Topic: Cliché revisited

[Jack Johnson]

I just stumbled across this thread:

wondered what you think the cliché images in your terrian are? 

erm, good question ... I'd have to say Boats, waterfalls, standing stones, castles, beaches and dogs - oh dear - looks like that's pretty much my whole repertoire! 

Seriously though, I dont see anything wrong with cliche, at the end of the day.  We all sing from the same hymn sheet - it's not rocket science.  whoops there I go again!

really seriously this time, popular images are popular for a reason.  cliche isnt such a bad thing.  If i liek the way something looks, I'll have a go at photographing it.  Hopefully other people will like it too.

...and it reminded me of this quote from The Wiggle of Least Resistance:

But sometimes the predictable thing turns out to be the best thing, too, and you can’t let that stop you.

For some reason, that line haunts me. Maybe it's because I'm still trying to figure out who I am as a photographer and what/where/when/why I shoot (note to self: burn Sontag's On Photography in effigy), so I envy the article's author because he knows who he is, even if it is cliché. And I envy Leon, who rocks the cliché.

Seeking a freak flag to fly.

[Late Developer]

I'll fly that flag as well.  For me, it's probably the only flag worthy of being flown.....

We're here to waste film.  We're unlikely ever to produce unique photographs of thought-provoking artistic merit.  Sure, some of the gang here are capable of that but, whilst most of us are competent technicians, we fall some way short of being creative geniuses.  Consequently (and I'll admit completely to this) we seek inspiration in others' work - whether on this site or elsewhere - and see if we can produce something similar or, maybe, with our own twist upon it.  Most of our output is a cliche and I don't see that as a bad thing.

If I were doing this for a living I would have to try much, much harder to position my work in the "instantly recognisable" category. But I don't and, therefore, the pressure is off in that respect.

Am I likely to become the next Vivian Maier (i.e. undiscovered genius)?  Err, no. Not a chance. When I'm gone, I'm gone. I suspect my entire library of negatives, slides and what exists on the interweb will be consigned to the great photographic waste bin - and a good thing, too, as some other poor sod version of me will be hard at it, wasting film shooting approximately the same things as I did, using similar kit and perhaps even in the same neck of the woods.

Does that make my output worthless? That depends on context. If we're talking about "in the big scheme of things" then most definitely what I produce adds naff all to the history of mankind or even photography.  If, however, we're talking about to Filmwasters or anyone who looks at my website, then I hope that I produce something that people look at and think "hey, that's actually quite good". But, somewhat frustratingly, I can't even guarantee that.  The best I can hope for is to produce something that is of value, however clicheed, to Lara and myself.

There are times when I tire of seeing photos of boats, waterfalls, standing stones, castles, beaches, dogs, sunsets, sunrises, portraits of people I don't know, places I've never been and will never go but that's just me in an arsey mood because what I think doesn't really matter.  We should be doing this primarily to please ourselves.  If we're doing this purely for approbation or the enjoyment of others, I think we might be disappointed or missing the point somewhat.  Long live the cliche.

[FrankE]

my own philosophy is simply to enjoy what you are doing

I enjoy leafing through photography books and art books and never cease to be amazed at how many very very good photographers and artists there were before we ever came along, and now with the population being so much larger, there is probably an even greater number that exist now,  we have just never heard of them. No doubt if you really try to find your own "voice" artistically that approach has probably been done before anyways…

emulating what has been done before (cliche or otherwise) is in my opinion not a bad thing to do. Eventually it may lead you to find your own voice and then again it may not. Unless you are really striving to achieve fame and fortune with your "art/work" you will just end up frustrating yourself if you think about  this issue to much. just enjoy the process of making pictures…(which is sometimes easier said then done…..)

[moominsean]

I think it is tough to be wholly original in the field. Really even the most popular photography is the same old. But whatever floats people's boats.

I know I'm no Eggleston or whomever, but I plan on donating my Polaroid collection to the Center for Creative Photography in Tucson when I'm gone. I figure there will be some interest from someone in 10,000 Polaroids.

[Peter84]

Well for me the journey is somehow more important then the goal, starts with hunting down film, some old rare film that you didn't even know excisted. Making the shots, developing it, then scanning it and forgetting I ever made them 

When it comes to cliche shots it always amazes me that for example tourist all take the same shots. Couple of weeks ago I was in brussels. Around the little pissing dude were at least a hundred people. Most with camera's, but all taking the same shot! All making postcards. All taken from the same perspective and so on. That's where I try to do it a bit different, I photograph people photographing or an other perspective. Frogg perspective always does it for me, but lying around photographing in between hoards of tourist can be difficult 

Some might do it for a bit of recognition, we all like compliments! And there nothing more pleasing then getting compliments for your work

[KevinAllan]

I think "boats, waterfalls, standing stones, castles, beaches, dogs, sunsets, sunrises" is a pretty long list and it  derives, not only from popular photography, but from hundreds of years of the history of art ... which is another way of saying they are popular for a reason.

A small minority of photographers can break free from these subjects and produce work of great artistic merit. On the other hand, there are many more photographers on, say, Flickr, whose work suffers from a lack of interesting subject matter ... like the 99% of "street photography" which is just an image of a street with nothing much happening (although I acknowledge that those photos may have some documentary value in the future, and if that's how photographers get pleasure from their hobby, then that's fine of course).

So I'm happy to stick with the cliche list of subjects, but I will add flowers and remove dogs from my personal version of the list.

[FiatluX]

I´m still struggling with the initial anticlimax of the finished shot.. Let alone the probable cliché! 

[jharr]

I personally enjoy photography. I like the feel of the machinery in my hands. I like the process of making a photo. I like developing the film and seeing the negative images when I take it out of the final rinse. I honestly stopped seeking "my artistic voice" a while back (I'm 46 now). I occasionally get some  complimentary feedback and that is nice, but it's not the goal. Neither is immortality. I expect that my boys will sell or donate the cameras and maybe look through the photos before they delete the files and toss the binders full of negatives. It's just my hobby... That's all. Having said all that I don't mind shooting clichés. You lot are the only ones who will probably ever have to look at them.

[Charles Whitaker]

I photograph friends and family. I try to do it in a way that shows something about them as I know them -- an expression, or a bit of body language -- and of course an uncluttered background and decent light on the subject helps. But my pictures are not about me and how clever I was with the camera or the background or the light, they're about the subjects. I process for permanence, and put the subject's name, the date and the location on the back. My intention is that someone happen across one or more of my prints many, many years from now, and get to see what great-great-great-great grandmother Nancy looked like, waaaay back in 2014. The viewer won't have a clue who I was, and that's fine.

So, my pictures are absolutely cliche, but that's irrelevant, because I have my eye on something beside being unique. My interest is in passing on something about the people in my life.