Like many photographers I own a number of different cameras. But to what extent do their mechanical attributes/limitations affect the way I work? In particular, do they affect my Vision or in any way control my Style? (What are your views…?)
I like to think it is Me rather than the camera I use that determines the type of images I make. But, if I think about making a picture and then ask myself how I want it to look, I am very aware that in my mind's eye the resulting image looks and feels totally different as I think about capturing it on one of the many different cameras I own. My approach would be quite different, say, were I to use a digital SLR when compared to shooting the same thing on film, on my Fuji 6x9 rangefinder, and, again, my approach with that one camera would be different if I chose Bergger 200 film as opposed to Delta 3200. Each film creates/promotes a style of their own.
On a recent shoot I took both a DSLR and my Hasslebad XPan. I found it impossible to work with both. It was like trying to pat my head with one hand while rotating the other hand over my stomach. My brain got totally confused and I had to think consciously (rather than visually and spontaneously) about what I was doing. I ceased being a photographer, immersed in his subject and a conduit for the image, and became a kind of art director instead – working to a brief. But perhaps there was more to it than that. Was it impossible for me to use the two different camera types because the film-based XPan involves me in a process of visualisation as opposed to the DSLR with which I am an image editor, constantly reviewing what I've photographed, responding to it and then re-shooting if needs be?
This experience got me thinking about the idea of working with just one camera. It sounds very limiting, but also very liberating. Perfect the art of working with that camera, so that it becomes an extension of oneself, and ultimately the only limitation is one's imagination.
So, how do I feel about the idea of selling the other cameras I don't need? My immediate response is that I have some kind of connection (or is attachment?) to them. As I think about this I realise my approach to photography is rooted in something beyond technique. I'm more interested in how photography can help me see the world. Having different cameras affects my viewpoint and this enables me to see things in a variety of ways, each from a different perspective, with one challenging the other. None of these views are right, nor is one approach better than the other. How, then, would I define my own style of photography, given that my multi-camera approach is so varied. Perhaps Style it is more to do with the intention behind the work? In this case, perhaps what drives my Style is the notion of Inquiry. Maybe it doesn't matter what camera or process I use…
Monday 19 March 2007
SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT 'STYLE' – MINE AND YOURS…
What do we mean when we talk about 'Style'?
Is Style 'that' which simply differentiates the work of one photographer from another? Is it a result? A way that we the viewer can describe the difference between photographs, say, of similar subject matter made by different photographers? Or, is it an approach to making images? For example, does every photographer have a mantra (conscious or subconscious) that guides their work, that causes it to be different from others? In First Light, Joe Cornish talks about the importance of TLC (Timing, Lighting and Composition). If any of the three are absent, he won't press the shutter release. When we recognise one of his images, are we seeing the coming together of T, L and C, or is there something 'other' which is present? If so, what and how might we describe it?
I like what Weston wrote about a picture he made of Tina Modotti: "… a tear rolled down her cheek – and then I captured the moment – let me see f8 1/10 sec K1 filter – panchromatic film – how brutally mechanical and calculated it sounds – yet really how spontaneous and genuine – for I have so overcome the mechanics of my camera that it functions responsive to my desires – my shutter co-ordinating with my brain is released in a way – as natural as I might move my arm – I am beginning to approach an actual attainment in photography… The moment of our mutual moment was recorded on the silver film."
In my search for a greater understanding of Style, I've delved into any number of books – photographic, artistic and beyond. In 'Writers on Howard Hodgkin' I found a quote that might answer the above question about Joe's photography. It is by Edouard Vuillard (the French Post-Impressionist painter): "There is no art without poetic aim."
What do you think about Style? Please include your thoughts on the matter with your entry forms. Your comments, ideas and questions will help shape DV&S into an inspiring and thought-provoking book.
Is Style 'that' which simply differentiates the work of one photographer from another? Is it a result? A way that we the viewer can describe the difference between photographs, say, of similar subject matter made by different photographers? Or, is it an approach to making images? For example, does every photographer have a mantra (conscious or subconscious) that guides their work, that causes it to be different from others? In First Light, Joe Cornish talks about the importance of TLC (Timing, Lighting and Composition). If any of the three are absent, he won't press the shutter release. When we recognise one of his images, are we seeing the coming together of T, L and C, or is there something 'other' which is present? If so, what and how might we describe it?
I like what Weston wrote about a picture he made of Tina Modotti: "… a tear rolled down her cheek – and then I captured the moment – let me see f8 1/10 sec K1 filter – panchromatic film – how brutally mechanical and calculated it sounds – yet really how spontaneous and genuine – for I have so overcome the mechanics of my camera that it functions responsive to my desires – my shutter co-ordinating with my brain is released in a way – as natural as I might move my arm – I am beginning to approach an actual attainment in photography… The moment of our mutual moment was recorded on the silver film."
In my search for a greater understanding of Style, I've delved into any number of books – photographic, artistic and beyond. In 'Writers on Howard Hodgkin' I found a quote that might answer the above question about Joe's photography. It is by Edouard Vuillard (the French Post-Impressionist painter): "There is no art without poetic aim."
What do you think about Style? Please include your thoughts on the matter with your entry forms. Your comments, ideas and questions will help shape DV&S into an inspiring and thought-provoking book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
