RFF & cam clubs stifle creativity?

[dadsm3]

In the most recent edition of Photolife, Richard Martin writes "this is a criticism of a system that encourages individuals to play it safe and follow the rules in order to please others or win approval from the group. In effect, a system that encourages the surrendering of one's uniqueness."
He continues by saying cam clubs and other groups can offer many positive benefits for their members, but this advantage is negated when "rules and formulas begin to interfere with free creative expression"....and "the very nature of groups like this tend to stifle creativity, for the competition that it fosters establishes one of the biggest creative blocks: the fear of making a mistake."
While this may or may not apply to you personally, I'm fairly confident most of us sweat a bit when we post....is it up to snuff? I cringe when I look back on some of the shots I've posted...I don't think I'm alone. How often have you not posted a 'borderline' shot for fear of a (real or imagined) negative evaluation?
I know everything is relative....sometimes your average shot looks pretty good beside the others that happen to be in the gallery beside it. Other times what you think is one of your best looks like amateur hour when its surrounded by great work.
He finishes his article by quoting Anita Roddick:" Creativity comes by breaking the rules, by saying you're in love with the anarchist."
Comments?

 

[FrankS]

Camera clubs are a great way to learn the basics, but after a while, it's time for you to leave, grasshopper!

 

[dadsm3]

You'll never be rid of me Frank!
But many of who (like yourself) I consider the better photogs here have relatively small galleries, all excellent stuff.....few 'iffy' shots....
Perhaps the inherent competitive nature of clubs and forums even affects the better guys?

 

[reagan]

The only thing that can stifle my creativity is me. If I choose to only create what others will approve, then it becomes their creation, not mine and I have ceased creating, stifled by my own choices.

When I'm finished learning, I'm finished. And I learn alot from the guys and gals here. Do I try to copy their methods and practices? Sometimes... but being like somebody else is not the goal. The goal is to glean the wisdom, triumphs and failures of others as an ingredient to promote my own creativity that I hope, in turn, helps others in their own unique creative journey.

 

[Trius]

The only thing that can stifle my creativity is me.

Absolutely agree. I have been spending so much time on RFF and, to a far lesser extent, flickr, that I know I need to cut back. It's not that I try to mimic others, or get sidetracked. And I certainly learn a lot, in terms of gear, technique, habits, vision; all those elements are enhanced here. It's just the time involved. There is no substitute for shooting, processing and doing it all again. There will always be slumps, "shooters block", it can't be avoided.

I'll be cutting back at some point. I'm sorta thinking the 3000 post mark might be a symbolic stopping point. Not that I won't visit, but I'll cut back from multiple daily visits to a couple of times a week.

 

[FrankS]

My smaller gallery is due to lack of time. I have only shot RF's seriously for the last 2 or 3 years. (over 25 years of slr photography) I only recently got a scanner capable of scanning negs, so before that, I'd have to make a wet print to scan on a flatbed scanner to post in my gallery. I've got maybe 25 sleeves of negatives I haven't had time to even contact print. With this limited time, I'm only going to post pictures I really like.

 

[dostacos]

I think the clubs and forums are helping me grow from a snapshot taker to a photographer and if the better shooters don't share, how will those of us that need the help find it?

 

[popstar]

Interesting initial post. I understand where CVBZL4 is coming from in terms of a person being limited only by themself. However, I also get what the initial quote meant. There have been times I've been hesitant to post an image, or show it to someone for a critique, because I wasn't confident in the work. Or maybe worse, I was overly proud of the work, and didn't want anyone to bring me back down to earth.

However, I think critiques - whether online or a camera club - play an important part in a photographer's development and focusing of vision. It often takes that outside pair of eyes to help us draw out what we like (or dislike) about a photo or set of photos. There have been a few instances where I've had mentor-like people question me on why I took a picture, and try to get at my motives, more than critique the actual image. I feel that understanding what motivates me photographically can help make me a better photographer.

Anyway, this is a bit long, but while I may be my own worst critic and the only force that can hold me back, I still think forums have an important place to play in the photographic community.

Thanks for starting this thread!

 

[tedwhite]

Dadsm3:

A very thought-provoking quote, especially the part about winning approval from the group. Clearly, if we all did that we wouldn't get anywhere. I've been making photographs most of my life, and it's been a rather long one. I made photographs to please mself and not anyone else. If another person liked one of my photograph I would feel pleasure too, but if they started in with well, you might have cropped it a bit here, or how come you didn't have her hold the wine glass a bit lower, I would listen politely (well, most of the time) and move on. I could care less.

It is a temptation when you belong to a forum such as this, or any other for that matter, to unconsciously seek some sort of approval, but the fatal act would be to go out and start making photographs specifically to get the groups approval.

I'm on this forum, and a couple of others, because I learn things I hadn't thought of before, and lots of tricks and technical stuff too, but also because I like looking at everyone's photographs, especially the ones that take me to someplace I've never been.

ONe of my deeper pleasures is to know that others are still using film.

Ted

 

[jlw]

In the most recent edition of Photolife, Richard Martin writes "this is a criticism of a system that encourages individuals to play it safe and follow the rules in order to please others or win approval from the group. In effect, a system that encourages the surrendering of one's uniqueness."

I can see how that might be a criticism of some camera clubs, but I can't see how it could apply to RFF. In looking through the galleries, I can't see anything that might be called a rule or formula.

While this may or may not apply to you personally, I'm fairly confident most of us sweat a bit when we post....is it up to snuff? I cringe when I look back on some of the shots I've posted...I don't think I'm alone. How often have you not posted a 'borderline' shot for fear of a (real or imagined) negative evaluation?

I can honestly answer that question by saying, "Never." True, I try to be selective in what I post in my gallery -- but my goal is to post what I consider to be my best work, as judged solely by my own standards. Of course I'm pleased when my work gets positive comments, but it doesn't bother me if it doesn't. I've been doing this a long time, and have gotten used to doing it my way. One of the things I like about photography is that it's a "small-scale" art form that you can do entirely on your own, and be answerable to nobody but yourself.

He finishes his article by quoting Anita Roddick: "Creativity comes by breaking the rules, by saying you're in love with the anarchist."

Rubbish. What's so creative about simply dumping out your wastebasket and crying, "Voila!"?

I had to Google who Anita Roddick was, and she isn't an artist at all: She's a woman who got obscenely rich in the cosmetics business, and then turned her interests to sociopolitical activism (meaning that she first gained wealth by preying on women's anxieties about their appearance, and then gained power by preying on their anxieties about their social morality.)

I find it more useful to look for inspiration to people who actually work in creative professions. One who may sound like an odd choice, but whom I find rather inspiring, was Chuck Jones, a classically-trained artist who found success as a director of animated cartoons for Warner Brothers. (Question whether it's art if you must, but I'll bet Bugs Bunny, Wyle E. Coyote and Road Runner have more long-term cultural value than Roddick's cosmetics line.)

In one of his books, Jones noted that when film animation began in the early 20th century, it was a completely new art form. Yet in only 30 years or so, it had advanced to the point that for the first time in the history of drama, a director had absolutely total freedom: He could create absolutely any kinds of characters he wanted, set them in any kind of world he wanted, and have them perform any actions his imagination could conceive.

In such an unlimited environment, he said, a great deal of the art lies in choosing what NOT to do.

Photography, I think, is much the same.


So instead of talking rot about "being in love with the anarchist," I think anyone who wants to be creative should be prepared to "love the wild swan," a phrase from this poem by Robinson Jeffers (click.)

Note that loving the wildness of the creative process doesn't make you LESS demanding of yourself; as Jeffers hints, I think it makes you MORE demanding of the work that you do:

Better mirrors than yours would crack in the flame.
Does it matter whether you hate your ... self? At least
Love your eyes that can see, your mind that can
Hear the music, the thunder of the wings. Love the wild swan.​

 

[amateriat]

Getting artists into any "club" atmosphere has always been the equivalent of herding cats – it's practically a contradiction. Yet we're social animals (mostly) like others, hence the club thing A few friends, whose work I generally like, are members of clubs (Camera Club of New York in particular); I can't deal with it, in spite of numerous invitations. Being something of the square peg in general is probably what made photography attractive to me as a youth in the first place. Not a knock at those who like, and thrive in, such an environment, but it's something I never could grok (whew...two Heinlein-isms in 24 hours...).


- Barrett

 

[anselwannab]

I have never held back on a picture to post because of apprehension of what people will think, as my gallery shows! If anything I think that the web and sites like this have given a shot in the arm to photography.

Think of it as the difference between masterbation and and orgy. Before we used to develop our film and prints in the basement, in a dark room, by oursleves. Now we can interact and show our "stuff" to a lot of people and interact with them anonymously.

I do the Weekly Assignment on FM and if anything it has expanded my vision. Nothing like getting everyone's take on subject and realizing how inadequate you are. It's made me a better photographer, maybe not a good one 😉. Seeing others people's takes on a subject has definitly made me think out side my usual box.

Competition brings out the best and most creative part of you, if it doesn't it says more about you than it does the forum.

" Creativity comes by breaking the rules, by saying you're in love with the anarchist." To me that doesn't really apply to photography. To me the key to photography, and why I like it so much, is that you take things that everyone else ignores and capture and make it art and mean something. I don't know how many times I've pointed out to my wife something interesting or different on a path she goes everyday, but never noticed. Photograhy isn't about cameras or film, its your ability to craft an image from your surroundings that most other people are oblivious to.

I understand the guys point, I just think that is way to little downside for a huge upside.

Mark

 

[peterc]

Comments?

I think this hinges on whether or not you are overly concerned with what other people think of your photos.
I'm pleased when other people enjoy my photos, but it's not a requirement.
There are some of my photos I hate ... but others like them.
I discovered this when I did a PAD (picture a day) site for a year. I did what I call a strict PAD .. photos had to be taken and posted that day.
I was glad when the year was over, but it forced me to take at least one pic a day and post the results ... no matter how terrible I thought they were.
It's a great way to challenge yourself.

Peter

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

Sometimes my favorite photos get very few views and comments. And a photo which would be good only for a tourist postcard gets many views and favorable comments.

It makes no difference to what I show though.

 

[40oz]

seems to me that working in a vacuum would hinder your progress more than help it. I learn far more from human interaction than staring at my navel, YMMV 🙂

To me, the influence/input of others is part of the learning process. Trying to claim that you know everything you need to know is a bit pretentious, IMHO.

I personally find that it is my friends and aquaintances that find the value in my work. Most of my photos I consider failures. Familiarity breeds contempt, I think. By seeing what others see in my work, I learn how to see things differently. The same goes for looking at others' work. Only by letting other people show me what they see can I learn to see the world with a broader perspective.

Honestly, the idea that the artist is the final arbiter of the quality of their own work is silly. It is in how the art affects others, the ability of the art to show someone an idea that isn't their own, that art succeeds, IMHO. If you refuse to let others share their input, or dismiss it as distraction, you are destined to produce self-indulgent mediocrity. There is always someone out there that can teach you something. Their personal taste/style/methods might differ from yours, but an observant student can learn from anyone.

 

[Pherdinand]

Honestly, I think if someone feels held back in his/her creativitybecause of the fear of not being popular when he presents the results (i think this is what the short version would be, right?) ...then he's probably not HAVING that creativity at all. Or talent, or call it whatever you want.
If you have a really good idea in mind and think you can do it in a special way, just go and do it, and post the result if you like it. Maybe we don't like it but you should not do it for us, you should do it for yourself. And if there's ONE within us who understands what you mean/want to say, then you have additional satisfaction, hooray.

 

[Pherdinand]

Heh, i see we begin the paragraph exactlywith the same word, and we say exactly the opposite with the prev poster 😀

 

[tom_f77]

I had to Google who Anita Roddick was, and she isn't an artist at all: She's a woman who got obscenely rich in the cosmetics business, and then turned her interests to sociopolitical activism (meaning that she first gained wealth by preying on women's anxieties about their appearance, and then gained power by preying on their anxieties about their social morality.)

Heh heh. Nicely put. In fact she managed to get obscenely rich by spotting how to exploit both sets of anxieties from the start. Very clever...

Tom

 

[reagan]

Getting artists into any "club" atmosphere has always been the equivalent of herding cats –

Sometimes my favorite photos get very few views and comments.

I thought these two quotes answered each other. There's no way to predict what others will look at/approve/yadda-yadda. 😎 But I can decide and fairly accurately predict what I will enjoy (though I sometimes even surprise Me. 😉 )

...then he's probably not HAVING that creativity at all. Or talent, or call it whatever you want.

These are two totally different things, IMHO. Talent is what you hope others see in you... creativity is what you KNOW is in you.

Honestly, the idea that the artist is the final arbiter of the quality of their own work is silly. It is in how the art affects others, the ability of the art to show someone an idea that isn't their own, that art succeeds, IMHO.

Honestly... I couldn't disagree more with this statement. Art succeeds when it's enjoyed and I don't really need others telling me when or how I should enjoy it. "Self-indulgent" is when we think that the work of others is "mediocre" without our stamp of approval. ....... IMHO. I can learn and grow from the work and critique of others without living or dying over whether they approve or disapprove. That doesn't mean I live in a vacuum. If I'm not the final arbiter of the quality of my own work, then I should give my cameras to someone else and let them take the pictures... then they can tell me which ones to enjoy. Now that’s silly. 😉

 

[amateriat]

Camera clubs are a great way to learn the basics, but after a while, it's time for you to leave, grasshopper!

Frank's comment, which I happen to agree with, switched on the proverbial "lightbulb over me 'ead" about what I feel is the essence of the camera club experience at it's best: just as with writers' groups/colonies, it helps develop one's inner editor, by way of a whole panel of outer editors (ideally in a largely-convivial atmosphere), helping an individual more finely hone whatever she or he is trying to say visually, critiquing method rather than message (although the two get confused rather often, hence my skepticism).

The reason the camera-club thing has rarely appealed to me is that, as far as group critiques are concerned, I got a strong (and vital) dose of this in high school, where I was lucky to have a full-blown photography class for two years in a row, with a hell of a good teacher and some pretty hip (and frank) fellow students. By contrast, much of the subsequent camera club experience I've had seemed rather sophomoric (pun entirely intended).

Frank's comment also reminded me of something I think Pete Turner once said about people who clamored to assist for him, and somehow actually got the job: his expectation was that they would be with him for a while, learn the ropes, then have a strong enough portfolio of their own for him to kick them out the door to either flourish or flounder. He wasn't much into studio hangers-on, it seems. He expected those who worked with him to grow, not just be grunts. I think the club experience can be something like that for those who approach it in the right light (and I think I've approached the RFf Two-Pun-Per-Post maximum), but this goes back to having at least a rough idea of what you want. (Sorta like life, but let's keep it simple here.)


- Barrett