A question of terminology?

I don't think you can really look at anything photographic (or anything of an "artistic bent") and decide if it has any real meaning. All any of us can say is that has meaning to me(you) as an individual.

Unfortunately, some people's work sells just because of the "name" attached to it.

Pablo Picasso is revered as a great artist, but I just don't get his work at any level.
 
Interesting discussion Chris.

When you used the words "driven" to describe the feeling about making photographs, that was a perfect description of how I feel about my "work". I love making photographs, and I don't care if people love it or hate it, buy it or don't buy it. It's one of the reasons I'm fascinated by Vivian Maier. She made photographs because she was driven to do it because no money was made from it during her life. It's like it's another method of communication for me (and possibly Maier). When I look at my earlier work, I wasn't trying to communicate anything - I was trying to take pretty pictures that other people would like. I was creating content.

I would imagine in some extremely rare cases, photographers can make a living from an unobstructed vision of where they want to be and what they want to do. Ansel Adams for example was fascinated by the technical aspects of photography at the time, as well as the creative. There is a clinical beauty to his work that comes across in everything I've seen of his. Some might regard his work as quite easy to replicate, and today, with modern gear, perhaps it is. But after reading the "Camera-Negative-Print" trilogy it's clear there was far more to his depth of knowledge than just "get up at dawn and go to a pretty part of Yosemite".
 
sirch said:
So the question is: is there an umbrella term for this kind of work?

It feels to me that there should be, beyond terms like documentary, landscape, portraiture, fine art, etc. which are essentially categories by subject or style and make no distinction between a phone snap and something worthy of say a major gallery exhibition.
Click to expand...

In my head, I use the term expressive photography to cover photographs where there was a clear emotional or intellectual intent on the part of the photographer to communicate/express something about the subject (and the photographer), which is deeper than this is what " a duck", "a tree", " a pizza", " little Johnny at five", or the beach at Newquay" looks like.

These photographs of duck and pizzas still "say something" to those who took them as mnemonics, but unlikely to carry the same meaning to others as good photographs taken by good photographers with a conscious intent to capture images that reflect how they see and feel about the world they live in. There is obviously lots of diffused categories lying between mnemonic and expressive, but I think these are the two end points.

BUT, in my head when I think of "Photographer" I am normally thinking about "Expressive Photographers". Just as when I think of "Painter" I am thinking of some one with brushes and easel creating art, and not the person who painted my front door, or the person from the council that paints crosses on dangerous trees that need to be felled.

So rather than try and define the type of Photography you mentioned, I generally do the opposite and try to qualify the types of photography that don't fall into my loosely defined genre independent expressive photography categorisation. e.g. wildlife photography, sports photography, wedding photography, mnemonic photography, landscape photography etc.

That isn't to say these "other" types of photography cannot also be expressive (or dramatic or relaxing, or creative), and they are often the foundation of expressive photography, but when compared to expressive photography, in general they seem far more about competently "recording" the subject, and not so much about a photographers emotional and intellectual interaction with the subject.
 
sirch said:
...I'd see artists as people who make work regardless, they just enjoy making work, some of them get lucky and sell the work, most don't but they still make work.
Click to expand...
Here the slippery nature of photography reappears. A lot of 'iconic' photographs were taken on commercial assignments. Including some by Fay Godwin. The Sistine Chapel ceiling was a commercial assignment too!

Perhaps the difference is that driven 'creatives' (how I loathe that term :mad: )approach their personal and commercial work with similar intent. Probably because they can't help it - due to that urge to make their own work.
 
droj said:
'Fine art', for instance, is one of the most peculiar terms out there ...
Click to expand...
I have NEVER understood what the term "Fine Art" meant, when applied to photography.
 
Brian G said:
I have NEVER understood what the term "Fine Art" meant, when applied to photography.
Click to expand...
Generally, it would seem to denote an excess of technique over meaning, meaning being often totally absent. A kind of posing.
 
Ed Sutton said:
The Sistine Chapel ceiling was a commercial assignment too!
Click to expand...
And one that he really didn't want to do, he was a sculptor not a painter. I think payment, commerce, commisions, etc. have absolutely nothing to do with it, just was it made as art by an artist.
 
Brian G said:
I have NEVER understood what the term "Fine Art" meant, when applied to photography.
Click to expand...
In that context it means "decor" i.e. mainly imagery that is used to enhance an interior design. I assume it is derived from the more broad term for which a lot of institutions offer degree courses, my daughter is in the final year of a fine art degree and I can assure you that "fine art" photography would be taken out of the art school and burned in the street should it ever make its way into the building in the first place. That said it does have it's place, I would much rather have a nice pastel, hazy fine art photo on my living room wall than a grim black and white photo of a snotty kid on a run down council estate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top