 |
| photo by Borj Meneses for Digital Photography Plus |
How you present your photographs shows what kind of creative you are as a photographer. What kind of creative are you? Haptic or visual?
Have you ever wonder how some photographers reached a
particular style that individually represent them - or why people viewing specific
photos react more or appreciate certain pictures more than they would other
photographs?
Ever think why some photographers present their subjects totally
different from what they are in reality - how some banal objects are distorted
to form an ambiguous image quite unlike what they really are?
 |
| photo by Nanette Villanueva for Digital Photography Plus |
Which is the right or wrong way in presenting your image as
a photographer? Is there a proper or an improper way or even a much better way
of viewing or appreciating photos?
How a photographer choose to present their vision of the
world has a lot to do with the mental processes they underwent in arriving at
the final image. It has got something to do with what creative type a
photographer as an artist is.
So what kind of creative photographer are you?
There are 2 kinds.
 |
| photo by Christopher de Venecia for Digital Photography Plus |
 |
| photo by Nanette Villanueva for Digital Photography Plus |
There is no right or wrong or much better way of appreciating or viewing or
expressing things in photographs. It is just the way people are, showing how
they are creatively wired. No matter what type of creative you are, it is in
your own disposition as a photographer to make your own image work. The
possibilities are endless. Do not let someone else dictate or set the limits to
what you ought to present or achieve in your images just to be appreciated. Do not compete with others in
their own turfs, create your own niche, and don’t be influenced by fads. The
important thing is you enjoy the process of making photographs to continue doing so. In the end this will allow your
creative capabilities to shine forward and be recognized.
There is this Latin adage "De gustibus est non disputandum" (trans: In taste, there is no dispute) that sometimes levels me down to a dilemma whether to like plainly a photo, or to like it with consternation, but nonetheless veers me to distinctions, that, a photograph as a piece of art has both phenomenological and transcendental meanings as assuaged by the artist himself. Now, a hapstic or a realist, a virtual or a purist, an iconoclastic or a contemporary artists, all of them claim to have achieved the true and the beautiful with their art pieces, and are entitled with "ha, aha, hahaha" moments.
ReplyDeleteTaste is subjective. It can be affected by one's personal views, experiences or background - there can be no dispute about that because it is an individual thing. Whether to like a photo plainly or to like it with consternation is still a matter of taste arising from one's own level of appreciation and is an individual thing, too. The photographer as an artist interprets and gives meaning to his piece according to his own perception of the world. It can be like how he actually perceives it or he can bend it according to his own version of it. And just like the photographer is having his own individual way of presenting his subjects, people viewing his piece have their own choice in the matter, too. It is all a matter of individual tastes whether it be the photographer or the viewer, and beauty being in the eye of the beholder. Thanks for the well thought comment, very much appreciated! :)
ReplyDelete