Do personal style and artistic identity actually exist?

[Norma Desmond]

"P'raps you can only be influenced by the work of other artists if you've actually

seen their work."

 

I think there are also chains of influence, so you don't have to have actually seen

someone's work to be influenced by it. If you watch TV, look at newspapers and

magazines, billboards, etc. you are seeing stuff all the time influenced by others

who are shaping the way the visual world is presented. Doing some formal study

allows you a sense of how those visual paradigms are originally arrived at. Far from

being any kind of negative influence, they are a means of learning from the primary

source, as it were, instead of secondary and tertiary sources which are of great

influence already on many fronts.

[don_e]

I don't think I understand what "influenced" means. To be influenced means to imitate another's technique, subject matter, style? Is the influence, then, entirely visual?

[Norma Desmond]

Don,

 

In my mind, and in looking at the dictionary, "imitate" has more likely a sense of

mimicry or impersonation which "influence" less often needs to have. I can be

influenced without imitating. I can absorb and be affected by someone else's work

and ideas (NOT entirely visual) without attempting to copy what they've done. When

I use "influence," I use it in terms of a compelling force (active or passive) on one

person emanating from another person.

 

I will add that I think it's impossible to escape influence completely. Only God

creates from pure nothingness and I think She's simply a convenient Idea.

[don_e]

Imitation -- besides being the sincerest form of flattery -- is one way we learn, and a very good one. 'Monkey see. Monkey do.' is accurate for us primates. So, I don't mean to imply anything negative about 'imitation'.

 

I wonder, though, how people gauge who has influenced them, especially if it is not evident as visually 'imitative'.

[Norma Desmond]

I studied both philosophy and music for decades prior to getting serious about

photography. They both influence my work, yet there is no apparent imitative quality.

When I am thinking about and working on photos, I am often thinking in terms of

harmony, counterpoint, crescendos, etc. I also find a fair amount of my work to be

on the introspective side.

 

Adams might influence many in the way they think about and approach the

darkroom, but not stylistically either with subject matter or specific technique.

 

A portrait photographer might be influenced by Leibowitz in terms of how she treats

and attempts to get to know her subjects without imitating her style.

 

One might be influenced by Hitchcock in expressing a sense of humor even while

dealing with the most demonic of subjects but the visual styles in which that gets

expressed may be very dissimilar.

 

We might gauge it by such things as narrative or nonnarrative theme, momentum

and energy, emotional effect and/or response, the words of the photographer in

question, . . .

[don_e]

They way I know I've been influenced by a photographer is if they come to mind either when making the exposure or developing it. An obvious example, walking down a suburban-like street and seeing a tricycle in a driveway brings Eggleston to mind, or strong diagonal composition in the vf evokes Rodchenko, Langmann.

[carter_turner]

Art is one of a few things that can leave an imprint of joy or pain prior to the conscious mind breaking it down, categorizing it, compartmentalizing it. It's a preconscious affect. But it's not immune to externalization. The initial moment can never be replicated so the effect lessons over time. If the critic is legitimate in the eyes of the reader, great art goes to crap. If the photographer is bigger - well respected by the people the reader respects well- it's brilliance.

 

In the end, great art never stands on it's own.

[jon_kobeck1]

I have actually struggled with this personally over the last year after begining my Masters in fine art.

One must study art history and all its movements over the past century to come to my conclusion. We are living in the "post post modern world". This generation really has no movement. Avant Guarde is non existent. Think about it, in 50 years when MFA students are studying art history, what will be said about this exact point in time? and NO the digital revolution is NOT a movement, its a process.

Kids I am sorry to say we have no movement, and with no movement, there is no originality.

[Norma Desmond]

Movements are often started with something original. Originality comes before, and is

not dependent on, its own movement. The movement itself is often defined

retrospectively. Originality may be defined in terms of prior movements but I can't see

originality being dependent on whether or not there is articulated a current movement.

There likely is a current movement that has not yet the historical distance and

perspective to be too clearly defined. Originality is not dependent on a movement. It

couldn't be. If it were, it wouldn't be original.

[don_e]

Movements

 

I refer you to my May 06, 2008; 07:29 p.m. above.

 

"Originality comes before..." I agree with Fred on this, but it doesn't stop people inventing movements in the old <archaic reference warning> Rooney/Garland tradition of "Hey! Let's put on a show!"

 

If there is a dearth of genuine movements in photography, then perhaps it is due to the oft-declared "passion for photography" not extending beyond the surface of the photographer's skin. There may be originality, but it is an expression of individuality and not association.

[jtk]

"Think about it, in 50 years when MFA students are studying art history, what will be said about this exact point in time? "

 

Whatever they say will have little relevance outside academia.

[kristina_kraft]

About expression of individuality, I'd say from my experience that today art world is seeking a unique individual, because the new movement is "Individuality".

 

Recently I have applied in one project "All about him" for photo exhibition in Bulgaria. I found that I have enough material and personal experience to participate, and the jury have chosen me. The male portraits were nothing special, but my concept was the one that made a difference. The concept of homage that I gave to my best male friend made a story.

[colourabstractionism]

Some very interesting points being raised here. When I create my photographs (or indeed my paintings or designs or music etc) I always try to first think about why I am doing it. Then I think about what the past masters have done. After I've considered everything I then ignore it all and do whatever I feel like at that time.

 

Have a look at the philosophy behind "Concrete Photography" and how the photographs in this genre try to deobjectify the medium and become more than simply moments captured in time.

 

For example, take a look at my "Colours" gallery and consider the implications of those in terms of "what will these say in 50 years time?".

 

Wonderful discussion here! Chris