Anything left to explore?

[sjmurray]

<p>Response to R David: give the assignment of photographing a tennis player to a group of art students in a creative photography class. I'll bet some of them come up with original and truly artistic ideas. Just sitting here I can think of a lot of ways to photograph a tennis player that would be conceptually different than what I have seen before. Sure there is a difference between art and mimicry, but we are a creative species by design, and art will continue to emerge through the sea of mimicry.</p>

[r_david]

<p><strong>Per the photo.net Terms of Use, do post photos you did not take.</strong><br>

I guess it's been all done before.</p>

<p>EDIT: I mean no dig at anyone. I am trying to illustrate my point.</p>

<p>I am having a problem explaining myself right now. .... it all sounds insulting in my head - let alone what it would look like posted. And it is NOT what I mean. <strong>It's my own artistic angst.</strong><br>

<strong><br />Great. (See, message above post. So much for examples.)<br /></strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>I have seen everything before. I haven't seen any unique photos in over 50 years. <br /></strong></p>

[r_david]

<p>Mr. Murray,<br>

Perhaps you are right.<br>

But I would expect a rehash of Sports Illustrated and B&W photo magazine submissions. In other words, I would be very very surprised if I saw something new and unique. And if it were unique, it would be so outlandish that I wouldn't understand it. Like the trend of photographing crazy angles of just one eyeball. I can't even google that one.</p>

<p>That's were Picasso ran into trouble. </p>

<p>Where does crap end and art begin?</p>

<p>Never the less, I prefer crap to same old same old.</p>

[MathewDH]

<p>Well, start travelling and shoot stuff you have not seen before. Shooting locally can get boring pretty fast. Try artistic distortions of your photos by morphing them into something different.</p>

<p>In my case I moved into IR photography. I was bored with regular color. IR delivers lots of variations in that area but also allows for unique images. I never know what I will get in the shots simply due to the variations in the available IR light at different times of the day. I also like the fact that IR cuts through the blue haze and reveals all of the details in the distance--even in miles away details that would be lost in regular light. I just wish it was possible to order lenses with the interior coating optimized for IR photography. Even without it I am having fun.</p>

<p>UV photography looks interesting but it requires special quartz lenses and I cannot afford them.</p>

<p>CHEERS...</p>

[GerrySiegel]

---- photographic "hangover" after two days of intensive 10 hour photoshoots.-----

 

I never had two days of intensive 10 hour photoshoots. That might put me off and make me lose my groove as well. Was this chasing a family of polar bears over Arctic ice flows? Following Mike Whatsisname on a cross county speaking tour? Perhaps it is time to slow down, limit yourself purposely. Even go back to a different medium. Or perhaps take a course where someone assigns you a topic and you get to challenge yourself against others. Sound like American Idol, well,competition helps some folks. I think your angst hit a nerve we all can relate to a times. Do wood carvers look at each tree bole differently or do they get stale and worn out. I don't know but each tree bole is a little different in some way within the category of woodwork.

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>The documentarians will keep shooting new versions of Hollywood and Vine, not to mention<a href="/photo/18080840"><strong> less well-known intersections.</strong></a></p>

<p>In addition, let us not forget the <a href="/photo/18081389&size=lg"><strong>"abandoned strip mall desert"</strong></a> genre, which will surely keep growing.<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p><a href="/photo/6630793"><strong>Ruins</strong> </a>of anything and everything will always be in fashion somewhere, with somebody.</p>

<p>Drone shots will keep getting more spectacular, giving new perspectives of old subjects.</p>

<p>The female form will always have an enthusiastic following, most of whom will not care if "It's been done before." New models/subjects will always abound as long as the race survives. The same is no doubt true of sunsets, landscapes, mountains, boats, and darned near everything else.</p>

<p>The potential infinitude of possible subjects will fan out, not contract.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>The female form will always have an enthusiastic following</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe so, but my guess is that more fresh visions will emanate from working with the transgender, genderqueer, and questioning communities.<br /> <br /> I think much of the future of photography will accompany changing societal norms and expectations in so many areas of our lives, from the environment which, in many cases, will never be the same again, to the scientific, which is often at the forefront of innovation, to the cultural which is always on the move.<br /> <br /> Of course, there will always be horny men with cameras at the ready and art as an excuse so there will always be one or two too many pics of the almost euphemistically labeled "female form." ;-) Maybe one or two of these guys which actually point their camera at a penis, especially if it makes them uncomfortable, and come up with something a bit more fresh that what we generally see.</p>

[donald_miller5]

<p>It is analogous to if you have 20 million monkeys pound away at 20 million typewriters for m20 million years you will have every book that has been written or will be written. I do not think we can consider ourselves close to that. There are events that have not occurred and people not yet born. No two sunsets are the same and even the same subject can be reedited. And even if something seems repetitive I would like to try myself.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>R David stated: </p>

<blockquote>

<p>But I would expect a rehash of Sports Illustrated and B&W photo magazine submissions. In other words, I would be very very surprised if I saw something new and unique. And if it were unique, it would be so outlandish that I wouldn't understand it. Like the trend of photographing crazy angles of just one eyeball. I can't even google that one.<br>

That's were Picasso ran into trouble.<br>

Where does crap end and art begin?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>This sentiment is more the topic of a new thread. I agree that a lot of new, conceptual art photography is as boring as hell, but I believe that there are also new and fresh images that are not cliche's and also not "so outlandish that I wouldn't even understand it." I admit, some of the conceptual stuff requires more sophistication in understanding that comes from studying art. I try to avoid outright cliche myself but I still try to create images that have some familiarity for the viewer. That's the challenge. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"And if it were unique, it would be so outlandish that I wouldn't understand it."</em> —R David</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When we pay lip service (which is all we usually do) to artist's taking risks, this is one of the risks they take. Artists will be boxed into a definitional and expectational corner like this. They will be told, first, "you can't create anything unique" and then, "if you do create something unique it will be outlandish and unintelligible." Kind of a damned if you do and damned if you don't scenario. <br /> <br /> Thankfully, artists have never let this stop them and their lack of recognition and popularity has, in many cases, come to be expected. No wonder so many of them have existential crises and are such troubled souls, LOL! They are given this mixed message. You are supposed to think outside the box, and when you do you will be called outlandish or freakish or unintelligible. So, don't really think outside the box, because we'll never understand you if you do. But then we'll tell you you're not creative because you haven't really done something new. As it seems to me Steve is getting at, I think that push-pull between uniqueness and understanding is where a lot of art may be born.</p>

<p>In any case, not many good photographers or artists got to where they got by saying "No, it can't be done!"</p>

[G-P]

<p>Talk about a new way of looking at things - hmmmm interesting concept!!! There is always the often spoken of, but ever elusive photo.net 2.0 to explore! </p>

[bob_bill]

<p>One of my favorite Yosemite photographers, Ernst Haas said he didn't want to photo new things, but old things in new ways. If you can't find photos, I agree with him, make a viewing card with a 2x3 inch cut out and zoom in and out and all around with it. He had a drill to stand in one place and find 10 photos with the viewing card. Last time I shot in Yosemite I was at tunnel view and there were 30 tripods lined up taking the 3 billionth shot of the valley. I claimed about 8 feet of the low wall, placed a lady on it and lit her with a light on a stick. First time she has been shot there, rarely do you see lights there. I guarantee you can't find that shot of her anywhere but mine. The first, not 3 billionth shot. Oh, and her ex-husband was upset because I made her look so good. One of my all time favorite critiques. </p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Ken Robinson, in his popular TED talk "Do Schools Kill Creativity" says: "If you are not prepared to be wrong, you'll never do anything creative." I believe that's true. To be creative involves taking chances, and you won't always please everybody either.</p>

<p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>The Arctic, horrors of wars, nude bodies and clothed bodies of millions of human beings (selfies), planet Pluto – all photographed now – is there anything left to explore for the medium? Any untouched subject/field/angle that you can think of?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All you listed were objects. If all that is seen in photographs are objects then I'd say the viewer is the limiting factor.</p>

<p>There are moods, feelings, atmospheres, dreams (reconstructed by photographer), nuances, strange compositions and just strangeness in the world.</p>

<p>I've found all this around me in unlimited supply as long as I'm sensitive and open to seeing this in the short life I have on this miracle planet with the limited resources I have going about hunting for it in other places besides my own backyard. But I manage.</p>

<p>What limits me mostly is capturing and conveying all that in a photograph in a way so it's easily seen by folks who don't see photographs as just recordings of objects. </p>

[GerrySiegel]

New frontiers" as OP calls his yearning, is a hard recipe to whip up. Taking a snap of your daughter every day against the lampost is cliche. Do it for 15 years just the same pose and same location and one may have something. As for creative art, well old master painters' apprentices started by copying and did not have the impatience to forage around...what did they feel that we do not. For myself, I find the human face inexhaustible subject .

 

I mean-pardon the image- somebody sat on a Xerox plate once and pushed the button....Did he or she exclaim " Ahah a new frontier." :-0 I am joking of course. But yet xerography is a valid photo form of plants and flowers. Same for X rays. And infrared has a way to go. Aerial shots, per Matt comments, is just taking off... I plan to do some work with yogis on the beach. Heck it probably has been done before. I know it has. But not by me.

 

Old frontiers can be reclaimed/ the mine l is still not panned / dug out, is my thought today. In response to the lament.