Putting it all together

[paulr]

Agreed to all - but there's more to a body of work than just a common theme, isn't there? Atget's Paris was not just a bunch of photos of Paris, there was a particular style that makes his photos identifiable as an Atget, and I suppose historical-cultural significance to his work that sets it apart from everyone else who took a bunch of photos of Paris, right?

Right. And even more than that. You've asked a huge question ... one that i don't think gets asked enough. My advice is to be wary of any simple answers. A solid body of work is much more than just your best pictures. Or variations on a theme or subject. It's not something that will automatically happen by going out and pointing at things that interest you, unless you're unusually gifted in this area.

A photographic body of work is like any other large, creative work--a novel, a feature film, a symphony ...

These are all complete works. They're not just collections of parts. The whole is always greater than the sum of the parts. The larger work is about something apropriately large in scope--something impossible to fully explore with a smaller work. It gives a sense of completeness. It introduces ideas, develops them, and somehow feels whole by the time you've gotten to the end. Which isn't to say that it answers all of the questions that it raises (or even any of them), but that it explores all the ones that it raises; it raises the right ones; and it illuminates what had previously been hidden, in a way that ultimately satisfies.

I doubt there's a formula for how to do this. Great artists seem to approach it differently. I do think you can learn from looking at bodies of work of those with a masterful sense of editing and sequencing. Books are a great place to go. Because of its permanence, the book has been the medium on which people have spent the most time editing and crafting. A few examples worth studying are Robert Frank's The Americans, Stephen Shore's Uncommon Places, Eggleston's Democratic Forest, and Strand's Time in New England. Of these, the Frank book strikes me as the crown jewel of sophisticated editing and sequncing. But all are diffferent and great in their own ways.

Don't confuse something like a well edited commercial portfolio or selection of variations on a visiual theme for a complete body of work. Always keep in mind the grand form of the novel or the symphony--every part being essential, no essential part missing--and the incredible value of pacing, order, sense of time, tension, quiet, intensity, and relief.

All this coming from a guy who's still trying to figure out how to finish a project.

[PViapiano]

Ron,

The quality of the LensWork back-issues CD is excellent. Issues #1-50 are on the CD as separate PDF files, complete with every page in the printed mag.

They are NOT scans with smudges and stray pixels, but look as good as the original pages. The photos look great at 100% and are not pixelated. I wouldn't recommend printing them, but for viewing on a monitor (I have them all loaded in my laptop, makes for a great reading reference/resource when traveling) they're great!

I also highly recommend LensWork Extended CDs...multi-media versions of the bi-monthly magazine, with more photos by the featured photographers, videos, audio interviews and commentary and more!

[Ron Marshall]

Ron,

The quality of the LensWork back-issues CD is excellent. Issues #1-50 are on the CD as separate PDF files, complete with every page in the printed mag.

They are NOT scans with smudges and stray pixels, but look as good as the original pages. The photos look great at 100% and are not pixelated. I wouldn't recommend printing them, but for viewing on a monitor (I have them all loaded in my laptop, makes for a great reading reference/resource when traveling) they're great!

I also highly recommend LensWork Extended CDs...multi-media versions of the bi-monthly magazine, with more photos by the featured photographers, videos, audio interviews and commentary and more!

Thanks Paul. Every issue I see the CD advertisement and wonder. Good point about it being a good travel reading resource, I'll have to try that.

[cyrus]

These are all complete works. They're not just collections of parts. The whole is always greater than the sum of the parts.

Thanks Paul I think that last sentence says it all. I see a lot of photographers obsessing over technical quality and presentation but they don't seem to stop to ask themselves "What does this photo - and the rest of the photos I've taken during my life - SAYING?"

[Brian Ellis]

"Maybe it is harsh, but think of all the great photographers who used just one camera/one (normal) lens"

I can't think of any. Who were they?

[Mark Sawyer]

A photographic body of work is like any other large, creative work--a novel, a feature film, a symphony ...

Symphonies are written in movements, which are much more analogous to portfolios; a group of related portfolios would make a whole photographic symphony...

Nit-picking, I know...

I think the thing that finally ties it all together is the individual photographer, his concerns, his eye, the "style" he develops, his choices in what materials to use and how to use them, all that he brings with him to the photograph, because this is what the viewer ultimately takes away from the viewing experience, seeing something through another's eye, thinking of it with another's mind, feeling with another's heart...

It takes some time, usually, for a photographer to know and become comfortable with himself enough to let these things flow naturally, the way music flows from a pianist's fingers. But the discoveries and rewards along the way can still be lovely and meaningful...

[Jack Flesher]

"Maybe it is harsh, but think of all the great photographers who used just one camera/one (normal) lens"

I can't think of any. Who were they?

Henri Cartier Bresson, Richard Misrach and Edward Weston to name a few...

[Andrew O'Neill]

Pick a project. Stick with it until you fell you've exhausted it. Print up a portfolio of the best. After you have worked on a few projects, and have portfolios of them, pull out the best ones from each portfolio and place them side by side...you will be suprised to see "you" coming through...if not, keeping doing the project thing. Sometimes I have multiples projects going on...right now (well, for the past 4 years) I have been focusing on old outback churches, the dry country (Fraser/Thompson area in BC), and old buildings downtown Vancouver.

[Frank Petronio]

Atget, Robert Frank (Leica-era), Ralph Gibson use(d) one camera/lens for their most famous images. I suspect you'd find that people like Robert Adams use one lens for 90% of their images too. Avedon, used a 360 on his 8x10 or a Rolleiflex -- his estate closed at $65 million -- I think he could have afforded more lenses if he wanted them.

Maybe there is another corrallary to the one lens/one camera concept: That nobody has yet made a really art-ful image with a 58mm XL or a 800mm Telephoto lens. They could make a cool poster or commercial stock image, but think about the important images that stick with you throughout your photo career... nope, can't think of any ultrawides or superteles in the lot...

Outside of Bill Brandt or Lartigue, I can't think of any old-timers who used extreme lenses.

Take it another step and realize that few of the greats ever resorted to gimmicks either. There won't be any shots from a Lens Baby put in that time capsule. Nor will there be any contemporary gum bichromates either

[paulr]

winogrand said something that relates well to gimmicks. he said he tried working with a 20mm lens for a while, but found that it had such a strong "look" that it made all the pictures look a certain way. and he believed that there's no one way that pictures should look. so he ditched it.

i think this points to a problem with any material or tool that imposes itself strongly. rather than serving your vision, it can end up competing with it. saying what you want to say can be hard enough without an annoying piece of gear fighting to upstage you!