Does the World Need Another Aspen Image?

[D. Bryant]

sounds an awful lot like onanism... (as opposed to say - prostitution!) :-)

Glad to see that you've not lost your penchant for onanistic posts Tim.

[D. Bryant]

The author gives a thoroughly mindless answer to an interesting question.

Ultimately I believe he misunderstands the question. By "another aspen image" the question implies another image that looks essentially like all the others. Which is what people in nature photography forums seem to be striving for, year after year, decade after decade. Witness the author's own examples of "fresh, interesting" aspen pictures. As Tim says, these are neither; they are superficially different, but essentially the same as many thousands of pictures everyone here has seen.

Understood in a meaningful way, I suspect the question will lead to a big divide among photographers. Those in the camera club school of craft-based photography seem to get great pleasure out of creating images that are superficially different, but essentially the same as everything else in a tradition. Much as furniture makers typically take pride in being able to produce perfect (and therefore essentially anonymous) examples of a style.

On the other hand, photographers from the art side of the world tend to be baffled by this pursuit. They think, "why on earth do we need one more image that's the same as all the others?" They value showing something in a way that is essentially fresh ... to share a vision of the world that is uniquely their own. Whether that world includes aspen trees or not is relatively unimportant.

Paul,

I think you have described the two views succinctly. I think whatever ones position is concerning style and or subject matter, an important question I ask myself about the photography I do is, "How do I keep from repeating myself and how to unconciously or conciously, keep my work from being derivative?" I think a large amount of photographs made regardless of the intent of the photographer fails to pass these two concerns.

Of course if one enjoys what they are doing and are satisified with their work they can disregard such questions and comparisons.

Don Bryant

[John Kasaian]

What I got out of the article is a statement on cynicism which I found refreshing---cynicism destroys more than it creates. It is the ultimate straw man when it comes to ridicule and pompous imposition of one person, group, theory, or thought over others. Cynicism is attractive in that its easy to be really good at it, yet elitist enough so that many people can't quite get the hang of it an use obscenities instead (which only serves to bolster the cynic in the bid for supposed superiority.) Cynicism is part of our entertainment, political life, journalism and our educational systems. My kids get training in cynicism from cartoon characters and even PBS. My Bride is a skilled cynic from watching prime time tv dramas & Oprah. I often find myself being cynical as I'm a product of bad television and even worse movies. It is something which I try very hard not to be, but honestly I can't avoid it any more than a crack addict can avoid being stupid.

I agree that the world dosen't need a photograph of anything really. It got along just fine for billions of years before George Eastman came along, but I also agree that the world dosen't need anymore cynics either.

Grrrrr!

I don't believe cynicism has any useful place in criticism or art--any more than a nail has a place in an automobile tire or a cancer in a lung.

CHeers!

[Jim Ewins]

On the other hand we may not need another Aspen, CO

[Lazybones]

Fat City.

[paulr]

What I got out of the article is a statement on cynicism which I found refreshing

Ultimately the question shouldn't be about cynicism or about judging other people's work. I'd rather see it used for self examination, so that people can figure out if they're making the work they really want to be making.

Some will decide that they what they want out of the medium really is recreation, or the opportunity to participate in a well-worn tradition, or to make pretty things.

While others will decide that they want to do something more personal. But it might take some more pointed questions for them to realize this. I see it a lot. Julia Cameron's book The Artist's Way deals with this, as does Peter London's book No More Secondhand Art, and Cathy Malchouidi's The Soul's Palette. It's telling that there's a market for so many self-help book and workshops on the subject. If nothing else it tells me that these questions are worth asking. I think the cynical position is actually the one that says that they're not.

[Frank Petronio]

Let's all ajourn to the Caribou Club to ponder this with Jack and some Stoli.

[John Kasaian]

Frank,
I'm all for that!

[Steve J Murray]

Ah, one of those perennial debates. I basically agree with paulr’s observations. There will always be “artistes” who strive for absolute originality, and regular folks who just photograph what excites them, whether it’s a cliché or not. My personal experience as one who from time to time can produce something original, I think, and can also easily produce cliches, is that when I make a “pretty” picture it gets a lot of attention. Photos that I make that I feel are more interesting because they are a different and fresh, are virtually ignored by the general audience. So, I do some of both, to please myself and to entertain other people. Furthermore, much the work done by the “artistes” in the photographic world, no matter how original, often say nothing to me, except that they are trying awfully hard to be different, but are ending up just as boring as the person who photographs nothing but the obvious cliches. Is there a middle ground, where the work is both original, inspiring, and not just weird and obscure? Probably, but you have to search long and hard to find personal favorites, and it’s a very individual thing as well.

[Paul Coppin]

In looking at Mr Tal's commentary, and the responses here, I think Guy was foolish to rise to the bait. "Does the world need another aspen image?" is nothing but rhetorical, and has no answer, or, if you like, has every answer. The most correct answer, IMO, is simply "yes". Invent all of the reasons to define the "need", you like. If your bent is nihilistic, then the answer is, of course, "no". Invent all of the reasons to reject the "need", you like.