“Through the Eyes of the Condor” and Originality in Nature Photography
“The Blue Hole”, by Robert B. Hass
For some reason I find myself posting little about nature photography. Not that I don’t like it, but it happens that it is difficult to see images that are truly distinct and not overdone clichés. Because of that, I try to look at nature photography from the point of view of descriptive photography: a nice representation of the beautiful world we live in. I don’t try to ask or look for more than a beautiful image of a beautiful subject. I try to put “originality” on the side when looking at the images.
One type of nature photography that is always striking is areal photography, with Yann Arthus-Bertrand being the most recognized photographer in this genre, and his work “Earth from Above” one of the most sold photobooks in the history of photography.
By now, aerial photography has become more of a chiclé but I am going to do an exception and refer to the work “Through the Eyes of the Condor” by Robert B. Hass, from the National Geographic (book). The images are as good as it gets; great areal photography from south America.
The online virtual gallery posted at National Geographic with accompanying audio narration by the photographer is a great example of the use of digital technologies in the web to display photography. [the images are small in the online gallery, but you can download desktop size images, to decorate your computer].
Even when this are beautiful images, somehow, I feel a bit hollow, with a sense that I have seen similar images way too often to really appreciate them as – perhaps – I should. Even when I don’t ask for “originality” in nature photography, the reality is that without “originality” I loose interest on the image quite rapidly. Look at the example above of the Blue Hole in Belize. Really beautiful place and image, but a cliché by now.
Do you get the same feeling about nature photography? Is it too repetitive for you to feel interested? Do you ask for originality in nature photography? Are you just satisfied with an image of a beautiful subject?
It is possible to be both descriptive [photograph the natural world] and create unique artistic images where not only the subject but the composition, the light, the image itself, the quality of the print, are truly distinct. But very few photographers are able to provide a unique and original view of nature, ala Nick Brandt.
After all, it is not that different from any other photographic genre, indeed.
It is all about “originality”.
I don’t ask for originality in nature photography, I ask for emotion. I want to see art that provides a connection to the artist’s individual way of seeing.
I think that nature photography often gets a bad rap for being “predictable”, but all of photography can suffer from this. You could take this entire post, replace the word “nature” with any other style, and have the same argument. So much of what is trumpeted as original is really just fashionable.
For example, whenever I see a list of “cutting edge” photographers, I can be sure that a large percentage of them shoot those same photographs of depressed-looking people, staring blankly just off-camera in some nondescript background. Ugh. Drives me batty!
>For example, whenever I see a list of “cutting edge” photographers, I can be sure that a large >percentage of them shoot those same photographs of depressed-looking people, staring >blankly just off-camera in some nondescript background. Ugh. Drives me batty!
Yes, this is a good one!
Thanks or sharing … regards!
Miguel
[...] Miguel Garcia-Guzman ([EV +/-] Exposure Compensation) hits the sore spot perfectly in his post ”Through the Eyes of the Condor” and Originality in Nature Photography: Looking at this beautiful work, somehow, I feel a bit hollow, with a sense that I have seen [...]
Hey Miguel
I think originality, to some degree, is critical to art. Art is about expression, and if we’re only repeating what’s already been said, in the say way it’s already been said, what are we really saying?
Creating is, by definition, tied to the new. That which isn’t “new” can hardly claim to be a function of creativity. If I write a story and begin with “Once upon a time … ” most would rightfully claim it’s not very artful.
This conversation, though, really isn’t about art, it’s about how we choose to define things, how we categorise them. Do we reduce a novel to the first 4 words? To the subject matter? Do we reduce music to it’s time and harmonic structure? All “classical” music uses the same 12 tones, do we propose Mozart and Bach were not original in their creativity, or that their art is not something special?
Cheers
Carl
Thanks Carl.
Originality is paramount for art, at least for good art, as you indicate. When applied to nature photography the situation is a bit peculiar. Some images are “not original” because they represent another “sunset” , another “valley”, another “forest” . Images are labeled as “another one” not as “unique one”.
Most times the photographer who takes those images is trying to represent a beautiful scene rather that his/her own inner expression. Perhaps this is the missing link … originality arises when the creation comes from the inside out, and not when the images try to “represent” a beautiful scenery.
Best,
Miguel
Late to the conversation, but I’ve been thinking about this topic lately, and I think you’ve nailed it.
I’ve always thought that many nature photographers are often more interested in nature (or their subject) than they are in photography. When the only thing interesting about a photograph is it’s subject, it makes for very shallow work. Just as plot driven thriller novels are, perhaps fun to read for the moment, they don’t have real lasting impact.
I’ve only recently found your blog, and find it very interesting, thank you.
Thanks to you Suzanne! and welcome to the blog …
Miguel
I think that to appreciate originality and creativity in nature photography requires a particular devotion to the genre and a lot of experience.
Trying hard to improve my nature photography I understand that it is only by a profound and constant talk between my emotions and the outer subject that I can make more original photograph and at the same time begin to discover the subtle originality of the great nature photographer.
Of course, lately, nature photography as been used too extensively commercially and this brought a sense of superficiality and “already-seen” effect. But I personally think that as art-receivers we don’t observe nature enough to appreciate art in nature photography.