How did you figure out what your artistic "style" was?

Sydney just posed a question that opened an interesting (to me) body of inquiry. How did you name/label/define your artistic style?

Mine just gradually emerged as I shot more and more images. I didn't set out to define it because it was (and is to some extent) irrelevant to me. I shoot to fulfill a part of me that does not see *direct* expression in my work life. While my work does require creativity, it's heavily circumscribed by being precisely defined, verbalized, and logically stated. One of the most attractive things about photography for me is that I can put the left-brain analyses on the back burner and instead of operate at the level of imagery rather than verbal.


I finally, gradually, concluded that what I try to do is find the beauty in everyday life that surrounds us us but often gpes unnoticed. A friend consistently finds a “lonely beauty” in my work. I don’t care much for that descriptor, but perhaps he’s right. Or perhaps that’s what he brings to my work.
In any event, it prompted me to wonder how others concluded what their style was, and if, in fact, others bother to try to label their work in this way. What about it?

Very good question, Rachel. I don't think I have figured out what my style is! I am most interested in street/documentary photography. If I may use a cliche, the Human Condition fascinates me and I'd like to explore it more. It does seem that my photography is all over the place- a bit of this, a dash of that, etc. I think I am getting there; the "look" is now a tangible mental concept. Now the trick is to translate that into imagery.

It's an interesting journey.

Wendy

I don 't think that a "artistic style" in itself is a goal for me.
It's true, I had a similar idea - a good while ago.

But then I realised, that its far more interesting to find and create good pictures than to create labels.

If you've a personal preference on a important and elementary image level - it will alwith and everywhere show up - independent from styles.

Michael Fontana said:

I don 't think that a "artistic style" in itself is a goal for me.
It's true, I had a similar idea - a good while ago.

But then I realised, that its far more interesting to find and create good pictures than to create labels.

Click to expand...

Michael,

I think that when one creates a series of good pictures on one theme then there will likely be some thread of relationships running through that will be recognized as a style. Some photographers go on then to use that set of choices and stick with the "winning combination".

It's going to happen or not based on one's own originality and willingness to take risks in not doing things as everyone else does. I'm not sure that a style for it's own sake has any value. It would seem to have worth only if it helped elaborate on the chosen thematics or patterns used.

Asher

I'm a bit with Michael on this. I think that style for itself probablylacks substance. However, there is perhaps a case that the way we see and what we are passionate about comes through in some consistent way in our work - perhaps that's a different take on style.

Then you could refer to using a style to reinforce a message - witness Paul Abbott's portraits of people who are homeless. There is a clear continuity there that perhaps is designed to reinforce the message he is sending to Boris Johnson.

MIke

Asher

I think I know what you mean - there's nothing bad about a personal preference, or -an example - you deal with space, etc... and yes, if it is has base it can lead to a specific quality. If you' rer aware of it, you can start to play with it and try to make the opposite of it - enrichment by dialectic. I want that freedom - this isn't existing with a style.

That specific quality is interesting and how you live and evolve with it - that's substance, personality... while a style has to follow a given structure of perception and therefore fas some superficaility. C' mon - live is richer than a style!

Personally, I had the chance to become early aware of "my" quality myself - plus I learnt a lot on it when listening and reflecting what some people said about my work; they send a echo that made clearer where I was coming from and what I was looking for.

I am a bit uncertain what my artisitic side is - I am thinking it could soon have something to do with my upcoming PhD involving UV photography - but we'll see how we go.

PhD in photography? Fine arts degree?

Rachel Foster said:

PhD in photography? Fine arts degree?

Click to expand...

Actually, in atmospheric physics - I have managed to combine 4 of my main interests into my current MSc and my upcoming PhD: photography, physics, environmental science and colour theory

I do not know about style; but i gravitate towards scenes with people. e.g landscapes on their own, i do
few and far between. i want to see it with people..who they are, what they do in their daily routines ( not being nosy ) but relating people to their environment.

This originates, I guess, from us getting to know people, and sitting together over coffee/tea. break the ice. get closer. share. being yourself. letting them know who you are, sincerely.

I usually cannot photograph empty spaces ( or empty people ! ). I have to talk to them, try to get to know them ( if possible ).

I want to capture as they are..no artificial lighting ( if at all possible ). In front of them, in view. no tele-lens. They are not wildlife! They don't bite ( usually ). With respect and not as commodities.

Just my way, I guess. others are equally valid too.

Regards.

Another reason I don't really know my 'thing' in photography is because I am actually embarrassed by the pics I take (look at some of my threads, you'll see why).

Fahim, that sounds like a great way to capture the moment in your pictures, as we have seen that you brilliantly do.

fahim mohammed said:

I do not know about style; but i gravitate towards scenes with people. e.g landscapes on their own, i do
few and far between. i want to see it with people..who they are, what they do in their daily routines ( not being nosy ) but relating people to their environment.

This originates, I guess, from us getting to know people, and sitting together over coffee/tea. break the ice. get closer. share. being yourself. letting them know who you are, sincerely.

I usually cannot photograph empty spaces ( or empty people ! ). I have to talk to them, try to get to know them ( if possible ).

I want to capture as they are..no artificial lighting ( if at all possible ). In front of them, in view. no tele-lens. They are not wildlife! They don't bite ( usually ). With respect and not as commodities.

Just my way, I guess. others are equally valid too.

Regards.

Click to expand...

Fahim, I think this is a good way - not a style, but an expression of your interest in others.

Mike

So, ..... you find your style.
You have managed to find a certain style that is easily recognizable by many.
Many enjoy your artistic style of photography, ... and you are happy with it.
So, ..... then what?
Do you stay with that style like so many will do, never venturing into something else?

This is something that I have often seen. Individuals who are stuck within their newly found style because it is accepted by the masses. They are outright giddy about it, so much in fact that they will often fail to try other creative venues. In some ways, sticking with that style for a long period of time could turn into a "big hurt".

So, whenever someone asks me about style, or how does one find their own recognizable style, I will always end my answer with that one important question.
Then what?

Well, ... that question does seem to help them think about it a bit further.


Been awhile since posting anything, and I see you guys/gals are still rockin right along with some cool stuff.
Keep at it!

Michael

Happy with it? What a concept! I can't imagine ever feeling "satisfied" with my work. It's the quest, the struggle, the effort that makes it fun!

I have avoided this topic to-date. "Style" is not a productive or useful self-conscious helmet to wear. But I must remark that Fahim has, I believe, side-swiped the sole noteworthy essence for photographic "style". Stated in slightly different terms style exudes from the work. It should not become an active, conscious ingredient of the work.

I think I can provide an excellent ready example. I can generally spot an image made by my good friend, and outstanding photographer, John Caruso, even though it may be unfamiliar to me. The subjects he chooses, the way he places the camera and the subject in the frame, the way he uses color have collectively become hallmarks of his personal style. It's just how he photographs, but he does not make any attempt to jam his frames to have his "look"; they just come out that way, whether film or digital and regardless of the camera he used (and he uses a bouquet of them).

So style is ideally a byproduct of the creative process and should not become an element of it (unless you're attempting mimcry).

Wonderful! This is exactly what I was hoping to hear. I feel that trying to determine a style will then force one into a narrow, rigid framework and stifle the creative process.

fahim mohammed said:

... no tele-lens. They are not wildlife!

Click to expand...

LOL, very well put Fahim

Ken Tanaka said:

So style is ideally a byproduct of the creative process and should not become an element of it (unless you're attempting mimcry).

Click to expand...

Agree.

I think that a coherent style should be a sign of the ability of an artist to transfer to her work a unique and authentic vision, feeling and/or philosophy. Otherwise style is just a container that shapes and limits the artistic expression.