Styles come, styles go
by Mark ~ January 16th, 2009. Filed under: art, artistry, creativity, nature photography, wonder.
Reflection
My wife Lisa recently treated me for my birthday (Go Capricorns!) to the exhibit that is just closing this weekend at the Detroit Institute of Arts: Monet to Dali. It is somewhat hard to describe the feeling of seeing the actual brushstrokes of some of these masters and names so many are familiar with. I have always been a fan of Monet’s impressionistic work, Dali’s, and Picasso’s abstracts – but I wasn’t very familiar with some of the work they produced when they were younger.
Probably the biggest impact to me from this exhibit was how these artists dramatically changed their vision and styles over time. I saw some works from Monet when he was 24, and when he was 50. Not being an art historian, I would have never linked some of these works as being from the same person. Same with Picasso, his earlier work radiacally different than pieces he produced later in his life. I would never have linked them to being from the same painter.
As one would expect, people change as they get older, so I suppose it is not unexpected that something so personal as their artwork would also. Many of us can look back and say we are not the same person as we were as teenagers, in our 20s,etc. Life’s events tend to throw our ways of thinking around like bumper cars. There are also outside factors of artists wanting to polarize themselves from what others were producing at the time – and certainly that holds true in many ways today. This all had me thinking about in how many photography teachings there is emphasis on developing a style of all your own. And to just the opposite, how many photography cliques can be developed that discourage anything different.
So it had me thinking – what the heck does that mean if any style will be shortlived anyway? And how long is some “style” supposed to last after you have developed it? I know I would be bored out of my mind photographing something in the same way over and over again. So my own personal opinion is that having some unique style is much to do about nothing. It seems it is more important to develop a sense of what you like, don’t like, what you have a passion for, versus trying to impose some artificial uniqueness just to distinguish your work. Your “style” will come through all on its own, and will probably never be permanent anyways. So perhaps it is better just to not think about it too much.
January 16th, 2009 at
Beautiful post!!
:)
January 16th, 2009 at
I’m glad you emphasized developing a sense of what you like, and don’t like. I used to imagine that this sense was irrelevant, and it was a revelation when I first realized that this is the core of my art–paying attention to what draws my eye.
January 17th, 2009 at
It’s reassuring to see this stated so clearly and with such solid evidence. It seems to me that some pursue style for style’s sake. Often those photos are full of style, but they leave me cold. I’d rather sense passion in the work, and have the style be a bonus. I can’t imagine not being passionate about whatever creative endeavor I may undertake. Without that, it’s just a job.
January 17th, 2009 at
A individual’s own unique style and/or how to develop a style.
This is one subject I am often asked about it seems, … a discussion that can lead into so many directions.
But when someone asks me questions in this area, I will usually wait for just the right moment in the conversation, and then ask them … “So when you have finally achieved your own unique style, … then what? What do you do then?
I will always let them come up with that answer on their own!
Nice post Mark!
January 18th, 2009 at
Thanks for visiting my site Mark. You have some lovely images here as well as posts of interest.
January 19th, 2009 at
I saw this same show while it was in Vancouver, B.C. recently, I was very impressed. Good points about style, I’m sure every artist has their various “phases” that they go through , that when added up at the end of their lives or careers make them who they are in terms of style.
January 20th, 2009 at
Anothew new insight about a well worn topic, you’ve given me plenty to think about today…
January 20th, 2009 at
As you’ve said, I think it’s best not to worry about it too much. Unfortunately the art community likes to worry about it a lot, insisting on artists’ statements & categorizing works into neat, little boxes. Ironically, if a person paints in a wide variety of styles & themes, they’re generally considered “amateur” and “unprofessional” rather than “imaginative” and “creative.” I’m still trying to figure that one out, myself.
Glad you had the opportunity to see those works. A Rodan display’s heading our way–I’m thinking I should probably go…
January 25th, 2009 at
Sounds like a great show. I hope it swings through my area. Interesting thoughts on style. I’ve always thought of styles as shadows of ones creative self. As you journey through life your shadow morphs as the events or light around you change. Style to me is an important aspect to identify, reflect on and enjoy when viewing the work of others. It gives me insight to who they are and what they’re experiencing particularly when I have the opportunity to learn more about their life. I’ve never paid much attention to my personal style. It’s best to not really think about consciously for oneself in the short term. Interpretation of style is something that has greater meaning for others in retrospect. Thanks for the thought provoking post.
January 25th, 2009 at
All, thanks for the comments. It is somewhat of an oxymoron isn’t it? Being taught to develop an individual style – but then it rarely comes from thinking about it too much!
January 27th, 2009 at
Great thoughts Mark. I have never concerned myself with having a “style”. I just do what makes me happy. If it looks like a style then great, if it doesn’t then so what I still have photos. A win-win situation.