Photographic Cliches

Hey All,

In reading this thread I can't help but wonder what you all think of Diane Arbus? When I looked at Parr's photos they immediately brought Arbus to my mind and I had never heard of him.

-Ed-
 
The whole point to me is to attempt to make an image that's s unique and compelling in spite of having a common subject. That's the challenge. I learned a long time ago not to reject a book or movie at the outset based purely on its subject matter, and I think the same principle applies to alleged cliche photographic subjects. He's just a pompous ass who feels superior by making people look bad -- as if that's any great feat! Making people look good is usually much harder considering how harsh the camera can be.
 
Hey All,

No I'm not thinking that at all. Just not knowing any of his personality or perspective I saw how unflattering his photos were as were her's - the difference may well be that she cared and he doesn't. But like I say I don't know him or her for that matter. Context always the context - knowing the photographer certainly adds context.

-Ed-
 
Ed, Sorry if I took your context out of context.
Actually, viewing his thoughts and work, it seems to me he's been committing suicide on a daily basis....I'm not basing this only on this current thread. I'm basing it on the past few years.
:popcorm2:
 
Mmmm. I seem to have opened a can of worms. If anyone would like to see the images that have garnered the kind of critique that David has articulated google 'Martin Parr The Last Resort'.

A discussion of the representation of humanity in photography is a good subject and might be worth a new thread if someone wants to start it, but but perhaps in this thread it is too focused on the one person.
 
Going back to Ollis original idea of the thread on photographic cliches, Martin Parr is talking about how Fine Art and Documentary photographers fall into the same trap as others, which is endlessly repeating yourself.

To a certain extent this is a challenge and surely its good for our souls if we move outside our comfort zones for a while, isn't it? Well maybe. The particular market that Parr inhabits is somewhat different, and is often characterised by a notion of difference for differences sake, which in many cases can result in images that shock or disgust. This seems to me to be driven not by the photographers especially, but by critics and writers, who demand ever more extremes to get behind to enhance their own reputations of being "cutting edge" "avant garde" etc.

I'm not sure how this relates to the rest of us. While I have no wish to be complacent and keep taking the same pictures over and over again, I also have no desire to radically alter what and how I work in some uncertain quest for "artistic development". My chief goal is to produce "better" images. Better in the sense of technical quality, composition and execution. I also like to explore using different techniques, different viewpoints and different equipment, but I'm certainly not looking to "wow" people on a gallery wall or have articles written about my vision or insight.

Many of the photographers who we now regard in high esteem produced a consistent and coherent body of work over their careers, and many stayed within pretty well established boundaries. They didn't feel the need to suddenly produce images radically different in terms of style or content from what they produced before. Some "artists" do and in the field of painting Picasso is an obvious example. But its not obligatory and neither should be thought of as such.

This endless quest for something different and always looking for a "new way" often strikes me as evidence of personal disatisfaction and to a certain extent reveals a lack of commitment to what may now be regarded as old fashioned notions such as craft, technique and personal integrity. In a media driven world we tend to swallow up stuff at an alarming rate and seem to have an endless appetite for novelty, but I'm more for the considered, well-thought out approach where we decide after experimentation what we find satisfying, interesting and personally fulfilling.

People like Martin Parr may represent that as a "cliche" but ultimately we have to be happy about what we are doing and proud of what we produce. If we decide to take a different path because we think we ought to rather than because we want to, that leads us into all kinds of compromises and to a certain extent dishonesty, because we are not working as we ourselves wish but rather are letting others dictate to us. How we can be expected to produce work of integrity when we're not even being honest with ourselves about our aims and aspirations is something that is beyond me. If I do decide to take a different approach, I want it to be my decision, something I'm comfortable with, and something that evolves from my own ideas and abilities rather than somebody elses ideas of where I should be and what I should be doing.
 
Well said and beautifully written, David. We each as individuals need to find our own way - as you've written so clearly in your last paragraph. I feel as though just about everything I'm starting to write here is just paraphrasing your post. So much of this applies to all aspects of our lives.

P.S. olli, it is good to open a can of worms now and again.;)
 
soundimageplus said:
This endless quest for something different and always looking for a "new way" often strikes me as evidence of personal disatisfaction and to a certain extent reveals a lack of commitment to what may now be regarded as old fashioned notions such as craft, technique and personal integrity. In a media driven world we tend to swallow up stuff at an alarming rate and seem to have an endless appetite for novelty, but I'm more for the considered, well-thought out approach where we decide after experimentation what we find satisfying, interesting and personally fulfilling.
Click to expand...

Well, to each their own, but I think this is a matter of personality type rather than a better or worse approach. Some of us are easily bored by the tried and true. And its true we may never get AS GOOD at a particular thing as those who love the tried and true and just want to come as close to perfection at it as possible (which it sounds like is your approach). But then again all (or most) great innovations came about because of impatience with the here and now and a quest for something new and different. Charlie Parker, John Coltrane, and Jimi Hendrix would have NEVER happened without a lot of that impatience and desire to break the rules and create something new. Nor would Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. Or the Wright Brothers. Not to mention Einstein. Etc.

And most with that personality and drive don't have that level of talent so there are plenty of failures with that approach (as you find Martin Parr to be), but I personally admire that trait. So, it takes all kinds. It takes the Hendrix and Parker to tear down the old ways and start something new and then it takes a generation of their followers to stay with their newly created tried and true and perfect it until somebody else gets bored with THAT and tries something radically newer yet. And most of it doesn't work, but when it does, it opens a whole new perspective on an art form, a technology, a way of thinking abut things, a new scientific theory, etc... I think there's room for both, personally - in fact I think we'd be doomed without both.

soundimageplus said:
People like Martin Parr may represent that as a "cliche" but ultimately we have to be happy about what we are doing and proud of what we produce. If we decide to take a different path because we think we ought to rather than because we want to, that leads us into all kinds of compromises and to a certain extent dishonesty, because we are not working as we ourselves wish but rather are letting others dictate to us. How we can be expected to produce work of integrity when we're not even being honest with ourselves about our aims and aspirations is something that is beyond me. If I do decide to take a different approach, I want it to be my decision, something I'm comfortable with, and something that evolves from my own ideas and abilities rather than somebody elses ideas of where I should be and what I should be doing.
Click to expand...

THIS I agree with completely, one HUNDRED percent. We can only find our own right path and if we choose to follow an unconventional one, its gotta be because of our own personal drive to do it, not because its stylish or cool. We have to be open to all influences, but not let them dictate our way to us.

So, as I started this with, to each their own, but its gotta be THEIR own, and not just trying to be something because it was someone else's path.

-Ray
 
Thanks for getting us back on track David.

My own take on this is a fairly simple one. First, 'cliche' is one of those words that has taken on a negative connotation that is not always appropriate. Cliches often become cliches because we recognise the truth in them - which is probably a cliche in its own right:)

When I think of cliched images (specifically those made by professional photographers) I primarily think of photojournalism. That's because growing up in Northern Ireland at a time of conflict, cliches was all most photojournalists seemed capable of. A few of the standards: small child looking down the rifle site of crouching soldier; group of young people silhouetted against a bonfire; soldier with gun passing large mural praising paramilitary organisation; flock of sheep in field with helicopter disgorging soldiers in the background; masked and armed men firing a volley of shots into the air - usually shot from a low angle etc. etc. All of these things happened, they were true, but they had almost no explanatory power as journalism.

With fine art I think you're spot on - much of this is driven by the market, which in turn is driven by the media elite. Andre Serrano's image P*ss Christ, one copy of which was recently vandalised in Avignon, is, for me, an example of an image that has no artistic merit but that has become famous - and valuable - because of the nature of the art market. And then there's Richard Prince:)

Those of us who aren't making a living out of photography are in a different position. I sometimes think that the danger for us is that we're not cliched enough. Instead, we try our hand at everything without ever mastering anything in particular. That's probably a good and necessary process but at some point I think it is also good to discern those kinds of photography that engage us and develop our abilities in regard to these.

Personally, I like urban architecture. So I take lots of pictures of buildings face on on a flat plane. Is it a cliche? Perhaps. But it's my cliche, though I prefer to think of it as a style. I didn't come to this theme and this style through any rational process or any concious effort to direct my own photography, rather it is something that evolved - and continues to evolve. I think evolution is a good image for it - stop evolving and your dead, but evolution can takes time, the pace can vary and the outcome is never fully known. I'm looking forward to seeing the kinds of images I'll be taking this in a few years time because right now I've no more idea than anyone else what they will be.
 
I agree with your comments Olli that cliche often has an unfortunate negative sentiment. While much of photography and art for that matter is in my opinion largely based on cliches. Not only because the maker can relay to that, but also the viewer. It is much easier to recognize beauty in beautiful subjects, weakness in those who are weak, fear in those who are fearful, pain in those who suffer pain. We all have different expectations, interests, and objectives. Maybe we use these cliches too so we can kind of measure our own progress and since the subjects are recognizable others will also more easily appreciate it.

Instead of arguing Martin Parr's list of cliches you can also use them as guidelines. Kind of the same how many backpackers use their Lonely Planet guides for their traveling. All the touristic hot spots are often the cliches, but most of us are happy that others did all the research work so they can visit them too. Only a few use their travel guide to make sure they visit places that are actually not mentioned. There is no right or wrong in doing both as long as you enjoy doing so and respect others for doing it differently.
 
Ray said:
It takes the Hendrix and Parker to tear down the old ways and start something new and then it takes a generation of their followers to stay with their newly created tried and true and perfect it until somebody else gets bored with THAT and tries something radically newer yet.
Click to expand...

Ray, thats not quite what I'm saying and I don't think its what Martin Parr is saying either. Some of the examples that he gave were of people who are radically different from the mainstream already, but his argument is that in itself then becomes a cliche. Certainly with the examples you give, once Charlie Parker developed bebop he didn't move away from that. He didn't start playing free jazz for example. Hendrix, once he'd got his sound and style sorted, again didn't suddenly start doing something else.

Parrs argument has nothing to do with moving away from whats gone before, its saying that once someone works in a certain way, no matter how mainstream or avant garde it may be, that then becomes static. And if something is avant garde when it starts, then by continued repetition and imitation, as he sees it, it then becomes a cliche. For instance if you are a disciple of the Dusseldorff school then portraits consist of blank, featureless, unemotional expressions. A quite radical departure from how portraiture was mostly done before. His argument is that once everybody starts doing that, it then doesn't become radical anymore, but the norm. A cliche.

His blog piece is about how he feels about that. He says:- "After 30/40 years of viewing our work I have come to the conclusion that we (fine art and documentary photographers) too are fairly predictable in our work" Radical, maybe. Avant-garde, maybe. Mainstream - probably not, but still predictable.

Because of the highly stylised and often proscriptive nature of many of the examples he cites, I can understand that. If all you ever photograph is blank, expressionless, non-emotional portraits of people then I can see how that gets pretty difficult to take after a while, and if you are a college tutor then looking at portfolios which consist of nothing but that must get pretty tiresome. But that depends on why we take the pictures that we do. Do people take pictures in a certain way because they want to, or because they feel they are obliged to because that is the current fashion in fine art photography and they want to be thought of as "fine artists".

I don't just have objections to Martin Parr, I dislike much of modern fine art photography, precisely because it is unemotional, lacking in passion, and often cruel, shocking and deliberately "unaesthetic". The notion that an "artist" has to constantly change to avoid "predictability" is a value judgement. One persons "predictability" is anothers "consummate practioner of their craft". If you go back to Charlie Parker, bebop was what he was striving to achieve, and was the pinnacle of all his years of playing. The notion that he would suddenly decide, "I'm getting predictable, time for a change" would be valid if he felt he was getting nothing from his music anymore. But if he decided that he still had much to explore, then there's nothing wrong with that.
 
olli said:
When I think of cliched images (specifically those made by professional photographers) I primarily think of photojournalism. That's because growing up in Northern Ireland at a time of conflict, cliches was all most photojournalists seemed capable of. A few of the standards: small child looking down the rifle site of crouching soldier; group of young people silhouetted against a bonfire; soldier with gun passing large mural praising paramilitary organisation; flock of sheep in field with helicopter disgorging soldiers in the background; masked and armed men firing a volley of shots into the air - usually shot from a low angle etc. etc. All of these things happened, they were true, but they had almost no explanatory power as journalism.

With fine art I think you're spot on - much of this is driven by the market, which in turn is driven by the media elite. Andre Serrano's image P*ss Christ, one copy of which was recently vandalised in Avignon, is, for me, an example of an image that has no artistic merit but that has become famous - and valuable - because of the nature of the art market. And then there's Richard Prince:)
Click to expand...

You make a lot of very good points, and I would agree with you. Just to say the Serrano is a totally unremarkable image until you know what it is and I think I prefer not to get into Richard Prince as that could get "tricky".

One of my favourite photo quotes is:- "If you have to explain your photograph then you've failed as a photographer" which I adapt slightly to mean photography to me is an emotional and not an intellectual response. This means I'm probably predisposed not to like contemporary fine art photography, cliche or not, anyway.
 
soundimageplus said:
I don't just have objections to Martin Parr, I dislike much of modern fine art photography, precisely because it is unemotional, lacking in passion, and often cruel, shocking and deliberately "unaesthetic". The notion that an "artist" has to constantly change to avoid "predictability" is a value judgement. One persons "predictability" is anothers "consummate practioner of their craft". If you go back to Charlie Parker, bebop was what he was striving to achieve, and was the pinnacle of all his years of playing. The notion that he would suddenly decide, "I'm getting predictable, time for a change" would be valid if he felt he was getting nothing from his music anymore. But if he decided that he still had much to explore, then there's nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...

Got ya - sorry for the mis-interpretation before. And, based on what you're saying, I guess I'm pretty glad to be thoroughly out of touch with what modern 'fine art' photography is today. I just don't know who's who in most modern photography. I came of age when shooting a lot of black and white, pushing the hell out of Tri-X, and playing with intense rough and nasty looking borders (from the negs) seemed to the the state of the art. And I fell in love with that stuff and haven't really changed a whole lot in terms of what I like. Now that that look and feel is more within my reach with digital cameras and processing tools, I'm having a blast finally realizing a bit of the vision I found harder to come by 30+ years ago. Which is probably of little use to anyone but me, but I'm having a blast. I guess I'm sort of following my own personal cliche, but trying to grow with it. I feel sort of fortunate to not have to worry about the commerce end of photography, and just free to shoot what I want, however cliched it might be, or regardless of how many rules it may break.

-Ray
 
Ray said:
I'm having a blast finally realizing a bit of the vision I found harder to come by 30+ years ago. Which is probably of little use to anyone but me, but I'm having a blast. I guess I'm sort of following my own personal cliche, but trying to grow with it. I feel sort of fortunate to not have to worry about the commerce end of photography, and just free to shoot what I want, however cliched it might be, or regardless of how many rules it may break.
-Ray
Click to expand...

Amen to that.
 

Similar threads

R
    • Like
Wistful Cliches
Replies
1
Views
825
BBW
BBW
S
    • Like
A cliché, but I couldn't resist...
Replies
6
Views
817
Britanica
Britanica
Lightmancer
    • Like
WINNER ANNOUNCED - The 30th Serious Compacts Salon Challenge - NOT another cliché
2 3
Replies
46
Views
7K
ReD
R
Back
Top