Irakly?

[Lava Lamp]

Irakly, your scissors suggestion below is a creative and brilliant one. It's led me to think about something I've been feeling since this board began.

Do you personally think that an image has to be dark and either sensual or violent (usually with some level of humor) to be art? It kinda seems to me like you do. You know what I think of your creativity, so I hope you know I'm not trying to be rude. I'm genuinely trying to understand. For me, the goth/vampire Anne Rice-type stuff was interesting in high school, but I've passed it by.

Could you create photographs with your usual level of creativity that focus on something warmer -- the love of a mother for her child, for example?

[Irakly Shanidze]

No, I do not think that image needs to be dark or violent to be art. It can be anything, as long as it creates emotional response. It is just so happens that emotions related to sex and violense are universally understood The picture that you are referring to clearly had a strong violent load, which was set by a combination of colors chosen, tonal range and subject matter, so it needed just a little "punch" to become a complete story of raging jealousy

[Asylum Steve]

This is a great topic, as it addresses a hugely important step in an artist's life.

At what point do you stop making photos you THINK are artistic based on what you've seen from others (or are instructed to do by teachers), and truely begin using your photography to honestly express what YOU FEEL?

There are many reasons individual artists adapt a certain style of shooting. Sometimes it is simply a matter of covenience (living near the ocean, or the mountains, or in a city or rural area), sometimes a matter of money (shooting on the street as opposed to a full studio setup), sometimes it's governed by the shooter's schooling and teaching influences, sometimes by a certain type of work that sells and makes the photographer money.

In most cases it's also determined a great deal by the artist's life experiences up to that point, including people that have come in and out of their lives. This is turn can lead to "schools of visual thought", where like-minded individuals spend time together, sharing ideas and methods as well as helping each other face the many obstacles and challenges that artists trying to express themselves often face.

I don't want to put words in Irakly's mouth, but I'm pretty sure his work is influenced a great deal by his background, most notebly what he was and was not allowed to do while growing up in the Soviet Union.

The style we create for ourselves and our work is a highly personal thing, and often the most difficult thing to achieve as a photo artist. I know it's something I struggle with much of the time.

Still, a strong personal style simply reflects one's own view of the "visual world" at a certain point in time. It doesn't mean you can't appreciate other artist's work or styles, too.

Irakly is a perfect example. I enjoy his work very much, many times racking my brain trying to figure out how he lit and shot a certain scene. I also get a great sense of his personality from his images, knowing clearly that they are not created by an American's eye.

And yet, I have no desire at all to duplicate his method or style. It is not what I'm about and not a direction I want to go with my own work.

[opus]

I've recently come to a personal conclusion about my own style; actually I realized this based on a comment that someone here made about my work. I consider this to be a TREMENDOUSLY profound understanding about myself. I've come to the conclusion that most, if not all, of my art is soothing.

I seek to soothe. I see the world through eyes searching for what is soothing.

(Wow, that word is starting to look really funny. You don't see the word "soothing" very often, do you?)

All my art, since childhood, has been happy and comforting. My dad still has a picture I drew when I was 7, he recently made a print of it so he can frame it (30 years later!). It's of a giant sun setting behind a hill, with trees and a house and a road and a car driving off into the sunset. It is the picture of peace.

When I was in fourth grade, I wrote a peaceful story for a contest. Mine didn't win, but a violent mystery story did. I then went overboard trying to write a violent story of my own as a follow-up, and nothing has felt more false or repulsive to me as that attempt at violent art did.

My poetry is soothing. People have told me I should publish it as meditations. It's filled with vivid imagery of mountains and the moon and the sea and the scent of a summer breeze floating in the air as a quilted blanket settles softly on your skin. I have attempted to be edgy and dark, but it just falls flat.

And my photography is, as someone here pointed out, "soothing".


Why did I write all that? Well, because I don't think people appreciate "soothing" very much. It's a static emotion. So I have, at various times, attempted to do things I thought others would respond to. But it never really works, because I don't really "feel" it. I need to express through my art what I search for in the world, and what I search for is peace. And what I find is peace. I turn from violence, I cannot look at it.

Sorry for rambling.

[Asylum Steve]

Kelly, that was great stuff to read. You see, these are the revelations artists discover about each other all the time in schools and "real world" communities, but for some reason seem to be lacking on sites like this. Perhaps everyone's too timid to share...

As much as I can view an image, appreciate it and discuss it at face value, I think knowing the motivation and intent of the artist makes it a much richer experience.

You also give clues to a key to getting artisitic satisfaction from your work: be true to yourself. I've learned the hard way that trying to be all things to all people with my photography was almost the kiss of death for my career.

I am now back to only doing the kind of work I feel strongly about (or in the case of commercial work, the style I want to do), then spending the rest of my resources on finding the right people or clients to appreciate it.

BTW, I plan on starting a thread soon discussing some very basic art concepts and terms. At the top of the list will be the two main dynamics of artistic representation: HARMONY and CONFLICT.

Personally, I feel the most exciting art has a balance of each of these, but either one or the other alone will always appeal to many people, and there is nothing wrong with that.

[megan]

At what point do you stop making photos you THINK are artistic based on what you've seen from others (or are instructed to do by teachers), and truely begin using your photography to honestly express what YOU FEEL?

It is a good one! I've definitely had that lightbulb experience of "I don't CARE that you think I should be creating these clever photographs that are jokes on you, like much of today's most modern art. That's not who I am, that's not who I want to be, and it's not what I want to shoot." In college, I had so many different professors exposing us to so many different ways of seeing, shooting, thinking. Which is what we were paying them to do, so of course. But I have my own weird way of dealing with the world, so I thought that I was supposed to do everything they told me to do. But then I reached a point where I realized that I like taking pretty pictures. And there is nothing wrong with taking pretty pictures. That I like creating photographs that are otherwise visually appealing, but don't necessarily have this gorilla girl message. I'm not post-modern - I think I relate much more to earlier photography, the abstract expressionists and the like. It took a long time for me to realize this, but when I did, my work improved SO MUCH - because I truly found my vision, what I loved, and stopped doing post-modern stuff I thought I was supposed to do (being a female artist and all) badly.

It's funny what you said about "goth" photography. Although I am goth, and always will be goth (it's more than a high school phase for me, it's a lifestyle) I am NOT a goth photographer. I meet photographers "in the scene" upon occasion, and it's really hard sometimes not to scream. We'll look at each other's portfolios - and while the other one is looking at my work confusedly, I'm looking at photos of made-up goth vixens draped over gravestones. Gag me with an ankh? It's just funny how some people are SO concerned with taking what they perceive as cool photos and being cool because of their cool photos. So the other person walks away from our little exhange all confused because "Megan's goth, but she took pictures of beaches... she doesn't take cool photos." while I walk away "I'm going to run myself through with a sword if I see another Jeannie Nitro dress in a graveyard!" (In all fairness, I DO take photos in graveyards, but only when requested, only as parody - or only if there's another reason. Like St. Louis #1 in NOLA.) And just so I don't offend anyone - there's nohting wrong with experimenting! Not at all! My little rant is more about Steve's quote. I don't want to curb anyone's spooky inclincations. Not at all. Muahahahaha....

Megan

[walterick]

"Gag me with an ankh?"

You are too funny

Hearing your journey as an artist I can really respect where you've come from. I've never been trained in art or photography but I can certainly relate to bucking the "supposed to"'s in favor of sticking with what you like.

I rediscovered a niche of mine this last weekend shooting half-hour exposures of the stars I can't discribe it, that kind of stuff just gets me off. I was running through the campground clapping my hands and acting like a retard because I saw a shooting star. I got my slides back today and while I consider many of them to be beautiful, I doubt anyone else would get as excited about them as I do. Without any external validation (and as soon as the thermometer dives back up above 50 ) I would be out there shooting them again, and again, and again...

Isn't it great to be in love? ;) (I count my photography as a love affair. With very expensive dates)

Thanks for sharing a part of your story. I thought your tale about the other goth photogs was hilarious

Rick

[Irakly Shanidze]

Wow... While I was out shooting a mockery of Russian Revolution on cliffs of Pacifica, this thread developed in a very interesting conversation about one of the most important topics in Art. What is a personal style? Some years ago I was flexing my brain muscules in vain attempts to understand what is personal style and how to develop one. Then came a revelation. One day I simply understood that there is no need to develop my style, I just have to shoot what I see and how I see it. This basically explains Steve's words about liking my work, but not wanting to shoot like me. He cannot shot like me, and I cannot shot like him, and I cannot shoot like Megan, or Ervin Olaf for that matter. Well, maybe, if we try hard, we can... Like that beautiful last Sax Fifth Avenue catalog, which looks like it was shot by Helmut Newton and Guy Bourdin. But think about it... I will remember this catalog because pictures in it reminded me work of two great photographers, but not because personal style of a photographer (or photographers) who shot the job.