Should you try to be original when you photograph or should you just be yourself? Is originality still possible without doing something gimmicky?
>>2869766
originality is totally possible. thing is, not all the time the "true" and free output of someone is desirable or attractive as a work of art.
>>2869767
Has someone tried to prove scientifcially if originality is still possible or how hard it is?
>>2869768
Are you stupid? There is no way that originality is not possible. There are literally an infinate way of doing things with multiple variables to change or ad to make something uniqiue. Especially in an ever evolving world of technology.
>>2869766
Be yourself. There is nothing original about taking pictures
>>2869774
>There are literally an infinate way of doing things with multiple variables to change or ad to make something uniqiue
Well it depends on how you define originality.
For example you could copy a photograph but change the angle just a bit or change the colors. It would be a new photograph but would you call that original?
>>2869768
>scientifically
>art
Bruhhh...
>>2869766
of course it is possible, just open up your mind man
>>2869766
Good question, OP. I would encourage you to be original in your concepts and have fun, do shit like "let's shoot a sandwich deli from the perspective of the sandwich maker" -- and you photograph the different customers each biting into their own type of sandwich. That's off the top of my head, I'm not that creative, I'm sure you can brainstorm much better ideas. The point I'm trying to make is that you don't want people to look at your photos and say, "hey, I've already seen all this same one-point-perspective-pier-over-water-with-sunset-shit on Instagram a million times before." Nobody likes watching a movie and recognizing the filmmaker copied a joke from Animal House, or the plot of Avatar was copied from Pocahontas. Lack of originality is a real turnoff.
That said, "being original" is not a valid excuse for breaking the very basic technical rules of photography, such as poor focus, bad lighting, shitty composition, uninteresting subject, and so on.
Learn the gear and techniques inside out for whatever style of photography you do. Don't make rookie mistakes, like shooting blurry architectural shots with shallow DOF, and then pretend not knowing how to operate the equipment was "being original."
No, you should shoot what you want. Don't try to force ideas for the sake of being original. Of course, if your idea of things want to shoot are original, even better. But most of all, photography should be fun to you
>>2869766
I would say be yourself, in the sense of following what drives you to take photos in the first place. This can sometimes mean experimenting, which could lead to originality, but other times doing something that has been done a million times because the reason it has been done a million times is because it is worth doing that many times.
I kind of get the impression that since you juxtapose originality against being yourself you are under some pressure to be original for the sake of creating art others will appreciate. So you have to perhaps take a bit of time and think about what drives you. Not that making art for others is a bad thing, this is what drives many artists.
Personally when it comes to art, what always strikes me is the passion of the artist that is revealed in the artwork. Whether you have that passion because you make art for yourself or because you make art for others, if you lose that passion it will eventually show. This goes for any medium, whether it is painting, sculpting, music, cooking, or photography.
So be true to yourself, make sure that what you do you do because you want to, and I believe, with time, you will be original not because you try to be, but because your passion will push you to expand your boundaries.
Let me know if this sounds retarded but I had a theory on what to do if you have trouble finding your own style.
Basicly try to copy something you really like as best as you can. While you are in the process of doing that, either while you make it, or when you look at the finished product, you will see where you and the original differ. You can focus on what it was that you do differently, or value more, than the person you are copying in your future projects.
It made sense in my head.
"Just be yourself"
It's the worse advice possible to every situation.
But, when it's about art, do whatever you want. If you want to make money of it, copy the settings of famous artists.
the world is boring
>>2869766
>Is originality still possible
nope.
not even remotely. It's a basic premise of the post modern world we live in.
>Should you try to be original when you photograph or should you just be yourself?
depends on who you think yo are?
If you think of yourself as 1 in a million, that means there are 7,500 people exactly like you.
Though realistically, you are probably more like 1 in 500-1000, so originality and "being yourself" is utterly hopeless. Unless your concept of being yourself means being exactly like hundreds of thousands, if not millions of other people.
>>2870378
Put down the bong, Paco. You have to go back. We're building a wall. Gonna MAGA.
Steal every element from every great picture you've ever seen.
Steal it like you're a poor black kid in suburban detroit about to break into a house to steal a TV so you can watch Dancing With The Stars.
Loads of shitheads have already mastered this stuff. Of course you should steal elements from their work to inject into your own. Not doing so is a bit like an engineer who never studies for his craft; you can eventually meet mastery, but by not learning from those who've already mastered it, you're not only wasting your own time, but the time of others who could have enjoyed your work.
>>2869990
not op, but well put. This is a revitalizing post and spot on, something im definitely seeing face up at the moment, was nice to see some perspective.
