Do you have a style?

[BillP]

There's been a lot of talk here lately about HCB, Salgado, etc and their styles.

Do you (think you) have a style of your own?

Is it acknowledged as such by others, or are you deluding yourself?

Have you worked to develop a style? If so, do you think you have succeeded? How did you go about it?

Does it matter?

Discuss.

Regards,

Bill

[NB23]

My story about my style is looong. I'm not saying it's unique nor good... It was just hard work.

I think it takes about 10 years for someone to acquire a true, solid style. This still doesn't mean the given style is appealing, though. It only means it's constant and understood.

[Silva Lining]

No pop, no style, strictly roots.....

[rover]

Having a style can mostly be a handicap, limiting, a trap even.

"Oh yeah, your the guy who does them ****** photos."

I guess it can be, but in general I would disagree. One can have a style, a process and all that in which he is comfortable, but not be constrained to only that type of shooting.

A style would allow for growth and improvement in production of a consistent and certain quality of image, but there can always be diversions. If that becomes a handicap, then that is a problem with that individual and his approach.

Have you worked to develop a style?

Absolutely not enough and I am not delusional enough to say that I have. There are images that I like, images that I make that I like tend to be in ballpark of that "style", but I have by no means worked hard enough to even make believe I have a style.

I do a lot of diversions.

[tripod]

I think that everyone has their own style, and that it is constantly evolving, or should be. The more experienced one becomes the more consistent this style becomes, (even as it is still evolving), and the more recognizable it becomes to others. A raw beginner's style is typically all over the board.

The appreciation of different styles is purely subjective.

The big question in my mind is: can a style be consciously developed, or does it just happen on its own? Sure, another photographer's style can be immitated, but one's own style, I think just "becomes" without effort beyond the hard work of improving one's craft.

[bmattock]

No method, no guru, no teacher.

Or, to put it more simply - no. I have no specific style. And that's ok.

[feenej]

Yeah, you need a style. It's like picking a topic for a paper when you are in Jr. High: the narrower the better, otherwise you are just spinning your wheels. This is the most important thing for a photographer who wants to make a contribution to the field.

[Silva Lining]

I do think to some extent you need to specialise or standardise your equipment to achieve a style... Although I have differing styles with each camera, I am lucky enough in that use too many different cameras to settle on one 'style'. Having a 'style' is a goal that is not without merit, if that's what you want.

I enjoy exploring a range of styles and equipment, and whilst that may make me 'Jack of all trades and Master of none', its great fun. :)

[MikeL]

My style is high-brow, decisive moment kinda stuff.

[Yammerman]

I think it takes about 10 years for someone to acquire a true, solid style.

A few years ago I read it takes seven years to really get photography and now you've added another three - at this rate I'll be dead before I've got the hang of this game.

I 'm with Pixtu that a style would probabley be limiting. I have yen for detail and the macro as it makes my world bigger but lifes too short to be so restricted. I've also toyed with structured images but jeez how tedious would that become. I am addicted to the sound of the shutter and have realised I am something of a diletantte so everything is up for grabs.

I think my personality and situation dictate my style but given a a different array of subects and a different enviroment I'm sure it would change.

I've too many cameras, lenses and formats to get a consistant look and while I'm going through a servere cull at the moment I'd be suprised to ever reach the one camera/lens senario.


I'm still learning so maybe style comes later.

[bmattock]

Again with the shoe-gazing. Egads.

[bmattock]

Yeah, you need a style. It's like picking a topic for a paper when you are in Jr. High: the narrower the better, otherwise you are just spinning your wheels. This is the most important thing for a photographer who wants to make a contribution to the field.

That is the funniest thing I've read in a long time. I mean, in a purely horrifying kind of way.

[Matt White]

I have lots of "styles". I'd like to think of this a sign of my limitless artistic versatility. But realistically the ways my shots turn out probably just depend on what I'm trying to photograph, what camera I'm using and whose work I am subconsciously copying this week.

[oftheherd]

If I have a style, I am unaware what it would be. When I can make time, I enjoy taking photos. When in Korea, I used to enjoy taking photos of what I considered their culture or history. Especially of the three kingdoms era. But I don't consider that a style. That was an interest. What is style? Is there a style that hasn't already been done?

[Morca007]

I have no idea. It's a lot easier to identify someone else's 'style' than your own. I think a lot more of it has to do with editing (in selecting which shots to present) than your actual photos.

[anoldsock]

I don't think you can define your own style, or rather it's something that happens that you're not conscious of. It's something that develops based your photographic eye and evolves over time. Sometimes other people relate to it, sometimes it doesn't. It's like your style of dress, you dress a certain way to your preferences and sometimes people like it, others will hate it. It's just something that naturally happens over time as you develop an affinity of shooting one way vs. another.

...so just like how people develop personal style, dress and persona...so does everyone has a photographic style.

[f/stopblues]

I've noticed, especially after walking through a local art fair over the weekend, that the "style" people in this thread are talking about are two different notions.

One idea of style consists of a conscious decision to shoot with a predetermined idea in mind so as to create a look. It's a matter of your "syle" dictating your content.

The other idea is that a person just shoots what interests them. The more they photograph, the more refined the person's photographic interests become, and thus, a "style" emerges naturally. In this case, the content dictates the "style."

It just comes down to why a person shoots in the first place.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I have a style that people recognize when they see my work in galleries and exhibits. It comes from having worked on several very long term projects over a period of years (two of my projects have each taken over a decade and are still in progress). I think the reason many photographers never develop a style is that they are snappers, not artists with something to say. I've noticed over the years that photography as a hobby attracts people who own expensive cameras and never produce anything with them. There's also those who do take a lot of photos, many of them quite good, but they photograph in a disorganized way that reflects the fact that they are not interested in anything specific. Instead they constantly search for the 'pretty picture', and they might end up with many good images but as a whole their body of work does not show a as the life's work of an artist with a vision or a message.

[tritiated]

I'm not sure if I could possibly have style - having only been taking pictures for less than a year...ha
Unless you call naivety a style!

[OurManInTangier]

I have no style, or so my friends always tell me, though they're usually talking about my clothes.

As for photography, I don't consciously look to develop a style as I don't want to force myself down an unwitting route whereby I merely ape the style of photographers I admire - I believe its all too easy to do this at the best of times. I do however hope that the interests I have in life, my outlook upon life and the elements of it will be reflected in the photographs I take. Also, if there is a strong compostional awareness in the majority of my images (or certainly those I deem successful enough to show to others) then this may all come together to be thought of as a 'style.'

I haven't taken any personal photographs for a while as I've been busy starting a business but one of the last ones I did, a month or two back, was a snap in Cambridge (England) on a misty morning of a guy on the river in a punt. I rather liked it and put it up here and on Flickr. Someone, either here or there, came back to me saying they liked it but it was a 'definite departure from my usual style which was far edgier.'..........I was unaware of any real set style I may have had and found it quite amusing that somebody else had thought of me having a style when it was utterly unapparent to me.

I just do my thing and what comes out is hopefully a reflection of me and my thought processes on a subject. However, I would say that *I* need to follow my interests more fully, to explore them in greater depth now that I have the time and to hopefully produce projects and a true body of images rather than a series of fractured images loosely connected by the fact that I took them.

We'll see how that goes :)

[Roger Hicks]

I think the best "styles" are the ones which happen on their own.
One day whilst browsing your contact sheets you might suddenly become aware that a style is developing. It might not even be the style you were chasing, a surprise!

Dear Richard,

I'd completely agree, and go further: these 'self-generating' styles are the only ones worth bothering with.

Deliberately setting out to 'have a style' rather negates the idea of taking the best picture you can of a subject that interests you.

A personal style will develop fastest when you limit your equipment -- fart-arsing around with 10 different cameras and 20 different lenses is hardly conducive to a single style -- but you can also have different styles in different areas, e.g. a still-life style, a reportage style, an architecture style... Of course, many of the people with the most recognizable single 'style' shoot a limited range of subjects as well as using a limited range of equipment.

Finally, my own belief is that as a general rule, others should see your 'style' before you do. When they say, 'That's in your style', and you ask them what they mean, you should recognize what they say, and realize that it's what you do, even if you hadn't thought about it.

Cheers,

R.

[payasam]

People who know me have often been able to pick out my work in galleries, publications, family albums; but I do not claim to have a message or a vision.

[Spider67]

I had about 10 decent pictures and I put them in a portfolio liked to show them around......and after a while I started copying myself partly because some people wanted to have their pics exactly like those I had shown them but for the larger part because

"......you might suddenly become aware that a style is developing. It might not even be the style you were chasing, a surprise!"

That's what I would think is it in a nutshell. In my opinion you can adopt a certain look but style is an achievement or rather a development.
When style gets a prison: I read that even Helmut Newton had a problem to get landscape photos he made in an exhibition even later as a book its still ahd to be combined with nudes.

[Marc-A.]

Having a style can mostly be a handicap, limiting, a trap even.

I can’t develop on the subject right now but I’ll quote a French novelist and a great Resistance fighter:
“L’artiste naît prisonnier du style, qui lui a permis de ne plus l'être du monde” said André Malraux (“The artist was born as a prisoner of his style, but his style freed him from the world”). Some prisoners are freer than most of those who think they are free without hard work. By the way, I agree with Ned about hard work.
I’ll quote another French writer, a great poet, Paul Valéry, who said: “Le style, pour l'écrivain aussi bien que pour le peintre, est une question non de technique mais de vision.” (“Style, for writers as well as for painters, is a matter of vision, not of technique”).
If it is true about painters, so it is about photographers.
Personally, I don’t know if I have a style (it’s too soon, since Ned rightly said it takes 10 years to develop one’s own style), but when I take pictures I can’t help shooting things always in the same way, always. I can’t do HCB, or Doisneau, or Winogrand … but I see things in the language of my own visual poetry, and shoot what I see, how I see it … whether it is bad or good.
Best,
Marc-A.

[Chris101]

Yes. Blurry, grainy and of subjects not often thought of as photogenic. I often claim that a preference of uniqueness, rather than goodness.

[350D_user]

Apparently I have a style. Whilst doing a magazine article, the guy from the magazine said "Ah, you're the one with the black and white train photographs". This then evolved from concentrating on just the lumps of steaming metal running on rails, to including the railway workers, eventually the railway workers ended up being the main subject.

Is this a "prison"? Not really, people tend to be... everywhere. If I'd have just stuck to the train photos, then it would be a prison.

[John Bragg]

For me a style develops from the things you like (even subconciously), about the work of others that you admire. It is pointless to emulate the things you dislike.... I rarely use colour and most photographs that excite me are mono, so I learned to dev and print mono (after a brief flirtation with colour transparencies). That was only the start of it though as I had to then learn how to print in a style that I liked as well. Decisions, decisions, all the while. This film or that ?? Which paper and developer ????? They all have an effect on style as percieved by the casual viewer and I guess, if I am honest with myself, I have a style that has been over 20 years in the making. My prints please me and that is important.

[williams473]

I have the opinion that in photography style develops more out of technical choices.

Take for instance how Picasso sketched - one way art buyers determine if they are buying an authentic Picasso sketch is by putting the pencil strokes from the drawing under a microscope - Picasso made decisive, unbroken lines when he sketched (because he was so damn good), whereas an imitator often stops midline to see if they are getting it right, and this is evident to an expert. But I digress - point is, the style of Picasso is obvious in something as fundemental as the way the pencil was moved across a sheet of paper.

In photography, we have a lot more technical "stuff" between us and the paper, such as film type, developer, agitation pattern, contrast preferences, paper selection, dilution of developer etc... it goes on. I think it is only natural that after doing photography for quite a while, most people settle on the "best" workflow for them - and the massive collection of choices is what could loosely constitutes someone's style. I'm not sure how one see's things through the lens or the subject matter they shoot determines style as much.

[itf]

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f362/kidbike/me.jpg

I have a style! I don't know if it shows in my photos though. It is, however, pretty tough taking photos while I'm holding my sleeping-bag cloak on.

[mfunnell]

Finally, my own belief is that as a general rule, others should see your 'style' before you do.Damn! I was about to say I wouldn't (and can't) have a style - unless someone tells me so. How else am I supposed to know?

For the rest of it (whatever that may be) I'll just keep taking photos that suit me.

...Mike

[pesphoto]

i dont think about it, I just shoot what I see

[Matthew Allen]

No style here either. Questionable morals too...

In time a style might emerge but there's no point in trying to force it.

By the way, I couldn't disagree more with what feenej posted.

Matthew

[Dektol Dan]

Styles are fashion. To a photographer they are just another angle or perspective.

[swoop]

I've been told I have a way of seeing things. But I don't see it. I just take pictures the way I take pictures. I don't know any other way.

[chikne]

I have a style that people recognize when they see my work in galleries and exhibits. It comes from having worked on several very long term projects over a period of years (two of my projects have each taken over a decade and are still in progress). I think the reason many photographers never develop a style is that they are snappers, not artists with something to say. I've noticed over the years that photography as a hobby attracts people who own expensive cameras and never produce anything with them. There's also those who do take a lot of photos, many of them quite good, but they photograph in a disorganized way that reflects the fact that they are not interested in anything specific. Instead they constantly search for the 'pretty picture', and they might end up with many good images but as a whole their body of work does not show a as the life's work of an artist with a vision or a message.

You certainly do have an arrogant style!

[ClaremontPhoto]

I do small city day to day life with a wide open lens, and a slow shutter.

[Pherdinand]

Yes i have a style but alas not in photography :D

[chikne]

Could a "style" manifest itself after post-processing (a) photograph(s)?

[Al Kaplan]

I'm positive that I have an inate style, although a lot of what I've shot over the years was art directed by somebody else and/or had to fit a particular space in a publication. The past year or so I've been going back through boxes of all the old stuff I have, boxes of negatives and contact sheets, prints, tear sheets, all the stuff we acumulate over the years. I's easy to compare the contact sheets from shoots in the early 1960's, when I first started out, with similar shoots made during all the years up to the present.

Both my personal work and my editorial photographs I think show a consistancy of style over the decades. I like to work in close, and I love shooting with ultra wide angle lenses. Some of my best work over the years was done with 19, 20, and 21mm lenses, and more recently I've been doing a lot of shooting with a 15mm lens. I love the effect of the forced perspective, and I have clients that love it also.

[feenej]

This thread made me realize that I have done my photography with the same mindset as I did my master's thesis. LOL. Old habits. Not a bad way to go, I guess.

[mh2000]

Only if you want to be a personalitiless producer of scattered photos, only if you want your photos to be nothing but photos.

If you want to make a personal statement with your photography you will find your unified personal vision... and when you follow this vision a "style" will necessarily emerge.

Even hack wedding photographers do better if they develop some sort of credible style!

The only time a style is a handicap is when you attempt to force some style that is not your own.

Having a style can mostly be a handicap, limiting, a trap even.

"Oh yeah, your the guy who does them ****** photos."

[Schlapp]

I do have a unique style. Only it changes every day

[phc]

I think everyone must have a style. I certainly do - aside from my use of a particular lens and format - which I notice when I see that two pictures that I took some time apart, in widely separated places, fit together in a way that makes me want to show them side-by-side.

Cheers, Paul.

[Carlsen Highway]

I think much too much is made of this thing "style".
Somebody quoted Picasso earlier...Picasso sometimes worked with three or four different "styles" at the same time.

I suppose its something for photographers to think about, since what they do, of all mediums is dependant on reality, therefor a recognisable personal "look" is much less apparent in this particular medium than any other.

Listen, put three HCB picture's next to three Robert Doineau's and ask your neighbour if he can pick a style. He will raise his eyebrows nervously and say; "Black and white?"

Which is to say not that there isnt such a thing...you can conciously invent and work in a style or you can create a body of work that will exhibit a style that was unconcious. Either is perfectly valid. Its a particular language for understanding the pictures.

Cubism in painting is a good example. You dont unconciously suddenly start painting cubist paintings one saturday morning - the language was thought of before the pictures were made, so hence the style was consiously adopted.

Renoir changed his light fluttery style late in life to a more robust and drawing related style of painting - again he did it perfectly conciously after his reaction to viewing the Italian masters of the Rennaissance.

And again, the "impressionist" style that him and his mates invented (and then all abandoned except for Monet) came from a shorthand approach to painting - that was leapt on and explored perfectly deliberately, which has particular rules of its own, nutted out by the artists between themselves.

Sure, you could split heairs further and say that the impressionist style was a movement, rather, and within that you have renoirs light touch, Monets scrabbled poplar trees and Degas, deliberatly fashioned dancers, all of them individual styles of impressionism, but the point here is that comes becasue paintings is like handwriting. Photography is not like handwriting.
The point is that the impressionist "style" has rules and was conciously constructed.

You want a style? Dammit go and make one then. Theres nothing stopping you. Different projects may have different styles. We have Ernst Haas with his swirly bullfights and so forth...

Style may or may not be technique related. If yours is and you really love them fisheye lenses (or whatever) so what as well, everything is up fro grabs as long as it works - remembering of all things that photography paradoxically to my mind is the most limited of mediums for artistic expression by its very nature, and yet also extremely powerful within its narrow scope - both because it reflects reality.

An unconcious style will be apparent if you think about what you are doing with your photography a lot, if you take it seriously. Other consious styles may be created by your thinking.

Too much is made of this thing style as if its a desireable will o the whisp that many are chasing. Go and make one then. At least you may get some interesting photographs out of the attempt.

Here endeth the Highway lecture on style. You may join me for tea in the lobby.

[thomasw_]

I think it depends on what is meant by style. If by style we mean a manner of representation that controls the photographer's conceptions and pre-conceptions of a shot, then I am not sure I have a style. I have an idea of what I am trying to achieve. I think I am too close to my own work to determine whether there is a style evident -- or even whether I have an emerging style. For me I try to focus more on getting my images composed the way I have them in my mind's eye and just leave the stylistic questions to others to discern.

[Nh3]

I think style should be unintentional and an extension of the photographer's individual vision - that is if he is an individual and not just another duffer with a camera and strong herd instincts.

Style could be faked like photographing a certain subject with one type of composition and color - like blue sky and clouds which could be distinct yet to some pretty boring with all that blue... Any type of forced style usually backfired pretty badly. It might impress the amateurs and members of "mutual appreciation clubs", which usually what photography communities are, but on a serious level it won't even stand a chance.

For example how many photos of people in galleries we've seen but if you check the magnum website there is a feature by Costa Manos of photos inside an art gallery and you immediately know that these pictures are taken by a master and the style is natural and flawless.

[peterm1]

This is my style. (For what its worth.)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/80702381@N00/sets/72157610362797162/

Mainly shot however with SLRs I took most of these to document my home city (Adelaide) and my life there.

I believe in the Capa adage --- "If your photos are no good, you are not close enough!" My aim was to create a composite of shots - mainly detail that taken together tell a bigger story about my home town, a bit like the way indivdual pieces of a jigsaw puzzle go together to make a bigger picture.The Flickr way of setting out thumbnails suits this well, I think. However I am not sure that this style altogether suits a rangefinder although I do not think that many of these are shot with anything longer than 135mm.

Incidentally. If you look at these photos and reflect on them I hope you understand the deeper purpose that's part of my style. There are two levels of photography I think. The first (and the first challenge for any photographer) is to capture the image accurately. The second (which to some extent is considerably harder) is to capture the feel. This is definitely what I am going for and what, I believe any photographer worth his or her salt is striving for.

cheers

Having said that, I am still evolving and to some extent searching for my style. I have no doubt that in one year or two I will be shooting something different.

Merry Xmas and Happy Chanukah to all.

[ChrisN]

I have a style that people recognize when they see my work in galleries and exhibits. It comes from having worked on several very long term projects over a period of years (two of my projects have each taken over a decade and are still in progress). I think the reason many photographers never develop a style is that they are snappers, not artists with something to say. I've noticed over the years that photography as a hobby attracts people who own expensive cameras and never produce anything with them. There's also those who do take a lot of photos, many of them quite good, but they photograph in a disorganized way that reflects the fact that they are not interested in anything specific. Instead they constantly search for the 'pretty picture', and they might end up with many good images but as a whole their body of work does not show a as the life's work of an artist with a vision or a message.

Actually this rings a bell with me. I know I have not developed a style, and part of that is that I have too many cameras and lenses, all begging to be "used", so I'll go out and simply burn film or pixels for the sake of using the gear. I should ditch 90% of my gear and spend more time finding out what I care about photographing, and making opportunities for that. At this stage I'm leaning towards landscape photography in the environments I actually care about.

The two people in this community who immediately came to mind were BudGreen and Todd.Hanz. I think they have have a recognisable style in their photography, or at least in what I've seen of their photography. And you can easily see that they are both photographing the things they care about.

[tom.w.bn]

I have a style that people recognize when they see my work in galleries and exhibits. It comes from having worked on several very long term projects over a period of years (two of my projects have each taken over a decade and are still in progress). I think the reason many photographers never develop a style is that they are snappers, not artists with something to say. I've noticed over the years that photography as a hobby attracts people who own expensive cameras and never produce anything with them. There's also those who do take a lot of photos, many of them quite good, but they photograph in a disorganized way that reflects the fact that they are not interested in anything specific. Instead they constantly search for the 'pretty picture', and they might end up with many good images but as a whole their body of work does not show a as the life's work of an artist with a vision or a message.

In my opinion this is a rather 2-dimensional mindsetting.

I think everyone has some kind of style. The simplest form of style is restriction to the genres one normaly photographs.

[Al Kaplan]

I'm beginning to think that style develops when we start looking at the subject as being more important than why we depict it, or what equipment we use to depict it. The style matures as we become totally at ease with that type of photography, our subjects, our equipment, and no longer have to give concious thought to what we're doing. Other people start commenting favorably about our style when we've finally reached that blissful point here we no longer give a damned what they think.

[Keith]

I'm beginning to think that style develops when we start looking at the subject as being more important than why we depict it, or what equipment we use to depict it. The style matures as we become totally at ease with that type of photography, our subjects, our equipment, and no longe have to give concious thought to what we're doing. Other people start commenting favorably about our style when we've finally reached that blissful point here we no longer give a damned what they think.


By George ... I think you've got it! I hope everyone was listening Al! :p

[Turtle]

Style is important as it is the manifestation of the personality and vision of the photographer. It is the way the photographer sees the world and will forever be embossed on their work. Sometimes it is subtle (or an image is in keeping with that style but not necessarily identifiable because of it) and sometimes blindingly obvious. I agree with Roger that to try and consciously develop a style is to miss the point. To try to 'make your images consistent in style' is surely to prevent a true style indicative of uninhibited and personal vision as well as experience. As for my style, I try not to think about it because doing so achieves inhibition and artificial constraints/stylistic imposition and that is not what I am aiming for. Style is the consistent feel to the way things end up looking when all is said and done and you are happy, not how you start out....

I think I do have one, but it has taken time and I can place it little further than the product of 'the way I see then do things'. It is not all about inspiration and the deepest philosophy. I am strongly opposed to the notion of 'selling through style' and have a particular revulsion for the often seen long and pretentious diatribes on websites or in some books. Those who have something individual don't need to explain what can be seen in the images. This is a good thread, but to me, 'trying to develop a style' is about as productive as shooting everything at f1.2 because you have a new Nocton or whatever. My style started to come when I stopped caring what others thought, what the greats had already done and got out and made a LOT of terrible images. Then they got better and I started taking fewer images and doing a lot more walking away. I just enjoy myself and satisfy my needs without consideration for anything else. Spending a lot of time enjoying photo books helps, not to imitate, but to gain inspiration and intensify the hunger borne of reveling in great photography! To hold others' images too close is to walk outside with the photographic equivalent of a cookie cutter in your head.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

IMO style or developing a ‘consistency of vision’ is important for those with commercial aspirations.
Hobbyists get fooled into thinking that developing a 'style' is somehow important, creatively speaking; it’s not.

I disagree. It is important for fine artists too. Try getting a gallery to represent you if your work doesn't present itself as a body of work rather than a collection of unrelated pretty pictures. I actually think, as someone who does both fine art and a little bit of commercial work, that style is less important for commercial work. You do what your clients tell you too, not what your style is.

[Turtle]

I disagree. It is important for fine artists too. Try getting a gallery to represent you if your work doesn't present itself as a body of work rather than a collection of unrelated pretty pictures. I actually think, as someone who does both fine art and a little bit of commercial work, that style is less important for commercial work. You do what your clients tell you too, not what your style is.

Agreed. Most fine art photographers have an identifiable style and it bonds the work to the photographer. I also agree with your previous post which I think ruffled a few feathers. Sure, a person does not need to have a style, just as they don't need to take photos at all, but unless a style develops, images will forever form a nondescript soup and stand separate from the person who made them. I personally like to feel that the work and the photographer are part of the same thing. Projects are a great way to let style develop (note not 'develop a style') because they encourage consistency and cohesiveness. Even when a person then goes and shoots a totally different sort of project, it is amazing how there can be style common between the two bodies of work. I think some have failed to realize that a style is not at all limiting - how can it be when you can go and shoot whatever inspires you? The style comes from it being YOU that takes the photo and there is nothing more limiting than that! Style is the first lens through which light passes perhaps; the product of vision, perception and understanding. I don't know where this notion that style means narrow/parochial comes from. A person can have many styles, depending on what they are doing, but they can still be identifiable as originating from the photographer and a product of their 'way'.

[JoeV]

I've enjoyed reading this thread much more than I usually do "philosophy"- related photography threads, which typically degenerate into disagreements over "what is art."

I tend to think that photography differs from other visual arts primarily because of the degree of control (or lack thereof) provided by the limitations of the process. I know that's not something people want to hear, especially those of us who've spent years mastering the arcane darkroom crafts, or the newer PC lightroom crafts. But developing a style in painting is much different from a style in photography.

Our biggest technical decisions (and where personal interpretation can play a part) relate to the placement of the four edges of the frame -- the when and the where -- and the rest is of lesser importance to non-photographers, who don't obsess about formats and depth of focus and bokeh and monochrome vs color, etc, like we do. We think that stuff is so important, but in the aggregate it isn't. So it seems to me that our biggest decisions in photography are about what we are passionate about, the work that we want to apply photography toward documenting.

To gain a true "style", or perhaps "body of work" is a better term of art, we need to get out of the little box of the photography world and go into the real world and apply our art to something we're passionately interested in. Thus, many times what we call "style" is nothing more than a set of technical choices applied to a particular family of subject matter. Hence the formation of "genres", like "street photography", which is really just a solution set applying a particular type of tool (compact camera) to a problem (documenting anonymous subjects in public.)

I think great photographers who developed what we're refering to here as "style" actually developed a keen interest in some subject and worked with that for years. Hence it's not style in the painterly term, but more of a focused application of the techniques of photography to a consistent body of work.

~Joe

[phc]

Doug, maybe we have different definitions, but for me the very point of art is that it's not made with commercial intentions. On the other hand, maybe I'm just old-fashioned.

Cheers, Paul.

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Doug, maybe we have different definitions, but for me the very point of art is that it's not made with commercial intentions. On the other hand, maybe I'm just old-fashioned.

Cheers, Paul.

Exactly. and if artists cannot sell their work, then how are they supposed to eat? Contrary to popular belief, artists cannot live on air alone.

[phc]

They cook hamburgers. Or teach. Or practice commercial art, which is created to satisfy a commercial requirement.

Cheers, Paul.

[Turtle]

I would argue that with the most successful artists or fine art photographers do what they must from creative perspective and that the financial considerations are secondary, assuming ends can be met. I don't think many think of their living first and then their art. I rather think it is the other way round or the two become inseparable and cannot be defined independently. We all know artists must eat, but those who set out pandering to a particular market surely don't end up at the top of the heap a century later. Would Weston and Adams have done what they did were they made their creativity subordinate to financial aspirations. I suspect they made doing what they loved/had to do work for them as best they could i.e their work was not compromised much if at all. It might also not be a leap to suppose that had they made darned sure they 'made it' as a commercial photographer much of their finest work simply would not have happened. Perhaps this is why so many so clearly separate their personal and commercial work. Who remembers Adams' commercial work vs. his personal work (which ended up being commercially viable much later on)? I think most would agree that he can be found as an artist and a personality in his personal work. I guess there is a reason why so many greats half starve - they are committed to their vision and screw the financial consequences. When they die their kids get rich ;)

[Al Kaplan]

Death does enhance the value of an artist's work, but I don't think that's as true with an artist who was completely unknown before his/her death. Not many people get discovered after their death. If there's already a market for the artist's work then the fact that there won't be any more forthcoming certainly affects the value of the now limited supply.