"the importance of uniqueness of vision, whether that means style, subject matter or whatever, is way overstated"
I agree with this totally. As an instructor in art schools the question is always put first "Is it new", but for me the first question is always "Is it any good". I have seen too many students hard pressed to come up with a new idea, as if that was all that mattered.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
A photograph may be a "text", but it's not a text."
which is where the essential or at least somewhat unique nature of photography comes into play. It lacks a full or complete language, but the inherent ambiguity of its half or partial language is what more often gives a photograph its breadth of expression or power
Well said!
unique vision = originality
unique vision = originality
Perhaps - if you can bring it to reality, a print.
"the importance of uniqueness of vision, whether that means style, subject matter or whatever, is way overstated"
I don't know if it's overstated, but it's probably misunderstood.
If you take it to mean you need a unique schtick for your work to be worth anything, then yeah, it's foolish thing to be chasing.
But if you consider that you as a human being are unique ... that to those who know and love you, you are unmistakeable, unforgetable, and unrepeatable, it only follows that work born of what moves you most profoundly will have similar qualities. You are not at your best when you mimic Brad Pitt's character in some movie ... but rather when you allow yourself to break through self consciousness, fear, shame, or whatever other blocks you , and just be you. Likewise your work will not be at its best when it mimics ansel adams or edward weston's. If it really comes from you ... from what you see and care about most, the way you see it and care about it, it will be unique, and it will matter more to those who see it ... if they care enough to get to know it.
Paulr - in my own snapshooting, I like just pursuing whatever comes most naturally to me, or whatever I feel personally compelled to do. It would be nice to think that not only does this feel more comfortable in the doing, but also that this will result in work that others will somehow perceive as better or more natural. But I remain skeptical about the existence of any such correlation.
If it really comes from you ... from what you see and care about most, the way you see it and care about it, it will be unique, and it will matter more to those who see it
To address your point more directly, yes, it will be unique, but no, it won't necessarily matter more to those who see it just because you were in an affective groove while making it.
... it only follows that work born of what moves you most profoundly will have similar qualities. You are not at your best when you mimic Brad Pitt's character in some movie ... but rather when you allow yourself to break through self consciousness, fear, shame, or whatever other blocks you , and just be you. Likewise your work will not be at its best when it mimics ansel adams or edward weston's. If it really comes from you ... from what you see and care about most, the way you see it and care about it, it will be unique, and it will matter more to those who see it ... if they care enough to get to know it., paulr
Perhaps - if you can bring it to reality, a print., jj
I agree with paulr that in life, we all experience a number of events, and most are unique to our being. I am almost certain the things I saw in my childhood were very different from anyone else in this forum. These differences can be found throughout our entire lives and can help us grow in creative ways since they are unique to us personally. Take this example of how I created a unique piece based around a stereotypical symbol found in the "Christmas story". This was meant to be a parody about the experiences of motherhood.
non-unique vision = "Three Wise Women"
If it really comes from you ... from what you see and care about most, the way you see it and care about it, it will be unique, and it will matter more to those who see it ... if they care enough to get to know it.
[pre]
But yield who will to their separation
my object in living is to unite
my avocation and my vocation
as my two eyes make one in sight
Only where love and need are one
and the work is play for mortal stakes
is the deed ever really done
for heaven and the future's sakes
[/pre]
(Robert Frost, "Two Tramps at Mud Time", last two verses).
Photography is more often about a gesture. Pointing to something, indicating it and simply saying "this was what I saw" ...
The concept is simply about saying as "this is what this place/person/thing looked like (to me)" as best or as clearly as we can with our photographs...
... from what you see and care about most, the way you see it and care about it, it will be unique, and it will matter more to those who see it ... if they care enough to get to know it....
Which brings us back full circle to the "fuzzy concept" - and whatever its opposite is - a clear concept, an unfuzzy concept or whatever...
Saying "this is what I saw" or "this is what this looks like (photographed by me)" isn't perhaps quite as simple as it sounds. It requires - for want of a better word - honesty - as well as a level of self-understanding, a certain amount of clarity, and a refusal to fall into cliche, convention or plagiarism
At that point there are real possibilities for something original, something worth saying - as opposed to the one-trick-pony "unique schtick" that Paul talked about
You'd be amazed how small the demand is for pictures of trees... - Fred Astaire to Audrey Hepburn
www.photo-muse.blogspot.com blog
If I hadn't believed it with my own mind...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks