When does a 'style' become a crutch?

[The_Traveler]

I was looking at a photo show yesterday and there was an interesting picture of a store window with some overlay of reflections. All fit quite nicely, no real intellectual point but it looked interesting.

I was talking to the photographer and she said that all of her pictures were like that - of reflections in windows of some sort.

That started me thinking. Now her work is being defined pretty much by her method - with the content being essentially irrelevant. That seems very similar to doing every in HDR or B&W. It seems like that becomes a comfortable place once the technique is down pat. I saw only one other that she had done and, while the reflection and the contents of the window bore some vague similarities, it was so common that the subject had no impact.

Any thoughts on 'style becoming a crutch' in this manner?

 

[Derrel]

I do not consider that a style, but rather an exploration of a theme, which is a time-honored practice in various art disciplines. As humans, we constantly use what are called schema, as a way to group and classify and relate to many types of objects and situations. We think of many,many things in a thematic manner using schema as mental shorthand, a way to classify things.Shooting and showing photographs that are built around a common thematic principle is a pretty solid operating procedure for many photographers. The commonalities are a given, proscribed as it were by the theme chosen; the viewer then has to use his or her brain to explore the differences and the meaning of the ACTUAL content, as framed by the thematic elements.

In this woman's case, let's say the photos are built using the theme of, "Real life as seen in the form of reflections". Reflections are NOT "a style"...reflected images are something that countless photographers have explored over 150+ years. It's a fairly common concept. I shot a reflection photo two days ago. If I went out and shot 100 reflections, I might develop something of interest.

 

[table1349]

I don't see it as any more of a crutch then people regularly starting questioning threads about other peoples choices in photography. It's what she likes, it's what she does. The same kind of question can be asked of photography for anyone other that the full time working photographer earning their living. Is photography a crutch for the hobbyist?

 

[pixmedic]

the better questions is....
how would you be affected if it turned out that her style was a crutch?
would a definitive answer change the way you feel about her work? Or her as a person?
some people work themselves into a certain niche...sometimes by design, sometimes by accident, sometimes just because its all they are good at.

I only shoot portraits. well, mostly only. Close enough to count though.
is portrait photography a crutch?
or backdrops and lighting since that's what I primarily use?

I generally do not like the word "style" to begin with...it seems to be overused and misused frequently.
I think maybe its more accurate to call her a "niche" photographer. she found something she likes to shoot, and a way she likes to shoot it, so that's what she does.

 

[sashbar]

It is not a style, it is just a series of themed photographs.

Having said that I have nothing against style serving as a crutch, be it photography or fine art. A lot of photographers and artists gained recognition and popularity primarily thanks to their distinct style, and there are huge names amongst them. Probably these days one can not be noticed if he/she does not have a crutch. But by the end of the day it always comes down to the quality of their work.

As for the "common shooters" like us, having a style already is an achievement. Most of us can not figure even that. I have recently read a post by an "enthusiast photog" who wrote "Life is too short to choose what to shoot and what not to. I can not afford that, so I shoot everything". This post has impressed me, to be honest. It is not often I encounter THAT lack of direction.

 

[minicoop1985]

ehhh... I gotta say, a particular friend of mine popped into my head. He bought a DSLR, then had a few neighbors pay him like $25-50 to shoot their kids. The photos I've seen of his were AWFUL-exposure all over the place (one particular photo that comes to mind was both overexposed and underexposed-black face, washed out background), motion blur where it shouldn't be, angles were strange, and this is all to my rather untrained eye. If you ask him why, he claims this is because he is a "natural light photographer, not one that cheats by using fancy lights." Basically, this character is like a "MWAC" (Mom With A Camera), but this time a dad. So what I'm getting at-he's using this "natural light photographer" thing as a crutch to avoid learning/reading/furthering himself because he's had a couple people pay him a year ago. Good guy, but kind of a moron.

 

[The_Traveler]

I do not consider that a style, but rather an exploration of a theme, which is a time-honored practice in various art disciplines. As humans, we constantly use what are called schema, as a way to group and classify and relate to many types of objects and situations. We think of many,many things in a thematic manner using schema as mental shorthand, a way to classify things.Shooting and showing photographs that are built around a common thematic principle is a pretty solid operating procedure for many photographers. The commonalities are a given, proscribed as it were by the theme chosen; the viewer then has to use his or her brain to explore the differences and the meaning of the ACTUAL content, as framed by the thematic elements.

In this woman's case, let's say the photos are built using the theme of, "Real life as seen in the form of reflections". Reflections are NOT "a style"...reflected images are something that countless photographers have explored over 150+ years. It's a fairly common concept. I shot a reflection photo two days ago. If I went out and shot 100 reflections, I might develop something of interest.

What you said really makes sense to me; when you use the word 'theme' I see that as implying that the 'way' she shoots something in itself adds more to the images.
- and what I said to her was that I am interested in seeing more of her work so I can understand how she uses this reflection as a device to bring more interest and meaning to her pictures.

If there is some value added then I understand, if it is just a device that she's latched onto, like the photographer who shoots exploding bouquets of flowers, then the one interesting picture I saw was a lucky happening.

I don't see it as any more of a crutch then people regularly starting questioning threads about other peoples choices in photography. It's what she likes, it's what she does. The same kind of question can be asked of photography for anyone other that the full time working photographer earning their living. Is photography a crutch for the hobbyist?

Except for the recurrent theme of passive-aggressiveness in your responses to anything I post, I don't see much to respond to here. OK, I get it, you don't like me and you're looking for an acceptable way to continually express that. Why don't I just assume that you will do this every time and save you the effort?

the better questions is....
how would you be affected if it turned out that her style was a crutch?
would a definitive answer change the way you feel about her work? Or her as a person?
some people work themselves into a certain niche...sometimes by design, sometimes by accident, sometimes just because its all they are good at.

I only shoot portraits. well, mostly only. Close enough to count though.
is portrait photography a crutch?
or backdrops and lighting since that's what I primarily use?

I generally do not like the word "style" to begin with...it seems to be overused and misused frequently.
I think maybe its more accurate to call her a "niche" photographer. she found something she likes to shoot, and a way she likes to shoot it, so that's what she does.

I wouldn't be affected except for my understanding of how she is as a photographer. I like to understand how people I interact with function.
If your portraits always are lit the same way, and essentially look alike, and you aren't interested in exploring other ways of working, then yes, your style has become a crutch.

"There are no limits. There are plateaus, but you must not stay there, you must go beyond them. If it kills you, it kills you. A man must constantly exceed his level"
Bruce Lee

It is not a style, it is just a series of themed photographs.

.........
I have recently read a post by an "enthusiast photog" who wrote "Life is too short to choose what to shoot and what not to. I can not afford that, so I shoot everything". This post has impressed me, to be honest. It is not often I encounter THAT lack of direction.

Well, you can't know what she is doing because you haven't seen any of her work, I've only seen one piece and it's not clear to me;it isn't really really obvious yet how she uses the reflections - as a crutch or as a theme.

In regards the post in bold above, I feel the opposite, life is too short to waste time shooting everything; once I found something I liked, I don't bother with anything else. I want to get as good as I can be at that area.

but kind of a moron.

There is a lot of that going around.

 

[bribrius]

theme shooting. seen it. understand it. gallery showing. By the time I get to the fourth or fifth they all start looking alike. suppose it depends on how the theme is relayed. You can have drastically different photos with the same underlying theme. To each their own. I did see one I almost ran through. Think it was a intersecting and parallel lines kind of thing at a college. with a equivalent theme title. No surpises there. I don't even make it through all the photos I lost interest. seen one on tv a couple months ago. Lady spent five years doing genology through photos taking standard portraits of people (not even good ones). it was on Netflix check it out. Genius woman, deep concept. Lot of meaning. Donated years of her life to it. But imagine going to that showing and seeing two thousand identical shots of people. Plain identical shots. frig that. Really depends.

 

[table1349]

Lew, apparently you really aren't interested in discussion. Discussion never comes from the constant defensive posture.

Who is using a crutch in life. A woman that has found a method of photography that she likes and pursues, or a person that continually posts "What do you think of" topics on what other people do in the photographic world.

She sounds like she is satisfied with what she does and with herself. You posted nothing from your conversation with her that indicated to the contrary. She's good with herself and the world.

You were the one that brought up crutches. The bigger crutch I see here is trying to over analyze other people and what they do. Is it innate curiosity, is it a search for a way to deal with ones own demons, or is it just a sense of ego. You see I am trying to analyze you as you are trying to analyze her. For me it is admittedly innate curiosity.


Personally I think pixmedic hit the nail on the head with his post. Is it really about her or about you and how she makes you feel.



“Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated.” ― Confucius

"The greatest ideas are the simplest.” ― William Golding

“People who pride themselves on their "complexity" and deride others for being "simplistic" should realize that the truth is often not very complicated. What gets complex is evading the truth.” ― Thomas Sowell,

 

[pixmedic]

I'm confused Lew. (Granted that isn't unusual for me)

You talked about a woman that basically uses the same techniques on every photo she takes, and ASKED us if it was a "crutch".

Then proceed to tell me that if I use the same lighting techniques on my portraits that it IS a crutch.

So...you have obviously already formed an opinion on what constitutes a "crutch", so I am confused as to why you asked the question...especially since you don't seem to receptive to anything contrary to the "crutch" theory.

 

[bribrius]

the only way I can think of this for to come into play is.

a. if the photographer in question is a friend or family member where their best interest is your concerned.
b. the photographer in question just wasted your money paying to get in to see some of their work or in travel expenses.
c. your job is to write a critique of the work and the photographer and you are contemplating to have a informed opinion.
d. you are contemplating purchasing some of the photographers work and am afraid you are wasting your money.
e. some how this photographer has pull in the art community that would directly effect you and their methodologies concern you with self doubt.
f. you think the photographer in question has lost their marbles and are about to take a car ride with them.
g. the photographer in question is proposing and suggesting changes to your own work, and you are considering their credibility.
h. it is the person in questions job to spot art world trends and inform others and the artist in question is a unknown but impacting the art scene.


basically anything that makes them worth judging their expertise, knowledge and experience.

if they don't effect you, or you don't have a valid interest in them or their work, it makes no difference.

if they lack experience, hide behind something, are stuttering with growth issues, and there is a legitimate interest or concern that is something else.

I cant be too hard on lew though here. Lets face it, you show our work, you are going to be judged and questioned along with the work on many levels. Don't want that, keep your work out of the public.

but wtfdik

 

[runnah]

I say that most style in photography is done in post or with lighting (natural or artificial).

 

[bribrius]

hey lew, that is great for that artist in a way. If it is purely technique they never have to come up with a subject or purpose. some art, is like that.

 

[bribrius]

I say that most style in photography is done in post or with lighting (natural or artificial).

if all you do, is the same theme, over and over and over, and that is all you do. At some point. wouldn't it have to be reguarded as your style? That is all you do. How else would your style be defined?

hmmm
this conversation is so enlightening I think ill go get a beer out of the fridge.

 

[runnah]

if all you do, is the same theme, over and over and over, and that is all you do. At some point. wouldn't it have to be reguarded as your style? That is all you do. How else would your style be defined? hmmm this conversation is so enlightening I think ill go get a beer out of the fridge.

Nope. Style is being able to do something with your own flair to it.