Larcomb Posted August 31, 2012 Share #41 Posted August 31, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) May we see some? i don't show my works Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 Hi Larcomb, Take a look here Trying to define genre and style. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pico Posted August 31, 2012 Share #42 Posted August 31, 2012 i don't show my works Then do not try to represent them in words. You can write that your works has an apparent style but it means absolutely nothing unless you show them. As some say, "Put up or..." Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted August 31, 2012 Share #43 Posted August 31, 2012 Those were my words, so permit me this opportunity to explain what I meant. I was trying to address how I worked, not the outcome - the photographs. I held no words in mind as I photographed. I was not driven or guided by an articulated style. That is what I meant. . No problem Pico, I just thought Simplify was getting the idea slightly wrong. There could be something very poetic about using one camera, one lens, and a few words. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larcomb Posted August 31, 2012 Share #44 Posted August 31, 2012 Then do not try to represent them in words. You can write that your works has an apparent style but it means absolutely nothing unless you show them. As some say, "Put up or..." I just can say that I like shallow depth of field and harsh light. Thats enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted August 31, 2012 Share #45 Posted August 31, 2012 "Genre" = landscape, urban landscape, street photography, social documentary, news events, wedding photography, architecture, portraiture, environmental portraiture, still life, still "non-life"...... "Style" = abstract, representational, single picture, photo essay, photo story, edgy, expressionist, impressionist, classical, new wave, noire, "naive"....... (or something new you invent for yourself). "Technique" = film type, developer type, film format, film or digital, silver print, platinum print, cyanotype, silk-screen, (or paint or pencil or brush or pallette knife, for that matter).......... (In the above "...." indicates the lists are virtually endless) In a general sense, Genre and Technique are things that other people can also do/copy/replicate - Style is what sets you apart as an individual from others working in the same genre and/or using similar technique(s). Now, to some extent, "Technique" can become an inseparable part of "Style," and styles can be mixed together - Jackson Pollock's technique (thrown paint) vs. Clyfford Still's technique (palette knife) defined their styles, and both combined the styles of "abstract" and "expressionist" into "Abstract Expressionism." One can even (in fact one really SHOULD) say that "Abstract Expressionism" became a genre in its own right. ____________ Having carefully pigeonholed genre, style and technique, and their subsets - I'm the first to support the idea that art can't be pigeonholed. At one end of the scale, in explaining the basics, such distinctions and dividing lines are helpful. But sophisticated art works, and entices, precisely because it breaks down those divisions. Purely as an aside - "Genre" itself once referred to a particular genre of painting. What we might today equate to "street photography" - sort of - the capturing of anonymous everyday life and people. Genre works Except for art historians, that is a rather outdated (and non-descriptive) use of the word. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted August 31, 2012 Share #46 Posted August 31, 2012 To provide more clarity by further muddying the waters.... Both Elliott Erwitt and Duane Michals created personal styles in part based on creating sequences of photographs. Both used the technique(s) of "straight, 35mm film, B&W" - Michals occasionally also added the technique of "double-exposure." Erwitt's genre was documentary - found actual events - non-fiction (some debate this). http://img.scoop.it/PiqIWGI1pJ1l14xty55euzl72eJkfbmt4t8yenImKBXEejxNn4ZJNZ2ss5Ku7Cxt Michals' genre was usually "directorial" - staged actions - fiction: http://www.laboiteverte.fr/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/sequence-photographie-duane-mickeals-06.jpg Someone running across just these two works by themselves might be excused for thinking Erwitt and Michals used the same style. But once one sees additional works within this genre, and their other works in other genres, their styles become more obviously individual and unique. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith (M) Posted August 31, 2012 Share #47 Posted August 31, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) In a way I regret 'bumping' this thread as (a) it has resulted in a lot of interesting responses and because ( as of Sunday I shall be out of the country for an extended period, unable to follow/respond. Adan mentioned Elliot Erwitt and as I recently bought a copy of Erwitt's mammoth tome 'Snaps', I have to say that his style is one of the most identifiable I have come across and a close second to A. Adams. In trying to deepen my understanding of photography (in the non-technical sense) I have read the books as shown on my bookshelves, some of them at least twice but still struggle with applying some of the terminology used. As someone who spent his whole career in various types of engineering or technical roles I admit to never having studied art or pretty much anything that could not either be calculated or to which hard and fast rules did not apply. Therein lies my problem. For example, on page 31 of 'The Photograph' by Graham Clarke (Oxford History of Art series), there is a picture by Diane Arbus entitled 'A Family on Their Lawn One Sunday in Westchester, New York 1969'. His description is "Another archetypal Arbus image which, highly symbolic in it's language (errr, what language?), presents what might be seen as a general image of American culture. It remains an example of the way a single photograph can represent a larger condition, at once cultural, social and in this instance, psychological." To me it is a grainy b&w shot of a mid-thirties couple relaxing on the lawn whilst their son amuses himself in the background. Hence my struggle to devise a way of photographing, of defining an identifiable personal style. If there is one image of mine that comes to mind encapsulating my interest in and of 'street', it is this M7/Tri-X shot. Happily the struggles to understand the symbolism of imagery does not detract from the pleasures of image creation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larcomb Posted August 31, 2012 Share #48 Posted August 31, 2012 Genre means the kind of photography (glamour, sport, portrait, urban, architecture, travel, ect) Style means your personal choice of aperture, angle, lighting, film, depth of field, etct Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith (M) Posted August 31, 2012 Share #49 Posted August 31, 2012 Genre means the kind of photography (glamour, sport, portrait, urban, architecture, travel, ect) Style means your personal choice of aperture, angle, lighting, film, depth of field, etct One has to wonder why you bother... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larcomb Posted August 31, 2012 Share #50 Posted August 31, 2012 One has to wonder why you bother... The original questioner seemed unsure what to ask. In some cases genre places limits on style because of distance, light, etc Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted August 31, 2012 Share #51 Posted August 31, 2012 ... picture by Diane Arbus (...) To me it is a grainy b&w shot of a mid-thirties couple relaxing on the lawn whilst their son amuses himself in the background. Hence my struggle to devise a way of photographing, of defining an identifiable personal style. I think your choice of image for this discussion quite fortunate. If you look at the "geometry" of the image, i.e. the arrangement of the various elements within its area, you will notice that the layout is utterly simple, verging on the trivial. This may or may not signal that you are not to concentrate on the layout but rather on the content. The layout does, however, signal at least one other thing. What you're seeing is not a family but three individual humans on a platter. Their positions relative to each other or to anything else within the image are meaningless. This leads to the observation that there is no interaction whatsoever between the people. Now if the image evokes a feeling of familiarity for an american audience, then this would mean that the "scene" has properties which apply to everyday people (if there is such a thing). This is what I understand the description you quoted above to be saying. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 31, 2012 Share #52 Posted August 31, 2012 Rewinding, if I may: Originally Posted by SiMPLiFY: I think my genre would be considered rural life? Rural American Life. An excellent and challenging theme, in my opinion. American rural life is wildly diverse across the country. The scope is almost intimidating to me, and I lived it for years. Go for it. Your picture is a very good start. I appreciate what at first appears to be decomposition, her face looking outside of the frame at something we cannot know, behind her the railroad tracks hint to something around the bend. Having walked the tracks for much of my commuting as a child I have, of course, projected my own impression upon the photograph. Keep that negative. I have a feeling you will want to print it differently later. You might also want to rephotograph it again to recompose slightly. And rephotograph the same person in five, then ten years at the same location. Fun stuff! Sometimes simplicity is the hardest thing. It cannot be forced, rushed into being or anticipated. Then it happens! “One day I will find the right words, and they will be simple.” ― Jack Kerouac, author, beat generation, known for stream-of-consciousness, voluminous writing - a ream at a time. "When the answer is found, it will be simple." ― Domina C. Jalbert, inventor “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” ― Leonardo da Vinci, artist, inventor Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiMPLiFY Posted August 31, 2012 Author Share #53 Posted August 31, 2012 There is a lot of information here and I am contemplating all of it. Thanks to those who have contributed. I had to google Diane Arbus photo to see what it looked like. I think it looks like a pretty unhappy family. Dad looks stressed. Mom looks like she is all dressed up, makeup, hair, bikini, wanting her spouses attention. The little boy splashing in the pool seems happy enough but I have to wonder what he grew up to become. It's all very "Mad Men" to me. I imagine Mom taking valium and Dad drinking Manhattans. All American for that era I suppose! What do I know? nothing. If they knew their photo was being taken it would have ruined reality. I had no idea that she committed suicide in 1971. That's really sad. To hear her daughter speak of her Mom's upbringing makes me wonder if this wasn't a portrait of her own family life. There is a documentary about her as part of Masters of Photography series. Rewinding, if I may: Rural American Life. An excellent and challenging theme, in my opinion. American rural life is wildly diverse across the country. The scope is almost intimidating to me, and I lived it for years. Go for it. Your picture is a very good start. I appreciate what at first appears to be decomposition, her face looking outside of the frame at something we cannot know, behind her the railroad tracks hint to something around the bend. Having walked the tracks for much of my commuting as a child I have, of course, projected my own impression upon the photograph. Keep that negative. I have a feeling you will want to print it differently later. You might also want to rephotograph it again to recompose slightly. And rephotograph the same person in five, then ten years at the same location. Fun stuff! Sometimes simplicity is the hardest thing. It cannot be forced, nor rushed into being. Then it happens! “One day I will find the right words, and they will be simple.” ― Jack Kerouac, author, beat generation "When the answer is found, it will be simple." ― Domina C. Jalbert, inventor “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” ― Leonardo da Vinci, artist, inventor Thank you pico for looking at my picture. It's the only negative I like so far out of my first 6 rolls. This just happened to be a grab snapshot. I put the words on it after I saw the picture I had taken. Sitting by the side of the tracks, contemplating the long journey into life she must now embark on but not quite ready to face, it's all pretty metaphorical for growing up. When I read about your story of the boy in the window I do now see that it is the same as the american flag. WOW! I'm not sure what year this was taken in and I lived overseas for all of the 60's and most of the 70's so I missed that era in america. It's good for me to educate myself on our own history and your photo remains powerful today. Sad that he died so young. I don't think I can be that kind of photographer. I admire those who can and do document causes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
businessasusual Posted August 31, 2012 Share #54 Posted August 31, 2012 In a way I regret 'bumping' this thread as (a) it has resulted in a lot of interesting responses and because ( as of Sunday I shall be out of the country for an extended period, unable to follow/respond. Adan mentioned Elliot Erwitt and as I recently bought a copy of Erwitt's mammoth tome 'Snaps', I have to say that his style is one of the most identifiable I have come across and a close second to A. Adams. In trying to deepen my understanding of photography (in the non-technical sense) I have read the books as shown on my bookshelves, some of them at least twice but still struggle with applying some of the terminology used. As someone who spent his whole career in various types of engineering or technical roles I admit to never having studied art or pretty much anything that could not either be calculated or to which hard and fast rules did not apply. Therein lies my problem. For example, on page 31 of 'The Photograph' by Graham Clarke (Oxford History of Art series), there is a picture by Diane Arbus entitled To me it is a grainy b&w shot of a mid-thirties couple relaxing on the lawn whilst their son amuses himself in the background. Hence my struggle to devise a way of photographing, of defining an identifiable personal style. If there is one image of mine that comes to mind encapsulating my interest in and of 'street', it is this M7/Tri-X shot. Happily the struggles to understand the symbolism of imagery does not detract from the pleasures of image creation. Keith, with regards reading (and I own almost every book on your shelf plus a whole pile more) I, too, re-read mine many times over. The part of the reading that had left it's mark in my photography progress has not been the technical side, it has been the story side of the lives of the world's best and well known photographers. My photography has been influenced by tapping into their soul and life experience - eg. living in the Dustobowl era, how some were blacklisted during McCartyism, how Magnum was formed etc, etc. Much like music, genre and style come from the soul, not a learned technique. You can spot an Ansel Adams vs an Annie Leibovitz - because their images are "WHO" they are, not "HOW" they do things. You can spot an Aretha Franklin vs Janis Joplin - some may sound similar but nobody can BE them. If one just BE's, the soul will dictate both. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebban Posted September 4, 2012 Share #55 Posted September 4, 2012 I think it looks like a pretty unhappy family. Dad looks stressed. Mom looks like she is all dressed up, makeup, hair, bikini, wanting her spouses attention. The little boy splashing in the pool seems happy enough but I have to wonder what he grew up to become. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyedward Posted September 24, 2012 Share #56 Posted September 24, 2012 My best shots come when I'm not looking for them. Something catches my eye and I have that "eureka" moment of inspiration, so I take the shot. There's no genre, pigeonholing, style, context, theme or intent involved. The only thing these shots share in common is that they were taken by me and my M6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.