Using Formulas
The process of making photographs can be a confusing one. I often try to explore with my camera, look at contact sheets and then revise what or how I am photographing. This has frequently led to the development of a formula for making photographs. I tend to operate within constraints and try to make something grow out of that by looking at subtle differences.
The problem with a formula arises when I find one that works with what I am trying to do. At that point, I begin to ignore other photographable moments. Is it a problem when the artistic process becomes repetitive and selective? Is it the same as learning to focus on a project?
I look at many photographers that have well known work and many of them seem to have a formula for how they go about creating. I wonder how they get to that point. Is the idea there from the beginning, or does it develop from making work? I have come to realize that everyone uses some kind of formula either in how they see, or how they work. Sometimes, the formula is hidden in the work, but it is there nonetheless. A photographer may use their formula to get to a point where they can randomly create; in other words, their process is still formulaic.
I think formulas only truly present themselves when a photographer begins to work on a series. This is because if your goal was to only make a single image that was to always be by itself there would be no use for formula. You can make any one photograph and have it stand on its own. The formula is created when a photographer tries to make the next image in a body of work. How does one create a series that is void of formula and is only created off of pure moments of inspiration? The very notion of a series embraces the concept of using formula to establish consistency within the body of work.
Undoubtedly, formulas help us to create aspects of our images. The danger in them comes when it is the only thing allowing us to create, making each new photograph more of a regurgitation of the previous image. Your formula must allow for some wiggle room.
January 28th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
P.S. I think the word formulaic can be used in a positive way when describing work. It does not have to be a negative term.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Flow.
January 30th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
It’s true that some people work from a very technical standpoint, and diagram out the kind of thing they want for their concept, but I know there are times where people simply shoot from the hip and sort later.
I think the “formula” that you may be noticing in many people’s work might, at times, be resultant from that editing stage.
A certain type of light, subject matter, etc is not always at the forefront of the photographers mind while they are working, but may become evident to them while they look at their work and start to try and sort it for gallery shows, books, internet sites, portfolios, etc.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Ian,
I know what you are saying, but I think that by just going out and shooting from the hip is a kind of formula. You are setting yourself up for the unexpected. If a photographer goes out and photographs in the same mode all the time then they have created a formula that works for them. They may better define the series after they make the pictures, but they still have an idea of what they are looking for and getting. If you consistently approach photography in the same way you will learn to predict how your photographs will look once they are made.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:39 am
You’re right, going for the “shooting from the hip” is a kind of formula. I’m interested in what you think about people with no photographic training who don’t seem to pay attention to what they are doing, but later on in life somehow end up with a cohesive body of work.
For example, there have been people who have been “discovered,” never thought of themselves as a photographer seriously until a curator (or someone in a similar position) found their work and exhibited or published it.
Or in a more common vein, people who simply throw photos up onto flickr or a similar venue and gain attention… I’m not sure what to cite in specific, but I have a gutt feeling that there must be some sort of creative outburst over time that defies easy classification (discovery of the formula).
Maybe in those cases, though, the artist never becomes as well known, because people don’t see their “style?” Thoughts?
February 12th, 2008 at 1:51 am
Ian,
Good question.
I’m not sure I can fully commit to the idea that having a “style” is the same idea as using a formula.
I think, that an undiscovered photographer using flickr to upload photos of whatever he thinks is cool, would still have some kind of formula. It may be a simple as “I like these five types of subjects that are completely unrelated and that’s pretty much all I photograph.” They also may have a formula and be totally unaware of it.
For example, if you have never thought of the artistic process, and you don’t even consider yourself an artist, can you possibly be aware of how your process works for making your photographs? Is it even possible to have a formula in such a scenario?
You or I may be able to look at their work and discover what appears to be a formula, and we could argue that they may be formulaic, but they may not be able to see this in themselves.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
haha, it’s probably a good point: patterns can be found almost anywhere if looked for hard enough.