Rebel against...: Continuing thoughts, rants, and some questions.
In point #4 of my original post I stated "become a painter." Expanding on that a little, unlike photography, most other arts mediums are not as restricted. The restrictions of the photographer, like the working light, angles, tones, etc., do not apply to other arts, at least not as much. Take painting for instance, painters have free range to create whatever light, angle, or tones they want. My friend had asked me today, "what are good photography references for learning about design?" I thought about it for a moment, and I told him he should go to the art gallery downtown.
And speaking of traditional art mediums, why is it that so many photographers act within one demension, why do so many never even take an interest in other mediums? I know there are those that do take an interest, but typically these people seem to be the exception. As I pondering this, and I think about how the traditional photographer works, creating photos in a methodical and organised fashion, often working at traditional angles and with traditional placements, is it no wonder that with such a restricted palette, many/most photographers create images that fall into the "forgetable category?" Is this the result of being told "these are the rules & techniques that you should use" to make a good photo? What happened to creativity? I wonder....
Now I'm not hinting to say that "rules and technique" are without merit, simply, I'm asking, should they be the photographers goal or even the main focus of photographic teaching? In my opinion, and from what I have seen, a technically perfect image is rarely perfect or even engaging. Many of the most inspiring images I have seen, have technical fault. But their raw visual imact is so poignant, so gripping, they transcend and overcome any technical shortcomings. So, what does that say? Personally, I'm starting to think that if I had one suggestion for an aspiring photographer, it would be to tell them that when someone else tells you "these are the rules," don't take it literally. These so called "rules" seem to be more of an aid for the beginner, to simply help them break out of bad habits. I do not think rules, in photography anyway, are intended to be "the be all to end all," and they certainly should not control a persons photographic view of the world, or the look of their photos. If you fall into the trap of strict adheance to rules or even estabilshied techniques you may be doomed to a portfolio of average or unoriginal images. I know this to be true because I have scrolled through many a photo website, and what l've noticed, is that most people create photo's of eerie similarity. Similar comps, similar looks, similar processing, similar subjects etc. Many times I can't help but look at these images for what they really are, a result of borrowed creativity, pawned off as original. To be unoriginal myself and to borrow a line from Joe McNally, you have to "put your camera in a different place," and do something different to make gains photographically. Imagine if Andy Warhol or Jackson Pollock resigned themselves to traditional painting styles. Would we know, or even care about their work? The same can be said for photography can it not?
So to bring this back around, the question I recently asked myself and the question I would suggest all photographers ask themselves, is, how do you see photography? Do you see photography as an art or a craft? The differences in the approach to each is what is key. If you call yourself an artist then how does your work differ from so many others?
Anyway, just some random ramblings. Perhaps I need to put the art books down.:elkgrin:
