Conrad Hoffman
(K=287) - Comment Date 7/24/2001
|
I saw some images in another forum where the photographer was projecting a pattern of lines on the subject to create a contour map effect. My first reaction was, "wait a minute, I've seen that..." After a bit of a search, I found that Ralph Morse was doing it back in 1954 and one of the images also appeared in the first Time-Life photo book. I'm sure others have done it since. If you look at enough images over a long enough period of time, it's hard to find any style or concept that's really new. Since our sensibilities are just the sum of what we've experienced, I doubt pure unadulterated originality exists. When it does, I think they refer to it as genius, or possibly madness. Both? Is an image derivative if the photographer isn't familiar with what came before? That may be more and more the case since few have time to study photographic history and the number of available images only grows larger. (I shouldn't limit that to photos- photos can certainly be derivative of paintings and other works- gee, we have to study everything :-) I don't think it matters unless the image is an intentional carbon copy of some other work. Even if the photographer hasn't seen an existing similar work, chances are good that he/she is driven by similar images and inputs that resulted in the previous work. People are more similar than they like to admit.
|
|
|
|
Jim Steele
(K=115) - Comment Date 7/25/2001
|
I think one of the things we frequently run in to is that people frequently critics) confuse originality (creativity) with quality.
They are really two different things. To me, creativity or originality is merely doing something in a different way; it doesn't make it good or bad, just different.
There is virtue in refinement. It seems to me that in Western culture, we tend not to value the concept of refinement as much as we do originality.
Just some thoughts.
|
|
|
|
Bob Smith
(K=353) - Comment Date 7/25/2001
|
James, I think derivative images are just fine. My former photo "professor" thought that we must be original to be creative. I countered that all of the "great masters" had copied or derived their work from their teachers. I also countered with the fact that I myself had not photographed that particular subject so it was original. Kinda pissed her off but oh well. Email me Lumberjack, I am now in the Big Bend, Ranger Bob
|
|
|
|
michael
(K=62) - Comment Date 9/8/2001
|
is the question aimed at a sort of post-modern originality or at a photo-club sort of originality? a someone mentioned somewhere before, everything as been done before. that is a basic tenent of post-modernism. but at the same time, it is not the same as going to a photo-club and seeing lots of virtually identical sunset photographs taken on the same night from the same vantage point. (my distaste for photo-clubs is acquired from means other than direct connection.)
i think that reusing or reseeing can be just as original as doing something in an entirely new way (which i would love to see...). i feel as though originality is not so much the issue as the use of the medium in expressing an idea or a truth or a subject or whatever term you want to put in there.
-m
|
|
|
|
grant
(K=287) - Comment Date 9/9/2001
|
that depends on who your are trying to impress, if anyone...
|
|
|
|
