Successful photographers follow one of two paths. Which path are you on in your photography journey, the path of a conceptual genius or an experimental master?
I am currently listening to an audiobook by one of the greatest musicians of our time: Paul Simon. It’s fascinating because, like The Beatles: Back that film I discussed it a few months ago, it dives into creative processes. There are interesting observations about how Simon’s creativity works, and we can draw parallels between his career path and some of the best photographers. This can lead us to examine our own creative avenues.
Inner head Audiobook Miracles and Miracles, the authors, Malcolm Gradwell and Bruce Headlam, discuss with Simon the differences between him and Bob Dylan. They concluded that Dylan identified himself as being placed in folk tradition. In contrast, although Simon is a fan of the genre, he does not consider himself a folk artist. He experimented with its conventions, mixing them with other styles and cultural influences, just as the Beatles did with their work.
In relation to this problem with photography, many famous photographers purposely place themselves in a particular genre. If we consider a type of photography that interests us, specific names come to mind. Ansel Adams is known for his landscapes, photojournalist Robert Capa for his war photography, while Henri Cartier-Bresson’s work captures the 20th century with his social documentary photographs.
However, although we highly recommend photographers into these categories, if we study some of them we find that over time they have diversified into the most popular work. their. Take Don McCullin as an example. Many would consider him a war photographer. However, examining his entire portfolio of work, we find it much more diverse. He takes striking landscape photographs (“Landscape”) and cryptic social commentary (“In England”) and then mixes that commentary with the astonishing tribal portraits he shows. She shot for the “In Africa” collection.
Compare that to an image of one of my other favorite photographers, Annie Leibowitz. Most of her work focuses on capturing images of famous people. Her photographs in that field are diverse, as is Dylan’s work in folklore and folk rock. However, there is no noticeable change from her original work, her creative images of celebrities, to her contemporary photography, which is more creative images of people. famous.
There is no right or wrong here, and this is not a criticism of either approach. However, it is helpful to recognize our differences and recognize our direction in our creativity. Paul Simon has more freedom in his music, just like Don McCullin has in his photography, the freedom to experiment and combine different influences. Meanwhile, Leibowitz discovered what she loved to photograph and became an absolute master at it.
We are often told that photographers should pursue and perfect a particularism. This advice may work for some people, but it doesn’t have to be. Creativity is born from taking existing ideas and blending them in new and hopeful ways. Having multiple genres to play with gives our photography a wider range. It’s an equally valid approach, since specialization is for the others.
To illustrate this, let’s take a photograph of a bird as a basic example. Wildlife photographers with an idea could capture it sitting on a tree branch, flying, performing a courtship ritual, etc. Then, they would apply the same exact techniques when photographing the animal. next bird. Conversely, an experimental photographer might make a bird photo abstract, like the headline image of this article, or include it in part of a landscape. They can then generate other summaries that don’t involve birds.
In his 2008 book, Old Masters and Young Geniuses: Two Life Cycles of Artistic Creation, David GW Galenson explores how there are two paths that creators take. He examines the advancement of artists’ careers by collecting data such as prices paid for paintings and how often they are reprinted in books, etc.
Galenson commented that Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Cézanne, Jackson Pollock, Virginia Woolf, Robert Frost and Alfred Hitchcock were what he called the experimental masters. They grow and improve over time by experimentation, getting better and better with age.
Meanwhile, others reach their peak early and then decline in their careers. The catalog includes names like Vermeer, van Gogh, Picasso, Herman Melville, James Joyce, Sylvia Plath and Orson Welles. These are conceptual geniuses whose work culminates at a young age.
Paul Simon fits the former very well. His career began with the exploration of folk traditions. Even then, however, he was influenced by his Jewish heritage and the other cultures of his native New York. Rock and roll, doo-wop, country and different musical styles inspired him. Furthermore, that stimulus range increases as time goes on. South African influences blend with the country, and the early rock and roll influences of the Graceland album testify to this.
Other composers, such as David Bowie and Paul McCartney, have followed similar paths in collaboration and exploration of diversity in their music.
Paul McCartney’s late wife, Linda, is a brilliant photographer whose work grows and changes through experimentation. Just look at the huge difference between her photographs of the 1960s pop and rock worlds, her pictures of horses and nature, her personal Polaroid Diary, and her collection of Sun Pictures. she. She fits very well into the experimental masters category.
I think it’s comforting to know that musicians who are 80 – Paul Simon hit that age last October and Paul McCartney will be 80 in June – can still produce interesting and critically acclaimed work. appreciated in old age. Meanwhile, other musicians have produced their best results in their youth and when they get on stage they still just perform the same hits or maybe newer songs that fit the style. their established way.
That doesn’t detract from the quality of their music. People like Don McLean or The Rolling Stones, who peaked early and wrote brilliant songs during their prime, still perform the great songs we enjoy at our concerts. surname. Can the same be said for photographers? Of course, it is possible.
It’s a fun experiment to shoot photographers and decide which of the two they fit into. For example, compare complete works over the entire career of Brian Duffy, David Bailey, Steve McCurry, Diane Arbus, Nan Goldinand Mary McCartney. What category would you put these people in, great photographers?
There is a difference in the way the two groups work. For concept photographers, the end goal is paramount. They are people who plan and iterate their work, trying to perfect a technique. They know what they are trying to achieve.
Meanwhile, testers work more freelance. The journey is more important to them. They do not have precise goals; they don’t plan or even necessarily know the outcome. They achieve their results through trial and error, gradually gaining more skills as time goes on. They will encounter obstacles along the way, but those can lead them in a completely different creative direction.
Of course, we can’t all have the accolades of the famous photographers I mentioned in this article. But it’s a valuable exercise in discovering what kind of photographer you are. Do you have fun shooting just one genre or do you prefer to experiment with photography and learn what works and what doesn’t? They are equally valid approaches, just different.
However, there is an essential similarity between the two, one that is often forgotten in the search for success. Both require effort and persistence. The lucky chance that put them on the path to success comes from hard work, not expectations.
So which type is right for you? Are you an conceptual photographer who meticulously plans everything? Or are you a tester who explores different approaches and tests? Please let me know in the comments.
