Overdone Cliche Subjects

[cyrus]

Sorry but I am just about tired of seeing certain subjects pop up repeatedly as the subject of photos - especially B&W. Yes I know that someone out there can perhaps capture an angle or something that's never been done before - but I doubt it.

Here's my list, add to it if you can:
1- Old rusty cars in fields
2- ...

[tim atherton]

1- Old rusty cars in fields
2- Old abandoned barns
3- ...

[Nick_3536]

Old rusty cars are best done in colour. Along with sunsets and puppy dogs.

[robc]

1- Old rusty cars in fields
2- Old abandoned barns
3- National Parks

[Walter Calahan]

1- Old rusty cars in fields
2- Old abandoned barns
3- National Parks

Old rusty cars are best done in colour. Along with sunsets and puppy dogs.

5- everything on the planet earth or photographed by the Hubble Space telescope.

I will only accept Ultra-violet or deep Infrared astronomical pictures from this time forward. Why, 'cause I want too.

Grin

Visit my cliche subjects at http://www.walterpcalahan.com

Ciao

[Frank Petronio]

-- Plus almost anything in a Cemetery... unless Richard Benson does it

-- Fog on water

-- Power Station Cooling Towers (unless it is Michael Kenna)

It has been my recent experience that men still like pretty women, no matter how cliched and overdone ;-)

[Kevin Crisp]

1. Fences, falling down or just running off into the distance
2. Lonely highways
3. Cracked mud
4. Any stream with water that looks like slo-mo cotton candy
5. Almost anything in a cemetery
6. Leaves on trees
7. Leaves on the ground
8. Leaves standing in water
9. Zabriski Point
10. Trees unless they're really good
11. Half dome with clouds
12. Half dome without clouds
13. Shadow of photographer on a rock

[David Karp]

I think that it is a cliche to "notice" that any subject has already been done or overdone. If anyone thinks that anything they are doing is new or different in a significant way, they are most likely kidding themselves. There are very few Van Goughs, very few originals. And even the originals worked on the same subjects as everyone else.

[robc]

If anyone tells you its been done before, just tell them:

"Sure it has, but not by me!"

Doesn't mean it isn't cliched though.

[QT Luong]

Everything that has been photographed already, and that I have no interest in photographing myself :-)

[paulr]

I think any subject is still up for grabs. The unwritten gripes about all these subjects is really HOW you've seen them photographed. Probably a million times, exactly the same way, since 1930.

I happen to be sick of photographs of Wyoming's Tetons. I go there a lot, and i've been seeing paintings of them that look like Thomas Moran's, and photographs of them that look like Ansel's (which also look like Thomas Moran's) for most of my life. But a couple of years ago, when I saw Friedlander's photographs of them, I was thrilled ... here was work that came out of HIS way of seeing, not out of someone else's version of someone else's version of Thomas Moran. It was refreshing and inspiring.

But I still have pet peeves ... cliches that are guilty until proven otherwise:

1. Lighthouses
2. Sunrises, sunsets, or clearing storms
3. Closeups of any part of a barn
4. Closeups of anything made out of adobe
5. Anything involving an aspen grove
6. Anything involving Yosemite valley
7. Incan, Aztec, Mayan, or Druid ruins
8. Monument fucking valley. Or the equivalent. Or any view from inside a slot canyon.
9. Any mountain stream photographed with a slow shutter speed
10. Any Western sky, photographed with a red filter

And the all-time most heinous one of all:

11. Any "landscape with hot babe"

[tim atherton]

11. Half dome with clouds
12. Half dome without clouds


a bit small, but my favourite Half Dome photograph

http://www.photoeye.com/_cache/7aff9e67c1812e54491b324652d55ba1.jpg

[Brian Vuillemenot]

I think pretty much anything there is to photograph, at least in terms of landscape photography, colud be considered cliche in the sense that it's been done to death. As they say, there's nothing new under the sun. However, a more important question is what is the purpose of the photography? Only a very small proportion of photography is done to break new ground. Many of us like to photograph the cliches because it's fun! Cliches sell- people who view and buy landscape photography are drawn them- I think that's why they become cliches in the first place. If you're going to photograph any of the cliche subjects mentioned above, a good plan is to start with them and then find non-cliche images in the same national parks, monuments, or wilderness areas. There are a surprising number of non-cliche images waiting to be discovered adjacent to all the famous landmarks in the national parks!

And, since no one has mentioned it yet, the number one annoying landscape cliche of all time is the slot canyon (lower Antelope Canyon in particular!)

[robc]

4. Closeups of anything made out of adobe


does that include adobe photoshop? ;)

[cyrus]

Everything that has been photographed already

Nah, I don't buy that. Everything in New York where I live may have been photographed - I'm convinced of that - but there are other subjects. A few months ago I saw a magazine - Lens Work? - with a portfolio of shots of hands holding little mouse pups, octopuses (octopi?) mermaid's purses, and other "baby" things. It was great. Who would have thunk of that? Not me because I was busy re-re-re-photographing the *&#% Brooklyn Bridge - again and again until I get it right.

[Darin Boville]

1. Lighthouses
2. Sunrises, sunsets, or clearing storms
3. Closeups of any part of a barn
4. Closeups of anything made out of adobe
5. Anything involving an aspen grove
6. Anything involving Yosemite valley
7. Incan, Aztec, Mayan, or Druid ruins
8. Monument fucking valley. Or the equivalent. Or any view from inside a slot canyon.
9. Any mountain stream photographed with a slow shutter speed
10. Any Western sky, photographed with a red filter

And the all-time most heinous one of all:

11. Any "landscape with hot babe"

Hey! That's *my* list! But you forgot "Surf with rocks"...

--Darin

[Artur Zeidler]

13... Old Spanish Colonial or white claperboard churches

[robc]

we've all done it, that is, we've all photographed cliched subjects, and will probably continue to do so. For me it was probably the "Angel of the North" (http://www.visualperception.net/photoart/gallerygbp/artprintAngel_of_the_North.php) and I went back and photographed it several times but the first time produced the best image. I was somehow drawn to it. It just happens to be the most viewed and photographed piece of sculpture in the UK. Just google it and see for yourself. There's approx 10,000 pics of it in google images...

It might be interesting to see what others consider to be their own most cliched subject and whether everyone else thinks it is cliched.

[paulr]

I think pretty much anything there is to photograph, at least in terms of landscape photography, colud be considered cliche in the sense that it's been done to death. As they say, there's nothing new under the sun.

But there are potentially as many new ways of seeing as there are people looking. The cliche is the familiar thing shown in a familiar way ... innovation in art has often come from the familiar thing shown in a new, highly personal way.


And, since no one has mentioned it yet, the number one annoying landscape cliche of all time is the slot canyon (lower Antelope Canyon in particular!)

See #8, above ... ;)

[clay harmon]

Dude,

That is El Capitan, not Half-Dome. I'm a climber, I know these things.


a bit small, but my favourite Half Dome photograph

http://www.photoeye.com/_cache/7aff9e67c1812e54491b324652d55ba1.jpg

[Kerik Kouklis]

Dude,

That is El Capitan, not Half-Dome. I'm a climber, I know these things.Well, once you've seen one cliched landmark with the cliched ironic cars in the forground, you've seen them all.

[QT Luong]

Hey! That's *my* list! But you forgot "Surf with rocks"...

--Darin

Your list of cliches or of best-sellers ? :-)

[tim atherton]

Dude,

That is El Capitan, not Half-Dome. I'm a climber, I know these things.

oh well - same overpopulated park... :-)

[clay harmon]

Got that right.

Speaking of cliches, how about the self conscious and uncomfortable looking naked girlfriend pics that sprout like weeds all over the net?


oh well - same overpopulated park... :-)

[John Kasaian]

Anything in B&W
Anything in color
Children
Animals
Old people
Beautiful women
Ugly women
Any man
Anything hand colored
Anything thats been tweaked in photoshop
Anything that dosen't move
Anything that does move
Portraits
Landscapes
Abstracts
Architecture
Other people's art
Your own art
Anything that makes you laugh
Anything that makes you weep
Anything thats teenie weenie
Anything with texture
Anything taken with a Goerz,Ilex, Wollensak, Kodak, Voightlander, Schneider, Zeiss, Rodenstock,Fuji, Congo, Agfa, Nikkor lens, or a pinhole
Anything taken with an old uncoated lens
Anything taken with a new multicoated lens
Anything taken with a single coated lens
Anything taken with wide, normal or long lenses
Anyting thats been shot with a filter
Anything that hasn't been shot through a filter
Anything thats living
Anything thats dead and/or decaying, especially Meatyard
Anything with clouds in it
Anything with water in it
Anything without water and/or clouds in it
Anything thats an alternative process
Anything thats a traditional process
Everything digital or a digital hybred
Anything done by well known photographers
Anything done by unknown photographers

Lets see...what and who did I leave out?

Anything seen by eyes that prejudge subjects as being overdone cliche!

Cheers!

[Darin Boville]

Anything in B&W
Anything in color
Children
Animals
Old people
Beautiful women
Ugly women
Any man
Anything hand colored
Anything thats been tweaked in photoshop
Anything that dosen't move
Anything that does move
Portraits
Landscapes
Abstracts
Architecture
Other people's art
Your own art
Anything that makes you laugh
Anything that makes you weep
Anything thats teenie weenie
Anything with texture
Anything taken with a Goerz,Ilex, Wollensak, Kodak, Voightlander, Schneider, Zeiss, Rodenstock,Fuji, Congo, Agfa, Nikkor lens, or a pinhole
Anything taken with an old uncoated lens
Anything taken with a new multicoated lens
Anything taken with a single coated lens
Anything taken with wide, normal or long lenses
Anyting thats been shot with a filter
Anything that hasn't been shot through a filter
Anything thats living
Anything thats dead and/or decaying, especially Meatyard
Anything with clouds in it
Anything with water in it
Anything without water and/or clouds in it
Anything thats an alternative process
Anything thats a traditional process
Everything digital or a digital hybred
Anything done by well known photographers
Anything done by unknown photographers

Lets see...what and who did I leave out?

Anything seen by eyes that prejudge subjects as being overdone cliche!

Cheers!

Hmmm. Looks like the only thing you left out would be

All that you touch
All that you see
All that you taste
All you feel.
All that you love
All that you hate
All you distrust
All you save.
All that you give
All that you deal
All that you buy,
beg, borrow or steal.
All you create
All you destroy
All that you do
All that you say.
All that you eat
And everyone you meet
All that you slight
And everyone you fight.
All that is now
All that is gone
All that's to come

--Darin

[Darin Boville]

Your list of cliches or of best-sellers ? :-)

Oh, that hurts, QT, that hurts!

--Darin

[Frank Petronio]

Tourists can walk the ladders up Half Dome. Only Climbers can make it up ElCap.

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Hmmm. Looks like the only thing you left out would be

All that you touch
All that you see
All that you taste
All you feel.
All that you love
All that you hate
All you distrust
All you save.
All that you give
All that you deal
All that you buy,
beg, borrow or steal.
All you create
All you destroy
All that you do
All that you say.
All that you eat
And everyone you meet
All that you slight
And everyone you fight.
All that is now
All that is gone
All that's to come

--Darin
...and everything under the sun!

[QT Luong]

Actually, the back of El Cap is a flat plateau that is accessible from the Tioga Pass road without much elevation difference.

[Capocheny]

When everything becomes a cliche... perhaps, it's time to sell the camera equipment and take up acrylic painting?

It reminds me of the guy that says, "Nothing can be learned from an experience!"

Hmmmm.... hope I never get to that point! :)

Cheers

[chris jordan]

Okay here's my idea for the most cliche photo ever made. It would be an attractive nude woman on some snow-covered rocks by a river, posing in just the right "fine art" way, with some calla lilies nearby, and an old gas pump, a barn in the background, in Yosemite, at sunset, with a beam of light shining through a cloud, printed using the zone system. Aaaaaaah!

[Henry Ambrose]

Okay here's my idea for the most cliche photo ever made. It would be an attractive nude woman on some snow-covered rocks by a river, posing in just the right "fine art" way, with some calla lilies nearby, and an old gas pump, a barn in the background, in Yosemite, at sunset, with a beam of light shining through a cloud, printed using the zone system. Aaaaaaah!


You left out the cow skull she's holding skywards into the beam of light and the giant pepper looming in the foreground.

[Jim MacKenzie]

Keep this up, and making list of clichéd subjects will become a cliché itself! :)

[darr]

A few months ago I saw a magazine - Lens Work? - with a portfolio of shots of hands holding little mouse pups, octopuses (octopi?) mermaid's purses, and other "baby" things. It was great. Who would have thunk of that? Not me because I was busy re-re-re-photographing the *&#% Brooklyn Bridge - again and again until I get it right.

Here's an example of how we can view "the thing" photographed differently. I have the issue of LensWork cyrus is talking about. I did not like the subject matter at all. The photography of that portfolio is technically good, but I think the photos are of dead fetuses. This was the only issue of LensWork I did not like. I guess it just hit a bad chord with me.

As far as Overdone Cliché Subjects goes, I think we are opened to shoot everything over again (and over again, etc.) in our own voice. You never know when someone can show you something ordinary in a new light. But what I grew tired of years ago and continue to be still today is color graduated over saturated skies. I think they started with the Cokin resin filters in the late '70s and grew into PS toolbox stuff today.

[JW Dewdney]

Don't even get me started with all the Adams' aspens mimicry - !! As for cars, barns and national parks - well, aren't those just the LFers equivalent of the 'sunset photo'?

[cyrus]

The photography of that portfolio is technically good, but I think the photos are of dead fetuses. This was the only issue of LensWork I did not like. I guess it just hit a bad chord with me.

I can understand that - one of the pictures looked strangely like a human foot - but since I was a Biology major in college, I personally have gotten over the yuck factor.

In any case, whether one likes the subject matter of that particular portfolio or not, my point was that there are so many things other than barn doors to photograph - if only we can break away from the cliches look for them!

In other words, instead of trying to re-do a cliche in a new and creative way (and generally still ending up with a cliche) there is a LOT of room to totally get away from the cliches all together - room that should be explored more, and artists who do explore this should be applauded more than those who take really terrific shots of yet more barn doors.

Of course having just returned from Rome and Venice where I took nothing but highly cliche shots, I don't pretend to be oh so creative myself.

[Eric Leppanen]

I always vowed that I would never photograph Tunnel View in Yosemite. Can't happen, I said. To do so would be abjectly imitative, artistically bereft, lacking in creative and metaphysical integrity. Plus there are all those damn tourists elbowing for that five feet of space where there isn't a tree in the way.

Then one day last spring I drove through that tunnel and, emerging from the other side, saw this huge clearing storm passing through the valley. Then there was a bright flash of color where the late afternoon sun briefly illuminated a bright rainbow on Bridleveil Falls juxtaposed against the dark valley beyond. But I was not going to photograph all this, of course. For that would have been abjectly imitative, artistically bereft, lacking in creative and metaphysical integrity. And I would never be any of these things.

As I nearly ditched the car in the Tunnel View parking lot, frantically unlimbered the 8x10 and, with tripod and film holder bags flying, ran to that five feet of space where there are no trees, scattering tourists along the way, I deeply pondered the philosophical implications of my apparent actions. This was strictly a test exercise, of course. I hadn't photographed for many months and needed the practice. Better hone my skills now so that, when there are original compositions to shoot, I'll be ready. Yes, that makes perfect sense, I thought.

Two months later, my test shot reappeared as a 30x40" print framed and matted on one of the major wall spaces in my house. And the funny thing is, no one who has seen it has ever remarked as to whether it was an original composition or not. They just assumed that it was. Absolutely amazing.

[Capocheny]

And the funny thing is, no one who has seen it has ever remarked as to whether it was an original composition or not. They just assumed that it was. Absolutely amazing.

But, Eric, it WAS an original composition that YOU saw and recorded! ONLY you could have taken that picture in that specific way.

So, I'm not amazed at all!

I think all this "cliche stuff" IS more cliche than the most photographed subjects!

IMHO, if you can introduce something uniquely different (even, if only to you) into a previously photographed subject... then, it becomes an original! Not everyone will see a subject matter/scene in the exact same way.

Besides, for a person just getting into LF photography... can we argue that this would still be cliche for that person seeing a previously photographed subject matter for the first time?

Perhaps, this cliche stuff is a cliche ONLY because we've seen much of these subjects before... because we've been doing LF for a period of time?

I don't know!

But, this is just my 2 cents worth. :)

[Ed K.]

Golly gee whiz! It sounds as though many of you cannot stand the sight of even your own work! If your secrets about cliche works got out, the entire photo industry might collapse, and my gear would be worthless - please keep this quiet until I unload all my gear at high prices!!!

While covered, some specifics ( just kiddin' ) -

Intentionally blurred photos, or handheld Holga photos printed in any way
Platinum prints of two lone trees on a hill or of some place in Europe
Abandoned houses, with or without junkies and nude women
Photos of old naked people with tatoos
Old abandoned temples in the jungle
Naked native peoples of far off lands
Ultra high speed phtography of any kind
Any place legal to photograph without asking permission
Any place that is fun to get to
All low hanging fruit type subjects that can be photographed in LF
In fact, any and all large format photography
Any photo taken by a large format photographer
Any photo that needs any sort of explaination
Homeless people
Any part of a train or anything to do with railroads
Any downtown area, or any part of it
Anything anyone on this forum has thought of or will think of in the next 70 years
Anything that deserves printing in alternative process
I suppose snapshots are cliche too, if they share the story of a place and time visited?

Seriously, how about if all of you post a great photo of your own that is not cliche?

Jaded, grumpy old LF photographers! Bah! Humbug!

What you all say is true though...

P.S. Chris & Henry - due to many requests for the exact photo you mention, I'm in the process
of putting just such a photo together, and I already know many people who want
to buy it before I've even photographed it. It's a "request". Call me cliche, call me
cheap, but at least making that photo will pay some bills!!

Oh yes, more -
Any photo presented in Flash, Quicktime or with the photographer's name on it
Any photo showing the edges of the seamless
Silhouettes
Anything with or without amazing shadow detail
360 degree panoramas
Aerial photography
Underwater photography

And most of all,
Heads on a stick, people on white or black background!

[robc]

I think I'm going into a depression now. All my older work seems to be cliched. Does it count if it wasn't large format? Am I excused because I was learning...

Barn Doors (http://www.visualperception.net/misc/barndoors/)

[tim atherton]

and artists who do explore this should be applauded more than those who take really terrific shots of yet more barn doors.
.

The Onion photo edition (as quoted previously on here)


http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/magazine_033006.jpg

[Brian Sims]

Photos of the President looking as stupid as Alfred E. Newman. Sometimes the truth can still be a cliche, and sometimes a cliche can be the truth.

[paulr]

Tim, I was hoping you'd repost that here.

It makes up for your embarassing lack of knowledge of America's Majestic Piles of Rock.

[paulr]

There's such an impressive amount of cliche expertise in this group. It would be a shame to let it go to waste. Chris Jordan is onto something ... do I smell a contest?

[Brian Ellis]

My biggest complaint is peope who complain about what others choose to photograph.

[Capocheny]

My biggest complaint is peope who complain about what others choose to photograph.

Hello Brian,

Hear, hear! :-)


Hi Tim,

Nice image! :)

LOL.... Okay, I've said enough. No more comments from this peanut gallery! :>)

Cheers

[David Karp]

My biggest complaint is peope who complain about what others choose to photograph.

Right on. The implication, whether or not intended, is that the other photographer is somehow superior.

[David Karp]

oh well - same overpopulated park... :-)

That's another one that is interesting. Overpopulated, perhaps. We do have a significant impact on the environment. On the other hand, if you get up early, or walk 5 minutes (or often less) from the most popular attractions, or approach them from a different direction, then you are often quite alone. I was there last week with my wife and my 5 and 3 year old kids, and found that the only time I was really crowded was during some of the trips on the shuttle bus, and a few times while trying to get food at the food court by the lodge. We took a day trip up the Tioga Road. Tenaya Lake was especially beautiful.

By the way, if anyone is heading up to Yosemite, they have a nice exhibition of mammoth plate photographs by Watkins, Muybridge, and others. They are in a room in the museum near the Miwok Village (near the Visitor's Center). Included is a computer presentation of photos not included in the exhibit. Plus, they have a real mammoth camera on display. Made my 4x5 equipment (which I was carrying on my back at the time) seem quite light. Highly recommended.

[Daniel Geiger]

Calla lilly, RIP, please.

There are approximatey 999,999 other plant species. Just give a few a try. E.g. Aristolochia, Borago, Callochorthus, Delphinium, Epipactis, Fumaria, Gnaphallium, Heliotropium, Iris, Juncus, Keckiella, Librodendron, Mesenbryanthemum, Neottia, Orobanche, Phoradendron, Quercus, Ribes, Stellaria, Ulva, Viola, Welwitschia, Xanthium, Yucca, and Zostera.

[Daniel Geiger]

Calla lilly, RIP, please.

There are approximatey 999,999 other plant species. Just give a few a try. E.g. Aristolochia, Borago, Callochorthus, Delphinium, Epipactis, Fumaria, Gnaphallium, Heliotropium, Iris, Juncus, Keckiella, Librodendron, Mesenbryanthemum, Neottia, Orobanche, Phoradendron, Quercus, Ribes, Stellaria, Ulva, Viola, Welwitschia, Xanthium, Yucca, and Zostera.

[John Kasaian]

You want to see stuff thats IMHO definately NOT cliche? http://korchenko.com/index.htm

OK its B&W with lots o' cemetary stuff, but it dosen't come across as cliche to me.

Maybe I'm wierd.

[CraigK]

Hi All,

Long time lurker, first time poster....


Rapidly becoming a cliché:

Huge colour prints of the photographer's parents or friends (usually art-school classmates) just kind of sitting around in stiff-ish poses with severe expressions. Not surprisingly the prints are always as large as the colour processor at the art school will allow. Got a 30" Kreonite? Make 30 x40's of mom sitting at the kitchen table looking stiff and "repressed". Got a 40" Kreonite? Even better, make a massive print of dad looking "corporate" or one of your classmates (maybe the guy with the pierced nipples and tatooed forehead) looking "edgey".

In the last 5 years I have seen exhibits in the U.S, Canada, France and Holland showcasing the work of "emerging artists". The photos were, for the most part, interchangeable. They were all:
1. Huge (as big as the machine could print and not a centimetre smaller)
2. In colour....lots of red for some reason
3. Of people sitting/standing around doing their best to project angst, zeitgeist and/or the deep sorrow of lives lived in such repressive times.
4. Accompanied by artist statements so thick with artspeak they make the writings of Jorge Luis Borges seem like Dr.Seuss.

The only real difference among them was that some where technically well executed (in focus, spotted, well printed), most however really could have used the helping hand of a cable release and spotting brush.

[Kerik Kouklis]

Pears. Need I say more??

[paulr]

Long time lurker, first time poster....


Rapidly becoming a cliché:

Huge colour prints of the ...


Ahhh, now we're getting to a whole new subject: the LATE 20th century cliche. So far we've been looking at ones from decades earlier. The earlier ones are the popular ones with the traditional large format crowd.

The late ones are the ones that the makers of the early ones like to complain about.

[Brian Ellis]

Hmmm. After looking at the things everyone considers cliches (National Parks, all of them, everything in them?) it doesn't look like it's possible to photograph anything that isn't a cliche. So that raises the Zen question - if everything is a cliche is anything a cliche? Well, no point in dwelling on such questions. I'm off to find an old barn to photograph, hopefully one near a foggy pond with cracked mud in front and a dog in the door.

[Joe Lipka]

Damn. It took 33 posts before someone mentioned a pepper.

People, come on, we can be more observant than that....

[cyrus]

You want to see stuff thats IMHO definately NOT cliche? http://korchenko.com/index.htm

OK its B&W with lots o' cemetary stuff, but it dosen't come across as cliche to me.

Maybe I'm wierd.

You ARE weird and so are almost all the photos on the site - THANK GOODNESS!
See, there ARE things other than barn doors and Yosemite to photograph.

(However, just to quibble a bit, I did notice a cala lily, a couple of long exposure waterfalls, a light house, and nude-on-rock-by-river on this site too. Guess getting away from cliches is not so easy after all)

[tim atherton]

Tim, I was hoping you'd repost that here.

It makes up for your embarassing lack of knowledge of America's Majestic Piles of Rock.

Hey - despite being a climber (rather long past now...), all that small stuff to me is just Anselland... :-)

[tim atherton]

I enjoy someone like Sugimoto, who - it seems - as soon as he has done something, it then becomes a cliche for ever afterwards (yet is basically - with possibly a few antecedents - pretty new the first time round).

OOF modernist buildings? cliche now. White movie theater screens? cliche now. Museum dioramas? cliche now. Seascapes split 50/50 by the horizon? cliche now... etc :-)

[darr]

You want to see stuff thats IMHO definately NOT cliche? http://korchenko.com/index.htm

OK its B&W with lots o' cemetary stuff, but it dosen't come across as cliche to me.

Maybe I'm wierd.

His Artist Statement is interesting; definitely not full of clichés. I copy here for others to read because he uses frames and no direct link available:

--

Artist’s Statement

Presented photographs were shot in 1987 – 1993 with old wooden large format cameras ranging in format from 9x12cm (4x5”) to 18x24cm (8x10”) plus recent material on 35mm film. The photographs were not intended for a publication or any specific show. They were for, say, internal use. In an attempt to revitalize the spirit, which drove the creation of the old large format pictures, and approaching it in a logical and systematical way I summarized my method in numbered points:

1. Avoid making photographs if you can.

2. Use old large format cameras from the beginning of the 20th century. My favorite is Globus 5x7” by Ernemann in Dresden from 1910s.

3. Use as old film or glass plates as possible. Most negatives were made on Soviet Svema film which expired in 1978. I still have the stock of it.

4. Never ever use a lightmeter.

5. Do not carry a tripod – it’s too heavy. Use stones, stumps, trash bins.

6. Never count exposure time in seconds. Shutter is not necessary at all. I count an exposure by a time of another process I involved in while exposing the film. On the presented photographs it varies from a ‘sip of cognac’ to ‘three glasses of wine’.

7. Always have a little bit of light in the room when cutting or loading film (because it’s good to see what you are doing).

8. Do not hurry to develop a film after the shot. Let it mature in the film holder for 1 – 2 years, – also helps to avoid shooting new stuff, because keeps film holders stuck with old stuff in (see point 1).

9. Do not measure temperature of the solutions and time of the development. What’s the use of measuring it after the exposure time was so uncertain (see point 6)?

10. No red light in the dark room. Just leave the paper in the developer.

11. Do not mix developer and fixer (I had to write it down because I had problems with that). Mixing of old and fresh or of film and paper developers is highly recommended. Smell a developer to determine if it is good enough.

12. If a picture did not work out after following the method consistently that means you were not worth it.

... from Victor Korchenko Photography (http://korchenko.com/index.htm), Artist Statement

[robc]

I think his statement is "Tongue in cheek" and is a direct poke at a pedantic approach to photography in the belief that adopting "standards" will produce a better quality result. The point being that, an unsharp, poorly exposed, badly processed image is perfectly capable of conveying the intended message. However, given that, I wonder why he makes a virtue of using large format unless it was to show that the old school didn't give a stuff about "fine technique" and still managed to produce excellent results? Now where did I put my 35mm system?

[paulr]

1. Avoid making photographs if you can.

#1 is my favorite.

That being said, a quick flip through his site revealed a number of offences deemed punishable by this thread, including, but not limited to: cala lillies, dunes, mountain streams blurred with slow shutter speeds, and landscapes-with-babe.

[Greg Miller]

Mr. Korchenko is probably wondering why the hit rate for his site just skyrocketed ;)

[Ben Crane]

Whenever I think that a subject has been completely explored, I'll see that rare photograph that can make the subject fresh again. There are certain subjects that tend to attract uninspired photographs, but let us not blame the subject.

[jnantz]

.... might as well not take photographs of anything

[raucousimages]

Girls in bikinis on cars. I like girls. I like cars. But the natural setting for a bikini clad girl is not the hood of a 66 Mustang! Bikini-beach. Car-road. Get it right. Even a girl sans bikini looks silly on the hood of a car.

[Ole Tjugen]

... but a lot more "appropriate" in the back seat?

[brian reed]

Since I,ve photographed just about everything thats been mentioned, does this make me a clicheographer? : )
BRhttp://www.brianreedphotography.com

[paulr]

Since I,ve photographed just about everything thats been mentioned, does this make me a clicheographer? : )

you are a brave man to ask!

[Ed K.]

If one's purpose is documentary, and the result is a cliche image, then it may be more of an obvious truth than an artist's cliche expression. The cliche part comes into play when the photographer shifts to the artiste mode instead of the humble technical scientist who simply records the photons at a particular place and time from a point of view. Are XRays of the same body parts cliche?

The use of cliches in combination with either a twist or in play with each other can form satire, humor, or even a popular commercial motion picture. If one's intent is to comment, the shorthand of cliches can be a powerful vehicle.

The poor photographer, who feels the need to prove legitimacy of the art or that photography is an art, is free when relieved of the burden and then left to explore, record, relate and observe. It is also not wrong to make statements that agree with others, and production of identical images is at times impossible.

What two waves are the same? Tell me in a photograph how chocolate tastes, or how a morning with or without coffee feels. Have you ever gone to the same place, intending to record the place in ideal weather only to discover that the last time you were there was really the best it can be in a ten year period? Some ideas need periodic updates that reflect current conditions. Will you skip early morning and late afternoon shots because they are cliche, and then just shoot at high noon in the summer on a clear day?

[robc]

nobody mentioned crying babies....

http://www.popphoto.com/inamericanphotomagazine/2552/cry-babies.html

[paulr]

What two waves are the same? Tell me in a photograph how chocolate tastes, or how a morning with or without coffee feels.

Of course, no two waves are the same. Which is why it's ultimately a failure of imagination when we make a photograph of waves which, instead of instilling in the viewer a sense of the uniqueness of these particular waves, simply reminds them of all the essentially similar and redundant wave photographs they've yawned past.

The cliche isn't in the subject, but in how we look at it. It comes from responding less to the subject than to the ways others have seen and shown it before us.

If you can capture in an image how chocolate tastes to you, you will share with me a unique and personal experience. If on the other hand you show me a picture that conjures nothing but other standard images of chocolate that I've seen, I'll wonder why you bothered, and your picture will quickly merge into the blur of all the others.

[David Hedley]

Kyoto and Mount Fuji.

[chris_4622]

I'll be going to Mt. Rushmore to make my cliché photos. Is morning or afternoon light better?

[paulr]

I'll be going to Mt. Rushmore to make my cliché photos. Is morning or afternoon light better?

Look at the postcards at the gift shop. They'll tell you just what to do.

[tim atherton]

and if you try to do the non cliche, it's already been done, so it would in fact be a cliche... :-)

http://fototapeta.art.pl/2005/i/hsb/friedlander_5.jpg

[robc]

and if you try to do the non cliche, it's already been done, so it would in fact be a cliche...


touché

[paulr]

and if you try to do the non cliche, it's already been done, so it would in fact be a cliche... :-)


Trying hard is itself a cliche.

As is not trying.

Don't even get me started on trying to look like you're not trying.

[robc]

http://www.artexpressed.com/M-LeadersRush.html

[Sheldon N]

Lol!

[paulr]

Have to admit, that poster brought a little tear to my eye.

And I have to admit a degree of love for cliches, at least if they're bad enough. After 9/11, I was amazed by what people were capable of, given the right mix of patriotism, outrage, opportunism, and photoshop.

I had to join the mob, at least once. The following was made from one of my more melodramatic pictures, along with art poached from the net, and the worst type I could find in my pretty big library. If there's a saving grace, it's that it was done on my employer's time...

www.paulraphaelson.com/downloads/remembers.jpg

[Marko]

Have to admit, that poster brought a little tear to my eye.

And I have to admit a degree of love for cliches, at least if they're bad enough. After 9/11, I was amazed by what people were capable of, given the right mix of patriotism, outrage, opportunism, and photoshop.

I had to join the mob, at least once. The following was made from one of my more melodramatic pictures, along with art poached from the net, and the worst type I could find in my pretty big library. If there's a saving grace, it's that it was done on my employer's time...

www.paulraphaelson.com/downloads/remembers.jpg

To your credit, nothing's moving on that image! #;@D

[Ben Calwell]

I'm guilty of not being able to pass up any white, abandoned, clapboard house that's being raked by sunlight. I just love to try for those textured, Ansel Adams high values.

[ishmael]

It is a cliche too to say: you must not photograph such things: it depends on HOW you photograph them.

Carl

[Kevin Crisp]

I admit that I photograph things on my own list and I cringed when putting some of them on there. I will photograph them again, I am sure. The question I can't help wondering about is what my photographs would look like if I had NOT seen the work of some of the greats that inspired me to try to take landscape photos in the first place. This is an utterly circular thing to wonder about, since I probably would never have picked up a LF camera and started using it if I had not seen their work.

[phaedrus]

Hmmm. Looks like the only thing you left out would be

All that you touch
All that you see
All that you taste
All you feel.
All that you love
All that you hate
All you distrust
All you save.
All that you give
All that you deal
All that you buy,
beg, borrow or steal.
All you create
All you destroy
All that you do
All that you say.
All that you eat
And everyone you meet
All that you slight
And everyone you fight.
All that is now
All that is gone
All that's to come

--Darin

Hey, aren't those lyrics by Pink Floyd?
Cool, that about covers it.

No, seriously (if I may say so), cliche is an inoperable term. It's only useful for wisecracks and after-the-fact.

Christoph

[Alan Davenport]

This thread is a total bummer. You have destroyed my illusions. You have caused reality to intrude into my world. Thanks to all of you, I gotta sh__can 35 years worth of slides and negatives, because not one image passes the non-cliche test. Then I guess I might as well have a garage sale to get rid of all my cameras, since it's now clear they have no purpose. I'm sure my neighbors will pay top dollar for my quaint "old camera stuff."

Or maybe I'll just go have another cup of coffee. Then I'll load some holders so I can go look for more cliches! In fact the more I think about it, I have to thank you all. Now I am freed from the need to be original, or worry about results. Since everything has already been photographed, and photographed better than anyone living can do, we're all free to photograph exactly what we choose, in the way we see it. Thanks!

[paulr]

... we're all free to photograph exactly what we choose, in the way we see it. Thanks!

If you truly do that, then you won't make cliches. It's when you see something the same way a million people before you saw it .. when second hand seeing has obliterated your first hand experience ... that you make cliches.

[evan clarke]

Hamburgers, hot dogs and beer are cliches..who likes them???...EC

[Robert Skeoch]

some great suggestions here guys... I can't wait to get started shooting down the list.

I think I'll pick up a couple peppers on the way home from work today... or maybe a cala lily.... or some sea shells.... or barn board.... or maybe just the milk my wife asked for.


-Rob

[cyrus]

Then I'll load some holders so I can go look for more cliches!

I think the point of the thread was to photograph non-cliches. They're out there, you know. We've seen a few examples already.

[william linne]

My children and girlfriends have pretty much been photographed to death.

[Paul Coppin]

"One artist's cliche is another artist's signature."

[cyrus]

My children and girlfriends have pretty much been photographed to death.


Time for new girlfriends!

[Alan Davenport]

I think the point of the thread was to photograph non-cliches. They're out there, you know.
Hmmm. According to some of the posts earlier in the thread, absolutely everything that can be photographed, has been photographed and is therefore a cliche.

Really, I have nothing against using someone else's tripod holes. In fact, I suppose I'd be honored to learn that someone might have used mine.

[Robert Hall]

I tend to over photography my dark slides.

[cyrus]

Hmmm. According to some of the posts earlier in the thread, absolutely everything that can be photographed, has been photographed and is therefore a cliche..

Yeah, that's what's called a classic straw-man argument. Some people read that into the discussion, either as a joke or to dismiss the matter altogether, but I don't think anyone has seriously believes any such claim (and if they do, I suggest they get high or something and take a better look around them!)

I pointed out one example of a portfolio on a subject that was entirely original (in Lens Work) and someone else pointed out the site of that Russian photographer, which was also mostly quite original (bumble bee in glass jar ? Weston? Adams?) so no one can't really claim that "everything that can be photographed as been photographed" (Reminds me of the US congressman who wanted to close down the US Patent Office because he claimed everything that could be invented had been invented!)

I suppose we can always look for interesting views of the same old subjects, or to present the old subjects in a new way. That's not bad, but it is still derivative. When it comes to selecting the subject matter, finding something entirely new and non-cliche to photograph requires the extra dose of something called CREATIVITY or ORIGINALITY - the factors that separate the photographer-as-technician from the photographer-as-ARTIST.

I myself aspire to just learning the technical aspects for now...but there are many photographers who obviously already have the technical skills, but they're still photographing barn doors and rusty cars. They haven't taken the extra step to find non-cliche subjects and are instead stuck at some sort of a comfort zone of mediocrity. I hope they will put in the extra effort to apply all that finely honed technical photographic skills to non cliches. I wish them well, and I hope others will encourage them too rather than to make light of the matter with "everything has been photographed..." jokes.

[paulr]

Hmmm. According to some of the posts earlier in the thread, absolutely everything that can be photographed, has been photographed and is therefore a cliche.

So why not go back and read some of the more intelligent posts, which suggest that how you photograph might have more to do with it than what you photograph.

You can even make some fresh looking pictures of old barns, if your vision is fresh ...

http://dani.dsvr.com/theonetrain/szarkowski.jpg

[Mark Sawyer]

When all else has been explored, the cliche will be the last frontier of art.

That said, I apologize for the attached image...

[paulr]

When all else has been explored, the cliche will be the last frontier of art.

well, it was a recent frontier anyhow. the postmoderns loved a good cliche, just as they loved a good high-art sacred cow and a good pop culture icon. anything obvious to appropriate.

if they're the final frontier then it's time for me to pack my bags.

[tim atherton]

I pointed out one example of a portfolio on a subject that was entirely original (in Lens Work) and someone else pointed out the site of that Russian photographer, which was also mostly quite original (bumble bee in glass jar ? Weston? Adams?) so no one can't really claim that "everything that can be photographed as been photographed" (Reminds me of the US congressman who wanted to close down the US Patent Office because he claimed everything that could be invented had been invented!)

I suppose we can always look for interesting views of the same old subjects, or to present the old subjects in a new way. That's not bad, but it is still derivative. When it comes to selecting the subject matter, finding something entirely new and non-cliche to photograph requires the extra dose of something called CREATIVITY or ORIGINALITY - the factors that separate the photographer-as-technician from the photographer-as-ARTIST.

.

This is one (of many) of the reasons I like Sugimoto's work - who else thought of photographing movie screens for the whole length of the movie? Or Modernist architecture at 2x infinity (and finding the strength of the design of the best one still comes through), or photographing mathematical forms and more...

[paulr]

I suppose we can always look for interesting views of the same old subjects, or to present the old subjects in a new way. That's not bad, but it is still derivative. When it comes to selecting the subject matter, finding something entirely new and non-cliche to photograph requires the extra dose of something called CREATIVITY or ORIGINALITY - the factors that separate the photographer-as-technician from the photographer-as-ARTIST.

I'm really not convinced by this. I don't think you need novelty to avoid a cliche or to be origninal. Novelty itself is of very little value. I admire Sugimoto's work, too, but the novelty aspect (the idea no one happened to have had before) is low on the list of why I like him. What's great about his work is that it conveys a feeling about life and about the world that is uniquely his. I sense what fascinates him, what inspires wonder in him, and this combination of things is fresh and unique. Much moreso than a particular subject or technique that I haven't seen before.

Great original art doesn't usually come from someone trying really hard to do something new. It usually comes from someone having something to say, to observe, to share ... something they feel needs to be revealed but that so far hasn't been. It usually has something to do with their lives, and the raw material and subject matter of people's lives don't vary so drastically within a culture. Picasso painted a lot of women. Sometimes he even painted Delacroix's women. Weston photographed shells, vegetables, trees, rocks, and western landscapes. Beethoven wrote with the same 12 notes and mostly the same instruments as Mozart. Shakespeare wrote about love and death, ambition and betrayal. He got a lot of his plots from traditional stories, and from other writers like Bocaccio. All of these innovators are admired for their vision and perspective--for the unique form they bring to their subjects and materials, not the subjects or materials themeslves.

At the opposite extreme, it's easy to find empty novelty. An often noticed failing of Surrealist art is invention without discovery. It really doesn't take much imagination to put wings on a clock, or to make a hat melt into a puddle. To do it convincingly--in a way that suggests what in the artist cares about (besides the pursuit of novelty ...) is another matter.

[cyrus]

Great original art doesn't usually come from someone trying really hard to do something new. It usually comes from someone having something to say, to observe, to share ... something they feel needs to be revealed but that so far hasn't been.

I agree with this totally. I don't mean to imply that it is sufficient merely to find a new subject to photograph - the subject is merely a representation of an idea, after all. But absent that, I'd settle for some new subject matter too.

In any case, what's clear is tha re-shooting what eveyrone else has been shooting for 50+ years is neither new subject matter, nor is it saying anything new so I just wish photographers had something to say other than "Gee, look at this pretty barn door...and this pretty car in the fields...and this pretty mountain..." etc ad nauseum.

[Michael Daily]

"Overdone cliche" is a cliche and redundant.
Michael

[paulr]

"Gee, look at this pretty barn door...and this pretty car in the fields...and this pretty mountain..." etc ad nauseum.

yeah, some subjects have become so thoroughly associated with certain kinds of photographs that it's hard to separate the two. not impossible, but experience teaches us to bet our money elsewhere. hence all the lists early in this thread ... and the many subjects that kept showing up on all of them.

my cliche test is really a simple one. when i look at a picture, do i get a sense of the way the photographer sees the world? or only a sense of the other photographers he admires?

[Ralph Barker]

"Overdone cliche" is a cliche and redundant.

I was waiting for someone to point that out, Michael. Thanks. Hasn't fussing over what is cliche become cliche in itself? ;)

As to the original topic, I'm not an art purist, so I sort of ignore the whole cliche thing - unless it's an obvious rip-off of someone else's idea. There are cases of people in different parts of the world coming up with essentially the same idea at about the same time, both of whom thought it was fresh and original. To me, that doesn't make either cliche, just a testament to over-population.

Click on, and damned be him (or, her) who cries, "Hold, enough!" :cool:

[Steve J Murray]

my cliche test is really a simple one. when i look at a picture, do i get a sense of the way the photographer sees the world? or only a sense of the other photographers he admires?

Using your test Paul, could it be that the "look" of film is now a cliche? How about Large Format?

Just playing Devil's Advocate ;>)

[paulr]

Using your test Paul, could it be that the "look" of film is now a cliche? How about Large Format?

Just playing Devil's Advocate ;>)

you might be playing, but it's an interesting question. i think not, because someone like friedlander can take a clunky old hasselblad with an ancient square format, load it with black and white film, and continue to do work that looks like nothing but friedlander. It doesn't even look too much like old friedander ... so you can't accuse him of ripping himself off, either! just my opinion, of course.

on the other hand, some photographic tools do impose such a strong look that it's tough for a photographer to use them and not produce work that looks like everything else done with those tools. the whole diana camera movement suffers from this, i think. some of the work is stunning ... but i often can't tell one person's work from another's.

Winogrand said something similar about very wide lenses. he tried working with a 21mm lens for a while (for 35mm) and gave up. he said the lens gave a distinctive look to every picture, but that he believed there's no one way every picture should look ... or something like that.

[Michael Daily]

When Henry Holmes Smith, prof of Photography at Indiana Univ., asked Ansel Adams, with whom he was teaching at Yosemite, whether he would do the same images over again if he had the chance "to redo his life", Adams replied that he would not as people would only "let" him do the same landscape-type images for which he was famous. Henry told us in class that that was one of the saddest things that he had ever heard--that a master was trapped by his own work and felt that people would not look at anything else that he tried.
Michael

[Michael Daily]

Art is recognized by 20/20 hindsight most of the time. One has to be dead to be famous. If we spend our time worrying about what is "cliche" instead of working, we are in a rut--a grave with both ends kicked out. We are undead...
Michael

[paulr]

If we spend our time worrying about what is "cliche" instead of working, we are in a rut--a grave with both ends kicked out.

I strongly disagree. worrying about cliches in terms of how famous you should be is a waste of your energy. but thinking about it in terms of finding your voice--figuring out to what degree you're doing your own work vs. regurgitating other people's work--is never a waste. Anyone serious about their art owes it to themselves to do a reality check once in a while. Catching yourself making cliches is a first step toward getting out of a rut, not getting in deeper.

[Steve J Murray]

Just for the sake of argument:

The paradox is that, because of their prevelance, cliches must be very "powerfull." Just look at the highest rated photos any given day on photonet. Most are cliches, and being given high ratings for "orginality" as well. It would seem that the average person with a camera aspires to do a well done cliche, and most people would prefer to have a cliche hanging in their livingrooms. For instance, I've been taking photographs all my adult life and I"ve only done one or two sunset/sunrise photos, out of thousands of prints I've made. Recently, my wife said she wanted to send a photo to her cousin, so could I take a nice sunset picture some time when I was in the park. There you go.

Are cliches actually "archetypes?" Is that where they derive their power? Are they the universal themes we all resonate to at some level? Do they represent our mythology? If so, then its no wonder so many photographers shoot cliches. It means you are part of a large group of image makers that can show us our universal themes. Nothing wrong with that is there? Its not so much an act of copying someone we admire as much as being a member of this special "group."

Perhaps only a few really creative people can consistently do original work. The rest of us have to do cliches if we want anyone to admire our creations.

[cyrus]

Just for the sake of argument:

The paradox is that, because of their prevelance, cliches must be very "powerfull." Just look at the highest rated photos any given day on photonet. Most are cliches, and being given high ratings for "orginality" as well. .

The Gravity of the Middle, the Appeal of the Average, the Dictatorship of Mediocrity.

Its a common phenomenon in photography and elsewhere. Reaching for higher goals requires effort and involves risks. Why reach for higher goals when doing average bring all the benefits and none of the costs?

[Michael Daily]

Aim low, meet your goals, avoid frustration...
Michael

[Terence McDonagh]

I first got into photography when taking some historic preservation classes. Being a structural engineer I was drawn to old bridges, steel mills, powerplants, etc. When the internet came along I discovered David Plowden, Berndt & Hilla Becher, etc and discovered I'd been photographing cliched subjects . . . but they were new to me.

So is it a cliche if you don't KNOW it's cliched?

Amazingly, 90% of the U.S. population has NO idea who Ansel Adams was, much less some of the current "greats". Only photographers really pay attention to photography.

In the meantime, I'll keep photographing subjects that I find beautiful or compelling. Luckily, that doesn't include calla lilies, peppers . . .

[wfwhitaker]

Photography shouldn't be about what you see, but about how you see. My photographs aren't about the subject, they're about me. And I'm not a cliche.

[robc]

I think you are all too worried about whether your work is original and whether it is a cliche or not. There's only one good reason to make any image, and that is pure unadulterated self indulgence. If that isn't your reason for making an image then you probably have nothing to say anyway. Whether its viewed as a cliche or not is irrelevant. Communicating what you have to say about the subject is THE whole point of making an image, cliche or not. Or maybe I'm just dumb and have got it all wrong.

[paulr]

There's only one good reason to make any image, and that is pure unadulterated self indulgence.

???

when i'm in the mood for pure unadulterated self indulgence i eat cake.

and yeah, i see a lot work that comes from that kind of motivation, but i sure don't want to waste my time making anything like it.

[robc]

I take it you mean you make your images for market then.

[paulr]

I take it you mean you make your images for market then.

No, never.

Are you really suggesting that the only two reasons for making something are self indulgence or money?

and I thought I had a grim view of the world ...

[Michael Daily]

Photography shouldn't be about what you see, but about how you see. My photographs aren't about the subject, they're about me. And I'm not a cliche.

Well put! Photographs tell more to the intelligent observer about the photographer than they do about the things photographed. It is a way of sharing ideas, not things, in much the same way that conversation is not about words.
Michael

[kjsphotography]

I really do not think anything is cliché in terms of subject matter. I believe the approach of capturing the subject is what tends to be cliché. If more time were spent trying to find your vision within the subject at hand, the cliché subject matter would disappear and new and fresh concepts would start to be the norm.

I think this is the danger in studying other photographer as one start to shoot as their heroes do, therefore creating work that is duplicate/cliché in nature.

Just my two cents ;)

[robc]

No, never.

Are you really suggesting that the only two reasons for making something are self indulgence or money?

and I thought I had a grim view of the world ...

what I mean by self indulgence is making images for yourself and not to suit the market. i.e. you don't let market forces drive your image making process. For example, it is common for galleries to only accept your work if they think it will sell and many artists do work to suit the galleries and not themselves. It's called selling your soul. Me, I prefer to be self indulgent and make the images I want to make. If they sell that's fine. If not, that's also fine but I don't make a living out of my images. If I were a commercial photographer I might think differently, but that wouldn't alter the fact that I was driven by someone elses choices and not my own.

Is it any wonder that there are so many cliched images when so many people are making them because they sell? Or at least they appear to since so many people have them up for sale on the web.

So what drives your image making? A desire to be famous, a desire to make money, or something really self indulgent like taking a great deal of personal satisfaction out of just doing it and perhaps making something of great beauty?