The Most Beautiful Thing
Note:I knew this post will result in some strong opinions but after reading some of the responses, I feel compelled to clarify that my thoughts below do not pertain to anyone asking for assistance in finding certain areas (especially if well known) or general trip planning advice. I also take no issue with mimicry for the sake of learning. I always have and always will be glad to assist anyone with such questions. I myself have benefited from the generosity of others in sharing their knowledge and am glad to pay it forward. The cases I am referring to are those in which someone is asking for specific information for the explicit purpose of making a copy of one of my images, and of such copies being claimed as originals by those who knowingly and deliberately seek to duplicate the works of others and present them as their own.
~~~
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. –Albert Einstein
Every so often, I am contacted by fellow photographers asking for directions to specific places, sometimes explicitly asking about the location of one of my images. Some inquire subtly, while others ask for anything from GPS coordinates to detailed information about focal length and time of day required to replicate my work with their own cameras. In the past, I answered such questions with a polite message explaining my stand on originality and encouraging the sender to think creatively and to pursue their own original work. More recently, as these questions became more frequent, I decided to ignore them. Admittedly, I never felt quite comfortable with either approach, knowing that the person on the other end will take some offense to my refusal to divulge such information. I decided, instead, to explain my position in this essay and offer it as a response to future requests.
Let me first say that I do not fault anyone for asking. Whether I like it or not, it appears to be the norm among many photographers to pursue a checklist of other people’s images they found appealing and wish to copy. It is, in many ways, a great compliment to the creator of the original image, assuming they are given proper credit. To me, however, the norm is a result of long standing complacency, implicit (if unintended) disrespect to the original photographer, and a general misunderstanding of the value of expressive photography. Though widely accepted, this mentality will not meet the tests of morality — or even legality — applicable to other forms of creative art, and it needs to change.
In most other creative pursuits, similar behavior will be met with much stronger language – from plagiarism to theft. When you think about it, it is no different from asking a chef for the recipe and instructions needed to duplicate their prize dishes, or asking a painter for the exact color mixes and paint-by-number cheat sheet so you could make an exact copy of their work, or the source code for a commercial software package so that it can be compiled by someone else without paying for a license, and with just a small stretch you could think of asking the US Mint for copies of the plates needed to make precise copies of $20 bills. In other words, the very question implies that the thing being copied has no value or association with its creator.
Worse yet, when such copies are made with a camera, the photographer assumes the right to claim ownership to the captured image, even if an explicit and intentional copy of someone else’s creative efforts. While copyright and intellectual property laws restrict such copying in many areas; when it comes to photographing natural elements it is hard to claim ownership of a publicly available view. Certainly one should not expect any claims of originality for images made in well known and easily accessible places. Still, when it comes to intimate, interpretive images and for such things as unique composition, processing decisions, and other subjective aspects, the ownership and credit for the work should remain with the original photographer and be respected equally.
Certainly there is room for mimicry in the process of learning. Copying the work and techniques of others for the sake of learning and developing your own is widely accepted as fair use, as it should. Still, skill and technique can be learned in a variety of locations and do not require precise direction to a remote and little-known place. And, they most certainly do not justify claiming original ownership of a copied work. Can a classical pianist claim to own the rights to a Chopin concerto just because they happen to play it on their own instrument (no matter how skillfully)? Can a painter claim to be the original creator of a work that is identical to Botticelli’s Venus just because they rendered it with their own brushes and on their own canvas?
But perhaps most important of all is the value of such copies to the photographer and to society. By venturing out to make copies of other people’s work, you deny yourself and your audience the expression of your own voice. Once you have acquired the skill to operate a camera and create images, you will actually stunt your own creative growth by not pursuing your own subjects and developing your own style and technique. More than anything, you are denying yourself the experience of discovery, which is far greater than any joy you may derive from making yet another replica.
Whether you acknowledge it or not, by seeking to create original work you will become a better artist and a better person. You will experience more and learn more and contribute more to your audience. When setting out to explore new places and techniques you stand to unravel mysteries, to educate, to inspire, to make a name for yourself, and to learn answers to questions you did not even know to ask.
Make copies as you need in order to learn and improve your technique, but don’t fool yourself into believing they are your original work. Once you have mastered the use of your equipment and acquired the right tools, the only way to grow is to venture beyond gear, beyond making copies, and beyond relying on the vision of others. At this point, it is time to leave the nest, to experience the world for yourself, and to interpret it according to your own sensibilities and creative powers. Let others earn their rightful dues from their own creative efforts and set out to earn your own.
A masterpiece of your own creation is the most rewarding, meaningful, and beautiful thing you will achieve as an artist. Do not deny yourself this profound and well-earned feeling by being lured into the ease, comfort, and predictable hollow praise that come from repeating other people’s successes.
Category: Featured, Rants and Raves, Thoughts and Musings
Wise and thoughtful words Guy!
Too many photographers today seem to do check-list photography.
Steve
Well spoken. The one element that is missing which you spoke around but did not make clear is time. Most people do not have enough of it. In our society, we are all bogged down with commitments, so most photographers do not have time to explore locations on their own. It is much easier to photograph a sure-thing on the weekend, than go out with a creative eye open to possibilities for a week.
a lovely image and good text…
May the good light be with you!
Guy, this is so well said and your words taught me yet another lesson. While still in the process of learning and developing a personal style, I do find myself getting inspiration from and seeing like other photographers do. While this helps me, I realize it can become a trap, as I can easily get stuck in a certain way of seeing things. And I guess this is, as you say, to rely on the vision of others. Still it seems hard at times to produce something truly unique that represents your thoughts, feelings and personality. But it’s a battle I’m planning to win, so thanks for giving me a little more motivation.
If I give someone directions to Antelope Canyon or the Wave, I do not assume that they will try to replicate my image, as there are many different images that can be made there. Instead, I prefer to think that my image gave them an idea of the potential of the place, and will be the beginning of their own explorations. Without obtaining information, they are not likely to run into the Wave by chance wandering.
When I wrote very precise directions to the Diving Board, I did not even assume that the primary goal of the visitors would be to make photographs, as being at the location is an amazing experience by itself.
Those who copy the photographs of others are confusing the image itself with the “seeing” that produced it. Seeing is the core of photography not technique. If you can only duplicate what others have done, you are not a photographer, you are a copyist. When one learns to see as a photographer, photographs can be found almost anywhere.
Jon brings up an excellent point: time. Even on dedicated photography trips, I don’t often have the time to linger as much as I would like. That means I have to rely on research before I leave.
I try to research a trip as much as possible; including determining locations and the best time of day to visit that location. There are times I may write a photographer and ask about a location; for example, I need to know whether it is east or west facing. That makes a big difference upon what time of day I visit.
That doesn’t mean I want to copy someone else’s work. You are a digital photographer, I’m a large format film photographer. Our visions are totally different. But, that doesn’t mean I’m not open to learning about what you, or any other photographer may have to teach me. I’ll still shoot my vision, but it may change based upon what I learn.
What a magical image. It is no wonder people seek to copy your work, but what gall to ask you how to do it. No truer words have been spoken about the subject. Bravo!
I’ve been one of those who impulsively asked folks where something is. I’m embarrassed when I realize it’s a naive question or that it implies a lack of ethics on my part. I’m more savvy now and don’t ask — and yet sometimes I just wonder where on the planet some beautiful place is. Wonder is okay. Your photographic expressions I often find spectacular. In an effort to avoid offense, I’ll offer that my location questions are along the lines offered by QT above.
I think you are speaking primarily to other pros. As an amateur I don’t take many landscape photos. I know that with my lack of experience and time in craft they will never compare to what the pros do. The trick to make an attractive photo for we hacks is to put somebody you like in the picture! People always like a photo of themselves. Or image something more obscure, like astro-objects. Weirdly enough, given the size of space, there essentially no secret objects left out there. I’ve started to wonder what that means about creativity. Talk about paint by numbers. A fellow astro imager’s praise amounts to “Nice M1 you got there.” Yet, that M1 remains full of wonder.
How true Guy. Too many green photogs think capturing a similar image will make them a better photog.
Learn the skills, shoot your own vision & express your creativity in your own way.
There’s nothing wrong with asking advice or tech questions but shoot your own vision.
I really enjoyed the article.
I’m with QT I think – some people ask with bad intentions, some with good.
For me it’s all about ingredients and recipes. As a photographer, I think we should share where we find the ingredients but not necessarily give people the recipes. I’m sure we can keep the occasional ingredient to ourselves but to hoard all of them seems a bit excessive.
If people want to use those ingredients to try to reproduce the same recipe – more fool them..
However, I am in total agreement that people should try to take pictures in original locations for their own good. Working with material where you have no preconceptions is a really good way of honing your eye.
Thanks for the great responses, everyone!
QT and Mark, I was not talking about general directions to prominent attractions. I, myself, often get the urge to know where an image was made and I am also glad to offer this same information to others. It makes as much sense to withhold information about Antelope Canyon as it does the Eiffel Tower. The cases I had in mind are those asking specifically for instructions on how to make an explicit copy of an image and the more general case of those who knowingly make such copies and claim them as their own original creations.
Guy
Guy,
Basically, I share your sentiment, however I wouldn’t say I’m as adamant as you are in not sharing locations. The truth is, the conditions under which your image was made can never really be duplicated (regardless of image we are talking about). The sun will never quite be the same, the colors will never be exactly the same, the clouds will never be quite the same…and, few people can execute as well as YOU even if similar conditions existed! While I take the same approach as you (though few people really care where I made any particular image
, I see no possibility of your own personal work ever being duplicated to any great degree.
And, all the ways you have mentioned to deal with those that do want location specifics are fine with me. Anyone that knows you well enough to feel they can ask, probably don’t know you well enough.
Anyone who profits off of their artistic creation has the right, in my opinion, to keep any information to themselves they see fit.
Good post Guy.
I would like to add two other reasons why I myself do not readily give out locations to non-obvious locations.
Thomas Creel just touched about the first reason when he said, “Anyone who profits off of their artistic creation has the right, in my opinion, to keep any information to themselves they see fit.” As one who makes my entire living selling my artwork, it simply is not in my economic interest to mention exactly where every photo was taken. It’s a business decision.
The second is environmental. Unfortunately, as more and more people know about wonderful locations, the more damage to the area that can be expected. I touched upon this in an article I wrote a few years ago here: http://www.mattsuess.com/2007/08/25/a-little-common-sense-please/
Well said Guy, some interesting and thought-provoking points. In many ways I have been fortunate, living in a remote corner of southwest China, we don’t get too many other photographers here. I am sure that will change as we set up a new life in Spain! The most valuable point for me is you making the distinction between inspiration to learn and plagiarism.
Thanks, I will think this one through more..
Great thoughts, Guy. I’ll volunteer information either if I know the person and if they have good intentions or if it’s a commonly known place. But as for telling people where to place their tripod, then they are on their own.
Guy,
Thanks for another thoughtful, well-reasoned post. I have a huge amount of respect for your outlook and integrity, and I always look forward to reading your blog.
That said, I’m also glad you clarified things in your response to Comments. I was beginning to feel really bad about emailing you last spring before my AZ/UT trip. I agree wholeheartedly with your point of view (pun intended), but also with Jon and Robert: for anyone who doesn’t live in the area they want to photograph, general directions and times of day are a godsend. I’d go so far as to say that in some cases, they can make or break a trip. (So thank you again for your tips back in April!) Even so, I’d far rather be independently wealthy and able to go somewhere, settle for a few months or a year, and really get to know the place: go back to that one spot as many mornings as it takes to get the sunrise you’ve been waiting for, for example. Precious few of us, even among professional photographers, are able to do something like that unless they live in the area.
For myself, I tend to take more of an idiot savant approach. I don’t study other people’s work. I may look at their images when they post something, and respond accordingly, but at most I’ll ask where it was taken (as in, was it Glacier, or the Tetons, or the Windows section in Arches), maybe Google the place and do some research, possibly add that to my list of places to visit. But that’s as close to a checklist as I’m ever likely to have. Even when I get info from other people, once I’m on the trip I shy away from anything too regimented. Once I have the “Schwabacher Landing is good in early morning light” part down, then I do my own thing: point me in the right direction and then it’s up to me do something worthwhile or not. And I’ll freely admit that this approach has its drawbacks; I don’t always do anything worthwhile. One photography trip to a location is rarely enough, and no trip is ever long enough, but I’ve accepted that my learning curve is going to be lifelong.
One other quick point: I get really irritated with the guys-with-big-fancy-cameras who hang around at those prominent attractions, watch others scope out the spot, set up for a shot, and then drawl in a knowing, condescending tone “Yeah, that’s The Shot!” My immediate gut reaction to this is something along the lines of “insert expletive of your choice” but sometimes I’ll take That Shot anyway. I figure if I found it for myself, I have every right to it. And sometimes I’ll deliberately take my gear and move off to another spot and set up there instead. But either way, I wish the idiots would keep their mouths shut and just leave other people alone. I have a feeling that there may be a strong correlation between this behavior and the sort of thing you’re talking about, Guy!
Thanks again for the good thoughts, and please keep sharing them.
I must be doing something very, very wrong. I have yet to have anyone email me with requests for location information. No, seriously. But then, I do tend to post either iconic or intimate landscapes. One just about everyone can get to by themselves (“Hello! It’s Tunnel View in Yosemite!”) and the other, well, any fool can find Western Sierra Dogwood blossoms against a Merced River background.
That said, I know the value of the iconic shot; It’s a good way to grow your photographic chops, teaches patience, and how to deal with other photographers. As a photographic guide, that’s where I try to take my clients, and some lesser-known locations.
But as an artist, there is a part of me that utterly longs to go to that tree in the sandstone hole you photographed, just to *be* there. And yes, to photograph it. Our friend QT Luong put it best–I’d like the chance to work that area, maybe get a new perspective of that location.
G. Dan Mitchell gives a slightly different reason for not divulging locations; He’s worried that hordes of uncaring ‘togs will descend on a fragile ecosystem and destroy it.
I can and do respect both your view and his. My view is this; Consider how well you know someone, weigh both their artistic vision and their outdoor ethics. Then make a judgment call.
All the best,
Edie
A very well written post, Guy, and I also enjoyed reading the many comments. I have to admit I am guilty of taking that iconic image of Tunnel View on my first trip to Yosemite and posting it for all to see. However, I see the shot as a souvenier!! It makes a little part of me fill with joy when I see it. But it is not my art. It is my souvenier. Or even my snapshot that impresses my family, but not other photographers.
I find that I am processing my shots of Yosemite in a similar manner to how I made them. I cannot help myself from taking the iconic shot first and processing it first. Then as I work the scene and work my way through the processing I start to get to the more interesting, unique shots that are my art. I hope to be posting more of those soon.
I totally agree with you. Putting in the extra effort to make unique images also makes a better artist and a better person.
Thanks for this article Guy. The next time I’m asked by some one for locations and technical details I can direct them to this article
I recall one bold individual wanting to replicate a shot at a location I found on a weekend trip away. This request was particularly annoying because the individual actually lived right next to this national park!
Happy New Year, Guy, and thanks for this wonderful post. I have given this much thought over the years, but you have articulated your ideas beautifully and I do agree whole heartedly. I prefer to do my own location scouting, but if useful advice was given, it is good to credit that person or pay tribute to the artist you admire whose work has influenced your own if that be the case. The only thing to add is that once in a blue moon I produce an image that in retrospect seems quite similar to another photographer, completely without my knowing it..eg. When you come across images in a magazine or book later on. This can occur unwittingly even if you try to research as much as possible. Not much you can do about this except wish you were published first.
Great article and great responses. This is a very controversial topic in my opinion. I agree with you Guy – for the most part The “discovery” is the most rewarding thing in photography. Every photographer should stive to make their own discoveries and creations. It is the purest form of individualism and that’s what art is about. I also agree that it is naive to think that by getting detailed instructions, one could create the same masterpiece as the original creator. There seem to be quite a few out there who think that detailed info on location is all it takes to create a meaningful photograph. In light of educating this group of people, your post is very valid. (And beautiful to read as always).
But QT Luong also has a good point and I am glad for your response to this specific aspect. I want to mention the very helpful book by Darwin Wiggett – “How to Photograph the Canadian Rockies”. It contains very detailed information on locations, how to get there, and at what time of the day the light is best. Darwin’s book was of great help for me when I vistited Banff and Jasper for just a week. I would have been lost without it. Of course my images look very different from Darwin’s and I never had the intention to re-create his images.
We have a certain “culture” in landscape photography. The most mainstream thread of that culture emphasizes many “iconic” views and locations that every tyro should visit and photograph and have images of in his or her portfolio.
Guy’s essays and photographs touch on a different approach to the landscape. Instead of running out and “scoring” on a “bag list”, the photography comes out of an ongoing relationship with the subject. And one can have a relationship with places like Zion without spending time fighting for tripod position on the Virgin River bridge or in the Subway.
Guy,
At first I took offense to your post, reading it as though you would never give out the locations to your images. After reading the comments I realize that the two pieces of information are the location AND the photographic process. With this I agree to some extent, but there are those that are learning and I always appreciate candor. We cannot always know what is in the hearts of those to whom we give information, but we can hope that they will not use it to copy or if they do, they use it only for the benefit of exploration and education. If they use it only to further their monetary or ego goals, they are only cheating themselves.
I found myself in a similar quandary this past fall while photographing Rocky Mountain National Park. I had seen images of a place that I wanted to go so that I could experience the beauty and solitude that the location seemed to offer. I found the serene locale that I sought and indeed took a photo, but I also took in the beauty of the mountains, the trees, and the lake without looking through the viewfinder. I was glad I found it and felt pleased that I was able to experience it for myself, with all of my senses. Upon returning I did not process the image for I felt that it was not unique and I was only looking through someone else’s vision.
Three months later I looked at the photographers that had come before me and realized that although the location was the same, the conditions had changed and indeed my framing was different. I had consciously and subconsciously consumed their works, but what I created was my own.
With that being said, it is still not one of my favorite pieces. I still feel it contains a bit of “cheating”, but there is such beauty of place there that I still present it for those that have not seen it, although not predominately.
To sum up my thoughts, I am always proud to tell people where I took a photograph when asked. Since my major stomping ground is Nebraska and the Great Plains there is a large expanse that can be explored with beauty that many overlook. I want people to know that beauty exists, especially if it is right next door. I hope that for those that ask, you too tell them the location of this beauty so they may experience it. For some (and we may never know who), this is all they may need. For those that plagiarize, they will never really “know” the beauty.
Derrald
just recently discussed this subject with a friend/colleague, because it gets increasingly annoying.
)
))
but it’s reality and all photographers working the web to a large amount will have to live/deal with it.
thanks for the text, very diplomatically written – although I’d have gotten the message across to all copycats in just a few words…
beautiful new pics too – pls send gps data…
I spent part of last summer exploring Montana and W. Canada. I didn’t even have a map. Sometimes I had no idea where I was or where I was going. I found some really incredible scenery on backroads I just happened to stumble upon.
It’s hard to explain the serendipity that comes with such discoveries. Coming around some bend and finding you’re in the most incredible alpine meadow is indescribable. If someone had plotted my journey for me it wouldn’t have been the same.
Photography is about emotion. By asking where something is and knowing what you’re going to see, you’re depriving yourself. The discovery is part of the process and can’t be replicated.
I couldn’t agree more Guy, and well said. I’ve certainly noticed this checklist and copycat trend on Flickr regarding the eastern sierra. While I can understand that most who don’t live here have limited time, but I have never understood that “trophy” mentality of photography. I think those who do this are merely collecting trophies to hang on the wal, so to speak,l and missing out on what the medium of photography has to offer.
regards,
cory
Folks,
My heartfelt thanks to everyone for the thoughtful comments! As a result of your feedback, I added a note of clarification to the post.
I also want to allay the concerns of those who contacted me in the past. If I responded to your questions, it means I found them in good taste and had no qualms about responding. If I had the slightest concern, I would have told you. Those who know me will testify I am not shy about expressing my (often opinionated) views.
To address the questions of limited time and other points raised – I agree. My point is not about withholding knowledge but rather about withholding credit. Think for example about musicians. Just about every budding pianist likely played Chopsticks until their fingers hurt. Still, not a single one will ever try to claim it as their creation. The same should apply to all other arts. When you ask a pianist about their performance, they will always make the distinction between the pieces they performed and the ones they actually wrote themselves. No matter how virtuous the performance, the credit for the score will never be separated from its original composer.
If you heard a young rock musician playing a variation on Stairway to Heaven or Smoke on the Water and claiming it as their original music, will you let them get away with it? Why should photography be different?
Guy
This is a great subject. We have a current exhibition ongoing at the Detroit Institute of Arts called “Fakes and Forgeries.” Much of what you touch on here is similar to the thematic elements in this exhibit. They also make important distinctions between the two terms.
A Fake could mean a Copy or a work produced “in the style of…” whereas a Forgery is intended for some type of deception. The Fake is a bit more elusive in definition when it comes to crediting the original artist. I am not sure I have ever seen a photographer say replicate a historic Ansel Adams photograph and label it “in the style of Ansel Adams.”
The part I struggle with a bit comes with defining the original. Is the “original” composition the one first publicly shown and widely known or is it the one of the earliest exposure? I found found that I have made some images that I thought were original, only to learn later on that it had already been done before. Perhaps this is diverging off into another tangent from your original topic of giving out information, but I find it an interesting tangent! One I intended posting a bit about.
I agree with the post above, although it is nice to at least know the general location of someone’s photograph (though not the exact GPS coordinates).
For example, I think Lake Blanche is one of the gems of the Wasatch Mountains, and I am glad that the photos I found of Lake Blanche actually had the name so I could know where to go to check it out.
You would think that most people would realize that since you live near Capitol Reef, a lot of your photography is from that general area. Then they might want to come and explore for themselves and find their own unique images…
Fantastic post guy, you brought up some interesting points. I’ve often struggled with the fact that some of the more well known areas and icons will probably sell better than the lesser known locations that I usually shoot. Mainly because of peoples familiarity and connections with the icons. Have you found this to be the case at all with your gallery sales? I generally dislike shooting well known scenes but tried to force myself to shoot a couple this past summer hoping they might generate some print sells.
Of course this goes against the whole Artist thing, but after five years of shooting what I love, I think I’ve come to the realization that sometimes you have to make some sacrifices in this department.
1st I’m in full agreement, but secondly I see your post muddying two separate issues.
Exploration & Creativity versus Intellectual Property Rights for various niches of photography.
I think your post would have greater strength standing alone on the point of exploration and creativity. This is where many photography enthusiasts find themselves being blinded by the cliche or standard shot. That well known shot that everyone “has to have” eclipses what the rest of that area has to offer and as a result wastes an opportunity for an individual interpretation of the area by the photographer. This invariably leads down the path to the question are you a “photographer” or an “artist”. Are you documenting a scene for your own prosperity to recreate an iconic image for you own enjoyment or are you looking to interpret a scene as an artist. Here is the meat of your point I think.
To me the intellectual property aspect is less compelling. Who owns a particular vantage point of nature is far less a concern to me as there are so many variables that can make the same perspective unique. I think the IP debate is a red herring to the prior points. It’s tough to lay claim to a view from a standard lookout point like the Snake River Outlook in Grand Teton National Park. It’s just too easy to access. It’s a public view point. Some may capture it better than others, but I wouldn’t say Ansel Adams owns that view nor does he own Tunnel Lookout in Yosemite.
To your metaphor of classical music… I think these iconic shots for many are equivalent to musical “standards”. Taking them In conjunction with further exploration is akin to warming up or tuning ones vision and creativity before getting to the true performance. Unfortunately many people don’t know they’re stuck on performing “standards” and completely miss an opportunity to find their own symphony.
As always great topic of discussion Guy.
I disagree with the post. Just because someone asks you where a location is, does not mean they want to COPY it. More likely, they want to visit it and attempt to put their own artistic mark on the location. If they seriously are copycats, then they are lame and of no consequence to even worry about.
In my opinion, photographers who want to keep their locations secret might deep down be worried that someone else will come along and shoot it better. Have confidence in yourself and your talents, and you will not be worried about other photogs shooting your location better than you.
Hallelujah, praise the lord, amen!!!!
Does Ansel Adams have any secret places left in Yosemite? If so burn the directions to these places!
If you hiked 6 miles cross country to photograph something in your spare time and finally got some great light on the 7th trip in years time, not to mention you might of photographed other spots inbetween each of the 7 trips, why would you want the mysterious lure to be fizzled away by the photographer zerox?? I’m with you on this one and the easy curb duplicating is obviously excluded.
Well said Tom
Thanks, folks.
Jim, not sure if you missed this in the post: “Certainly one should not expect any claims of originality for images made in well known and easily accessible places.”
Tom, what is it you disagree with? The very first note on this page states that I’m talking ONLY about those who DO explicitly want to copy. Read the piece (again?) before jumping to conclusions.
Guy
This is great! Especially for people new to the field! I completely agree with what you’ve layed out here Guy!
Guy thank you so well written. I could not agree with you more. I experience the same sort of thing in my home state. It is frustrating to me as well. I kind of joking call myself a composition snob. I usually am just vague about it, but allot of other photographers get upset at you it seems. That is no fun at all.
[...] brings me to the topic of producing original work. Guy Tal has a great post on his blog this month about copying and originality. There is a place for both. “Crowning Glory” is a [...]
[...] Guy Tal has written an eloquent essay that can serve as a roadmap to authentic artistic development for budding photographers (and a few straggling, self-described ‘pros’ and ‘amateurs’). Dismayed and no doubt irritated by requests from photographers digging for information not only on where an image was made but also the steps taken to develop it, Guy explains his position on this kind of ‘artistic shortcutting’. I am in complete agreement with him. Having met Guy on two occasions and followed his writing, he always struck me as a fair and quietly passionate person with high ethical standards and a developed morality. In a day and age where the ease of being able to do something (like pirate movies or music off the internet) tends to make it morally acceptable, Guy’s integrity is welcome. [...]
Hey Guy
Great post, as usual, thank you.
The “pressed for time” argument is, simply, bullsh**. I’m glad Miles Davis didn’t simply readapt Charlie Parker’s work because he was ‘pressed for time’ when he wrote and recorded the ‘Kind of Blue’ album. I can’t imagine the Mona Lisa if Leonardo had simply whipped out a quick sketch instead of a painfully crafted masterpiece. Maybe Bob Dylan should’ve just compiled Shakespearean quotes and saved himself ‘time’.
Art is time. You either make the effort, spend the time, and get what you get, or you make up some nonsense about how your schedule is more important than the time, effort and work of those whose back you crawl through the world on.
Someone said something about ‘the copyist is only cheating their self’, or similar, which I also disagree with. The copyist is cheating the artist, is cheating art, is cheating the audience, and is cheating photography. In short, it’s lame.
Cheers
Carl
Wow. Some folks don’t appear to read very carefully.
But even so, this is a useful discussion; like many of your posts it has become a bit of a lightning rod and I think most of us are appreciative of your viewpoint, Guy. (And indeed share it.) From my perspective, even the dissent is a sort of a backhanded compliment: it just serves to highlight the integrity – so rare today – necessary to take a stand and stick with it in the face of criticism, complaint and contradiction.
I’m also someone who’s not shy about speaking up and I tend to do it even when it’s not in my own best interests, ‘cos I’m just that way. So for that reason, too, you get my vote, Guy. Keep on keeping on – and keep on reminding us what it’s all about.
People asking for the location of a photograph most often are mainly curious. They want to touch the gates of the Playboy Mansion, visit Ground Zero in New York, see the bathroom where Elvis died, climb Half Dome to say they did. This makes sense up to a point. It is human nature to be curious. We can probably sleuth out whether a person’s intent is to copy, just by asking “Why?” Why do they want to know? I am suspect of anyone who says they want to photograph the same image to “learn.” What the heck will anyone learn from making a successful copy? Sure it is useful sometimes for a writer to type out a few paragraphs of Steinbeck or Tolstoy, but ultimately Guy is right. Read it, study it, but don’t copy it and call it yours. The “learning” is almost always limited from exterior sources. Also, if you look at the big picture of yourself in relation to all photography, do you want to be the person whose work looks much like all the rest of what was being done in that particular era, or do you want to stand out and leave a mark, be a leader?
I agree fully with the point, but what about photo tours and the like. Having never been on one, nor ever likely to go on one are they not in place for people to get to place to take similar images to the photographer who is leading it?
Thanks again, everyone for the fantastic and thoughtful responses!
Chris, that’s a very good question. I tried to answer it on my recent interview with Dave Taylor (see question #6). I hope it addresses what you had in mind.
Guy
Thank you, I thought that might be the reason you don’t seem to have any photo tours.
[...] on Personal Expression… Following up on my last post, which of course springboarded off Guy Tal’s inspiring thoughts on creative development, I’m sharing some images I made last weekend at Abraham Lake in the [...]
[...] OTHERS IMAGES: Guy Tal is a great photographer and a great writer. In this post on his blog he shares his ideas and thoughts about the requests that he fields from readers asking where he [...]
One thing I’ve been pondering lately is how a lot of photographers preach this idea, but then lead photo tours that almost do the exact opposite. It seems as if as soon as money is involved minds are immediately changed. (as is the case with many things) Not saying its right or wrong, just thoughts…
One of my favorite blogs to visit is yours, I often come back numerous times your posts always make me think.
[...] The Most Beautiful Thing from Guy Tal [...]