature, addictive. Like all addictions, habituating. To the ignorant, an ever-thinning rivulet of superficial wonder. The antidote to boredom, something many philosophers have explored (Kierkegaard, Heidegger), novelty can also become routine, eventually the disease.</p>

<p>Worse, as in Modernism, it closes doors. Ever hear the phrase "It's been done before" ? Imagine Columbus returning to Europe and saying "America's been done, so much for that". Or a farmer walking away from the field after the first year?</p>

<p>In photography, like the photograph Alan Klein linked to, I might go, "Wow", and in five seconds the charms of novelty evaporate. The same goes for spectacular photos, to cite but one example, those of Peter Lik. They have very brief attention-eliciting lifespans. Like a hit from the pipe, or a new lover whose physical beauty is the main attraction, it soon leads to desensitization and nostalgia for that best-loved first, except now you've already done it.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Julie says that novelty and originality are not synonyms, but more in opposition.</p>

<p>Maybe I misread the two diagrams you present, but it seems that they can be considered the points of a triangle in which the photograph is at the top.</p>

<p>Originality can be novelty (in some situations), novelty can be original (in some situations).</p>

<p>It seems that Luis makes a very important point: "<em>Novelty is not only transitory, but by its nature, addictive. Like all addictions, habituating</em>."</p>

<p>It's like a drug.</p>

<p>To that end I am prone to using Fred's extended conception of novelty, who mentions "<em>If I am going to look for novelty, I often appreciate novelty of approach and presentation, novelty of perspective and vision, novelty of style</em>".</p>

<p>Is there a diffused "novelty consumerism"?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...