Creativity

I recently joined the ranks of photographers that maintain a blog. I've been published in a couple of national magazines over the years, but have not done anything in that area in several years. It is fun to have a more casual forum to float some thoughts and ideas.

I thought today's post might be of interest to the some of the members here so invite you to visit. Just click the link below.

I would be very interested in your thoughts and comments, either here or on the blog proper.

Thanks!

Jim, just read your latest blog entry. Well thought words... Deep waters... I am giving more a reaction rather than such a well considered set of proper thoughts as yours.

Creativity for me is finding something beautiful...selecting it...and adding 'Kens' flare...adding a feather in my hat, a flower in the hair of my bride...maybe combining two flowers together side by side...and being able to say, "I touched it, and I still like it as I have changed it."

I see all around me creativity like that in the jewel gardens that nature lovers delight to work in. Or the mechanic that tinkers with his 67 mustang.

To be so grounded that I can objectively create what I like despite what others think...is nearly impossible. For I am part of the community. I thrive to give, share, and discover ways to delight and thrill those whom I love and am surrounded by ...those with whom I share my life. The greatest moment is when my creativity finds pure expression and the audience finds deep connection with it. To have those very...very ...rare creative moments and be clearly thrilling another person's life is the best.

Ken Smith

Ken,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think your "Ken's flare" description describes something of how I approach commissioned work - putting your personal 'flavor' into the image, if you will.

"The greatest moment is when my creativity finds pure expression and the audience finds deep connection with it. To have those very...very ...rare creative moments and be clearly thrilling another person's life is the best."

I agree. The best moments are during a show when a viewer gets pulled hard into an image because they recognize where you've been in the metaphorical sense.

Jim, excellent photography and exceptional selection of spiritual thoughts. You are gifted. Keep it up.

Bill Brennan

Jim, you write that you no longer consider the audience when visiting with your creative muse. As much as we like to feel independent and purely muse-influenced, I wonder if it's your years of experience in the medium -- experience gained by putting your work out there and getting feedback on it -- that forms the backdrop for your creative work. In part we are trained by others as to what constitutes good work, and we are creative within that aesthetic framework. The upshot is that we internalize the audience; therefore there's no need to consider it. But are we truly free of it?

John,

"In part we are trained by others as to what constitutes good work, and we are creative within that aesthetic framework. The upshot is that we internalize the audience; therefore there's no need to consider it."

This is an interesting thought. I think there is certainly something to it from the aspect of the formal student, who is trained as to what consitutes acceptable art and even graded to that end. This aspect does not apply to me as, aside from a single required art course in 9th grade, I've never taken a single art course and am entirely self educated as regards photography.

There is a related aspect which I would suggest applies to anyone who is a serious artist: those artists whose work we admire. I mentioned Maxfield Parrish and Roger Dean as inspirations in my blog entry and their influence in my early paintings is unmistakable. So, considering that we study and even emulate those accepted masters to some degree likely influences our work to fall within a realm that the public finds acceptable.

My current studys concern Andrew Wyeth (painter) and Alfred Steiglitz (photographer), especially his photogravure work from the turn of the century. I do close, detail studies of the vuisual textures of their work, attempting to learn what aspects I may incorporate into my own photography. Is this emulation working towards audience approval? I don't think so. Especially when the the results are directed towards subtly refining the aspects of a the image that caught your attention in the first place.

"But are we truly free of it? "

Realistically, probably not, entirely anyway. There remains the very real satisfaction of an admiring audience, which implies rather strongly that the approval still matters. The trick is to not let the desire for that approval become the driver of your creativity.

Jim, it's pretty easy for me to just go out and do my thing without thinking about approval of an audience. The ability to pay my bills doesn't hinge on it. ;) But I still think about what makes a good composition, what light works for a given subject, etc., and these all seem to be things we try to learn if we want to make a conventionally beautiful image. Has the audience taught us to conform, to be creative only within certain boundaries?

When I think about being creative outside the boundaries of what we've internalized as being beautiful, I think of someone like Picasso or the Impressionists. Our local museum has a great show right now that takes you from what painters were doing before the Impressionists came along, then into the early Impressionist efforts. You can easily grasp why the Impressionists were laughed at. They weren't trying to emulate anyone, and almost everyone thought their work was ridiculous. I wonder if such a break from orthodoxy could happen in the realm of nature photography.

Of course that's a different issue than enjoying the company of our muse. Although I think about what an unadulterated creative session would be like, I'm not sure how to achieve it, and I'm not sure I would have a more ecstatic experience than simply immersing myself in a place with the aim of committing photography.