do you have a subject?

I'm not "fully committed" to any "subjects", but I definitely have a greater affinity for shooting some things than others: e.g. I'd rather photograph architecture and coastal scenics than make macro shots of bugs, and I'm better at those types of photography, too.
 
“A photograph is neither taken or seized by force. It offers itself up. It is the photo that takes you. One must not take photos.” - Henri Cartier-Bresson
An idea about what you want to photograph certainly helps - for example, I would like to take more portraits, but I simply have no time to arrange this, so whenever I have a camera in my hand, I wait for a photograph, that will take me.
http://mondoinbiancoenero.com/i-dont-take-photographs-photographs-take-me-henri-cartier-bresson/
 
no sarcasm intended ;)
but whatever I click on is 'the Subject'

not blind shooting but always with Intent.... The ' Image' Moves Me
it tells a story which I hope is apparent with an Imprint of Time

as For Happiness, that is ever fleeting
 
If we define photography as an art, then a happy photographer is generally not a very good one. When a photographer, musician (which I am) or any other artist is content with their ability then the art suffers. A true artist should always strive to do better, do more and un-turn the stone which hasn't been turned. That's why most great artists are miserable and unsatisfied, never truly happy with what they've done, always striving for something greater. After all if you're not moving forward, then you're moving backwards, because you better well believe that everyone around you is constantly evolving. The subjects are always changing and so is my ability to capture them.

Joe
 
All happy photographers are like; each unhappy photographer is unhappy after his own fashion. (With apologies to Tolstoy.)
 
Beautiful, natural landscapes. Generally I prefer to have no trace of human presence in my pictures, but that's hard to come by.
 
Margu said:
a happy photographer has a subject and is fully committed to that subject. an unhappy photographer is always restlessly looking for a subject.

do you have a subject?
Click to expand...

I have a few themes
I have a few places
I have a few "Go out and see what catches my eye" moments.

The area I live in is my subject, not in whole, but in part every time I go out, the part I photograph.
 
I agree with the OP.

For years I've agonized over creative block about working at a subject or a project, which is always my goal. I think it is possible to get a good "single" but without a context or body of work to support them, they feel a bit powerless after a while.

Ive been taking a lot of pictures while I am traveling, and even the ones I like, 2 days later I no longer care about. The good thing is while taking these pictures is that I have noticed a pattern of subjects that I am drawn to...In this case everyday items that are covered in some way (under tarps, car covers, tents etc), which I will use as inspiration for a project when I get home.

The travel grab shots have served as a sketchbook for a larger art-piece, hopefully.
 
If we define photography as an art, then a happy photographer is generally not a very good one. When a photographer, musician (which I am) or any other artist is content with their ability then the art suffers.
Click to expand...

I think that the Limeliters put it this way: "Oh, how happy it is to be miserable; oh, how miserable it is to be happy"

:D
 
Harry S. said:
I agree with the OP.

For years I've agonized over creative block about working at a subject or a project, which is always my goal. I think it is possible to get a good "single" but without a context or body of work to support them, they feel a bit powerless after a while.. . . .
Click to expand...
Yes, but a context or body of work is NOT the same as "a subject".

Cheers,

R
 
It really has more to do with not being so content with oneself that he stops striving to improve.
Click to expand...

Striving comes from the same source as strife, the old French word estriver, which means to quarrel or compete. I'm too much of a coward to quarrel and too lazy to compete, so I'll just stick to my pretty pictures and enjoy teasing the strivers.

:D
 
Koudelka has different 'subjects.' In that wonderful interview quoted here recently he said that he moves countries often so everything in front of him remains fresh. Recently his subject is The Wall. Conversely he was out shooting a few rolls every day, anything, anywhere. Practice. Barnwulf quotes Giacometti in his signature, "I no longer work for anything other than the sensation I have while working." I like that. I am out with a camera seeing what is there, savouring the light, the incidental, the found geometries. That's a subject too, I think. Others must have 'content' in their subject, The Wall being a great example. Salgado's Genesis has content. But what about almost all of Kertesz's work?
 
Harry S. said:
Care to elaborate?
Click to expand...
Dear Harry,

Consider (for example) Bill Brandt. His highly formal reportage; his "grittier" reportage; his soft/wide-angle nudes series. Each is a self-contained series, with its own context, or set of contexts. My sole objection to "subject" was that implies just one, whereas most great photographers have shot several. Or, to consider someone "unknown", I greatly admire Raphael Schott. Even then, if you Google him, you won't easily find his whole range: retirement home beauty queens, circus, dolls, "blanc manteaux"...

See also the comments of Richard G. above.

Cheers,

R.
 
Capitalism, I'm surrounded by it. Really nasty at times, but at the same time it keeps people happy, like drugs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom