One of my friends on facebook, who is also a photographer, recently commented on one magazines’ roll of Photographer or the Year winners. The photographs were good, but what he said irked me a little. His comment on the winning piece (of a surfer in a funnel) was that it was what photographs should be because it told a story and not mere “eye candy” shots. Or something to that effect. Below is what I posted:
It is wrong, I believe, to impose one’s chosen style of photography on others or to pass judgment on whether or not a subject is worthy to be photographed. The reason why we have so many styles is because of the human need to explore and not be imposed on by any dogma. This is not exclusive to photography; revolutions in art are evidence of this.
We gravitate to the subjects we feel a passion for and this steers us to the type of photography we employ. There are photographers how dedicate their creativity to wildlife photography, or landscape photography, or journalistic photography. There are those who like taking photographs of small things, textures, patterns and every-day found items. And yet there are those who have an eclectic collection of pieces – by design, indecision or experimentation.
Who is to say which subject is better than another? Photographers need to have open minds and know how to appreciate and respect each others work. If a certain style or photograph is not to one’s taste, then it is simply that. But let us not say that one has a story to tell and therefore is the benchmark of good photography and one is merely eye candy.
My chosen style of photography is Macro and Extreme Close-up with subjects ranging from textiles, jewellery, and food to flowers, animals, bark and moss. Macro photography is like entering a different dimension; seeing ordinary, everyday things in a different way. If I can make someone say to a photograph of sugar granules or a rose or cupcakes “That’s beautiful!” then I have made these banal things, for a moment, beautiful.
And what is photography if not to capture a moment, however you do it and whatever your subject?
So, what kind of photographer are you?
What do you think? I’d love to hear your oppinion.
stephaniek
I totally agree……….I have just finished studying 40 famous Artists going back centuries with my son and each Artist felt that in order to “Make it” they had to conform to the standards of the Art critics. I admired them for NOT wavering or conforming in order to please the “people with power!”
Some went so far as to move continents away and/or start their own “Art” colonies.
Each person has their own style and should be accepted and praised for it.
Aileen David:
Thank you Steph :)
Larry Davis
I totally agree.
Not long after I joined RedBubble I had a member tell be that my image of The Toll Booth in the Royal Mile Edinburgh was spoiled and I had defaced it by uploading my interpritation of it.
I told him to keep his opinions to himself after lots of members agreed with me.
It’s bad enough having to make sure that these days you have permission from literally everyone before snapping, but to tell you how you should take it is another argument altogether.
Aileen David:
Thanks Larry.
Mike Oxley
I agree 100%, Aileen. All is grist to my mill, whether a full scale scenic or the most detailed macro. Some may like my work, some may be indifferent, but it’s all a matter of taste and I can understand that. I’ve taken photography courses and the instructor can by a “by the rules” individual or a “here’s the basics and you’re free to do what with them”. I know which type I prefer. The first rule? There are no rules.
Cheers,
Mike.
Aileen David:
Cheers Mike.