Pete Askew
Admin
Following all of the discussions that have been bouncing around in this section for the last week, I started thinking more about style and how this relates to our sources of inspiration and what we like and don't like about certain images (either our own, or those of others). Tim did not like the 'snap shots' of Diana Bloomfield whereas both Vic and I did and I'm guessing he does also not appreciate the work of William Eggleston. In the case of Diana Bloomfield I suspect that all of her snap shots were carefully considered. The bits that were left out were probably done so for a reason, but that reason is not always clear. For me, however, in most cases they work. William Eggleston works in a much more instantaneous way, grabbing shots of things that interest him. Some of his work, especially his 'everyday objects' I really like, others I find rather more difficult to appreciate except as part of a whole. I guess a similar photographer might be Martin Parr. He is clearly a highly talented photographer with a great passion for the craft both behind the camera and as a collector of images. But I just don't 'get' his work and find it difficult to appreciate. However, I very much appreciate the observational photography of Cartier-Bresson and Robert Doisneau (even though some of it was staged - but staged well in most cases) but suspect it is the period I am drawn to rather then the images (hence my lack of appreciation of Martin Parr - it's too 'now').
I suppose that the work we appreciate must in some way overlap with our own interests and aspirations. The question is whether this means we share a common source of inspiration or whether we are inspired and influenced by this work. I like darker, more stylised images. I find the work of photographers such as Sarah Moon fascinating (and before her, Lillian Bassman) and the work of the artists working in alternative processes inspire me to explore these ways of creating images either directly or by digital simulation. The same is true with all forms of photography. While I can appreciate the beauty of the scenes captured with such skill by landscape photographers such as Joe Cornish and the technical mastery of Ansel Adams, the images themselves leave me cold. Whereas the work of Eddie Ephraums I could look at for hours (well at least minutes) and it is those that I would want on my wall rather than images by Adams and Cornish. The same is true of macro and wildlife photography. I appreciate the skill and technical ability of the great wildlife photographers and love the depiction of the natural world (I guess, after all, it is what inspired me to become a professional biologist - I loved Wildlife Magazine as a teenager), showing animals and plants in their natural environs. Similarly, perfectly captured close-ups always interest me from an almost academic stand point, probably because of the overlap with some of the technical image making that forms part of my day-to-day life. But it is he work or artist such as Nick Brandt (http://www.nickbrandt.com) that truly excites me and makes me want to take more pictures myself.
It is this influence on seeing that appears to me to be the way other photographers influences us most. The subjects, ideas, obsessions probably come from within (or from our experiences in life, or dreams) but how we visualise, capture and present them I am sure is in part inspired by the vision of others. I guess this can be seen to some extent in the way 3 people have 'interpreted' the image that Vic posted (Concrete Jungle). I thought this idea of posting an image and asking others to present their view to be a very interesting one and something that we can continue in some way. It reveals both the style of others and also might help us understand the influences that shape our view. Why we take what we take and why we choose to present it in a certain way. Again, as Vic suggested, the idea of describing the thoughts and visions rather than the EXIF data might be a much more interesting way to present our work. What do you think?
I suppose that the work we appreciate must in some way overlap with our own interests and aspirations. The question is whether this means we share a common source of inspiration or whether we are inspired and influenced by this work. I like darker, more stylised images. I find the work of photographers such as Sarah Moon fascinating (and before her, Lillian Bassman) and the work of the artists working in alternative processes inspire me to explore these ways of creating images either directly or by digital simulation. The same is true with all forms of photography. While I can appreciate the beauty of the scenes captured with such skill by landscape photographers such as Joe Cornish and the technical mastery of Ansel Adams, the images themselves leave me cold. Whereas the work of Eddie Ephraums I could look at for hours (well at least minutes) and it is those that I would want on my wall rather than images by Adams and Cornish. The same is true of macro and wildlife photography. I appreciate the skill and technical ability of the great wildlife photographers and love the depiction of the natural world (I guess, after all, it is what inspired me to become a professional biologist - I loved Wildlife Magazine as a teenager), showing animals and plants in their natural environs. Similarly, perfectly captured close-ups always interest me from an almost academic stand point, probably because of the overlap with some of the technical image making that forms part of my day-to-day life. But it is he work or artist such as Nick Brandt (http://www.nickbrandt.com) that truly excites me and makes me want to take more pictures myself.
It is this influence on seeing that appears to me to be the way other photographers influences us most. The subjects, ideas, obsessions probably come from within (or from our experiences in life, or dreams) but how we visualise, capture and present them I am sure is in part inspired by the vision of others. I guess this can be seen to some extent in the way 3 people have 'interpreted' the image that Vic posted (Concrete Jungle). I thought this idea of posting an image and asking others to present their view to be a very interesting one and something that we can continue in some way. It reveals both the style of others and also might help us understand the influences that shape our view. Why we take what we take and why we choose to present it in a certain way. Again, as Vic suggested, the idea of describing the thoughts and visions rather than the EXIF data might be a much more interesting way to present our work. What do you think?
Last edited:
