Where will you settle?

[aplumpton]

<p><em>"Taking the lessons from the hits and applying them regularly has the potential to drive one to consistently produce 'winners'; but at what cost?"</em></p>

<p>An appropriate question. Producing winners that simply bend to established or popular taste (whether of judges or colleagues) is a short road. That approach is fine when we are starting out, just as much of our initial general education involves the repetition of established theories or practices. Going beyond that is both the adventure and the reward. </p>

[mjferron]

<p>Not sure why growth has to equate risk. For me growth is a natural byproduct of diligence. You can shoot for cutting edge photos/technique and take the risks involved but I see that in a different light than growth alone.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>John R, when I consider viewer reactions, I consider the pool of viewers. When I take certain types of risks, I wouldn't expect to be "rewarded" by high ratings here on PN. But I would with a less generic and broad-based audience. Risk-taking and even just certain types of photos don't go over well here. If you look at the top-rated photos you'll notice patterns and not a lot of fluctuation from a norm. </p>

<p>So, when you're talking about risk vs. popularity, you might ask yourself: popular with whom? Generally speaking, if you pick out a smaller group of photographers and others you admire and/or respect, whose work speaks to you or whose eyes seem savvy, then being recognized (I'm not fond of the word "popular" because of its connotations) by those folks could actually be helpful. Some will be less concerned with whether you've achieved something good and they'll be more concerned with the chances you're taking, potential you're showing, the evolution they may be seeing . . . . "Good" and "better" my start to fade in the face of actually "looking" and "seeing."</p>

[dan_south]

Sometimes I read these PoP discussions, scratch my head and say, "Huh?" Maybe I'm just more of a photo guy than

a word guy. I try to make the best photo I can out of what happens to be in front of me. I can make better photos

today than I could two or three years ago, generally speaking, so, yes, I supposed that growth has been part of the

equation. I am always reviewing my work and looking for ways to improve, ways that don't include buying gear with a

Mercedes Benz price tag.

 

Popularity and recognition? I'm not running for prom king. If I craved popularity I would do gimmicky things like

shooting two-hundred naked people in Times Square. What? Somebody already did that? Yawn! If your main goal is

to be popular, don't be surprised if the outcome isn't particularly meaningful or memorable. Coke is popular, but I think

fresh-squeezed orange juice is a heck of a lot better.

 

Again, I just want to make the best photos that I can in any given situation. Best is defined by what I like, not what

anyone else thinks. And I want to be better at making good photos in the future than I am today. I apologize if that fails to advance the conversation, but it's the only thing that matters to me when I have a camera in my hand or when I'm reviewing my images.

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>I learn most from my mistakes and I'm not afraid to make them, even if I could have avoided making them by researching technique before shooting. I don't have anything to lose.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fully agree there; and indeed, the ratings game is a strange one. I do not have ratings on many of my photos here. I submitted some, with which I was really pleased myself because they turned out as I pre-visualised them. They got ratings in between 3 and 3.5. At first, disappointment, sure. But looking back at the photo again, I still liked it myself. And sure, some of the photos that get 6-7 ratings here to me are quite horrible, or shots I could reproduce easily when in the same spot. I cannot see the skill, nor some uniqueness of vision, in them. As Fred said, they stick to the norm. Adventurous, they're not.</p>

<p>Arthur's response said it very well. The trick is to find your own voice, tone and message. If people like what you have to say, great, if they don't.... great! As an amateur photographer, the first I have to please is me. And seeing results in which I see I managed to say what I tried to say is what puts a smile on. I'm still a long way from smiling frequently, but enjoying the trip there.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Wouter, I don't agree with that "nothing to lose" and "not afraid" way of thinking and acting.</p>

<p>I often fear that I'm not risking enough, yet I'm very aware of the possibility of real loss from the few risks that I do take.</p>

<p>I saw a video about Antoine Predock, great and architect (AIA Gold Medal, recent designer of Canadian Human Rights Museum in Winnipeg, currently immersed in huge Chinese projects). In old age he was roaring down the road in an incredibly fast, purely road-racing designed Ducati motorcycle. No helmet. <br>

<a href="http://www.predock.com/Body-Motion/machines.html">http://www.predock.com/Body-Motion/machines.html</a> The video I saw isn't yet available online...but this makes some of its points.<br>

I've spoken with the man and know that his driving desires include taking as much "manageable" risk as he can, specifically because he knows that's what's led to his life's greatest successes. That's what he says, anyway :-) Maybe that has to do with his lack of helmet, knowing that he'd better do his life today because he may not have it tomorrow.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>John, we were discussing photography, not driving fast motorcycles. Photographically, I just try whatever feels like worth trying - all I can loose are a few bits and bytes or a film frame. Does change the perspective a bit.</p>

[albert_richardson1]

<p>John, I'm glad you told us a little about yourself. I think I have a better understanding of your concerns. Do some of these keywords fit? Self-taught. Beginning to take a serious interest in photography so started attending a club or organization where picture competition is an important activity. Encountering an emphasis on "rules" to get results. Best results can be demonstrated by winning competitions. </p>

<p>This has come up before, but typically as an individual reaction to the notion that mechanically applying some ideas about photography, usually concerning composition, does not leave a person room for creativity. The notion that a mechanical process can yield variable artistic results seems to be contrary to common sense for a person trained to expect dependable and consistent results every time. One would not expect to form a mysterious relationship with a screwdriver for the purpose of driving an award winning screw into his wall! Yet this seems to be the proposition for the new photographer. </p>

<p>I don't know very much about soil science, except to imagine that it has a strong engineering component. You use instruments to gather and analyse evidence that you use to understand the composition and content of some spot of ground. You can see how appealing a camera might be to an engineer because it is complicated and mechanical enough to be interesting, yet you get results others can appreciate as well. (Ever talk about work at a cocktail party?) As with many other technical pursuits, it takes a few years to change one's focus from the photographic apparatus and how it works to its application to the world we find around us. </p>

<p>The challenge I think I see for the new photographer, especially someone trained in the sciences, is to have enough faith in the eventual outcome to keep taking pictures for enough time to develop a sense of what you find to be visually interesting. The point for the new photographer is not so much what competition he can win, but to see enough visual art of all sorts to become comfortable with it to develop what one might call a taste for it.</p>

<p>Learning by doing is exactly the right course to take, but try to avoid becoming overly critical of your efforts. Competitions all too often look for flaws and defects when you need to find the things you like. These would be the things you would want to copy for yourself. Reflect on your own work. If someone else made the picture, what would you say about it? "I like the idea, but I want to be closer to the people" and "I want to see what the artisan is making," for examples. Take some pictures of things you can photograph over and over again so you can make adjustments.</p>

<p>I hope my remarks encourage you to keep up the good work!</p>

[jtk]

<p><strong>Wouter</strong>, I'm sorry...I lost you by talking about risk. There is a direct connection between any sort of risk (as with motorcycles) and value systems (as around photography or riding fast without a helmet). Sorry to be so obscure. Life is risk, which means failure and death are engines of life. Your computer arrives at answers only by making zillions of mistakes.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Driving on a motorcycle without a helmet isn't the most intelligent thing to do, regardless of its possible risk. Unlike w<a href="

on a wire</a> between two skyscrapers, <a href="

any risk</a>.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Phylo, some say that nothing "creative" can be accomplished without risk.</p>

<p>As for wire walking, it's a form of dance or acrobatics. Like basketball. Isn't that "creative?"</p>

<p>Granted, some prefer non-creative, risk-free photography: Pretty pictures of the usual suspects.</p>

<p>Antoine Predock, the elder crazy on the 1951 Vincent and 1985 Ducati 750 Laguna Seca racing bike, is recognized by his peers as one of today's premier architects (AIA Gold Medal). His work is magnificent, new, and sweet. I spoke with him once...his work directly led to my community: a jerk, huge ego, lots of artistic pose. Who cares? He'll be measure by his work, not the fools he pleases (think Frank Lloyd Wright or Picasso).</p>

<p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgxbCnqCyKA&feature=related</p>

<p>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYw_ATY9cpg&feature=related</p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>Here's the bike itself in full cry. <br>

Steve McQueen rode one. He's dead, of course. </p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I'll have to start wearing my bike helmut when photographing. Come to think of it, it may be useful for street photography in some neighbourhoods of our town. In any case, the reaction of passersby it incites might be worth capturing. </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>Phylo, some say that nothing "creative" can be accomplished without risk.<br>

As for wire walking, it's a form of dance or acrobatics. Like basketball. Isn't that "creative?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course, but the risk is in taking the <a href="

step</a>, and keep taking it in a way, like Philippe Petit, the man on the wire, says.The risk is not in the creative act itself, but in staying creative within it.<br>

I think the wire walking as he did it between the two twin towers is Art, not just ' a form of '...<br>

Apart from that it's obviously not something that anyone can do, we do each have our own wires to walk on. The risk is not in falling off but in getting on.</p>

 

[jtk]

<p>OK Phylo, we almost agree again :-) </p>

<p>You began that last post by locating the risk at the first step onto the wire (though we know Petit took risks even to get to that point), but then you relocated it in "staying creative" (whatever that means). I think Petit took risk in every instant and that the entire process was creative, art in fact, if anything is. Once he started on his path he never left "creative." But is that true of photographers who stay in their comfort zone? </p>

<p> </p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>"do you want to find the formula that results in the most attention and popularity and then stick with it?"</p>

<p>Nothing lasts forever...</p>

[studio460]

<blockquote>

<p>Subject: Where will you settle?<br />Do you want continued personal growth with associated risk, or do you want to find the formula that results in the most attention and popularity and then stick with it? To me, this is different than asking what you would do if you won the lottery.<br />The altruistic answer is the former; but, do you really see that in the photographic community? After all, one does need to be pragmatic. Are we all headed to the same fate?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, I freely admit I'm pursuing the latter, with the argument that that would provide me the means to entertain the former. I've been saying that ever since art school. I used to make a similar analogy between our two Los Angeles-area art schools: CalArts (which I attended), and Art Center (where my then, girlfriend attended). CalArts had the reputation of being experimental and artsy-fartsy; Art Center was of course reserved for <em>serious</em> commercial artists (both charaterizations, with which I wholly agreed).</p>

<p>

<p><br /><br /></p>

</p>