“Originality is merely an illusion” ~M.C. Escher
I’ve been giving some thought lately to this originality question, much has been said by some in the photographic world about the need to be original, to the point of saying if your portfolio is full of images you know have been made by others you do not deserve to be called an artist. I can only gather this is coming from those who know without doubt what is or is not art and there as well must be a definite line dividing both.
My point is to simply make note that what we do may seem original but, taking pictures is not original, taking pictures of nature is not original. Sure maybe you can find a spot that as far as you know hasn’t been photographed before and that (according to some) is necessary for the making of an original photograph. This whole originality thing is way overrated in my opinion, yep I have one too. If someone is purposely taking pictures to produce an imitation of others work they may come close but, I believe it would still not be the same. To capture a brief moment in time, once done that time is gone not to be repeated again, ever.
So the locations of images plays no part in the make up of originality, how many times has the Grand Canyon been photographed? To say none after the first are original is beyond short sighted. Originality comes from, as M.C. Escher puts it the illusion. The illusions of what you want to portray in your work, in the personal rendition of how you create. Do you create with imitation in mind or with the passion that brought you to that point to begin with. Do you allow yourself to become part of your images, a must if originality is to be garnered.
It is not merely the result but the process as well, the road that takes many turns is the journey that builds the foundation needed for originality.
© Brad Mangas
Profound, I like it.
Thanks Wayne, sometimes thoughts rattle around in my head like a peanut in a boxcar.
First, the photograph is exceptionally beautiful.
The whole originality thing has me confounded. My understanding is that if an artist produces a work, weather music, painting, photograph, illustration, writing, it is an original unless it is derivative of another work, such as an musician covering a song by another musician. 12 bar blues is used in thousands of songs, but each song has it’s unique qualities and is considered an original. Did I miss an esoteric meaning?
Ken you understood my point just fine, what we produce as artists are originals unless of course as you pointed out are in fact derivatives of others works. It has came up in photography circles that, for example, shooting the same scenes as many others have shot somehow diminishes that “original” quality when in fact it has nothing to do with the originality of the work. I agree completely with your comment and really can’t see it any other way. I may have been somewhat overly disconcerting with my words. I appreciate the comment.
Nice post Brad. I am a fan of Escher also. I agree with your comments here. I also believe you can honestly think you are doing something original, and later find out it is not. I experienced is with some of my ice patterns, only to find out Minor White was doing very similar work back in the 70s! I had only encountered White’s work after the fact. And it doesn’t matter to me. I enjoy making them, and will continue to seek them out.
Thanks Mark, the enjoyment factor is an ultimate decider (or should be) in what we chose to shoot be it nature, people, urban or whatever. When we put our passion into a photograph because we enjoy it makes it original by default in my opinion. We all see things differently so the subject matter should never be an issue, we just need to do it with attributes true to ourselves and our interpretations. Thanks for the comment.
Yes, the process. And, in my opinion, as nature is always in movement/change, we can never really duplicate another image, even our own.
So very true Monte, thanks for the comment.