In the past, I have said that I think that I am a good photographer. And, one day I aspire to be a great photographer. At the time I said this, I never really thought about what good and great truly mean.
In the context of American culture, usually anything "great" has to equate to some sort of fame. Sometimes (a few good times) it also means of a major social impact and has a relatively large consensus on inspiring talent. I am not so big on the fame part. If you've read my blog or eBooks, you know that. However, the large consensus on inspiring talent is an interesting concept. However, now more than ever, consensus usually unites the lowest common denominator, not the highest. This is why reality TV gets more views than most documentaries, why the most popular rap often says the least (compared to less popular saying more), why people can be famous for the sheer act of being famous and why things like talent, experience and even expertise don't receive the same attention as sheer fame, chaos and conflict.
Is it possible to be a photographer without consistently checking one's work to make sure it's "better?" And what is better? Certainly everyone knows what crappity crap is right? Then again, some argue that the photograph that just sold for over 4 million dollars isn't that great. At the end of the day, crap, ok, mediocre, good, great, and excellent are all measures that people decide. It truly is subjective.
We can objectively measure photographs. Sure. Is the white balance correct? Does it follow the rule of thirds or other compositional rules? Is the exposure correct? Is it in focus? And yet, there can be photographs that break these rules and still please eyes, challenge minds and stir souls. In a previous post, I wrote about an amazing book that I read, Reflections In Black: A History of Black Photographers 1840 To The Present. One of the photographers that author Deborah Willis mentions in that book is Chris Johnson. He wrote:
"There's probably nothing more deadly to creative growth than the overreaching need to be 'good.' How does one know what 'good' is if not by accepting the dogma of those around and above you? How can one strive to be 'good' without internalizing a prior assumption that one is somehow 'bad?' And, if one even momentarily becomes convinced that 'goodness' has been achieved, what inceptive do you have to grow beyond that state? Everywhere else is a wilderness of risky "badness.""
Brilliant.
When I wrote my first eBook in January of this year, I included some content from a blog post (that I wrote in 2010) where I mentioned that photographers should learn from others but compete with themselves. However, by the time I wrote my second eBook this past September, I abandoned that whole concept. I never competed with other photographers, so that's never been a factor. However, I no longer compete with myself either. I simply create. There is no clock, counter, dial, measure, litmus test...nothing. I do not make a photograph only to psychotically make sure it is better than the previous. What's more is that a photograph only has to be "good" to me, not good for the sake of "good" itself...because again, what is that? (Of course for my paid work, it needs to be pleasing to the client as well. However, as any photographer can testify to, what clients think is good can easily be viewed as terrible to another photographer. HDR anyone? Boudoir anyone? Heh.)
Chasing the concept of goodness or greatness seems to lead people down the path of insatiable attention-seeking and approval and then down into the ditch of needing fame. Does a photographer want to know that there is a forward progression in their work? Perhaps. Maybe, the true progression is the emotional connection to the work itself and the intellectual connection to what that work truly means as a part of a full life experience. Maybe it isn't how close the rule of thirds was followed this time. Maybe it's about what is in those nine squares. The truth is a part of the discipline involved in photography is knowing those rules and technical subject matter so that you're really just creating (not worrying about camera settings) for work or for hobby, but enjoying it either way. You're saying something. You're taking a stand and revealing your life and others' lives...complicated existences, and allowing the world to see it and possibly connect to/learn from it. This is more important than "good" or "great." I've realized this now more than ever. And ironically, once I stop worrying over these labels, I enjoy creating more. And when I enjoy creating more, more of what I create is good to me, because I enjoyed making it and because it is visually pleasing to me and/or has meaning. "Good" may need to be something internal, not a scale one irrationally chases that leads towards a dead end road of disappointment.
Photographic growth is infinite. Photographs themselves can be infinite (the measure of their impact and their ability to be consistently reproduced over long spans of time). However, life is finite. Often tragically so. Thus, in care of the finite, I allow everything else to be infinite, including measures of good and great. If in fact it is about the journey and not the destination, subjective measures such as good and great cannot be genuine destinations. I will let the journey of the finite meet the growth that is infinite and merge over the enjoyment of the craft, not the illusion of trying to be better than someone or something else. I even want to move away from using terms like "taking it to the next level" (I've used this even recently) and other terms that imply learning and growth is only rigidly vertically linear instead of more like a tree. This...is good.
In the context of American culture, usually anything "great" has to equate to some sort of fame. Sometimes (a few good times) it also means of a major social impact and has a relatively large consensus on inspiring talent. I am not so big on the fame part. If you've read my blog or eBooks, you know that. However, the large consensus on inspiring talent is an interesting concept. However, now more than ever, consensus usually unites the lowest common denominator, not the highest. This is why reality TV gets more views than most documentaries, why the most popular rap often says the least (compared to less popular saying more), why people can be famous for the sheer act of being famous and why things like talent, experience and even expertise don't receive the same attention as sheer fame, chaos and conflict.
Is it possible to be a photographer without consistently checking one's work to make sure it's "better?" And what is better? Certainly everyone knows what crappity crap is right? Then again, some argue that the photograph that just sold for over 4 million dollars isn't that great. At the end of the day, crap, ok, mediocre, good, great, and excellent are all measures that people decide. It truly is subjective.
We can objectively measure photographs. Sure. Is the white balance correct? Does it follow the rule of thirds or other compositional rules? Is the exposure correct? Is it in focus? And yet, there can be photographs that break these rules and still please eyes, challenge minds and stir souls. In a previous post, I wrote about an amazing book that I read, Reflections In Black: A History of Black Photographers 1840 To The Present. One of the photographers that author Deborah Willis mentions in that book is Chris Johnson. He wrote:
"There's probably nothing more deadly to creative growth than the overreaching need to be 'good.' How does one know what 'good' is if not by accepting the dogma of those around and above you? How can one strive to be 'good' without internalizing a prior assumption that one is somehow 'bad?' And, if one even momentarily becomes convinced that 'goodness' has been achieved, what inceptive do you have to grow beyond that state? Everywhere else is a wilderness of risky "badness.""
Brilliant.
When I wrote my first eBook in January of this year, I included some content from a blog post (that I wrote in 2010) where I mentioned that photographers should learn from others but compete with themselves. However, by the time I wrote my second eBook this past September, I abandoned that whole concept. I never competed with other photographers, so that's never been a factor. However, I no longer compete with myself either. I simply create. There is no clock, counter, dial, measure, litmus test...nothing. I do not make a photograph only to psychotically make sure it is better than the previous. What's more is that a photograph only has to be "good" to me, not good for the sake of "good" itself...because again, what is that? (Of course for my paid work, it needs to be pleasing to the client as well. However, as any photographer can testify to, what clients think is good can easily be viewed as terrible to another photographer. HDR anyone? Boudoir anyone? Heh.)
Chasing the concept of goodness or greatness seems to lead people down the path of insatiable attention-seeking and approval and then down into the ditch of needing fame. Does a photographer want to know that there is a forward progression in their work? Perhaps. Maybe, the true progression is the emotional connection to the work itself and the intellectual connection to what that work truly means as a part of a full life experience. Maybe it isn't how close the rule of thirds was followed this time. Maybe it's about what is in those nine squares. The truth is a part of the discipline involved in photography is knowing those rules and technical subject matter so that you're really just creating (not worrying about camera settings) for work or for hobby, but enjoying it either way. You're saying something. You're taking a stand and revealing your life and others' lives...complicated existences, and allowing the world to see it and possibly connect to/learn from it. This is more important than "good" or "great." I've realized this now more than ever. And ironically, once I stop worrying over these labels, I enjoy creating more. And when I enjoy creating more, more of what I create is good to me, because I enjoyed making it and because it is visually pleasing to me and/or has meaning. "Good" may need to be something internal, not a scale one irrationally chases that leads towards a dead end road of disappointment.
Photographic growth is infinite. Photographs themselves can be infinite (the measure of their impact and their ability to be consistently reproduced over long spans of time). However, life is finite. Often tragically so. Thus, in care of the finite, I allow everything else to be infinite, including measures of good and great. If in fact it is about the journey and not the destination, subjective measures such as good and great cannot be genuine destinations. I will let the journey of the finite meet the growth that is infinite and merge over the enjoyment of the craft, not the illusion of trying to be better than someone or something else. I even want to move away from using terms like "taking it to the next level" (I've used this even recently) and other terms that imply learning and growth is only rigidly vertically linear instead of more like a tree. This...is good.
3 Comments:
Fantastic article Trudy. Good and great is a fascinating concept, and usually results in a very lively discussion. But really, at the end of the day, (if you're doing paid work) if your clients think you're doing great work, that's what matters most. That can be measured in successive business and word of mouth referrals. If you can look at your solo work and are proud of the result and what you achieved with the photograph, then can't that be 'great' too? I don't see why not.
Good thoughts. I also don't compete with other photographers, but I do compete with myself. I do look for what I perceive as great and try to apply it to my work.
I do agree with Chris about client work.
There is a huge amount of good work out there. There is a lot of great work. I'm afraid we need to go beyond good and great if we are going to make a living.
For personal work. Just follow your heart.
Rosh
I like how you specified "what you perceive as great" because that disclaimer IS needed. (That is basically what I am alluding to. What I think is "good" to me, not endlessly chasing some decided upon "good." There is a distinction.) Otherwise, we are in semantics warfare. LOL. I think that is what photographer Chris Johnson that I quoted is alluding to. People want to have a blanket label for "great" in photography and sadly, since the age of social media, that seems to only mean what is popular. And that, I cannot be bothered with.
Post a Comment
Comments/constructive criticism appreciated: