GENRE HOPPING
We have looked at a few genres through Part One and at photographers who excel within their genres. But why are genres important in the creation and consumption of photography? Genres are the styles of photography that you can practice. There are many genres within photography and an article on Shutha.org by David A. Larsen explains the extensive range of genres there are within photography.
“Having an overall understanding of the types or genres of photography is important for understanding where your own photography fits in the photographic world and consequently the opportunities that are open to you.” (Larsen 2016)
The article gives a good insight into the hierarchy of genres but this statement explains why genre is important to the photographer. Genre allows you to define yourself with a category. But how does the photographer know which genre to work within?
I think this is purely down to the passion of the photographer. Another article I read at picturecorrect.com explores more about defining your own photography style and writer Adrian Stone (2016) explains that “Creating an individualistic style for your work is an evolutionary process in photography. You must experiment and dabble for some time before you can truly determine how your images will look. Rarely will you be fortunate enough to stumble upon your own unique signature immediately”.
Personally, this is a defining statement. I have been practising photography for eight years and still haven’t found my signature style, yet I feel I am fine-tuning it more recently with shooting for this module. As a photographer, I am comfortable shooting landscapes and have done this throughout my photographical journey so far. In practicing landscape photography, I have a very modernist style, capturing aesthetic scenes that I find interesting or beautiful or peaceful but also that I feel others would find the same. Only a few years ago I started to dabble into live music photography and the more I practiced it, the more my passion grew. Even though now I veer more toward live music photography and enjoy that more, I still like to practice landscape photography. So I guess you could say that I ‘genre- hop’ at the moment. However, I feel my passion, and therefore my style, of photography is evolving more into live music photography and I am experimenting with styles of photography within that genre to define my signature style, which we can see more of within my first assignment for this module.
Looking back to the question, I feel that genre is important as a way of connecting photographer and viewer. This then ties why it is important for the photographer in creating the images but also important for the viewer when looking at the photographs. Referring back to David Bate in Photography: The Key concepts (p.3), he says “A genre in photography - portraiture, landscape, still life, documentary, etc, - creates an expectation for the meanings to be derived from that type of photograph. Each genre creates an expectation for particular types of understanding.” Bate also goes on to say “Genre is a useful category for the study of photography, because a genre is never possessed or only used by one particular institution. Genres are promiscuous. Yet the theoretical importance of genres is that they enable photographers, spectators and institutions to share expectations and meanings.” (p.5)
We have looked at a few genres through Part One and at photographers who excel within their genres. But why are genres important in the creation and consumption of photography? Genres are the styles of photography that you can practice. There are many genres within photography and an article on Shutha.org by David A. Larsen explains the extensive range of genres there are within photography.
“Having an overall understanding of the types or genres of photography is important for understanding where your own photography fits in the photographic world and consequently the opportunities that are open to you.” (Larsen 2016)
The article gives a good insight into the hierarchy of genres but this statement explains why genre is important to the photographer. Genre allows you to define yourself with a category. But how does the photographer know which genre to work within?
I think this is purely down to the passion of the photographer. Another article I read at picturecorrect.com explores more about defining your own photography style and writer Adrian Stone (2016) explains that “Creating an individualistic style for your work is an evolutionary process in photography. You must experiment and dabble for some time before you can truly determine how your images will look. Rarely will you be fortunate enough to stumble upon your own unique signature immediately”.
Personally, this is a defining statement. I have been practising photography for eight years and still haven’t found my signature style, yet I feel I am fine-tuning it more recently with shooting for this module. As a photographer, I am comfortable shooting landscapes and have done this throughout my photographical journey so far. In practicing landscape photography, I have a very modernist style, capturing aesthetic scenes that I find interesting or beautiful or peaceful but also that I feel others would find the same. Only a few years ago I started to dabble into live music photography and the more I practiced it, the more my passion grew. Even though now I veer more toward live music photography and enjoy that more, I still like to practice landscape photography. So I guess you could say that I ‘genre- hop’ at the moment. However, I feel my passion, and therefore my style, of photography is evolving more into live music photography and I am experimenting with styles of photography within that genre to define my signature style, which we can see more of within my first assignment for this module.
Looking back to the question, I feel that genre is important as a way of connecting photographer and viewer. This then ties why it is important for the photographer in creating the images but also important for the viewer when looking at the photographs. Referring back to David Bate in Photography: The Key concepts (p.3), he says “A genre in photography - portraiture, landscape, still life, documentary, etc, - creates an expectation for the meanings to be derived from that type of photograph. Each genre creates an expectation for particular types of understanding.” Bate also goes on to say “Genre is a useful category for the study of photography, because a genre is never possessed or only used by one particular institution. Genres are promiscuous. Yet the theoretical importance of genres is that they enable photographers, spectators and institutions to share expectations and meanings.” (p.5)
Both these points show the connection between genre – photographer - viewer.
Photographers develop their personal style based on what they are most comfortable and
passionate about shooting. Their style will then slot into a genre, or a sub- genre within a
genre. Then that genre will be what defines the photographers work/career. This then
allows viewers to identify the genre and style of a photographer before physically seeing
each project they create. If I think of Annie Leibowitz, I immediately think of portraiture.
Michael Kenna – black and white landscapes. Crewdson – Tableaux. Ross Halfin – Rock
music photographer. So I can identify with the work and style of those photographers with
their signature style and genre of the work they produce. And that is where the significance
of genre lies.
I did see an interesting statement from Liz Wells in Photography: A critical introduction (2004) where she explains “One significant consequence of this (change in visual culture) has been a new merging and lack of definition between photographic genres. It is increasingly difficult to distinguish one kind of photograph practice from another.” (p.75)
This statement got me thinking. I concluded from this that it strains from the vast amount of genres and sub- genres there are today. Looking at some of the work and genres that we have looked at in part one, you could see where a viewer could get distracted by which genre they were looking at, especially to someone not wholly familiar with these types of sub – genres. Looking back to the article on Shuthra.org by David Larsen, as mentioned earlier, Larsen provides detailed diagrams to highlight the number of sub – genres that fit within the four basic genres.
I did see an interesting statement from Liz Wells in Photography: A critical introduction (2004) where she explains “One significant consequence of this (change in visual culture) has been a new merging and lack of definition between photographic genres. It is increasingly difficult to distinguish one kind of photograph practice from another.” (p.75)
This statement got me thinking. I concluded from this that it strains from the vast amount of genres and sub- genres there are today. Looking at some of the work and genres that we have looked at in part one, you could see where a viewer could get distracted by which genre they were looking at, especially to someone not wholly familiar with these types of sub – genres. Looking back to the article on Shuthra.org by David Larsen, as mentioned earlier, Larsen provides detailed diagrams to highlight the number of sub – genres that fit within the four basic genres.
© David Larsen (2016) Shuthra.org
This image depicts the four basic genres which Larsen then breaks down into individual diagrams. As an example, I will include his diagram for the ‘creative’ genre below;
© David Larsen (2016) Shuthra.org
This branch shows how many sub – genres can stem from just the basic creative genre. The article also shows individual diagrams for each of the other three basic genres, which I won’t include here but that you can view at http://www.shutha.org/photo-genres.
Just looking at this diagram you could see where the fine lines of these sub – genres is but how easy these lines could be blurred. So the practice of some genres could be confused into different genres or even just marked as one of the basic genres. But I think that this makes the whole process of photography more technical and, in some cases, unnecessary? And I agree with Wells that this is just a process with the dramatic change in culture and how photography has evolved. But I don’t think this type of blurring is not connected to genre hopping. To me, genre hopping is going back to a photographer, like myself currently, who doesn’t have a signature style and dabbles in two or more genres. As a professional, this could give more mystery to the photographer from the viewers point of view, as they could not immediately identify with the photographers projects and what work they would create next, but then I think it gives more freedom and to the photographer to create what he likes without the constraints of a specific genre.
This image depicts the four basic genres which Larsen then breaks down into individual diagrams. As an example, I will include his diagram for the ‘creative’ genre below;
© David Larsen (2016) Shuthra.org
This branch shows how many sub – genres can stem from just the basic creative genre. The article also shows individual diagrams for each of the other three basic genres, which I won’t include here but that you can view at http://www.shutha.org/photo-genres.
Just looking at this diagram you could see where the fine lines of these sub – genres is but how easy these lines could be blurred. So the practice of some genres could be confused into different genres or even just marked as one of the basic genres. But I think that this makes the whole process of photography more technical and, in some cases, unnecessary? And I agree with Wells that this is just a process with the dramatic change in culture and how photography has evolved. But I don’t think this type of blurring is not connected to genre hopping. To me, genre hopping is going back to a photographer, like myself currently, who doesn’t have a signature style and dabbles in two or more genres. As a professional, this could give more mystery to the photographer from the viewers point of view, as they could not immediately identify with the photographers projects and what work they would create next, but then I think it gives more freedom and to the photographer to create what he likes without the constraints of a specific genre.
Bibliography.
Bate, D., 2009. Photography: The Key Concepts 1st ed., London: Bloomsbury.
Larsen, D.A., 2016. Understanding photo genres. Shuthra.org. Available at:
http://www.shutha.org/photo-genres [Accessed April 22,2016].
Stone, A., 2016. How to define your photography style. picturecorrect.com.Available at:
http://www.picturecorrect.com/tips/how-to- define-your-photography-style/
[Accessed April 22, 2016].
Wells, L., 2004. Photography: A critical introduction third. L. Wells, ed., London: Routledge.
Bate, D., 2009. Photography: The Key Concepts 1st ed., London: Bloomsbury.
Larsen, D.A., 2016. Understanding photo genres. Shuthra.org. Available at:
http://www.shutha.org/photo-genres [Accessed April 22,2016].
Stone, A., 2016. How to define your photography style. picturecorrect.com.Available at:
http://www.picturecorrect.com/tips/how-to- define-your-photography-style/
[Accessed April 22, 2016].
Wells, L., 2004. Photography: A critical introduction third. L. Wells, ed., London: Routledge.
No comments:
Post a Comment