None of the following is FACT, but it is pretty widely accepted, and in fact a discussion that comes up time and time again in the educational forums (real forum.. not internet) hosted by The Association of Photographers.. who are deeply concerned about the following subject, and it's implications for the creative photographic industry in general. The big issue is does the general public's perception of photography in the post-digital era adversely affect the industry itself, and is it causing a problem with photographic education in general.
Which brings us back the full circle in many ways - Daryls original question in this thread, what creative really is and why do many photographers claim in their blurb to be creative...are they, if they asked themselves honestly?
Exactly. However, I've not yet met a photographer who would not be insulted if you suggested their work was not creative in nature, no matter what their attitudes and views on creativity were. It seems a universal desire for photographers: Being creative. Clearly though, some photographers seem to have little use for creativity in their work, and some even actively speak out against the accepted methods of creative practice as being psuedo-intellect and nonsense, but still seek to carve out their own meaning of what creativity is... find ways to BE creative, even if they have no clear idea of what that means. There's clearly a need for photographers to feel, and be regarded as creative, but on THEIR terms. Such a premise seems to suggest that there is no such thing as creativity, and clearly you can make it mean whatever you want it to mean. This makes no sense, as in any other academic practice, there's scholarly activity, research, debate and eventually some consensus is arrived at, but with amateur photography, no one is prepared to accept that. It's very accessibility and ease by which you can create visually impressive things reinforces a belief that you ARE creative... even if you've no clear idea what that means.
I worked for Venture for a few years.. 4 or 5 if I recall. Around 8 months of that time I was shooting. I realised quite quickly that social portraiture involves little creativity as I understand it. The client's would come in, and have an idea of what they wanted based on what the studio had already shot... they have an expectation of what they will receive. There was no scope for me to experiment to any great degree, or try new things... to innovate, as there's always the risk that the client would not like it. Despite this, some of the images shot would be a little experimental in nature, and they've be part of the preview show they'd see when they came to view their images. Almost without fail, the experimental images were not chosen to be purchased, as the client wasn't able to be sure that was "acceptable" or whether other family members, neighbours, or friends would also like it. What they wanted to buy was a sure-fire, tested product that was guaranteed to be a hit with their own peers. With this in mind... when I started working with Venture in a more managerial role, and was more involved with product development, we started putting more experimental imagery not in client shows, but instead on promotional material, posters, exhibition stands in supermarkets.. the usual stuff... and only THEN did clients express an interest... but still overwhelmingly, they wanted what the brand was famous for. This demonstrates one thing very clearly - the average client wanted what their friends and neighbours had, or what they knew others in their social circles wanted, and while they WANTED something original, they still wanted something that was instantly recognisable and widely accepted. It took time to get a new idea into circulation and accepted as also desired by others. You can't just put something radically different in a client's set of images that is very different from what they expected to get from you, and expect them to buy it, as the majority will not. They knew what they wanted before they even came... and that would be what you're already doing. Only when you're a world brand, with massive marketing clout can you launch a truly innovative product in this arena, as the client needs the re-assurance that they're buying something that will be equally desired by others - no one wants to invest in something that no one else wants, even they really want it themselves, as part of the appeal of the product is that it will trigger desire in, and be coveted by their peers. Anyone in advertising will confirm this. Most people buy non-utile products like this to impress others as much as they do themselves.
So... this is why, if you choose 50 social photography websites at random, there will be a great deal of similarity between them.. and only a handful will be doing something different. You're doing it to make money, and doing what the client wants is clearly the best way to get that money from them.
Carry that mindset into amateur photography then. You begin this hobby because you are impressed with some images you've seen on Flickr, and you like cameras. What do you do? Well.. you start shooting things similar to what you've seen... what initially impressed you, and you learn the technical stuff that enables you to do that. Then, as is natural, you seek acceptance and approval for your work by putting what YOU make on Flickr (other platforms are available
) and measure how successful you are by how many "likes" it gets. The issue here is that as the vast majority of viewers will go straight for the eye candy, as Flickr is a fairly casual thing (most are not professional photographers)... you're presented with thousands.. if not millions of images, and the ones that stand out at a GLANCE are the ones that are eye candy... highly visual stuff that relies on process and processing... technique and drama. So the newbie photographer quickly learns to accept that what is good, is what is instantly gratifying without thought, contemplation or meaning... that photography's purpose is to merely create images that punch you in the face with drama and razzmatazz! If you do that, you get likes... and likes equal proof that you're good. Then, at some point, you'll think.. I'm good at this stuff... I'll try and be a "proper" photographer... yeah... I like all those images with star trails and light painting and stuff... My stuff is as good, if not better than what I've seen... and you then take it out of the Flickrverse and start showing professional photographers, or maybe go to a portfolio review or two, or apply for a Uni course.. or go for an assisting job with an architectural photographer.. whatever. That's when the disconnect happens, because they'll just say... OK.. you have skills.. sure... but this is exactly like millions of other images on Flickr.. you've just done what they've done... so how is this creative? Or if you shoot fashion, they may say.. "sure... this has skills... but why have you shot stuff that is so hideously out of date.. none of this is what the industry wants". Maybe you have a portfolio of "documentary" photography, but they say "Where's the story.. why are these just shots of people in the street with no connection to anything.. what is this a documentary of.. what's it about?". Then you get irritated because you're of a mindset that then thinks... "Why does everything have to have meaning... why are they telling me I need to research and read.. I'm a photographer!"
Well... the reason is... that images in a professional context have to have purpose... they need to DO something, or they're of no worth. If it's weddings, social portraiture etc. then it's pretty straightforward... they have to please the client, make them look good and be something they can hang on the wall and have everyone who sees it INSTANTLY like it without thought or contemplation. They don't have to be that creative... indeed they shouldn't be TOO creative. Baby in a basket? Not really creative, as it's a well used trope that people want... been done to death, but still, people love that stuff.. so you do it. However... editorial portraiture? Hmmm... what's the purpose of THAT then? Fashion? Advertising? Is advertising just making a product look good? Just skills? No... it's as much about psychology and culture as anything else. Why would anyone invest in YOU as a photographer and give you creative control of a million dollar campaign for a product if you clearly have nothing to demonstrate that you understand culture and what drives consumerism? Documentary... why would anyone commission you to document a long term urban renewal operation if you can't demonstrate that you can produce a set of images that deeply enquire about people's lives, stories, trials and challenges, or produce images that lead the viewer to understanding of a subject?
That's the disconnect, and why so many amateurs feel they've no connection with work with "meaning".
The second issue is that they say, "Well.. I'm not a professional... I just love doing what I do". Fine... more power to you. Nothing wrong with that, but then when anyone dares to suggest that what they're actually doing is just the same as millions of other things already out there, and therefore not really creative, they get defensive, because they feel they make good photographs (which many do) and as photography is a creative endeavour (remember... almost all photographers feel this is the case) then saying that my work is not creative, is equivalent to saying it's not GOOD. That's when the divide happens, and you get these two warring factions - the "All art if arty farty b******s" camp, and the "Art is about creativity, having meaning and purpose to the work" camp.
The thing is though... I, and many like me, don't think work that is less creative is any less GOOD. I love looking at some of the fabulous landscapes on this forum. There's work in here that makes Joe Cornish's work look utterly CRAP! It's just not particularly creative or innovative... but it doesn't NEED to be, because it was created JUST to look fabulous. Yet... the photographers who create it, who by their own admission, will admit to shooting it just because it looked wonderful... simple as that.. will get upset if you think it's not original, innovative or "creative".
I still maintain that craft skills, and creativity are not necessarily the same thing. Craft is PART of the creative process, but in my opinion (also shared by many others) is that creativity is a mental process, and relies on research as much as it does actually making things with your hands. The extent of that may well vary.. even if it's just researching what is current in your chosen area, and reacting to it... but so many amateur photographers are of the opinion of "Why do I need to do that... I never look at other stuff, or read, or go to galleries". Well.. then how are you moving your work forward and stopping yourself from taking the same old stuff over and over again? It's pretty standard advice given in portfolio reviews that 50% of your content (wherever it may be) should change every 6 months. What would be the point of that if you just replace it with stuff that's essentially the same as the old stuff? There really is an expectation that work evolves, pushes forward, develops and changes as you examine your chosen subject. Photography is the medium used to explore a subject.. not a means to and end itself. As such, you should be expert in your subject. Only then can you produce meaningful and relevant work ABOUT that subject.
Just pouring thoughts onto a page.
[edit]
If you want to be creative, as it's understood in the wider creative spheres of industry and academia.. then you need to find ways to innovate, and move the genre you're in forward. Thats' why theDeutsche Borse Prize is so coveted, and worth 10 grand! It's an award for the work that has contributed to eth developent of the medium... not work that's "good" or has a million likes on Flickr.
If you just wanna make cool stuff... just get on with it and stop being upset if anyone thinks it's less creative... people will still like it.
