The Perplexing Thing about Photographs

What I find perplexing are the rules that spring up around in response to so much of photography.

Rule-breaking photographers establish a form or style decades ago, say street photography. Since then — everyone must pay close attention to what is now the “rules” of the genre.

Let me get that straight. Slavishly abide by the rules ascribed to a bunch of rule-breaking innovators many years ago? Yes, rules ascribed to by others — not rules published and presided over by the photographers themselves.

How do we think the “canon” of photographers got attention contemporarily, and right up to present day — was it by following the image-making consensus of their day?

So weird. Fortunately we get to define success for ourselves as photographers. Though, are we defining success? Or a formal exercise milestone?

Admission to a club which refuses recognition until you prove your ability to imitate really convincingly . This is not my definition of success.

Hard to argue with the dopamine hits from social media’s celebration of your latest simulacra of Alex Webb’s/insert other historical rule-breaking figure’s work?

Maybe that goes with the territory of where we are in the history of photography — the debate about everything has already been photographed. I don’t buy it, though I’m sympathetic for a bit to those who trot this line out. I’m an optimist about our capacity for infinite creativity.

Of course I’m a regular offender! Also, it’s nostalgia big time. I still haven’t seen a William Eggleston dye-transfer process in the flesh. That will be a big deal when I finally get to.

Voluntary nostalgia. I get that. At least cognition is going on. If we know we photograph in certain ways because we have preferences for certain images in our mind’s (and heart’s) visual library. We know our photographic output will align accordingly.

Then we take the next step. Whatever that might be. The important thing is taking that step to embed thought into your work.