Do you have a style to your photography?

I don't have a style, unless shooting what brings me enjoyment brings a style along with it. Frankly I don't like the idea of having a "style," it limits vision. I'm in favor of limitations, when they're equipment, subject, or other areas that encourage you to stretch your vision, but I don't care for things that limit vision.

Also I have found that when you stick with a particular camera and/or lens, you begin to find the "style" that is innate to that piece of equipment. So while I don't have a style, I think my photos have the character of the gear they're shot with, as I like to let that develop and influence the results.
 
I show (or produce for clients, or publish) finished work, fully rendered photographs, that satisfy me one way or another. That means, by definition, that my intent and notions of aesthetics have been incorporated into the posted photographs.

If you want to call that a "style" it's fine by me. I call them "my photographs" just like I call Henri Cartier-Bresson's photographs "HCB's photos" ... Do his photographs have a style? They can be assumed to be his finished work and satisfy his intent and aesthetic notions since he published them.

Whether one chooses to call that a style or not is simply a question of nomenclature and semantics. Defining your personal style is simply a shorthand way of saying "developing the personal aesthetic and intent which is realized into your photographs". I doubt any photographer of note concentrates on the notion of developing a personal style as a thing in itself.

Remembering back to the evening talk by Robert Frank I attended not so many years ago, when he was 90, I recall the panelists posing questions to him about his style. His response was, to paraphrase: "I'm not an art historian or analyst. I'm a photographer. I make photographs because I see something that is interesting to my eye; I want to capture it and show it to others. You tell me whether it constitutes some kind of style."

G
 
Defining your personal style is simply a shorthand way of saying "developing the personal aesthetic and intent which is realized into your photographs". I doubt any photographer of note concentrates on the notion of developing a personal style as a thing in itself.

I agree with this Godfrey. As open develops their personal aesthetic and their technique to fulfill that aesthetic you have a "style." Be it a photographer, writer, architect, painter, etc. Or dancer. I'm rereading Twyla Tharp's the Creative Habit. She calls it finding your creative DNA.
 
chipgreenberg said:
I agree with this Godfrey. As open develops their personal aesthetic and their technique to fulfill that aesthetic you have a "style." Be it a photographer, writer, architect, painter, etc. Or dancer. I'm rereading Twyla Tharp's the Creative Habit. She calls it finding your creative DNA.
Click to expand...

That's an advantage, commercially. But, it's not necessarily particularly creative. Sometimes it can be exactly the opposite. Stultifying comes to mind. Twyla Tharp notwithstanding.

Wegman's weimereiners are a style. Walter Keane's Big Eyes paintings were once described in LIFE magazine as "the most popular art now being produced in the free world". That's another recognizable style.

It's an interesting question, style. It's comfortable. It's easy. It might or might not have artistic worth. But, it's the very definition of a creative dead end, no matter how many iterations, even if endless, one can tease out of their particular style. Maybe that is as far as some individuals can go, or think they can go, perhaps convinced by internet pundits that this is how "artists" do it, but it needn't be.

Openness to alternative ways of seeing and interpreting the world, and the courage and willingness to explore those, is a plus, not a negative. But, it's not as easy as having a set style.
The world, however, won't know what to do with you, because it won't be able to pigeonhole you, simply because you have refused to pigeonhole yourself.
 
chipgreenberg said:
Defining your personal style is simply a shorthand way of saying "developing the personal aesthetic and intent which is realized into your photographs". I doubt any photographer of note concentrates on the notion of developing a personal style as a thing in itself.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Larry Cloetta said:
But, it's the very definition of a creative dead end, no matter how many iterations, even if endless, one can tease out of their particular style.
Click to expand...

I truly dislike this avenue of thought wrt "style," as I think it misses fundamentally what Chip stated above.

IMO if you haven't developed some kind of "style" simply through practice, creation, and iteration, you've basically been randomly firing a camera without any deeper thought or intent. Of course, one's style might change, evolve or whatever as they go through their life.
 
The thing with style is that it can be like branding or a trademark that ultimately leads back to being able to help identify the artist.

Larry made some points above like the Wegman example.

In a way it is like a signature.

I like to think I have my own style. Not everybody uses Piezography or prints big, but these are two things I am known for that I get asked to print other artist's work: One was for an exhibition in Hong Kong, and the other involved making some huge 20x30 prints on 24x36 sheet.

Not all photographers are known for their printing skills (also a good B&W wet printer).

My style is that I shoot like a large format shooter to maximize IQ at time of image capture, where I minimize post processing, or manipulation of negatives. Basically I try to make perfect files or negatives as if I were going to contact print them, with my aesthetic being towards large format even though I shoot only small format and medium format.

I own 4x5 but I don't yet exploit it.

Cal
 
Corran said:
I truly dislike this avenue of thought wrt "style," as I think it misses fundamentally what Chip stated above.
Click to expand...

A great many people dislike this avenue of thought, perhaps a majority, but I didn’t miss anything.
I just disagree with the premise that having an easily identifiable “style” is “creatively” superior to being more varied in one’s ways of interpreting the material world. Commercially more viable yes, creatively superior not necessarily. I am just asking people to think about it instead of just quickly reacting to a less commonly heard understanding.
 
At one time, I thought of myself as a "Street Photographer" because of what I shot and also because I live in NYC, but if anything I now consider what I shoot as kind of a personal journalism that lacks mass appeal.

Even though I'm not in the picture I am as the shooter. My friends here on RFF say that somehow I draw out the crazies for some unknown reason.

I kinda get what Larry supports. There are all kinds of judgements and categories that really don't add to creativity.

Had a guitar player say that I wanted to be like him. He was a fine accomplished player, but I told him that all I wanted to be is me.

Cal
 
Calzone said:
The thing with style is that it can be like branding or a trademark that ultimately leads back to being able to help identify the artist.

Larry made some points above like the Wegman example.

In a way it is like a signature.

I like to think I have my own style. Not everybody uses Piezography or prints big, but these are two things I am known for that I get asked to print other artist's work: One was for an exhibition in Hong Kong, and the other involved making some huge 20x30 prints on 24x36 sheet.

Not all photographers are known for their printing skills (also a good B&W wet printer).

My style is that I shoot like a large format shooter to maximize IQ at time of image capture, where I minimize post processing, or manipulation of negatives. Basically I try to make perfect files or negatives as if I were going to contact print them, with my aesthetic being towards large format even though I shoot only small format and medium format.

I own 4x5 but I don't yet exploit it.

Cal
Click to expand...
I believe the thought around trying to develop a style as a "signature" or branding is getting into some troublesome waters. It may well veer a photographer in the direction of trying to ape a lot of conventions that are holding photographers back.
 
Corran said:
...IMO if you haven't developed some kind of "style" simply through practice, creation, and iteration, you've basically been randomly firing a camera without any deeper thought or intent. Of course, one's style might change, evolve or whatever as they go through their life.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with Corran. As you develop your personal vision, as discussed in Chris' previous thread, along with your sense of aesthetic and techniques to fulfill that vision, you'll have a style. Doesn't necessarily have to do with commercial success. I shoot just for me, no intent on selling anything. Plenty of artists had styles and died poor.

Is a style limiting. Maybe. That's an interesting question. I changed my color work a few years ago. When I'm walking around shooting color that's kinda what I do. I just started trying B/W again for the first time in decades. I don't have a style yet. I have ideas on what I want this to look like but still have training wheels on and I'm testing stuff. I really don't have a personal vision, sense of aesthetic and techniques to realize these ideas yet
 
agentlossing said:
I believe the thought around trying to develop a style as a "signature" or branding is getting into some troublesome waters. It may well veer a photographer in the direction of trying to ape a lot of conventions that are holding photographers back.
Click to expand...

A,

I follow what you say. My gal is a fashion blogger, and she deals with all the issues you mention as a public figure. I will mention she is a GoDaddy Girl and still gets royalties for the commercials.

In my case I just do what I want to please or impress myself and no one else.

Interesting to note though how other photographers, people, girlfriend... will tell you what to do or what you should do. Very heated arguments, fights, and other irrational behaviors because I don't respond to their inputs, ideas, suggestions.

Kinda one sided because I'm not asking, I just got told. Pretty much unsolicited advice and "help."

Cal
 
Thanks for the Robert Frank at 90 observation, Godfrey. Photographers should make images that interest them at the moment—without self-consciously looking over their shoulders at their preceptors, admirers, enemies. That’s just another dead end promoted by Ego Inc.

Style is useful for criticism: for critics (including teachers of fine arts) to describe, debate, define X (Robert Frank crisscrossing the USA using candid impromptu 35mm to apprehend the strangeness and estrangement of Americans, e.g.) in a historical context.

When “style” gets subverted by Ego Inc.—by which I mean anything that involves a mirror to imagine how others see you and value your work; when style gets romantically attached to this or that individual as proof of triumphant individualism; when style goes out for drinks with fashion and trend, and gossips and sleeps around and starts (in the manner of fashion and trend) prescribing instead of describing, or labeling what is not to its individual taste or within its narrow conceptual experience “not stylish”— that’s delusional. That’s pursuit of illusions instead of perception and truth of experience.

Individuation as Jung described it is important valuable life work; individualism is a poisoned aquifer whose victims believe their personal well is full of the sweetest water. From where I stand, individualism is an evil, in art as well as in life, and “style” is part of its consuming propaganda.

For an artist, technique matters. Habits of apprehension and work (including play) matter too. Subjects matter, and skills (in wildly varying degrees) matter. When you’re young in the art, imitating accomplished artists matters. I’ll be photographing and developing and selecting and cataloging until I die, and the work will then go to an institution where, maybe, someone thoughtful, perceptive, and with a keen sense of history will write a monograph—maybe without even one occurrence of the word “style.”
 
Calzone said:
A,

I follow what you say. My gal is a fashion blogger, and she deals with all the issues you mention as a public figure. I will mention she is a GoDaddy Girl and still gets royalties for the commercials.

In my case I just do what I want to please or impress myself and no one else.

Interesting to note though how other photographers, people, girlfriend... will tell you what to do or what you should do. Very heated arguments, fights, and other irrational behaviors because I don't respond to their inputs, ideas, suggestions.

Kinda one sided because I'm not asking, I just got told. Pretty much unsolicited advice and "help."

Cal
Click to expand...

And I'm sure you have noticed, the internet likes to do this even more than people you are close to. I think we all could benefit from freeing up a little with what we call "good" and who we are trying to please. It's certainly helped me shoot more of what I like to shoot, sounds like it has for you too.

I call what I do "snapshots." That term is used pretty derogatorily most of the time these days, but you know what? I don't care.
 
chipgreenberg said:
Do you have a style to your photography? Does having a style dictate or limit what you shoot?
Click to expand...

My style is probably a bit artistic and poetic - love it or hate it, it demands interpretation. I cannot say I consciously tried to develop a personal style as such. But I did go on a quest to find a style that produced images I like and that is different. Does it limit what I shoot? In a sense yes but only because of habit. And because of environment. Just as our ancestors ate what was available - they ate locally and ate seasonally, most photographers do something of this sort with photography. And that can develop into a wagon rut unfortunately.
 
I tend to like dark moody shots, I like a good dollop of saturation or contrast, I have no sense of composition so I use the rule of thirds. I like detail, exceedin sharpness, if that is a style, it's mine.
 
I find it difficult to judge my own photographs, especially when the content is sentimental. So I find it tough to say what style I have and I also feel a resistance to the possibility of being boxed in to one style.

Perhaps a style refers to the aesthetic and formal characteristics of a work as opposed to a photographer? Project X can be done in one style (wide angle, BW, up close, people) while Project Y can be done in another (50mm, color, landscapes) - by the same photographer.
 
I basically just document my journeys with carefully composed photographs. My style is literally pedestrian with a rickshaw driver mixed in. Nothing special. They just remind me I have been there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top