What are the definitive Photo-Cliches of the past decade.

[Toyon]

Each decade seems to have a definitive photo cliche. In the 60's it was the "grain be damned" pushed Tri-X shot of the gritty inner city. In the 70's it was a portrait shot with a backlit subject standing against a tree with a cascade of internal reflections coming across the image. In the 80's I think it was a row of brightly pastel colored rowboats tied to a dock. In the 90's - I'm not sure. The 2000's I think it was the super-saturated nature porn shot (hello Ken Rockwell). What do you folks think were the leading cliches by decade?

[Richard M. Coda]

I don't know about all the decades, but the past decade had to be the "staged" photo, usually of people with no expression on their faces and in highly unnatural poses... or just about anything that came out of an art school photo program.

[Jeffrey Sipress]

The now classic......... "Did you Photoshop that, I mean, is that real, or did you do that on your computer?"

[lenicolas]

tome, the cliché of the 2000s is a backlit, warmish wide open digital slr shoot pretending to be holga.

just search "bokeh" or "nokton" in flickr if you don't see what i mean...

[robertmgray]

Agree with Jeffrey, the way people use 'photoshop' as a verb can really be dismissive. It's pretty hilarious when HDR's have become so overdone and accepted, yet a landscape photo still gets 'photoshop' claims.

[robertmgray]

Oh yeah, and HDR's...

[BetterSense]

Shallow DOF.

In EVERYTHING. Product photos, portraits, fashion. And I don't mean shallow dof to separate your subject from the background, I mean DOF so shallow you can't even see the subject itself, except for one button or something. Look at a picture on a food menu and you see one sesame seed and the rest of the picture is a blur. It's the still equivalent of shakey-cam.

[Hal Hardy]

HDR. I've seen soooo many boring images that are nothing more than an excuse to use the technique. That's not to say that there aren't some tastfully done pictures that couldn't have been done any other way, but most of them scream, "Look what I have wrought!"

[sanchi heuser]

Young photographers making pictures of young people staring into empty space=Very boring.

sanchi

[Jack Dahlgren]

Young photographers making pictures of young people staring into empty space=Very boring.

sanchi

I haven't seen many of these - maybe I'm not looking...
But they sound very boring.

But I have seen balloons and seagulls pasted into over-satuated landscapes which cause me to cringe when I see them. I've even created a couple of the monstrosities myself (the mark of a true cliche is that everyone has tried it)

I nominate the hyper-color landscape as the cliche of the 2000's. Bonus points for a long exposure waterfall while you are at it.

[Thad Gerheim]

Sanchi, do you mean the type of photography Lorretta Lux does? Seems like I heard she made millions off of her opening at the MONA. Someone must like them. I believe she was from Germany, but may have moved to avoid taxes.

[sanchi heuser]

Yes Thad, that's a very good example.
And I have forgotten to say, that the more absent these poor youngsters look
the bigger seems the applause:eek:.

[Ed Richards]

I thought you meant the deadpan snapshot look that seems so popular with photo reviewers and critics. Lux seems to be in the highly processed Stepford children school. Facial distrortions and all. Pretty sinister.

[Lachlan 717]

Let's not overlook the "self-portrait" with the shooter's arm in it.

Thanks to crap quality P&S digitals (esp in the guise of the mobile/cell phone), we have been flooded with those boring shots of drunken people claiming the moment. Facebook et al is full of them. Meaningless in any historic sense - no reference to location, nor to event and time.

The only joy that I get from these shots is from trying to get in them a) when I and the shooter have no idea of who the other is or b) getting into the background and pulling faces/lifting fingers. At least this will cause slightly more interest when seen by the shooter and her/his audience!!

[Gordon Moat]

Over processed

Over lit

Holga and Lomography - though I think these help film sales, so that is a positive out of that trend

Stitching

Any mention of Megapixels

Marketing through indication of what gear a photographer uses

Workshops

[Marko]

Handcrafted. Bonus points if it is preceded by "lovingly", "knowingly", "expertly" or such.

Hyper-color anything, velvia, photoshop or any other way.

Soft-focus, lens-babies, holgas, antique lenses or any other means, photoshop included.

Extra bonus points for fruit and/or flower arrangements, assorted ruins or contorted "artistic" nudes.

[Eirik Berger]

Polaroid style edges merged on digital images.

[Jeffrey Sipress]

I'm with Marko about the 'contorted "artistic" nudes', and the lensbaby. What a ridiculous invention....

I completely forgot about my other favorites:

Edge patterns, such as ratty paper, half-dry brush strokes, and silly frames.

closeup blurry images of half a persons face that you don't care to see. And tilted at least 25 degrees to make it even more annoying. Fashion before function, I always say.

"Just because you can doesn't mean you should"

And my longtime favorites, 1) presenting your film image with the film edge bars and manufacturers info visible, and 2) trying to emulate the poor quality and performance of older films and equipment using modern gear and media.

[cjbroadbent]

An black layer added to colour shots.

[Toyon]

An black layer added to colour shots.

Not sure what this one is. Do you have an example?

Overall, I think oversaturated nature porn takes a back seat to Mr. Coda's observation.

Unless someone can make a stronger case for another distinct and particular genre (as opposed to broader trends, like cam phone shots), I think it is safe to declare that -

The definitive photo-cliche of the 2000's is:

The stagey portrait of a person facing the camera with no discernible expression.

[cjbroadbent]

Not sure what this one is. Do you have an example?
...
Most 'life-style' car ads and commercials. An extra b&W layer is blended in to fortify (arty-fartify) the cultural aspect.

[windpointphoto]

Good grief! What a mutual admiration society of snotty folks. I admire anyone who is making pictures, and if they sell, more power to 'em.

[cjbroadbent]

... What a mutual admiration society of snotty folks....
The snotty folk is me. Don't blame the others.
As for mutual admiration, if you read this thread carefully you will find just the opposite.
We were talking about cliche'. Copy-cat style, even if it sells, is not good picture making.

[Jeffrey Sipress]

Leonard, you don't get it.

Toyon, I hate those faces. In fact, I never photograph people. I don't like them.

[windpointphoto]

Leonard, you don't get it.

Toyon, I hate those faces. In fact, I never photograph people. I don't like them.

Sure I do. How about cliches like Bodie, slot canyons and "the wave"?

[Jeffrey Sipress]

Well, then you have to include as cliches every popular photo icon on earth. Betchya there are a thousand or more.....

[Richard M. Coda]

Sure I do. How about cliches like Bodie, slot canyons and "the wave"?

These are exactly the reasons why I will never photograph any of those things/places.

[windpointphoto]

These are exactly the reasons why I will never photograph any of those things/places.

But they're FUN to photograph. Which is the point so many forget. I took a tongue in cheek jibe at Jeffrey's pictures. I wish my pictures of those places were as nice.

[Ed Richards]

> Well, then you have to include as cliches every popular photo icon on earth.

At least every shot of them that is just a tripod hole shot of the original. For example, I liked Eggleston when he got started. But the school of Eggleston is pretty boring, even if critics still like it.

> But they're FUN to photograph. Which is the point so many forget.

Absolutely - if you like to shoot cliches (or can sell them) shoot away! Do not get me wrong, if trendy works for you, go for it! My complaints are for critics and publications who have such conventional notions of avant garde.:-)

[Jim collum]

given the list of cliche's so far... i think anyone who's posted an image in this forum (or just a link to their web page for that matter...) would be considered cliche.

[Rod Klukas]

Subject matter can always be rephotographed, and has... The important step to being successful is to say something new about the place, object etc.
You must cause an emotional reaction in the viewer. Otherwise you are making 'flash cards', not worthy of more than a casual glance.
There was a great article written about the image of a man in an overcoat on a deserted street. This image turns up every decade someplace-Yet it works in many of the images. I'll try to find the article or book. an interesting read...
Rod

[ic-racer]

Digital---stitched images
Analog---shallow dof, alternate process

[Jeffrey Sipress]

'Cliche' images are one thing. The 'icons' that we often see can be, and are regularly photographed with new interpretations. I shoot many of them, but when I'm there, and concentrating on how I feel about the scene, I become alone regardless of the crowds nearby. I'm looking for MY feeling about it and hopeful to make a unique image. Sometimes the result may seem similar to others you or I have seen, but it was my experience and my creation. It is not unusual in the arts to see similar takes on the same subject. I don't feel cliche when that happens. Most of my print viewers, and owners, have never seen these places or things before, and it is their excitement and discovery that I get to share all over again.

[sun of sand]

the tide pool is my pick


I think due to the fact that there are many Xs the photographers this decade you could probably make a case for everything having become tired

Cliche is cliche for a reason, though
tourist trap the same
Thats why you'll never hear me refer to these as such on my own

I also don't believe you can "say something new"

[Jack Dahlgren]

Now let's make it interesting...

What WILL BE the cliche's of the next decade?

[Brian Ellis]

Intentional blurring of portions of the image by the use of large format camera movements, with no rhyme or reason as to why some portions are blurred and others aren't.

Photographs made with soft focus lenses for no apparent reason other than to demonstrate that the photographer owns a soft focus lens (i.e. most soft focus photographs)

Web sites that include "fine art photography" in the title. If you have to tell us it's fine art then it probably isn't.

[jnantz]

"fine art photograph(y)"

[Daniel_Buck]

Nobody mentioned ringflashes, or super strong primary color gel lights/flashes did they? can we add that to the list? :cool:



given the list of cliche's so far... i think anyone who's posted an image in this forum (or just a link to their web page for that matter...) would be considered cliche.
heh, yea, we've got quite a list going! :D I think you would be very hard pressed to take a photograph (let alone a series of photographs?) that would not fall into some form of photographic cliche'. And actually, I wonder if you did manage to take a whole series of photographs that looks completely unlike anything else, would people really enjoy looking at it? or would they just toss them asside as being un-interesting? In my mind, being different doesn't directly equate with being good or better than anything else. I think I resemble a fair cross section of the blurry images with crummy old lenses cliche' but I don't care, I shoot what I like and how I like it :D Sometimes I enjoy the process more than the end result, sometimes I enjoy the end result more than the process.

I'm getting the overwhelming sense that most folks think cliche's are a bad thing. I really enjoy alot of photos that fall in to some cliche' categories (photographs of trees, Ansel-esque photos, wide-open portraits and still-lifes, and some others) it doesn't bother me that there's hundreds of other photographs that have a very similar style and look/feel to them, I still enjoy shooting them for myself and looking at other folks work :-)

[Ross Chambers]

Now let's make it interesting...

What WILL BE the cliche's of the next decade?

Climate change phenomena.

It won't do anything to change their likelihood, but as with tourist shots (spare me the Sydney Opera House) you can say that you've been there--until you were roasted or drowned.

Regards - Ross

[bvstaples]

Shallow DOF.

In EVERYTHING. Product photos, portraits, fashion. And I don't mean shallow dof to separate your subject from the background, I mean DOF so shallow you can't even see the subject itself, except for one button or something. Look at a picture on a food menu and you see one sesame seed and the rest of the picture is a blur. It's the still equivalent of shakey-cam.

This one kills me. I believe it's a product of automated dSLRs. I contribute to a local forum of photographers, most of them using dSLRs. When asked to critique images, DOF is always mentioned. Even when there's plenty of light, the mantra seems to be "shoot wide open." I know there are times when shallow DOF contributes to a mood, but in things like product photography, urban landscapes, fashion and such, I think deeper DOFs are a must. But it seems that many "photographers" today rely to much on letting their camera set the exposure and never think about DOF. They all need to take a large format course or two.

Brian

[Marko]

This one kills me. I believe it's a product of automated dSLRs. I contribute to a local forum of photographers, most of them using dSLRs. When asked to critique images, DOF is always mentioned. Even when there's plenty of light, the mantra seems to be "shoot wide open." I know there are times when shallow DOF contributes to a mood, but in things like product photography, urban landscapes, fashion and such, I think deeper DOFs are a must. But it seems that many "photographers" today rely to much on letting their camera set the exposure and never think about DOF. They all need to take a large format course or two.

Brian

I don't think a "d" in "dSLR" above has much to do with it, it's all in the head - those "photographers" would be achieving the exact same results with automated film SLRs. If anything, the DOF should be even shallower with the same angle-of-view lens on a full-frame than on APS-C.

You are right for the rest, though.

[Vaughn]

I worry more about personal cliches than I do about culturally perceived concepts of cliches. How fresh is one's own work? Is one still exploring or just keeping to the safe and comfortable ground? I believe this personal path is more important than worrying about whether or not others have made similar images.

I was surprised to see alternative processes mentioned, and it did cause me to think. My first thought was that it was a pretty silly answer, seeing how alt printing covers a lot of ground and all. But as I thought about it, I can see where the cliche' bit works in. It is too easy to try one's hands in several different processes -- sort of recycling the same images in different processes, and sometimes trying to force the process to carry a weak image.

But as far as calling it a cliche' of the last decade, I think that is premature. By 2020, not only will have alt photo grown rapidly, but silver gelatin processes will also be considered an alternative process. If one is sick of alt processes now, be prepared to be nauseous for the next ten years! Personally, I have a strong stomach and I am looking forward to it!

The cliche' of the next decade? Well, this past decade's cliche' was the over-sharpened, hyper-color images, usually printed in the Bigger-is-Better style. But we are not done with that yet. So the next decade will be filled to cliche-hood with large super-satuated, hyper-reality images displayed on flexible screens hanging on the wall. Just download the image to the screen, then roll it up to take it to the gallery. These screens will allow the technology shown in Avatar will allow photographers to create 3D images -- just put on the 3D glasses found in the hamper below the photograph. And of course, why stick with just 3D? Might as well include sound, film and animation clips, and viewer interaction response software, too. Who knows -- perhaps that last part will be the cliche' of 2020 to 2029?

Vaughn

[jp]

HDR

Ringflash

Small DOF. I admit to like much of it though. With modern digital cameras and fast prime lenses, there are many scenes that were not previously doable without this combination unless you wanted a muddy gritty pushed c41 look. Sometimes I'd like more DOF than the light will provide, but other times, I'm glad the lights in the background aren't shaped like aperature blades.

gray pupils from red-eye removal magic algorithms.

Fake film borders. Fake sprocket holes, fake rounded corners, fake lettering/numbering.

Fake B&W. In the 90's it was c41 process B&W film. Now it's the B&W setting on the digicam.

Next decade:

wide angle in-your-face composition resulting from combined still/video proliferation. All the bad things about video, like putting the camera close to the model on wide angle to show the background setting like in news reporting; this is why people are said to look 10lbs heavier on TV. Monster pincushion superzooms will also contribute. Part of it might be a reaction to the short DOF shooting that is popular now and will continue to be popular as camera makers re-introduce updated primes.

A serious waning of printed display art. Despite the low cost and high availability of good posters and good cheap big prints, more and more photos will be "permanently" exhibited for 10 seconds at a time on a wall mounted LCD/LED display or big screen TVs as people try to keep up with the Jonses. Count on distracting transitions between images.

A very serious distinction between snapshot and intentional photography. Lots of snapshot photography has migrated to camera phones than came free with the cell phone plan and upload images easily to facebook. Much like the disc and 110 camera of old. People serious about photography will have access to really nice cameras that are hard to go wrong with.

Dataloss. It's a miracle more hasn't happened already to average camera or computer users with how little people care about the storage and replication of their 0's and 1's.

[Kirk Gittings]

Classifying work as cliches is meaningless IMHO. The first real question when looking at an image is "is it any good" not "has it been done before". There is always room for improvement and fresh vision even in well worn genres.

[Jeffrey Sipress]

Great minds think alike!

[Richard M. Coda]

But I have seen balloons and seagulls pasted into over-satuated landscapes which cause me to cringe when I see them. I've even created a couple of the monstrosities myself (the mark of a true cliche is that everyone has tried it)

I just found out on Conscientious blog... this has a name... "Collage Art"

I remember doing that in 1st grade... now it's art?

[Richard M. Coda]

Here's another one... close up, blurry photos of "toys" (figures/houses/machinery) in staged environments.

[jnantz]

portraits, landscapes, abstracts, architectural photography
its all cliché at this point

[Jeffrey Sipress]

photography internet discussion groups! (j/k)

[bvstaples]

I don't think a "d" in "dSLR" above has much to do with it, it's all in the head - those "photographers" would be achieving the exact same results with automated film SLRs. If anything, the DOF should be even shallower with the same angle-of-view lens on a full-frame than on APS-C.

You are right for the rest, though.

I stand corrected! I just added the "d" because the few film users on the local forum (and we're talking about 3-4 people on a forum of 100s) are starting to pay attention to things like DOF. It's almost like the film camp, small as it is, is going after a slowed-down process, which includes DOF among the other tenants—the thing, detail, frame, vantage, time, light, focus, color. Not to start a possible war, but I find most people who exclusively use dSLRs for photography to be a somewhat "automated" crowd. They tend to be picture takers, not picture makers.

Brian

[Paul Kierstead]

Young photographers making pictures of young people staring into empty space=Very boring.


(and a couple of other mentions of that too).

You are right in that I suppose it has become a cliche, but I actually find the form kind of interesting. It can be interesting to strip the humanity from the humans, as it were, and just make them into objects. And, as you note, it is a favorite of young photographers and I think it might be an insightful, interesting comment on how they young see the world.

Or it could just be an affectation. Hard to tell some days.

[Paul Kierstead]

Here's another one... close up, blurry photos of "toys" (figures/houses/machinery) in staged environments.

Ummmm.....

Always hard to detect jokes sometimes on the internets.

[Richard M. Coda]

Ummmm.....

Always hard to detect jokes sometimes on the internets.

Not a joke.

[John NYC]

Having just stuck two shallow DOF DSLR pictures on my photostream (as well as one abuse of tilt-shift on my 45), I will still have a go at the most recent cliches because my read through here didn't catch them...

- Shots where the subject (usually the photographer) is "levitating" or "flying" using Photoshop techniques.

- The die-hard self-portraitist that takes 1,000 shots per year of themselves, only made affordable via digital technology.

- People on flickr with 7,453 randomly composed city scenes. Again, really only made possible by digital technology.

- Overly pastel photos. (This is a reaction to the oversaturated I think.) This has been in fine art photos for a while but is making its way over to mainstream proper.

- Fantasy game-inspired photography

- "Overly-happy, the world is such a lush and wonderful place, made to look like a snapshot but really done by a professional photographer" shots.

- See almost anything on flickr Explore.

[Paul Kierstead]

Not a joke.

It would seem you speaking of the so-called tilt-shift photographs, which involve neither staged environments nor toys (but appear that way). Perhaps I mis-read what you mean.

[Richard M. Coda]

It would seem you speaking of the so-called tilt-shift photographs, which involve neither staged environments nor toys (but appear that way). Perhaps I mis-read what you mean.

They use actual toys in a staged environment... very popular in art schools. I don't particularly care for tilt-shift images either... they make me dizzy.

[Paul Kierstead]

Ah, well now you got me interested. This is the only cliche so far that I've missed out on... does it have a name as such?

[Richard M. Coda]

Ah, well now you got me interested. This is the only cliche so far that I've missed out on... does it have a name as such?

Examples:

http://bradleywollman.com/home.html

http://www.davisanddavis.org/gallery.html

There's plenty more but I can't remember (it was not rememberable) and I don't want to waste any more of my time wading through it all...

[John NYC]

Examples:

http://bradleywollman.com/home.html

http://www.davisanddavis.org/gallery.html

There's plenty more but I can't remember (it was not rememberable) and I don't want to waste any more of my time wading through it all...

I think Laurie Simmons does this type of thing well, both in still and film (but often including real people in the latter).

[Gerry Meekins]

Seems like there was a lot of "Dead Pan" early in the decade and then the "HDR" as many have mentioned. But I think towards the end of the decade Digital Black & White Infrared was really the hot new trend/cliches..

[percepts]

"Giclée"

[Jack Dahlgren]

Examples:

http://bradleywollman.com/home.html

http://www.davisanddavis.org/gallery.html

There's plenty more but I can't remember (it was not rememberable) and I don't want to waste any more of my time wading through it all...

Oh... my...

"For the series, Childish Things, we stage mini-psychodramas on miniature sets with the toys portraying the conflicted children who left them behind. We then photograph the resulting tableaus with a shallow focus that suggests the bleary selectivity of memory. By these means, we hope to achieve for the conflicted, former toy-owners a measure of catharsis by proxy."

To be honest, razors my eyeballs would be more cathartic.

[Paul Kierstead]

Examples:
http://bradleywollman.com/home.html
http://www.davisanddavis.org/gallery.html


Thank you very much.

Curious. I'll admit, I don't "get" it. It would seem to be more like documentary photographs of art (with the art being the toys) then stand-alone images with appeal on their own. Clever at best, I think.



Can't remember if it has been mentioned, but : Flare

[Jeffrey Sipress]

"Giclée"

Damn, you are so right.

[Robert Hughes]

Ummmm.....

Always hard to detect jokes sometimes on the internets.

Not a joke.

Laughing at Internet non-jokes! :p

[rdenney]

Of course, the definitive photo-cliche of this decade is everything you guys shoot, versus what I shoot.

Or so it would seem from some of the comments.

I don't think the over-saturated color landscape is the cliche of the 2000's. I think it's the cliche of the 1990's, when Velvia really took hold. Extending the Velvia effect digitally is just a new way to express an old cliche. (And the cliche isn't that new--we were talking about postcard color in my photography studies during the 70's, and about "tube color"--which meant basically the same thing--in painting class.) Would the overuse of grad filters in color photography fit in this cliche, or is that the precursor cliche to the HDR cliche?

I like the spacy portrait of sloppily dressed expressionless young'uns staring into space. I think these became a photo-cliche the first time someone described these portraits as "honest". The contrived earnestness (and self-absorption) of the upcoming generation really drives this one as the definitive photo-cliche of the 2000's.

As far as rephotographing familiar subjects, that cliche knows no decade. Although--I once undertook the exercise of Googling images of Delicate Arch to see how easily it would be to pick mine out of the crowd, and discovered that no two were even particularly similar. When we see one, it is so familiar that we think it is derivative of some other photographer. Turns out, all photographers are derivative of the Creator. Who knew? In looking at 20 pages of Googled images of Delicate Arch, I could tell mine wasn't among them, even with only a two-second cursory glance at each page full of thumbnails.

The use of camera movements to make photos unsharp rather than sharp is a real contender for photo-cliche of the last 10 years, too. It really gives the pseudo-honest non-portrait a run for its money. I shocked a digital SLR forum with the notion that one might use movements to increase sharpness rather than reduce it. How shocking!

Rick "the fake Photoshop frames--that's a good one, too" Denney

[Kirk Gittings]

Although--I once undertook the exercise of Googling images of Delicate Arch to see how easily it would be to pick mine out of the crowd, and discovered that no two were even particularly similar.

Scary. My impression of that exercise is very different. That is not cliche-that is the visual equivalent of a Big Mac.

[Merg Ross]

The problem with a term like cliche, relative to photography, is accounting for the visual maturity of the audience. The challenge of the creative photographer is to bring new life to old subjects. In such context, cliche would not exist.

So, we have yet to see the ultimate photograph of a flower, sunset, rock, nude, landscape, or pepper. It has all been done, and there is the opportunity to do it differently.

[rdenney]

Scary. My impression of that exercise is very different. That is not cliche-that is the visual equivalent of a Big Mac.

What is cliche, though, is when people try to make the Big Mac look like prime rib using the same goofy techniques others use.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Delicate_Arch_on_June_29%2C_2008_by_Jonathan_Martinez.jpg

This public-domain image is an example. Why tilt the frame? Doing so is a cliche response, it seems to me, to the perceived necessity to be original.

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/delicate_arch_at_sunset_lores.jpg

Mine is not a cliche just because a zillion other photographers made pictures from the same spot. It is true to itself, not a copy of what others have done. I wasn't looking at other photographs, and applying the cliche techniques of the day to make mine somehow more relevant. .(The cliche use of high saturation is an accident--I posted this image some years ago before I had a color-managed workflow, and I need to go back and reinterpret these old scans.) But just because it isn't a cliche doesn't mean it isn't as boring as a Big Mac. Maybe that was your point. Each image, though, reflects something of the photographer's perspective and timing, and mine reflect how it looked when I was there. What amazes me is that even these Big Macs are hard to pin down with a definitive image.

Rick "so, maybe cliche applies to technique rather than subject" Denney

[Ross Chambers]

HDR

Next decade:


A serious waning of printed display art. Despite the low cost and high availability of good posters and good cheap big prints, more and more photos will be "permanently" exhibited for 10 seconds at a time on a wall mounted LCD/LED display or big screen TVs as people try to keep up with the Jonses. Count on distracting transitions between images.



Do pardon me for editing your post, but this point caught my eye.

The highest paying photography prize in Australia incorporates (bless their hearts) a schoolkids' section. The pictures that are not selected for this section by the undoubtedly superb curators for print display are, indeed, shown on a electronic display, usually cropped to fit (and the day I visited some portrait compositions were tipped through 90 degrees to landscape, as was my head).

To my eye many of the second choice group on this display were far more original, the printed ones did fall into my idea of cliche.

But I'm sure that the capacity to show more in less room must have an appealing productivity for gallery owners. So far this manner of electronic exhibition has operated as an adjunct to hung prints, I'm not sure about the future.

Regards - Ross

[Steve Gledhill]

... Web sites that include "fine art photography" in the title. If you have to tell us it's fine art then it probably isn't.

Agreed. The photographer is the last person who can make that assertion.

And images printed to include the frame edge, either real or even worse, digitally added. Can someone please explain that to me - I must be missing something.

[jp]

What is cliche, though, is when people try to make the Big Mac look like prime rib using the same goofy techniques others use.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Delicate_Arch_on_June_29%2C_2008_by_Jonathan_Martinez.jpg

This public-domain image is an example. Why tilt the frame? Doing so is a cliche response, it seems to me, to the perceived necessity to be original.



I rather mostly like that image. You're welcome to like yours too.

I don't care for the fake vigneting (another cliche). I assume it's fake unless he used a Nikon 18-200 wide open, then it would be real.

Most of the images don't show the moon at dusk. And if they do, it's a cliche style of photoshopping in or appearing to photoshop in a telephoto moon that is properly exposed. This example of including the moon is realistic for a wide angle photograph. I prefer the scenic genre of photos to be realistic.

In the foreground, the curves of the rock are displayed well by this composition. One of the curves lead the eye right to the arch. The arch is a curve, and we like to photograph curves, so it's a automatic subject choice.

I also like the little bit of snow in the background, the distinction between the three mountains in the background; a close one in the middle, far away one on either side of the frame. And the only cloud in the photo is glowing over the far mountain.

The otherworldliness is enhanced by the carefully tilted horizon. The scene location, horizon and sky all work together for that aspect.

The composition certainly counts for different. If I were needing a postcard of the place, I'd choose that one off the rack just to be different. My recipients would question me for picking a postcard that's not generic and normally lit and level.

[poco]

There's an element of self portraiture in any photo since it lets the viewer borrow someone else's eyes to see the world as they see it. That element of self portraiture has exploded this decade with easy digital manipulation that lets photographers show not only what they see, but how they'd like to see it -- whether it take the form of hypercolored landscapes or the desaturated garage door sized stuff you see on gallery walls. The 2000's was the decade when the lens started to turn more back inward onto the photographer than outward onto a subject.

[Richard M. Coda]

Here's another one... the BS artist's statement...

like this one I found this morning...

"He is engulfed by the tragic and ironic and uses the storytelling capabilities of constructed narrative to manifest similar feelings of this. His work often conjures spaces of in-between where the lines between several emotions are blurred and the viewer is caught between the desire to smile and to feel disturbed."

[Bruce Watson]

Classifying work as cliches is meaningless IMHO. The first real question when looking at an image is "is it any good" not "has it been done before". There is always room for improvement and fresh vision even in well worn genres.

+1

[rdenney]

I rather mostly like that image. You're welcome to like yours too.

Which, of course, reinforces my first point, which is that what we like (or make) is not cliche, but what others like (or make) is.

I'm truly glad someone likes that tilted horizon. To me, it is a special effect that distracts from the scene rather than reinforcing it.

While in college, I won a photo contest with an image of a bike racer that I had reduced down to Kodalith and printed as line graphic. I just ran across the 4x5 Kodalith internegative the other day. Pleased with that success, I tried the same trick next year. One of the judges taught me a good lesson by pulling me aside and explaining that we should always ask whether a special effect improves the subject or distracts from it, and whether it makes the image better or just different.

It seems to me that those special effects, when used for their own sake, are what become cliches.

Rick "who actually hadn't really noticed the Moon as such in that image because of that distraction" Denney

[rdenney]

Here's another one... the BS artist's statement...

like this one I found this morning...

"He is engulfed by the tragic and ironic and uses the storytelling capabilities of constructed narrative to manifest similar feelings of this. His work often conjures spaces of in-between where the lines between several emotions are blurred and the viewer is caught between the desire to smile and to feel disturbed."

Heh. I'm reminded of a journalist who, before becoming a journalist, was a trained trombonist on the orchestra audition circuit. Having had no success there, he took lessons with the noted brass teach Arnold Jacobs. Jacobs listened to him play, and listened to him talk about his playing, and then told him that he expressed himself in words far more naturally than in music. Any photographer who could write a really good artist's statement perhaps ought to be a writer, and anyone who can't should probably just step away from the keyboard.

Or, hand their writing to an average, well-educated but not artsy person and see their reaction. Confusion or laughter would be a bad sign.

Rick "whose photographs can fall flat all by themselves without help from bad writing" Denney

[Vaughn]

Even though I have sounded off here earlier, the more I read the more I am wondering if the use of the word "Cliche'" might be cliche'.

And dang it, this topic was a bit late -- I just printed out thirty business cards identifying myself as a "Fine Art Photographer". Instant cliche' -- that's me! Hopefully the people I give them to will understand that "Fine Art Photographer" means...Please do not be surprised when I say 'No' when asked if I do weddings or senior portraits.:D

Vaughn

[Richard M. Coda]

Even though I have sounded off here earlier, the more I read the more I am wondering if the use of the word "Cliche'" might be cliche'.

And dang it, this topic was a bit late -- I just printed out thirty business cards identifying myself as a "Fine Art Photographer". Instant cliche' -- that's me! Hopefully the people I give them to will understand that "Fine Art Photographer" means...Please do not be surprised when I say 'No' when asked if I do weddings or senior portraits.:D

Vaughn

I know... I've been using it for 20 years... guess it's time to drop the "fine-art" :D

[cjbroadbent]

E...Please do not be surprised when I say 'No' when asked if I do weddings or senior portraits.:D Vaughn
A 'Senior Portrait' genre! That's new to me. You mean there's a real market?

[Vaughn]

A 'Senior Portrait' genre! That's new to me. You mean there's a real market?

I live in Humboldt County -- a "real market" is the Safeway and Costco towards the center of town. But I am afraid the Senior Portrait market is rather seasonal. High schools are letting students submit their own senior portrait for the Yearbook, rather than from a single hired photographer.

Or did you think I meant "Senior" as in "senior citizen"? From what I understand that portrait market crashed after Polaroid went belly up -- if you can't get an image to them in 60 seconds, they don't want to invest in something they may never see. This is the same group that don't buy green bananas.

Vaughn

[Steve Gledhill]

Here's another one... the BS artist's statement...

like this one I found this morning...

"He is engulfed by the tragic and ironic and uses the storytelling capabilities of constructed narrative to manifest similar feelings of this. His work often conjures spaces of in-between where the lines between several emotions are blurred and the viewer is caught between the desire to smile and to feel disturbed."

This is priceless.

[Steve Gledhill]

...
From what I understand that portrait market crashed after Polaroid went belly up -- if you can't get an image to them in 60 seconds, they don't want to invest in something they may never see. This is the same group that don't buy green bananas.
Vaughn

I'm not sure I like being included in the "them" and "they" :(

[John NYC]

The word cliche also goes beyond simply meaning having been said/expressed...

http://m-w.com/dictionary/cliche

I think hackneyed is how most people are meaning it here from my reading of this thread...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/HACKNEYED

[BarryS]

I've created this handy Venn diagram to keep track of all the ideas about what are and aren't cliches.

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/6567/presentation1kz.jpg

[John NYC]

+1


I've created this handy Venn diagram to keep track of all the ideas about what are and aren't cliches.

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/6567/presentation1kz.jpg

Nice work! That definition should probably also be added to the dictionary!

[Jeffrey Sipress]

Holy cow, Barry, I hope I'm one of them!

[Vaughn]

I'm not sure I like being included in the "them" and "they" :(

If they aren't us, we will be.;)

Vaughn

PS...yea, Berry!

[Merg Ross]

Web sites that include "fine art photography" in the title. If you have to tell us it's fine art then it probably isn't.


Classifying work as cliches is meaningless IMHO. The first real question when looking at an image is "is it any good" not "has it been done before". There is always room for improvement and fresh vision even in well worn genres.

Right on!

[cjbroadbent]

I'm not sure I like being included in the "them" and "they" :(
I'm also an NGB. Shred the bad negs now.

[joeyrsmith]

"Giclée"

Amen to that.
At a very recent art fair here in the Keys, I had a rich kinda snooty women say to me, "is that a Giclee?". I said "its my photo printed on canvas".
She looked at me very weird while I smiled pleasently. She says that means its a Giclee.
I said "no, thats a french word for printed on canvas, and I dont speak French"
She huffed and walked away.
Someone else bought my Giclee.

[Ross Chambers]

(Warning: Adult content)

"Giclee:
1 Burst of machine gun fire, Envoyer une giclee: To Fire a burst.
2 "Spunk; Spurt of semen, Tirer une giclee To ejaculate"

Dictionary of Modern Colloquial French.

I wonder how the Francophile Canadians describe their prints made this way?

Regards - Ross

[Ross Chambers]

Whoops -- Francophone, not Francophile.

Ross

[Dirk Rösler]

"Hi, I am an ART photographer. I make ART. Visit my ARTISTIC web site. My limited edition ART prints are $1000 each, special offer."

200x style

[Mark Sawyer]

Why tilt the frame? Doing so is a cliche response, it seems to me, to the perceived necessity to be original.


Being original has become cliche.

Only by working in cliches can one find an individual vision for today.

[Dirk Rösler]

Being original has become cliche.

Only by working in cliches can one find an individual vision for today.

Very nicely said.

As the answers show, ask enough people and you cover everything as clichéd or having been done before etc. Yet, despite everything having been photographed (I believed within the first 50 years of the medium), there is always potential for the new in everything. Good luck!

[percepts]

My normal response to someone saying one of my prints has been done before is: "Not by me". We all think we can make a better job of it than the next person. Frequently not the case though.
The great photos do tend to be highly original and often there is an element of luck in them. Just happened to be in the right place at the right time and all that.

[percepts]

(Warning: Adult content)

"Giclee:
1 Burst of machine gun fire, Envoyer une giclee: To Fire a burst.
2 "Spunk; Spurt of semen, Tirer une giclee To ejaculate"

Dictionary of Modern Colloquial French.

I wonder how the Francophile Canadians describe their prints made this way?

Regards - Ross

Yup you got to be careful with french. I owned a Toyota MR2 years ago which I drove to Paris. Unknown to me the MR2 is known in France as Merde.

[Noeyedear]

Each decade seems to have a definitive photo cliche. In the 60's it was the "grain be damned" pushed Tri-X shot of the gritty inner city. In the 70's it was a portrait shot with a backlit subject standing against a tree with a cascade of internal reflections coming across the image. In the 80's I think it was a row of brightly pastel colored rowboats tied to a dock. In the 90's - I'm not sure. The 2000's I think it was the super-saturated nature porn shot (hello Ken Rockwell). What do you folks think were the leading cliches by decade?

Not shure if this has been suggested as I have not read all the posts.
Surly it must be the camera phone self portrait shot at arms length, as seen on Facebook etc.

Kevin.

[gevalia]

Leonard, you don't get it.

Toyon, I hate those faces. In fact, I never photograph people. I don't like them.

Minimum age to be in one of my photographs is 1 million years.

[nray]

A few that come to mind for me are:

-the wide angle shore scenes done in a long exposure. (Usually with rocks in the foreground.)
-water drops, water trickling, water droplets on the surface of something reflecting a brightly colored background within them, stop action of water drop splashing into a liquid.
-dreamy waterfall scenes done in a long exposure. (sorry)

All these types of photos should be banned from the universe and never taken again. (Or at least until the next century.)

[percepts]

autumn leaves on the ground.
Trees.

That's it we just about covered everything that people on this forum photograph :rolleyes:

[BradS]

I don't know if it is cliche or just plain crap but, I am so sick of seeing this shit that I could just barf...

1) anything made with a soft focus lens where the image is only interesting because of the lens with which it was made.

2) use of camera movements or the lens baby thing to make nearly everything out of focus - I recently saw a whole batch of photos somebody made a building with their Crown/Speed Graphic where even flat surfaces where it looked like they just went out and set every available movement at the extreme limit to make everything but a small area of the image completely out of focus.

3) B&W photos from an ostensibly color process (ie color image converted to B&W or a Digital image in B&W).

4) inane and pointless nudes....

5) faked film borders

6) HDR & hideously over saturated color in general (yes, velvia!) .

7) the narcissist self portrait.

[Brian Ellis]

Seems like there was a lot of "Dead Pan" early in the decade and then the "HDR" as many have mentioned. But I think towards the end of the decade Digital Black & White Infrared was really the hot new trend/cliches..

I don't understand how "HDR" can be a cliche. It's a technique. Done properly one can't tell whether an image was made using HDR or not. If all HDR is a cliche then all dodging and burning is a cliche as well and I don't think that's the case. Maybe you mean "HDR done badly?"

[BradS]

Maybe you mean "HDR done badly?"


I don't think I've ever seen HDR that was NOT "done badly".

[Noeyedear]

I don't think I've ever seen HDR that was NOT "done badly".

How would you know it's HDR if it's done well?

Kevin.

[BradS]

How would you know it's HDR if it's done well?

Kevin.

textual information describing the image.

[Robert Hughes]

I don't know if it is cliche or just plain crap but, I am so sick of seeing this shit that I could just barf...

4) inane and pointless nudes....

WTF!?!! Are you kidding? There can NEVER be enough inane and pointless nudes - by definition! We want more! As Mark Twain said, "Too much of anything is bad, but too much whiskey is just enough!"

[BradS]

...I think that perhaps, Mark Twain never encountered "too much wiskey".

[Paul Kierstead]

So, we have yet to see the ultimate photograph of a flower, sunset, rock, nude, landscape, or pepper. It has all been done, and there is the opportunity to do it differently.

I think when it is done differently, it is done perhaps in genre, but not cliche. Cliche is when it is done according to formula without variation, or perhaps a technique (example: flare) carried out by rote, especially when done without any subtlety.

[Vaughn]

autumn leaves on the ground.
Trees.

That's it we just about covered everything that people on this forum photograph :rolleyes:

But I made a double exposure with the camera de-focused on the second shot! That moves it beyond cliche', right?:confused:

Vaughn;)

[percepts]

But I made a double exposure with the camera de-focused on the second shot! That moves it beyond cliche', right?:confused:


No it makes it a cliche of a cliche. That's Kitsch.

[Vaughn]

No it makes it a cliche of a cliche. That's Kitsch.

How perceptive, percepts!:D

[Ben Calwell]

Slot canyons and bristlecone pines

[Kirk Gittings]

Slot canyons and bristlecone pines

Damn....cliches already......I haven't gotten to them yet.

[D. Bryant]

Cross processed color photos of anything - digital or analog!

[Jeremy Moore]

The definitive photo-cliche of the 2000's is:

The stagey portrait of a person facing the camera with no discernible expression.

Would this be the photo-cliche of the 1800's, too?

[Ross Chambers]

I don't know if it is cliche or just plain crap but, I am so sick of seeing this shit that I could just barf...

4) inane and pointless nudes....



Especially the ones where the poor long suffering young woman subject (and they always seem to be young women) has rested her more sensitive parts (well her "butt" as you Yanks say) on a fiendishly abrasive and rough rockery, often with rather cold looking water surrounding it . It makes MY flesh creep, literally.

Regards - Ross

[Bruce A Cahn]

Angel's wings, people holding frames around themselves, pink & blue rocks water & sky.

[theBDT]

...people holding frames around themselves...

YES

[bradley wollman]

Examples:

http://bradleywollman.com/home.html

http://www.davisanddavis.org/gallery.html

There's plenty more but I can't remember (it was not rememberable) and I don't want to waste any more of my time wading through it all...


Richard, I appreciate the link to my website. Despite being an art school graduate elitist, I am surprisingly accessible and willing to discuss my art, and why I do what I do. You should try asking about something if you don't understand it. It's how people learn from each other. Let's try it:

Could you please explain to me why black and white photographs of the American flag are not a cliche?

[Jack Dahlgren]

Bradley,

I suggest you refer to the following diagram:

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/6567/presentation1kz.jpg

:-)

[Richard M. Coda]

Richard, I appreciate the link to my website. Despite being an art school graduate elitist, I am surprisingly accessible and willing to discuss my art, and why I do what I do. You should try asking about something if you don't understand it. It's how people learn from each other. Let's try it:

Could you please explain to me why black and white photographs of the American flag are not a cliche?

No need to explain why you do what you do, Bradley. You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am, whether we agree or not.

Now back to the subject at hand... based strictly on numbers and the commonly accepted definition of "cliche" (something that has been done way too much, i.e. a high percentage of the time)… I have exactly ONE photo of a flag on my website. 1 out of 86 photos (1.2%). On your website there are 48 photos, out of which 38 are photographs of toys/figures in staged environments (79.2%). If statistics tell no lies, then I believe your images are cliche. There is a link to the Printed blog on your site. I looked at it... two other photographers doing the same thing.

Now, as this is your first post, welcome to the LARGE FORMAT photography forum. Do you use a LF camera?

[pocketfulladoubles]

Cliches are what got me interested in photography in the first place. The reason I wanted to take pictures is because of how cool I thought the silky long exposure waterfalls looked, and the razor thin DOF shots, and the...

Why is this so bad? They are fun to do. Not everything has to be a world-class statement does it?

[Jack Dahlgren]

No need to explain why you do what you do, Bradley. You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am, whether we agree or not.

Now back to the subject at hand... based strictly on numbers and the commonly accepted definition of "cliche" (something that has been done way too much, i.e. a high percentage of the time)…

Richard,

I don't think your definition holds up that well. If I am pioneering some new style all of my photos may be in that vein - searching for what I'm trying to pull out, but they may be something not done before. With your definition, they would be a cliche - but truly they would only be a personal cliche as they are unique to me.

Only truly random and unique work would not be a cliche. I don't think that sort of work would be very rewarding or interesting. Sometimes it takes a body of similar work to make a statement.

But beyond that, welcome to our new member.

[Richard M. Coda]

Sometimes it takes a body of similar work to make a statement.

That's fairly obvious , especially if the most important thing to the artist is making a statement. I prefer to make photographs.

[rdenney]

Only truly random and unique work would not be a cliche.

Even that is a cliche--Jackson Pollock (and others of his era) made art out of seemingly random processes. Turns out, all that random stuff ends up looking pretty similar.

I think a cliche is a technique applied by an artist because others have provided it, in hopes of capturing something they have captured (cynically: a market; charitably: a style), without really understanding it. Judging it is subjective (refer to that Venn diagram above). But in our hearts, we know when we are making a photo to serve a technique rather than the other way around, and if the technique is the flavor of the month, then it might attract the cliche description.

On the other hand, we copy styles of the masters thinking that maybe by doing so, something of what was going on in their heads will happen in ours. And it works often enough not to reject it as a learning technique outright.

Rick "thinking that photographing bums and downtrodden folk in hopes of looking 'relevant' is a particularly nasty and pervasive cliche" Denney

[Jack Dahlgren]

Even that is a cliche--Jackson Pollock (and others of his era) made art out of seemingly random processes. Turns out, all that random stuff ends up looking pretty similar.


What I am saying is that the work itself has to be random. Not that a random process was used. You would have to use a different process every time AND have a different result. Pouring/splashing paint would be ok for one work. The next you would have to bake a cherry pie. Maybe a black and white image of an American flag then a tuba symphony.

I'm saying that the definition is unworkable. Doing similar things over and over is a path to cliche, but also a path to mastery.

[rdenney]

...then a tuba symphony.

Whew! For a second there I thought you were taking me seriously.

Rick "just a middle-aged fat guy with a keyboard" Denney

[Drew Wiley]

Rick - please forgive me for once again spouting off my opinionated two cents worth;
but J. Pollock didn't do anything random. All those spatters and poured swirls contain
a brilliant gestalt, with the dude absolutely somehow absorbed in exactly how he was splattering the stuff. What is a cliche is anyone simply attempting to ape the process,
without either the conscious or subconscious handle on what is transpiring. No one but
Pollock coud do a Pollock, and to my amateur eye at least, not one of his paintings look the same. Each work is special in its own way, and is absolutely fascinating. The same can be said with respect to great photography. Thousands of photographers are able to ape a certain style, but why do certain images contain such cogent poetry, while others are simply pretentious?

[bradley wollman]

No need to explain why you do what you do, Bradley. You are entitled to your opinion, just as I am, whether we agree or not.

Now back to the subject at hand... based strictly on numbers and the commonly accepted definition of "cliche" (something that has been done way too much, i.e. a high percentage of the time)… I have exactly ONE photo of a flag on my website. 1 out of 86 photos (1.2%). On your website there are 48 photos, out of which 38 are photographs of toys/figures in staged environments (79.2%). If statistics tell no lies, then I believe your images are cliche. There is a link to the Printed blog on your site. I looked at it... two other photographers doing the same thing.

Now, as this is your first post, welcome to the LARGE FORMAT photography forum. Do you use a LF camera?


Richard,

I used to use a large format when I was in art school.

Strictly using numbers is no good, as 98% of the images on your website are black and white and 100% of the pictures on my website are pictures.

You can't assume that everyone taking pictures is trying to be 100% original. Artists build off of each others work to advance the medium.

So, who are your 7 favorite photographers?

[Richard M. Coda]

Richard,

I used to use a large format when I was in art school.

Strictly using numbers is no good, as 98% of the images on your website are black and white and 100% of the pictures on my website are pictures.

You can't assume that everyone taking pictures is trying to be 100% original. Artists build off of each others work to advance the medium.

So, who are your 7 favorite photographers?

Bradley:

OK, so I assume you're here to learn about LF since you aren't actively using it. That's good.

Actually, only 83% of my images are BW. I don't know why you differentiated between images and pictures... pictures means something else to me.

My 7 favs...

Edward Weston
Brett Weston
Walker Evans
Eugene Atget
Josef Sudek
Edward Steichen
George Tice (not dead)
Ansel Adams, too (I know that's 8)

mostly all dead, white guys, as you might expect, known by just about every photographer out there.

Now, who are you 7 favorite?

[rdenney]

Rick - please forgive me for once again spouting off my opinionated two cents worth;
but J. Pollock didn't do anything random. All those spatters and poured swirls contain
a brilliant gestalt, with the dude absolutely somehow absorbed in exactly how he was splattering the stuff. What is a cliche is anyone simply attempting to ape the process,
without either the conscious or subconscious handle on what is transpiring. No one but
Pollock coud do a Pollock, and to my amateur eye at least, not one of his paintings look the same. Each work is special in its own way, and is absolutely fascinating. The same can be said with respect to great photography. Thousands of photographers are able to ape a certain style, but why do certain images contain such cogent poetry, while others are simply pretentious?

You are making my point, actually. To me, cliche is when we "ape a process" in hopes of cashing in on a current fad. I might define it more formally as "derivative of everyone."

I was not, for the record, trying to equate Pollack with being a "randomness cliche", but rather making a bit of joke in response to another comment that the only way to avoid cliche was being random. More seriously, I would modify that statement by suggesting that it isn't the sameness or difference that makes it cliche, it's that cliche is derivative in the same way everyone else is also derivative. Pollack wasn't at all derivative, and few have attempted to derive their work from his, so he remains absolutely not a cliche. That said, we can all picture a living room in a Manhattan apartment with Danish Modern furniture, white carpet, an Eames chair occupied by a hip beatnik, and a Pollack over the sofa, can't we?

If I stand before, say, Half-Dome, and think: "Okay, this is where Ansel Adams stood, and if I do this and this and this I'll get a photograph just like his." That is entirely derivative. If a zillion photographers do exactly the same thing, then that approach to Half Dome becomes cliche.

But maybe I stand before Half-Dome and think: "Wow. How do I capture that power, thrust, and gesture in a photograph?" We might engage our own mental processes and technique in reaching a solution, and we might do it well or poorly. But it is not derivative, even if it has been down a thousand times before. If we think, "I'll be one of the hip kids and turn the camera at a 45-degree angle," then we are trying to be derivative of our idea of hip, and if all the hipsters are turning their pictures at angles to make them hip, it becomes a cliche.

Of course, when I stand before Half-Dome, I'm not thinking about Adams. I'm thinking, "I have to make this picture in a hurry because we need to be down in the valley by lunch, and what are those people over there doing so close to the edge? and will Someone Please Deal With That Crying Baby and I can't see the damn ground glass because I forgot my loupe and this is Half Dome this is Half Dome this is Half Dome this is Half Dome this is Half Dome this is Half Dome this is Half Dome I have to make magic I have to make magic I have to make magic I have to make magic I have to make magic I have to make magic" and end up falling back on my mental image of Half Dome as influenced by typical photographs of the west without really engaging my brain and the result of all that mental noise is Just Another Picture of Half Dome, competent, but not inspired.

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/half_dome_070292_nar_lores.jpg

Rick "real emotion is neither derivative nor stale nor a cliche" Denney

[bigdog]

Could you please explain to me why black and white photographs of the American flag are not a cliche?

Oh, Jeez! I hope not. Someday I plan to do a whole series of these ... :eek:

[bradley wollman]

Bradley:

OK, so I assume you're here to learn about LF since you aren't actively using it. That's good.

Actually, only 83% of my images are BW. I don't know why you differentiated between images and pictures... pictures means something else to me.

My 7 favs...

Edward Weston
Brett Weston
Walker Evans
Eugene Atget
Josef Sudek
Edward Steichen
George Tice (not dead)
Ansel Adams, too (I know that's 8)

mostly all dead, white guys, as you might expect, known by just about every photographer out there.

Now, who are you 7 favorite?

Actually, I just don't like the way you talk down about peoples' work when they aren't around to defend themselves. That is why I am here. Why am I an example of cliche and you are not?
So, what percent qualifies cliche, 79.2% or 83%?
I don't actually care who your 7 favorite photographers are, I was trying to make a point.
As far as the images/pictures mix up, I didn't mean anything by it. Should we start a thread for whose images are pictures and whose pictures are images?

[Drew Wiley]

Thanks for relating that, Rick. I recall a 5x7 shot of lichen by Johsel Namkung which
I like a great deal and certainly resembles a Pollock painting. If Pollock hadn't existed, that kind of shot would probably never have been recognized as a potential
composition. Lots of us have probably done something similar with color film and
rocks or whatever. But Pollock could have never made that shot, even if he had been
a photographer. It's saturated with the fugues and calming passages of Namkung,
who was trained as a classical musician, like AA. Pollocks paintings, on the other
hand, are saturated with all his hectic neurosis. So in its own way, I regard Namkung's photograph as original and creative, even if some Pollock imagery was
consciously or subconsiously behind it. But if I search around on Flikr or the usual
suspects for such subject matter - cliche, cliche, cliche. But I guess that if you throw
a dented beercan in the foreground you gain legitmacy as a relevant "environmental
photographer" (cliche,cliche,cliche).

[Richard M. Coda]

Actually, I just don't like the way you talk down about peoples' work when they aren't around to defend themselves. That is why I am here. Why am I an example of cliche and you are not?
So, what percent qualifies cliche, 79.2% or 83%?
I don't actually care who your 7 favorite photographers are, I was trying to make a point.
As far as the images/pictures mix up, I didn't mean anything by it. Should we start a thread for whose images are pictures and whose pictures are images?

I'm not talking down to anyone... the original post was "cliches" of the past decade. The type of work you do has been prevalent in the past decade. To tell you the truth, I don't remember seeing much, if any, of that kind of work before the last decade. Seems a lot of it came out of the art schools between 2000-2009. That's all.

I didn't single you out on purpose... I read quite a few of the blogs by your contemporaries (I don't know why, but I do)... the two examples I picked are just the last two I could find, probably the most recent. I did state that I did not have the time to wade through two years worth of blogs by many different contemporary photographers. If I offended you, I apologize. In fact, the only reason I put those two websites is because Mr. Kierstead didn't know what I was talking about (photos of toys in staged environments). Next time I'll just mention the genre.

Now, since you have only been photographing for three years (according to your site) you would fit into that "last decade" timeframe. I've been photographing for 30 years, and yes, my photography is indicative of my choices for 7 favorites. In fact, I even have a series on my blog on "inspirations"... how historically important photographers have influenced my work. I photograph whatever catches my eye... no (preconceived) projects. If a series arises out of my work after 30 years, which has not happened - although I could generate several portfolios if I desired, great. If not, no big deal. I photograph because I enjoy it. Reading most of this LF post you will see most of us practice this kind of photography, and even make fun of ourselves for imitating Ansel or Edward or Brett or Walker.

But, it seems that your work (except for your "Real Life" series) is all about making political statements using the aforementioned technique. It would be interesting to see, in 27 years, if you are still doing this same type of work.

[dwross]

...But maybe I stand before Half-Dome and think: "Wow. How do I capture that power, thrust, and gesture in a photograph?" We might engage our own mental processes and technique in reaching a solution, and we might do it well or poorly. But it is not derivative...
http://www.rickdenney.com/images/half_dome_070292_nar_lores.jpg

Rick "real emotion is neither derivative nor stale nor a cliche" Denney

This is a really lovely image of Half Dome, without the slightest whiff of cliche. Well done, Rick.

[Paul Kierstead]

Actually, I just don't like the way you talk down about peoples' work when they aren't around to defend themselves. That is why I am here.

No good can come of this. As an artist, your work is presented and not all people will approve of it. It doesn't need defending, the works stands for itself. Some work may be sufficiently esoteric or abstract that some explanation is in order (or some work requires context), but I think defending work, particularly by coming back on the attack, is pretty much always doomed. It isn't really defensible (all artistic work, not just yours), and no ones mind will change by dint of an argument about its merits. Sometimes further exposure could change ones mind.

I do have a question, though. It is kind of odd, so I hope you understand my meaning; what to you think makes your images art, as opposed to pictures of art? If I do a 'straight' picture of The Thinker, is the photograph art or the sculpture? I presume you do the arrangement, selections, etc yourself, so I see the art there, but what does the photographic medium add to it, outside of allowing those not present to view it in some form? Or do I misunderstand the intent here?

[rdenney]

This is a really lovely image of Half Dome, without the slightest whiff of cliche. Well done, Rick.

Wow! Thanks! Ilex Paragon 8-1/2", Calumet 4x5, FP4. Maybe 18 years ago. To quote Ralph Vaughan Williams, I don't know whether I like it, but it is what I meant at the time. That seems to me the sure way to avoid cliche.

Rick "noting that cliche is not the only artistic pitfall" Denney

[BradS]

Actually, I just don't like the way you talk down about peoples' work when they aren't around to defend themselves. That is why I am here. Why am I an example of cliche and you are not?
So, what percent qualifies cliche, 79.2% or 83%?
I don't actually care who your 7 favorite photographers are, I was trying to make a point.
As far as the images/pictures mix up, I didn't mean anything by it. Should we start a thread for whose images are pictures and whose pictures are images?


You're not gonna make it as an "artist" if you get this banged up over such a thing as this. I would have thought that going to art school would have taught you this....if nothing else. You must have a thicker skin that this...surely, they did not all blow hot air up your skirt all of the time at art school...did they? If they did...you're in for a really rude awakening. Good luck with that.

[Jack Dahlgren]

I studied Architecture. The reviewers sometimes made people cry or start ranting, especially after the person had been awake for three days straight subsisting on only cappucino and almond croissants.

No wonder they say that the only thing two architects can agree upon is that the third one is an a**h***

Perhaps Kinkade had it really rough...

[rdenney]

I studied Architecture. The reviewers sometimes made people cry or start ranting, especially after the person had been awake for three days straight subsisting on only cappucino and almond croissants.

No wonder they say that the only thing two architects can agree upon is that the third one is an a**h***

I couldn't take it any more. I had 80% of an architecture degree when I switched to engineering. There are whole semesters I can hardly remember because I never slept. There are poor grades explained thusly by the prof: "Wow, man, I really liked it right up to the final day of the project, but then, you know, I just couldn't relate to it, man." I had life drawing classes where the model gave me the pornographic view of her private parts, and then I got yelled at because I was drawing porn. There was the attempt to get a summer intern job with an architecture firm, in a big city with many dozens of firms, with a good portfolio and outstanding grades, during a boom time in that city, and no hope. In the end, I realized I just liked to design things, and engineers got to do that without owning their own company.

Rick "still scarred after only 30 years of Architectural Recovery, heh" Denney

[bradley wollman]

You're not gonna make it as an "artist" if you get this banged up over such a thing as this. I would have thought that going to art school would have taught you this....if nothing else. You must have a thicker skin that this...surely, they did not all blow hot air up your skirt all of the time at art school...did they? If they did...you're in for a really rude awakening. Good luck with that.


I actually find this debate interesting, but thanks for your concern.

[bradley wollman]

No good can come of this. As an artist, your work is presented and not all people will approve of it. It doesn't need defending, the works stands for itself. Some work may be sufficiently esoteric or abstract that some explanation is in order (or some work requires context), but I think defending work, particularly by coming back on the attack, is pretty much always doomed. It isn't really defensible (all artistic work, not just yours), and no ones mind will change by dint of an argument about its merits. Sometimes further exposure could change ones mind.

I do have a question, though. It is kind of odd, so I hope you understand my meaning; what to you think makes your images art, as opposed to pictures of art? If I do a 'straight' picture of The Thinker, is the photograph art or the sculpture? I presume you do the arrangement, selections, etc yourself, so I see the art there, but what does the photographic medium add to it, outside of allowing those not present to view it in some form? Or do I misunderstand the intent here?

I do come off as defensive... I do understand that some people just won't like my work because its not what they are into. That's fine. But its another thing to put a label on it. If you are going to label something, you should back it up.

as for you question,

The very definition of the word is relative. The definition of art that I work by - anything that is made with the intention of being art is art. You will have to make your own case for what good art is, and that may boil down to taste but art is art nonetheless. With that said.

I used photography because the whole of the body of work (the little war) is a statement about the limitations of photography as a medium. It is part of an effort to show that context is larger than four frames, and how people take that for granted in everyday life (and this was especially evident in the representation of the war on Iraq). I have always tried to use the medium to critique the medium. I hope that makes things clearer.

[Duane Polcou]

I think producing photo shoots of models with curves and cleavage is kind of cliche, but I have no intention of stopping.

1. I do it well.
2. I get paid.
3. I LOVE being around beautiful women.
4. Shooting a girl with rolls of fat on a tree stump in black and white to make an artistic statement about global freezing just doesn't seem like fun.

Model: Karla Michelle

http://i648.photobucket.com/albums/uu205/duanepolcou/NNKarlaMichelle3.jpg

[Richard M. Coda]

I used photography because the whole of the body of work (the little war) is a statement about the limitations of photography as a medium. It is part of an effort to show that context is larger than four frames, and how people take that for granted in everyday life (and this was especially evident in the representation of the war on Iraq). I have always tried to use the medium to critique the medium. I hope that makes things clearer.

This is where you lose most of us... I thought you were making an anti-war (or anti-Iraq or anti-Bush) statement... which is not out of the realm of possibility for today's college students. I never even thought that what you propose was even a possibility.

This is not talking down... your message was lost to the viewer.

[rdenney]

This is not talking down... your message was lost to the viewer.

Richard, that just makes you a Philistine.

Rick "me, too" Denney

[Richard M. Coda]

Richard, that just makes you a Philistine.

Rick "me, too" Denney

I've never stepped foot in Philidelphia! ;)

[Richard M. Coda]

I used photography because... is a statement about the limitations of photography as a medium.

I thought that's why people used Holgas!:D

[Robert Hughes]

I used photography because... is a statement about the limitations of photography as a medium.

I thought that's why people used Holgas!:D
Just like why Philistines root for the Phillies! :D

[John NYC]

Bradley, some of us who read this thread enjoyed viewing your work and appreciate it. Thought you'd like to know.

[Colin Graham]

Bradley, some of us who read this thread enjoyed viewing your work and appreciate it. Thought you'd like to know.

+1

[Paul Kierstead]

I used photography because the whole of the body of work (the little war) is a statement about the limitations of photography as a medium.

Thanks for the explanation. It does make me understand somewhat more clearly what you are driving at.

As an aside, the cliche I initially confused the description of your work with -- the so called tilt-shift pictures --- are an interesting example of demonstrating the limitations of the medium. Or our perception; that delineation is also interesting.

[drew.saunders]

Shallow DOF.



Awkward Family Photos had some fun with interesting shallow DOF for engagement photos: http://awkwardfamilyphotos.com/2010/01/07/dont-you-forget-about-him/

I can understand emphasizing the model, but de-emphasizing the guy in an engagement photo seems a tad silly.

I notice they didn't get any with the man in focus and woman not. Even if the photographers are using a cliché, at least they're not stupid.

[Thebes]

"HDR", and I put that in quotes because current printing and display technology is not HDR but rather tone-mapping of composited photos. Normally in the cliche, it is done to vomit-vision levels of the sliders.

[Stephen Willard]

So, if I compiled all the Photo-Cliches posted here, then is there anything left to photograph?

[jb7]

Scenic views of mountains and clouds...

[Drew Wiley]

Photographs on earth, that's something which has been done over and over and over.
Photographs from space - that's been done a lot too. Photographs with cameras -
millions of them. Photographs made with computers. Images capable of being seen with
our eyes - no creativity there either.

[Robert Hughes]

So, if I compiled all the Photo-Cliches posted here, then is there anything left to photograph?
Go for it! It's a contest! Let's see who can come up with the most cliches in a photo. :)

[Richard M. Coda]

http://dlkcollection.blogspot.com/2010/01/david-levinthal-ied-war-in-afghanistan.html

And again, to make a war/anti-war statement. Actually, I think making statements is cliche.

The toy figure photography has been going on longer than I suspected. So I guess it is officially cliche at this point. ;)

[bradley wollman]

http://dlkcollection.blogspot.com/2010/01/david-levinthal-ied-war-in-afghanistan.html

And again, to make a war/anti-war statement. Actually, I think making statements is cliche.

The toy figure photography has been going on longer than I suspected. So I guess it is officially cliche at this point. ;)

You paint with a broad brush.
I guess this is where we come full circle.
Are you not making a statement by photographing an American flag? You may not intend to, but you have no control of that once you put it in the public sphere. Have American flags been photographed more than toy soldiers?
I just don't see that you have a leg to stand on with this logic.

[Richard M. Coda]

You paint with a broad brush.
I guess this is where we come full circle.
Are you not making a statement by photographing an American flag? You may not intend to, but you have no control of that once you put it in the public sphere. Have American flags been photographed more than toy soldiers?
I just don't see that you have a leg to stand on with this logic.

Huh? I photographed a flag once or twice!

[ashlee52]

I think one can start by asking "What is becoming Generic?"

Todays digital cameras produce images with wonderous color, sharp focus, particualrly great depth of focus when simply set to "Auto Everything". The level of technical skill it would have taken to produce many of these pictures a few years back was huge. So technically good photos have become generic. Everyone can now make tecnically good photos of anything.

Of course the choice of subject matter, and treatment can often be as boring as the photos are technically good. Look at any photo site and see all the pictures of cats, flowers, and harbors at sunset without the first attempt at originality... or even composition. I consider these pictures stupidly dull... but not cliche... because the picture makers don't seem to have been trying to be "creative". (By the way some of the very dullest photos are on camera sites.)

More significant to this discussion, I think that, as a reaction to the technical perfection which has become generic, many "creative minded" photographers have most recently sought to make pictures with intentional flaws. Here is the realm of the cliche. Among a few that spring to mind: Razor thin DOF and contorted camera movements, adding grain, tilted horizons, ultra low contrast muddy prints (think alternative process), distorted lenses (Holgas, soft portrait lenses) photoshopping in elements which weren't naturally present to improve on nature, spot color in a B&W image, photoshop filters. So add all these new cliches to the traditional ones such as special effects filters, Velvia satuation, Fish Eye lenses, Kodalith contrast etc. Cliche comes from pushing an image to "be creative and different" while aping the latest "different look". It comes from photos which scream look at me, and then have nothing to say because they are just about technique... and unoriginal technique at that.

For me great photography simplifies... and provides revelation.

Good photography explains.

OK photography depicts.

And crappy photography is motivated more by a desire to be different than by a perceptive view of a subject.

And I can't help but nominate one other particularly favorite cliche of mine-- a compositional one. Why does seemingly every landscape photographer feel the need to include small foreground elements sized massively out of proportion to background elements (the monsterous foreground rock or flower dwarfing the background mountain range). If you think it makes your image look different... it doesn't.

Let me say that I don't mind photographs that lack complete originality. There is nothing wrong with another mountain shot with storm clouds against a black sky... or pictures where flowing water glows as a milky aperition. I'd love seeing photos of your wife or girlfriend in the buff in a wonderful setting. Sometimes a photo can be "about" something with no more meaning than "isn't that pretty". If we throw out the possibility of making nice photos of subjects which have already been photographed, or of employing techniques which are well known, then there would be precous little to do with our cameras. Good craft, honestly employed to personally attractive subjects is a great purpose for photographs. I would simply say that it is generally going to be the case that if a photographer looks at a subject and asks "How do I feel about this?" and "How can I convey those feelings in my photograph?" the pictures will probably be better, and hopefully more original.

I live in a wonderful physical environment, and many of my recent photographs are taken on my property. Many of them "mean" no more than "Right here at home is as pretty as anyplace any of the great photographers have depicted, you just have to see it". Similarly the "meaning" my photography of my family may be as simple as "I would like my children to have photographs of their youth as reflective of who they are as the great photographs of other children I have seen". In all of this I stride for very clean technique... honest, simple, clarifying... and yes pretty. Hopefully that is not cliche, even though others employ essentially all of the same techniques... but who knows?

[Richard M. Coda]

Nice post Ashlee. :)

[Robert Hughes]

Nice? Excessive. Too much generalization. Alternative photography, Lomography, Photoshop, retouching, lens distortions, unusual contrast, movements or perspective, all labelled as cliche and dumped in the trash. I think you forgot burning and dodging, that would complete the list....

Perhaps this comment was in itself a cliche.

[Richard M. Coda]

By nice I meant she was much more diplomatic than I was. :)

[ashlee52]

"Alternative photography, Lomography, Photoshop, retouching, lens distortions, unusual contrast, movements or perspective, all labelled as cliche and dumped in the trash."

Not really what I said. I said that photos which have intentional flaws and which are reliant on their crudeness rather than their content for impact are becoming cliche.

"I want to do something "creative and different" so I'll adopt this fashionable "different" style is the cliche of teenage immaturity. "I want to be different just like everybody else is being different".

Almost always with any new artisitc trend the first applications are original and suited to the meaning of the work... and the later imitations become cliche because they add no new revalation.

If you want to show me a picture done with alternative processing and a Holga show me an interesting picture. Because I'm already seeing a lot of people's cats photgraphed on the couch that way.

Kinda like atonal music. Maybe the first few explorations had value and revealed something. But enough is quickly enough... at least for me.

In the end I am sure we all ask the same questions... does a photograph show me anything new... is it seen in a different and better way than I might have seen that subject... is the craft high and applied with taste... do I wish that I had made that picture, even if it is in a style far from my own... is their a unique voice... and perhaps if not all of these things is it at least pretty, decorative or inviting of long consideration?

[pocketfulladoubles]

Is it cliche to define what is cliche? I mean, it's been done so many times before...

[Steve M Hostetter]

....

[D. Bryant]

and perhaps if not all of these things is it at least pretty, decorative or inviting of long consideration?

:rolleyes:

[Craig Moyer]

deadpan, snapshot aesthetic, portraits of friends at parties, etc

but i don't think this thread was meant to be taken seriously