In article <115igef3i6h4935 DeleteThis @news.supernews.com>,
jjs <jjs DeleteThis @nowhere.you.know.net> wrote:
>"Pieter Litchfield" <pvcl@*nospam*plitch.com> wrote in message
>news:bNa6e.1702$b92.215@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>> [...]
>> I have a professional (maybe ex-professional now) photogapher friend who
>> will no longer look at B&W photo magazines because (in his words) "all the
>> worthy pictures have already been taken."
>The same is said of poetry. From a some poets, publishers and academics in
>the field I hear "there are so many good poets today compared to..." and
>"all the poetic words that can be written have been", but the same people
>admits that poetry continues to speak to it's mature self and to find new
>audiences. I guess we need a Digital Poet Shop to truly rile them up.
In some ways it's a function of what people are willing to consider "different"
or "similar". And the same kind of objection comes up in practically any
discussion of any art; you can find similar laments in the world of say
science fiction, or mystery stories, or rock music criticism. Nobody wants to
write certain stories,
say, because a similar theme was already addressed by someone else, and people
don't want it said that they ripped off the idea, or be compared to their
predecessor, etc. So thousands of great stories are never written, and that's
too bad.
Now I've taken plenty of more or less spontaneous nature shots in
local parks (not that I've achieved real skill yet--or more accurately
I have not made a photograph that I am satisfied with yet). And you could go
through books of nature photography and find something more or less similar
to each photograph I've taken. Not identical of course, but similar:
there are photographs waiting to be taken, and anyone else who has come upon
a similar place with a camera will take a similar picture.
The pictures I've taken are not copies of anything, but they are
also not original. If I craved originality I'd need to have an encyclopedic
knowledge of what has been done, and time and determination to do something
otherwise. And there'd be nothing wrong with that, and if I were a
professional artist that would be my duty (and there would be nothing
wrong with it!). On the other hand,
I believe excessive obsession with finding similarities of various sorts and
criticizing new photographs on such grounds is somewhat decadent. Doing
something completely new is only one of the wonderful things to attempt.
Could anything possibly be less original than taking a straight photograph of
the Golden Gate bridge off the Marin Headlands? But if you're some place like
that, how can you not take
such a photograph, at least once? Doesn't every new quality shot of it reveal
at least something about it, as the light, seasons, and bay change?
So, I can't speak for the market for professional artists, and for professional
photographers. I *do* know "all the good photographs" have certainly not
been taken. As an amateur I have the freedom to photograph anything I like,
since no claim of wild novelty, or even moderate novelty at all, is at stake.
There is nothing at all at
stake, except whether I like the photograph. I feel that if I adhere to some
conventions of quality and work hard to improve, and to learn to do an
excellent job, I am participating constructively in photography. Precisely
because what I do is not socially or monetarily important, I can have the
enjoyment of photographing anything. I can even try to photograph the Half
Dome in Yosemite, in black and white no less, to see what I can see there.
I can't imagine the burden of trying to do that as a professional, knowing
who you would be compared to. Though even that has been done, too.
So we can discuss how different a photo has to be from other photos someone
can remember before it is considered 'original'. There are interesting
issues of perception and cognitive psychology involved. And we could discuss
the issues professionals have in selling photos of things others have
photographed.
But I can't imagine that "all the great photos" have been taken--not until
every spot has been photographed round the clock under all conditions at all
depths of field, at all zooms, night and day, rain or shine (or rain and
shine), time exposures and high-speed exposures, infrared and ultraviolet, etc.
etc.
I once had to write ten pages describing a candle flame (an old-fashioned
science lab thing), and that convinced me that there's a *lot* to see if you
look, and therefore a *lot* to photograph if you work. It may take the rest
of my life, or never, before I can make others see it too (i.e., be a good
photographer). Perhaps there is no need for us beginners, or anyone else,
to be discouraged by such cynicism.
my strictly amateur 2 cents.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
>> Stay informed about: Real feelings about fake images 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
