Unified vision

[FrankS]

What is unified vision and how important is it? Can you have it without knowing? Is it the same as style? Does it mean all of ones pictures have to have the same subject/topic?

This term has been mentioned in a current/recent thread and some go as far as to state that without specific goals, there can be no learning.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1894736#post1894736

As a hobbyist, I take random shots of anything That catches my interest. I enjoy the process and am pleased with my results. I do try new things, take risks, and don't mindlessly take formulaic shots ad nausium. But my only goals are general ones, to enjoy myself and to create some pleasing images.

So what is this unified vision stuff?

 

[KoNickon]

Sounds like something you need if you intend to market yourself as a "serious" photographer. If your style is your signature, then maybe that's your unified vision. If you photograph one type of thing in particular, then I guess that's a unified vision also.

But then, I see no reason why "random shots of anything that catches my interest" (your words) can't be a unified vision. I think it describes what I do also.

It also smacks somewhat of BS, but that's just my opinion.

 

[FrankS]

Wonder if the unified vision can be created later in arranging ones images into more cohesive groupings.

 

[daveleo]

Well, I weighed in on the "unified vision" concept in that other thread, so I'll keep this short.

I don't have one, and I actually don't think that I want a "unified vision" showing up in my work. If someone were to look at one of my pictures and say "Oh, that's a Dave Leo picture", I'd be honestly upset thinking I had done something repetitive (which bores me to death).

In retrospect, it is easy to select a group of my pictures that covered a "theme" (for example "Butterflies") , but I don't believe that would show I had a unified vision of what I was producing at the time. I think packaging in retrospect is not the same thing as having had a "vision".


YIKES . . . I see you added that last post while I was typing ! Guess we are thinking the same.

 

[redisburning]

when you hear a Jimi Hendrix song, you know instantly and always it's Jimi Hendrix.

when you look at a Gustav Klimt painting, you know instantly it's his painting.

it is very simply an aesthetical value that is pervasive enough in an artist's work that identification of a work's author is possible with somewhat careful viewing.

photographically, a more recent example would be Michal Chelbin or Misha Gordin. it's not about subject in the slightest.

 

[FrankS]

As hobbyist, I take random shots of anything that catches my interest.

Perhaps what catches ones interest, the way one sees, that's not random at all.

 

[DominikDUK]

Unified Vision is synonymous with golden thread imho. Images with different motives can still have something in common that is uniquely yours.

Dominik

 

[redisburning]

As hobbyist, I take random shots of anything that catches my interest.

Perhaps what catches ones interest, the way one sees, that's not random at all.

well, for most people it is. or perhaps more accurately, it does not remain constant over even short periods of time.

it seems to me to be an important exercise to identify why one sees things the way they do over the long term and to impose that over short term fluctuations. I think this will result in a higher quality body of work.

 

[daveleo]

when you hear a Jimi Hendrix song, you know instantly and always it's Jimi Hendrix.

when you look at a Gustav Klimt painting, you know instantly it's his painting.

it is very simply an aesthetical value that is pervasive enough in an artist's work that identification of a work's author is possible with somewhat careful viewing.

photographically, a more recent example would be Michal Chelbin or Misha Gordin. it's not about subject in the slightest.

But, to my thinking, that is not a "vision" it is a "style" . . . . isn't it?
Is having a recognizable style the same thing as having a unified vision?
(I don't know the answer.)

 

[redisburning]

I think that style extends beyond the photograph itself and includes equipment choices, film stock/digital settings, shooting habits, preferred subject matter, etc.

we are talking about what in your photographs would be exactly the same whether you took a picture of a run down building with a lomo on cross processed film or a bride with an 8x10.

if any of you play guitar, you would probably know that a common sentiment on forums is that you sound like yourself regardless of what instrument you play. perhaps this is lost in part when you remove the technical aspect out of it which photography does (i.e. you must physically make the sound but the camera itself makes the picture).

 

[Damaso]

I don't know about the "unified" part but if you're more than a hobbyist I think having a vision is important. The great thing about vision is that it changes and evolves over time. But having a vision, goal, dream or what have you can push you to succeed or at least challenge yourself...

 

[River Dog]

In my line of work (developing tech. solutions) vision is very important. It is how I agree with the client on what we are going to do and how we judge whether it has been achieved. It sets out the direction for accomplishment. I don't think "unified" adds anything, it sounds like several other visions coming together into one overarching vision.

It does not translate well to the hobbyist field but we probably all have some desire for recognition and praise for something done well and with some class; it is not a style or signature in itself but it influences these things.

You might decide that all your photography is leading to a significant exhibition by the end of 2012 and a professional career by 2015. Any photos that do not support that vision are dumped. You may want to move people with images of extraordinary beauty, violence or poverty. You may desire that people question their environment or just to sit up and start noticing things.

Some people have a vision for their life whilst mine extends out until the middle of next week. 🙂

 

[paulfish4570]

unified vision implies a goal for one's work. propaganda for an ideology might be one goal, exposing drug deals in a neighborhood might be another, documenting a singular culture might be another.
one's style could/should be evident in producing a vision ...

 

[gb hill]

when you hear a Jimi Hendrix song, you know instantly and always it's Jimi Hendrix.

when you look at a Gustav Klimt painting, you know instantly it's his painting.

it is very simply an aesthetical value that is pervasive enough in an artist's work that identification of a work's author is possible with somewhat careful viewing.

photographically, a more recent example would be Michal Chelbin or Misha Gordin. it's not about subject in the slightest.

I disagree & believe both subject & format play a big part when it comes to photography. When you see Ansel Adams work you know it's his by both subject & also by his use of large format (gear). Chris Crawford mainly by subject, but he has been using a digital format in his color work in photographing the Ft. Wayne area that is recognizable.

 

[mfogiel]

Often, the so called unified vision is either a sign of a great talent, and/or real or invented sickness of the author. Historically, many exceptional artists were exceptional, because they had particularly strong, and/or distorted sensibility versus the world. The saw differently, felt differently, perhaps suffered more and enjoyed more. Not by case, lots of artists were often close to drug or alcohol abuse. Less frequently, the vision is mainly a very refined style. HCB is in this category. Gibson has a synthetic like visual style. Salgado has both a rodinal like aesthetic, and his way of showing human toiling and sufference. Arbus had a way of showing the weird. Witkin is cooking up his nauseating world in a unique way. Eggleston has presented colour, as if it had been the most important element of an image. One of photographers I admire a lot is Giacomelli, who's empathy towards others helped create his very dramatic style. So, it is both a way of relating to the world, and a choice of how, aesthetically, to express it.
So, if you are normal, like most of us, and you take the shots of what is around you, like most of us, it is unlikely, that you will have, like most of us, much of a particularly unique vision, unless you impose this on yourself.

 

[FrankS]

That's exactly what came to my mind reading your first post. And I think this is a perfectly reasonable way to go about it. The key is "whatever cathes YOUR INTEREST". On the other hand, mapping out a plan ahead of time might be the way for someone else. There are many approaches.

Gary

I like this. Some folks are more analytical, others are more intuitive. Also part of ones style, I guess.

This is what caused me to think and question more deeply, the idea in that other thread that unless one had clear specific goals, one could not learn and improve. That that was the only way.

 

[paulfish4570]

"the family of man" was a unified vision, using photographs from many photographers are recognizable by their styles. one vision, many styles ...

 

[FrankS]

So it's about editing/selecting and grouping? Not heading out the door with the intention to capture images which express a certain vision?

 

[daveleo]

It sounds like you may have a vision for a certain project or package of your work ("Butterflies in the Park"), and that vision then generates the style you use to project that vision.

Then you may have yet another vision (and style) for another package of work ("Childhood heroine deaths in my neighborhood").

Also . . . possibly . . . . you will lock into one vision and style and create a large body of work in that context and that becomes known as your life's work (horrid thought, I think).

Taken a sentence at a time, it is starting to (almost) be clear to me. Almost.

If you want a package of your work to show a vision (through your style), then you should be diligent when you make and edit those pictures.

. . . . but I'm thinking . . . didn't I already know that without having to think about it ?. . .

 

[monochromejrnl]

using a camera to take a well composed, properly exposed image is not difficult... pretty much anyone can master it within a few hours... so once a photographer has reached a certain level of competency - what next?

for some the 'unified vision' or as Chuck Close puts it, the 'personal vision' does matter because it becomes the 'next'.. for others, competency is sufficient...

for me - learning how to make prints with my own hands became the 'next'... perhaps a distraction from the pursuit of the personal vision but I also believe that if I'm to ever achieve a 'personal vision' with my photographs, it needs to be through prints I craft... I've found it far more challenging to improve my print making skills that my photo taking skills...

I don't think that the 'unified vision' thing can happen after the fact by arranging and editing your images after the fact... every photographic print is an interpretation ... in my opinion, one's intention is a necessary component of creating one's own 'vision' when it comes to making photographs...