link here  | |  tools  |  share:
photo size: medium 640 new

Lou O' Bedlam
recent  |  interesting  |  random  |  favorites  |  contacts  |  sets  |  tags:  
untitled

Film Crit Hulk blew my mind the other day.

He was speaking on the new version of Les Miserables, discussing how the director is an obvious devotee of Stanley Kubrick, using many of the same shots.

But that, crucially, the director had no true understanding of Kubrick's motivations, of the reasoning behind the shots, and so used them clumsily and, often, at cross-purposes to his intent.

And I see the same thing a lot lately with photography, folks copying the form without an understanding of the function within.

Some people are merely drawn to the aesthetic. Others believe they understand the Whys, but lack the proper perspective, as thus their understanding is distorted.

To which the reply is often, hey, it's art! Everyone copies everyone!

To which the reply is also often, hey, that's how people learn!

To which I reply, ah! This Was how people learned. They would sit in their art classes and dissect the masters, mimicking in order to understand.

But that was in the hermetically sealed environment of a classroom. The dynamic shifts when you go public

It's a favorite Hunter S. Thompson anecdote that he would type out all of Hemingway's novels, in order to understand the prose, the cadence.

But he never published those copies. The dynamic shifts when the work becomes public, where the direct influence can be hidden, can be ignored, can be forgotten. These days, copying in public is just Part of the Game.

And sure, back before the internet, some artists copied others. But when they did, they prayed no one would notice.

For the most potent criticism in art is that it is merely a copy of another artist.

Influences are all well and good, we all have them. But if they show, if someone can look at your work and needs not be told where the influence is, if it's right there on the surface? Then the work has a serious problem.

We are not the sum of our influences. We are the choices we make.

Yourself + your influences does not equal you. It equals you copying your influences.

Watching a documentary on Gregory Crewdson, I heard him say that David Lynch was an influence on his early work.

To which I thought, ah, I can see it now. It's there.

But he had synthesized the influence thoroughly enough that it was only apparent once he'd mentioned it, and even then, it was merely a component.

Intentional copying is a worthwhile exercise only in short bursts, only so long as it is necessary to learn the lesson.

Beyond that, you enter the realm of mimicry, and do a disservice to both yourself and your influence.

© All Rights Reserved
Taken on: January 26, 2013
Tags: Everybody's photos tagged with 1.3.13 1.3.13 Everybody's photos tagged with mamiya c330 mamiya c330 Everybody's photos tagged with 80mm lens 80mm lens more » Everybody's photos tagged with fuji reala 100 film fuji reala 100 film Everybody's photos tagged with Laura Laura Everybody's photos tagged with los angeles los angeles Everybody's photos tagged with Lou O' Bedlam Lou O' Bedlam Everybody's photos tagged with Lou Noble Lou Noble Everybody's photos tagged with portrait portrait « less
Sets appears in:   • 2013    • Medium Format Part Six   
Groups appears in:   • Twin Lens Reflex    • squareFormat    more » • Mamiya Love (FILM ONLY)    • Film is not Dead!!    • 6x6 Film Portraits    • .film.forever.    « less
Camera: NORITSU KOKI EZ Controller (more info) (hide info)
Camera: NORITSU KOKI EZ Controller
Color Space: sRGB
Software: QuickTime 7.6.6
Show full info
Stats: 35,246 views / 4 comments
Link to this photo view:
Link to this photo large view: