If you've followed my writing, you'll know that I rarely pick up my camera if I don't have a contract attached to the action. Call it the joys and perils of being a commercial photographer. You get paid to do what you love, yet your love morphs into a duty and can lose its allure. This is why I surprised myself on my recent work trip to California.
After a full workday, I decided to take an evening walk and see what exactly these shorelines had the Beach Boys all worked up about. I half-heartedly grabbed my camera, "just in case," on my way out of the door.
Is Beauty a Valid Reason for Capturing an Image?
Was what I found a beautiful scene? Yes. As a painter, it's a miracle of nature how colors can somehow all melt into one another while never getting "muddied." A double rainbow slowly started pushing through the sky.
I clicked furiously, moved by the beauty. But regardless of how glorious the scene was, I found myself looking at the images and thinking with irritation, "These are so boring!" Is something being beautiful a reason to take its picture? I have a distant memory of my painting teacher scoffing as she talked about decorative art. I once almost didn't date someone because as we walked through a gallery of modern art he blurted out, "Well, I wouldn't hang that in my house" — the ultimate sin sentence according to Carla Poindexter. Decorative beauty is not the measuring stick for the validity of art. Is something being pretty a good reason to create a picture? Surrealist rule-breaker Max Ernst once expressed:
Painting is not for me decorative amusement (...) it must be every time: invention, discovery, revelation.
This brought me to the question as I prepared to capture my next frame of the sunset: "What's the purpose of taking this picture? To show that it was 'pretty'?" The word pretty made me almost gag. Probably a leftover reflex from University lectures.
"No, I'm not making pretty pictures."
It was American critic and writer Susan Sontag who claimed:
Interpretation is the revenge of the intellectual upon art.
Max Ernst and Susan Sontag might have challenged me to delete my first set of images.
I wanted to express the feeling of the moment but with my own language. I turned my shutter speed way down to 1/50. It was too sloppy; blurry—but not blurry enough that it looked intentional. I had to abstract it more. Being the rule breaker that I am, I decided to shake the camera. Up and down. Nope. That's a mess. This series is not called "Beach Seizures". Left to right. Hmm. Now we're talking.
I spent the next 30 minutes playing. Chasing the waves in and out, shaking my camera, breaking all the rules. I picked up a bottle of Malbec on the way home to sip while I tied my vision together in Photoshop. I made my first set of pieces. I felt pleased with them.
As requested, I sent them to my friend, a talented landscape photographer. He rapidly whipped back a brief and not-so-subtle disapproving response, "It looks like you had fun".
That's it.
That's all he wrote.
I wanted to pull him by the ear to one of Poindexter's rants against decorative arts. "Fun?" Now I was mad. I went back the next night to outshoot my previous warm-up. As I stitched my image together, I jotted down an ill-tempered artist rebuttal to his disapproval. I disguised it in flowery phrases. An "accompanying poem for the photograph" sounded more palatable than "My artist statement against your decoratively trained palette." Here is the "piece" [laughs to self] I wrote with the adjoining artwork.
What’s My Point? Pretty Pictures Are Invalid?
No, of course not. (And if I secretly did think that, I surely couldn't write it on Fstoppers.) My point is that if you're an artist, there is something unique that only you can contribute. Nobody comes to a scene with the same curiosities as you, the same life experiences, the same color preferences, and other likes and dislikes. Your mind is completely unique—so what if you ran the image through your unique filter and delivered something that no one else could? Something more than a pretty picture. Something that you interpreted in some way.
My Challenge to You
My challenge to you is to push your art one step further than you have. Lean into something that is unique to you, and inject it into what you shoot. As Stripling said, bring your own intellectual interpretation into the art. Just do something slightly different than you have in the past. Lean into your own creative genius, your own vision, and show us what we have not seen. Then share it in the comments below! I would love to see it!
I see! "I rarely pick up a camera unless I have a contract attached to it". I love photography. I really do. I do photography almost everyday. I've dedicated my whole life to photography. All I meant by that is that when you turned your love of photography into ALSO your job, when you have a day off I don't usually grab my camera. It's not a reflection of my love for the art form by any means
Raw natural beauty or artistic enhancement. You couldn’t have the second without the first. Maybe creative license is no worse than a chef spicing up the natural flavors of the food. A great article that made me think. 2 thumbs up.
Well you can't say that since AI anymore!!!! Now just a few letters on a keyboard will give you anything you want. But- if you boil it down, what you're saying is true. Even AI pulls from the Raw natural beautiful world to create. It makes me think a little of those cooking shows where each chef gets the same ingredients and they have to present their dishes to the judges. I love running the RAW materials through the minds of different artists and seeing what comes out. Each mind is different creating a unique piece. Thank you for your comment!
Sorry this has to be an April Fools!!! Someone like you would never want a new customer to read, If you ever had one ever!!!! With that saying above there is no way you ever picked up a real camera for it is very obvious you are very bored with life itself and no way would ever want to capture any point in time for future memory for you or anyone else.
Photographers may be born to it somehow or another before ever touching a camera or recording device. They see what many others never see until seeing the image taken. When on a trip whether short or long or just on a walkabout somewhere they are drawn to the things of interest that to them the time and wonderment and beauty will never happen again. Getting somewhere takes forever because of stopping so often, a normal one day trip to anywhere may take 2 to 3 days.
Also the study of weather, nature like moon/sun/milky way/ most animals/birds travel through the year can be asked and will have the right answer.
Any and all info not only about their tool the camera but can help many get an image for any camera and always their camera is the very best but never boast about just let the image show how good. Further there is no real competing as which image is the best for top dollar one day for one on another day another's image will bring top dollar for it's the person who is the judge with the desire to hang somewhere.
Lastly not all are Pros for most just do it for the joy and self satisfaction of self skills learned my oneself but will share with any who ask how and with what for that brings the greatest joy!
Sorry do not believe any of what you wrote for I have been at it as hobbyist for some 50 years and everyday an image pulls at me to stop and capture or try and learn how with the help of others for it is a brother and sister hood that none other compares all over the world and also in the far beyond in space between the stars for looking back to see if you are looking back on and on and more on.
1. a starting point
Thanks for your comment EDWIN GENAUX . What a beautiful selection of cameras and lenses you have. I'm sorry I'm not sure that I understand your comment. I've never picked up a camera? I started with my grandma's A-1 film camera and TX400 film in 1999! In 2003 I had a job at the University of Central Florida helping students develop their prints in the dark room and change the chemicals when they needed changing. I taught Fine Arts, including film photography in the schools for 4 years, and I've worked as a full time photographer since 2008 when I jumped to full time. I don't know that there has been a week in the last two decades that I didn't touch a camera! Maybe I misunderstood your statement? I think it's wonderful that you've been a hobbyist for 50 years. If you've been shooting for 50 years, I strongly doubt the word hobbyist is the right one for you though, I think you would definitely fall in the pro category! I didn't see any images on your profile but I'm sure they are beautiful and I would love to see them. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Michelle,
I am surprised that you have only been doing photography for 25 years! The way you already have a solid career and are an established writer, and also have experience teaching, I always assumed that you had been doing photography for a long, long time. You sure have packed a LOT into just two and a half decades.
Edwin Genaux, "never a picked up a camera," "bored with life itself?" Come on. That seems unfair. I'm glad you love landscape and capture its beauty so often. The article doesn't deny the value of landscape photography but challenges photographers to dare to add their creative genius. Take a look at some of this creative and diverse use of the camera. I think you will see why Michelle is such a respected photographer. https://michellevantinephotography.com/
As also a commercial photographer with a background in painting/drawing who also dabbles half of my time in landscape photography, everything you wrote resonated deeply. It's sometimes hard to believe that there's still an appetite for the perfect postcard images of iconic locations. I often try to avoid epic grandeur in nature and just pick out elements that I like. And yet, when faced with scenes of beauty, it's nearly impossible to resist trying to capture it, even though, like you, I feel kinda dumb doing it. At the same time, if I really do have a vision for putting my own unique spin on what I'm shooting, or even more often, just play around with the potential of an image in post and doing something crazy to it (nothing too cheesy or at all preset), I feel like it loses some credibility in the photography world, at least for certain in the landscape photography community. But also, it's my guess that our background as painters has something to do with wanting to "make art" instead of just capturing a scene, tipping the scales of the collaboration between us and pure nature. Anyways, I absolutely love your results. Great work, and best article on fstoppers for a long time. Thanks.
AWE. (melt). Thank you. I just looked at your work. WOW. Your use of lines of shadows is so beautiful. What an interesting perspective. I love your use of vibrant color and wide angle lenses. I agree with everything you wrote. It may sound stupid to someone in a different background. I literally felt Carla Poindexter (my design professor) pursing her lips in disapproval on my first set of images (not shown). I think certain backgrounds, and certain fields, you're trained to create a certain way. In commercial photography, as you said, we don't capture. It's inherent in the job that we deliver something with a perspective. A compelling perspective. And yet there's that draw to just click away furiously at something so beautiful. It was interesting to come into a "pretty sunset" with years of "institutional critique" and a "commercial approach to photography and try to create. I'm really glad you liked the article- I almost didn't write it! Thank you for your feedback and keep up the amazing work.
I too got bored with landscape photography. I now lean more towards a creative sometimes thought provoking photography such as cigarettes in a McDonalds fries container. Stuff like that.
Absolutely nothing wrong with labdscape or for that matter any form of photography.
Hi Michelle, my first post on F-Sr's. Good pics. Agree images no matter how good they are can get boring after a while for the maker. Sometimes a landscape photo is just a picture of what's there, nothing more and after a while, they all look similar no matter how different. I've always felt a good pic has an enigma - there's something going on and it asks questions. That's what you've got here. Often, it comes from breaking 'rules', serendipity shooting - a form of abstract expressionism (with a nod to Jackson Pollack and all his pals). Nice work, well done. Cheers
So kind. Thank you very much. I'm glad that my reflection sparked great conversation. Everyone has contributed such great thought and feedback. Have a great day!
As a landlocked Colorado photographer, I'm looking forward to making some horizontal motion-blurred seascapes next month on the Olympic Coast. It'll give me the chance to bring out my inner Monet!
Oh la la! Please share. That sounds beautiful!
Albrect Dürer, the 15th century Dutch painter and engraver said, “Nature holds the beautiful, for the artist who has the insight to extract it. Thus, beauty lies even in humble, perhaps ugly things, …. may be truly beautiful in the end.” His words have set my work free, in that, I find as much joy in the mundane nature subjects (Perhaps More) than trying to chase after the "Glossy" images people expect.
Yes I like sunsets as much as anyone but if you understand what Dürer is telling us, apply your artistic skills to something original and equally beautiful.
E.G. Dogfennel a weed that grows in the roadsides.
What a beautiful quote and contribution. Who knew we had so many great philosophers in our readership!
I wasn’t going to read this article. However, I am glad that I did. I found it thought provoking and insightful. I visited her website and was further stimulated by the creativity. Try another title to lure more people to this outstanding content 😎😎😎😎😎😎
Awe, thank you Ed Sanford . That means alot to me. I just another artist out there putting my thoughts into pixels but I'm always grateful when someone connects with the work. You have some great images yourself. I loved the image of the sand dunes, soft and round with the contrast of the spiky short tuff of grass. Great juxtaposition and beautiful colors. Keep up the great work!
Thank you so much.... I am actually going out and try some in camera movement based on what your suggestions. Don't just be a "contractor".... Love the craft.... you have too much inner passion!
I'm expecting a photo in the comments!!!!!
Per your challenge on April 2nd..... In this case, I didn't move the camera; I allowed the subject to move.....
OMG so interesting!!!!! I wonder what would happen if you got the mixer brush involved in the water edit? LOVING THIS
A
And it seems we have a writer on our hands as well! 5 points for "the tyranny of the dichotomy" sentence!
G S,
You initiate an interesting train of thought by identifying two very different types of photographers -
1: those who approach photography from a fine art perspective
2: those who approach photography from a technical "gear & settings" perspective
I have observed that there is another primary type of photographer - those who approach photography from a subject-oriented perspective. For us, we may have interest in and familiarity with the world of fine art, and we may also have a modicum of interest in the gear that we use. But we are most passionate about the things that we photograph, to the point where our interest in our subjects surpasses our love of photography itself.
This subject-oriented approach is somewhat prevalent in wildlife photography circles. When a group of us get together for dinner after a day afield, conversation often centers on the animals themselves. Interesting behavior. An individual bird with a unique color or pattern. Where to find a rare species. The drop in the overall population of a species and what we can do to help. When will the warblers show up? Where, exactly, do the sea ducks go when they leave our area each March? Do Mule Deer and Whitetail Deer ever hybridize? When do Collared Lizards shed their skin, and when are their skins at peak freshness and color?
Sure, many of us are very much into the artistic side of things and obsess over composition and light and discovering unique perspectives and employing foreground elements and background elements, etc. And many of us are quite knowledgeable and proficient with the technical aspects of the increasingly complex gear that we use. But our love for the critters themselves far surpasses those things and is what consumes the lion's share of our thoughts and emotions.
If the wild animals and their natural habitats didn't exist, I probably wouldn't be a photographer at all. Conversely, if cameras suddenly ceased to exist, I would still go out into nature and spend countless hours searching for and observing wild animals. I do not have a love for photography that makes me want to go out and photograph wildlife. Rather, my love for the animals makes me want to be a photographer.
I surmise that it is this way with other genres, as well ..... Aviation photography. Sports photography. Race car photography. Extreme weather photography. Etc.
Thanks for that Tom. It seems you have an excellent rationale for getting out there and taking photographs and with company too!
Michelle, in my book, Right Brain Photography (Be an artist first), I mention that I see with my imagination, not my eyes. If you can do that, you can make the common uncommon and the mundane insane.
The attached photo is my translation of Mesa Arch in Utah.
Eli Vega
www elivega net
beautiful work Eli Vega and it sounds like a wonderful book! Thank you for sharing
Another inspirational, thought-provoking article from a highly creative photographer. Your photographs are breathtaking! I'm glad you like to break the rules sometimes because in this case, you showed us how to try something new and create an "artful moment that will never exist again." It is true that "nobody comes to a scene with the same curiosities as you, the same life experiences, the same color preferences..." Thank you for for sharing your uniqueness and following your curiosity which produced these extraordinary landscapes that indeed, can never be captured again.
I think we have a writer here on our hands! Thank you and I'm so glad you enjoyed it! That's what I like so much about photography- is seeing each person's interpretation of a scene. It's the same reason we love certain dishes from certain restaurants. Favorite red curry from Thai Thyme and favorite Mojitos from the Pier at Sunny isles. The chef, the mixologist... the artist's renditions of things we already know.
Well, I guess I'm just not hip and just don't get it. How can landscape photography ever be boring? I love the beauty of nature, and for me, landscape photography will never be boring. I don't take landscape photos because it's there or feel I must contort my photos of what's there into some kind of artistic masterpiece. No, I take photos because I am in awe of the scene and wish to somehow preserve a memory of what i saw and experienced. I love beautiful color combinations and patterns. People rave about my photos, including the weddings I have done. And I do some art too (mainly watercolor and acrylics) - to similar acclaim, but I have no formal training in art or photography. No, my training is in experimental physics. You would probably call me a hobbyist, but for me it is a very serious hobby and I've been doing it since before many here were born. I understand the art and the science of it very well. My next shoot will be photographing the eclipse and with some luck the sun's corona during totality. And Michelle, I really like your beautiful images, and I'm pretty sure I would have liked them even if you didn't shake the camera.
I would most definitely not qualify you as being "not hip". As a matter of fact i would like to confiscate the devices of most people between the ages of 12 and 45 and send them in shifts on mindfulness field trips with you! What a beautiful description. Thank you for sharing that perspective and keep up the beautiful work. I saw an ad for something that i simultaneously was curious about trying and also wanted to wipe off the face of the earth as an invention. https://witharsenal.com/?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjw_LOwBhBFEiwAmSEQAbur... An AI "brain" for your camera. It does all the work for your landscapes. The tech in me is curious and the artist in me wants to burn it alive. Im thinking about writing on it. What do you think?
Max Kennedy wrote,
"I love the beauty of nature, and for me, landscape photography will never be boring. I don't take landscape photos because it's there or feel I must contort my photos of what's there into some kind of artistic masterpiece. No, I take photos because I am in awe of the scene and wish to somehow preserve a memory of what i saw and experienced. I love beautiful color combinations and patterns. "
I love what you expressed there, Max!
Do not accept anyone telling you that you have a shallow approach to photography, because your reasons are not shallow. They are deeply heartfelt.
I very much relate to you. Sure I like to find interesting ways to compose and unique perspectives to shoot from, but 90%+ of my reason for making photos is because I am awestruck at what is in front of me and I want to capture an image that shows how beautiful or unique or adorable or majestic the subject is.
I photograph a lot of things that many people are very interested in, but never get to see for themselves, so simply capturing an image of what was there has value and enriches the lives of others who are not able to travel or explore everything they're interested in.
A
Uh oh. Thats an interesting and challeging request. I kind of still have my blood boiling from the IPC competitetion at Imaging USA. I didn't enter for EXACTLY THIS REASON "I have seen (but certainly not all) have little tolerance for originality, disruptiveness in art, edgy art, and seeing, or trying to understand, anything that is outside their photographic genre(s) and purview of what is acceptable and what is not." The judging went as i had expected. I dont really like to write opinion pieces. I try generally to steer clewr of them. Eveyone gets all worked up and fiesty! But ill think on the Art Criticism piece
Sounds good! I could say a lot more but let me leave it at that.
I am reminded of something that my guide once gave me a long time ago as a gentle instruction:
"A photograph freezes an event for eternity, even when the event lasts for only an
instant, allowing us to savor that event slowly, like a fine wine, enjoying every
detail of that event; even those that were not observed when the event occurred."
- Zygmunt W. Hrozsmencko
I took that as a very straightforward lesson in documentation combined with the soft touch of an artist. I also see it as an admonition to go easy on the controls in post-processing. Too many go hog-wild on the controls and come up creating "art with a capital F."
First off, BEAUTIFUL quote. And very true. There was a time when I was older that I realized many of my best childhood memories... I didn't actually remember.I remembered the picture my mother has from the event. She would say, "Do you remember when we took you and your sister to....?" and I respond say "yes!" but I realized, I didn't actually remember anything. It was just her asking which triggered the picture to pop up in my mind making me feel like I remembered the event. This is one of the many reasons I love photography. As the quote you shared so eloquently expressed, photography allows us to cement a memory, a moment, that may otherwise be washed away by time as if it never existed.
But is it a slippery slope to say that artists "shouldn't" do too much post processing. Is that, in essence, saying that realistic art is more valid than abstract art? Or abstractED art, or any artistic interpretation in between the two? Would you not rather say that your personal preference is for artists "to go easy on the post processing..."?
As a photographer (and engineer) that is personally oriented toward the detailed documentation aspect, my guideline is very simple - can I or anyone else go to the same place at the same season and time of day and see what is depicted in my photos? In keeping with that premise, when I shoot real estate and architecture, I have an obligation (both moral and legal) to present an image that does not stray from credible reality that a potential customer will see when they visit that site. When I shoot landscape, the rule set loosens up considerably, but to my viewpoint, credibility is critical. Does that mean that I refuse to do HDR, stack images, or gently tweak the exposure or color temperature? Not a chance, but the end result must be credible. I certainly don't wish to impose my personal value set onto anyone else, but I do choose to adhere to the credibility guideline across the board, regardless of genre. I do understand abstraction, but frankly, it's not my cup of tea. And nowhere in my original comment did I use the word, "shouldn't".
If you and I were sitting side-by-side, observing a scene and describing it to each other over a glass of wine, would you see exactly what I saw? Not likely, yet we would both be likely to agree on what was there. If we simultaneously shot individual photos of that scene, those photos would be very likely to contain the elements that we noted individually and mutually, yet our methodologies of taking an "eye-brain perception" to a recorded image would almost certainly vary dramatically. And that is where I choose to go gently on the post-processing.
I think our pictures may indeed turn out very different. But I would enjoy a nice Malbec! Thanks for your great thoughts Willy.
Always enjoy your articles and this is lovely. Esthetics are so important to all art including photos and I encourage my staff to diversify away from studio work into other areas to discover what they find beautiful or sublime.
So kind thank you. Writing is VERY difficult for me. It does not come naturally like art does. It's a forced labor so I am glad when someone enjoys reading. Yes, and you are a great leader for saying that. They are blessed to have you,
Thanks for reminding me that it's important / fun to create art; not just document a scene. Nothing wrong with documentation, which is important. But art, is something different.
Thank you Michelle for writing a thought-provoking article. You ask several questions born out of the frustration of having made a picture that didn’t quite live up to your expectations, or convey the same emotions as you had intended. Something, by the way, commonly experienced by the best photographers. Does that make the actual scene less awe inspiring than you had originally thought, or not worth the effort to photograph it, or, gasp, the photograph might not have been crafted as skillfully as possible? So you ask: “Is something beautiful a reason to take its picture?” And, “What’s the purpose of taking this picture?” Those are complex questions with as many diverse reasons and motivations for making a picture as there are people’s personalities, body shapes and hair colors. My way of restating your question might be: Is a postcard picture really doomed to failure because it’s banal, ordinary, boring, commonplace, and unimaginative? I don’t believe it is; besides, by whose values are we judging the picture, anyway? To answer the question at the heart of your essay: yes, intrinsic beauty most certainly is a reason to take its picture. So, too, is making a statement, provoking a thought, telling a story, creating social awareness, and a host of other reasons for creating an image. I would not try to pigeonhole the purpose of photography.
“Decorative beauty is not the measuring stick for the validity of art.” Perhaps. But what is decorative art or decorative beauty? My interpretation of what you’re saying about decorative art is that it’s characterized by being devoid of imagination, uniqueness, or true artistic quality. Just another ho-hum rainbow. I can’t understand that connection though. Is it perceived as such because decorative art is typically realistic or literal in style, and somehow less valuable or prestigious than interpretive and abstract art? And what is it exactly that elevates an image above decorative art, if that’s our objective? What makes a distinctive or memorable photo? Wiggling the camera during a long exposure to simulate abstraction? That might be new and different for you but pretty common otherwise for years. Be realistic… originality is hard to achieve in a world where a few billion images are uploaded to social media every day. Oh, you could have pointed your camera at a piece of seaweed floating around in front of you for the sake of being different instead of that beautiful rainbow, but would that be any more original, interesting, emotionally compelling, or worthy of your audience’s attention? The answer is maybe yes, maybe no… depends on who’s looking at the picture. In the world of fine art, abstracts are pretty ordinary. I understand surrealism and abstract impressionism grew out of the desire to express repressed and subconscious thoughts, but the whole conceptual art movement as an art form escapes me. I’m just not that interested in an artist’s Freudian fixations. Picasso’s paintings or Jackson Pollock’s drip paintings do nothing for me, and I think I’ve cultivated a pretty good imagination. Harry Potter does a lot more to arouse my imagination than an abstract painting or photograph. I’d have preferred the abstract expressionists write a book communicating an idea and clarified their thoughts, rather than make me guess as to what I’m looking at in a picture. Diane Arbus photographed a totally different side of humanity than most of us are familiar with. Same for war documentary photography. Not my cup of tea but serves a purpose for photography in shaping public perceptions. I wonder if society, however, has become such a desensitized pack of zombies staring into cellphones, fighting social causes and culture wars, that simplicity and simple beauty has lost its appeal? I’m hoping for the rainbow.
At the core of our motivation to photograph, I believe it’s the life experience that counts more than the finished picture as a reason to be a photographer. If you’re bored with landscape photography, it’s conceivable that you’re bored with the experience of seeing new places. Tranquility, peace, and a prevailing sense of calmness don’t come to everyone simply because we leave behind the city where we live in favor of some remote wilderness area. But for many people the rewards of being outdoors exceed the importance of the picture captured while there. My suggestion for you to consider is to focus on the journey rather than whether the picture excites you. If you really enjoy being outdoors in nature, the quality of the images will take care of itself. Don’t be in a hurry. Don’t feel like you have to capture a photographic masterpiece in the first five minutes of your time outdoors and then head for the nearest restaurant. Most amateurs just think a weekend drive to a pretty place will result in a stunning landscape photograph. But it’s not that easy. Landscape photography is a lot of work… really. Good pictures don’t come knocking on your door. Hauling camera gear for miles before dawn is not for the physically challenged. Just like any other genre of photography, lighting and composition are of paramount importance. But even if the end result is a common picture that’s been captured a million times before, the experience, exercise, fresh air, and memories for the photographer are priceless.
Edward Kunzelman , thank you for that beautiful response. I would like to begin by saying you are a FANTASTIC writer, and, an intelligent thinker. I really enjoyed following your questions, rationale, and thinking process. Thank you for sharing. I have a few thoughts. The last one will surely get me in trouble if anyone reads that far down, but here we go.
1) I agree completely with you phrase “What’s the purpose of taking this picture?” Those are complex questions with as many diverse reasons and motivations for making a picture as there are…” Beautifully expressed.
2) I am using a lot of self-restraints to sidestep the Picasso refence as my house is essentially covered with nothing but plants and Picasso line drawings.
3) It would be easy to glance at my Miami- blond city slicker self and think that I do not know the value in the process of landscape photography. (The truth is I’m Canadian and my hair is brown, almost black- don’t tell anyone.) Honestly, I probably would think that I was an impatient, Instagram -addicted city girl if I saw me too. But this is not the case. When I lived in Scotland my favorite day of the week was Thursdays. I had a half day at my marketing job. The night before I would pick a spot on the coastline I had never heard of and plan a drive there with my camera. I would hike and hike and shoot for hours until I lost light. (Some of these images are on Getty iStock). I love this which you wrote, “tranquility, peace, and a prevailing sense of calmness don’t come to everyone simply because we leave behind the city where we live in favor of some remote wilderness area. But for many people the rewards of being outdoors exceed the importance of the picture captured while there.” What a beautiful experience that I wish more “digital zombies” experienced.
4) And now here is where I’m going to get in trouble. Despite all that, the picture you posted… I say this with all due respect… it completely bores me. The scene itself doesn’t bore me. In real life. I love it so much I worked in the Grand Canyon North Rim in my 20s. The picture though. Ugh. I have seen SO MANY off centered rainbows disappearing into mountains I could gouge my eyes out. Whyyyyyy????
So here is my question which I pose in this article. Edward, you clearly have a brilliant mind. I can see it in your writing and thinking. What if you went back and FORCED yourself to take a more creative picture. We’ve already seen the other one ad nauseum! Aren’t you tired of seeing it? I bet you can come up with something no one else thought about. I don’t know what it is but I know it will be brilliant if you really try. I’m curious what the mind that priced that reply would produce if he tried to make something more unique and original? What do you think? I hope you reply!
No trouble at all... you are welcome to gag over my rainbow picture as many times as you like. I can surely accept any sincere critique that anyone cares to offer. Although it might not change my perception of art and photography any more than my feelings toward Picasso would do the same with you. By the way, what is it that appeals to you about his work? I mostly know him for his influence in cubism and surrealism, but other than those "isms," I honestly don't know much about him.
Why take the rainbow photo? That's easy... because it was in front of me that day. I posted it here because it was relevant to the subject at hand, not because it was anything I'd expect a creativity award or merit of distinction. I really don't believe a subject has to fall into that category of award-winning in order to take its picture. I'm quite content with photographing the everyday occurrences. Making a picture that, comparatively speaking, is so different and unusual as to be worth submitting for competition puts a lot of stress on one's life. Finding beauty in the ordinary is a good way to relax and be at peace with the world.... something worth having in light of today's turmoil and 24/7 news crisis cycle.
I really don't obsess over originality. I worked for 40 years in commercial printing and design before selling the company a few years ago. Customer's priorities always came first. Creativity was always on a tight leash. At this stage in my life, my creativity extends about as far as the kinds of images that I feel like making on a given day. It's a bit impulsive and changes gears often. I consider my photography to contain a diverse collection of subject matter. Check out my Fstoppers portfolio or website for a greater look into my work. Maybe that answers your questions.
Edward Kunzelman Picasso's talent amazes me. Especially his line drawings in pen and ink. The line is steady and continuous and decisive. He doesn't hesitate. He doesn't stop and think and keep going. The thickness of the line varies in all the right places. The movement is fluid. There are so few lines, but they express so much. Feminine beauty. Sadness. The woman on the left seems saddened a little, but still strong. A little audacity expressed with the long neck and the eyebrow raised. Like she is unshakable. The middle one- peace. His use of doves and its history with Guernica is at play. This woman looks peaceful. But it's just lines. On the right: she's kind of cheeky. Peace crowns her mind and she is happy. The minimalism appeals to me. To say so much with so little. It demonstrates extreme skill to me.
I warned you not to get me started on Picasso!
I just looked at your portfolio. Look who else fell into the camera shaking! I very much like your "Impressionism" gallery most of all "hidden stream".
I totally get your point of view, Edward.
If we purposefully try to avoid taking the types of images that so many others have already taken, then we are actually allowing others to influence us. I want to make images that appeal to my eyes and to my sense of "beautiful" or my sense of "majestic". If something is beautiful or majestic, then it remains so even if countless others have exploited that beauty or majesty.
I pretty much love the same things that almost everyone else loves, when it comes to visual things. The same "look" that appeals to the masses also appeals to me more than the "road less taken" kinds of looks and styles. I actually LOVE the typical postcard images. In fact, when I am at a tourist trap that sells postcards, I have often spent 20 or 30 minutes just examining the images on those little 3" by 5" cards. That is how much they appeal to me and my sense of what looks beautiful.
I have an appreciation for people creating things that are out of the ordinary, but honestly, while I appreciate the ingenuity and originality that goes into such creations, my eyes are happier when they see the typical image, the one that has been made in gazillions of similar iterations for decades. That just appeals to my sense of what "looks good" much more than the unusual and different images.
Like you, I take images because I like to see things that look good to me and appeal to my sense of what is beautiful ... "eye candy", if you will. I have no interest in making images as a way of exploring the deeper layers of humanity or what really makes me tick as a person or whatever. That stuff actually isn't deep, it is merely pretentious.
For what it's worth, I'm a meticulous print maker. Probably more enthusiastic or creative in that regard than photography. So there are many forms of expression.