These three photographs are iconic and showcase some of the best work from these photographers. But every time we read something about Elliot Erwitt we see the dog picture. Similar with Harry Benson, his pillow fight shot of The Beatles gets an outing every time there is an article about him and Don McCullin’s portrait of the vagrant man is also used regularly in references to McCullin and his work. These are what could be called “signature” images. When you see them you know exactly who took them. I often wonder if it becomes frustrating to the photographers that these images get what could be termed as being over-used? They all have huge bodies of work to their names but it seems to be a small handful of images that defines them. On the other hand, it would disappointing to turn up to a retrospective exhibition of their work and they filled it with unrecognisable photos and failed to include the “signature” images. It makes me wonder if living on a past legacy is a healthy thing? Certainly for the photographers in question (who have either passed on or are in advancing years), it is the case that looking back on their work is all we can do if they have stopped producing work. But what about the so-called contemporary photographers who are in their prime and still churning out work. There are some who have already being associated with a “signature” image or style and we see the same work from them time after time. It would be a brave editor that turns their back on “signature” images as they may need to generate income, but it would be good if now and again we had something different to associate with a photographers work other than the same old, same old.
Another thing that annoys me is people trying to continually produce photographs “in the style of……” . I can’t, for example, understand why anyone would hit the streets trying close up in-your-face images in an attempt to copy the style of Bruce Gilden or shots taken through steamy windows because their favourite photographer does it. I was directed this week to an excellent YouTube video by Stephen Leslie in which he talks about the work of Alex Webb. The video looks at Webb’s photography style and his repeated application of silhouettes in his street shots. It questions the relevance of silhouettes in street photography as they blot out detail on what is probably the main feature of the photo. I fully agree with his comments on this and find the internet full of Webb-esqu street photography silhouettes from photographers trying to emulate his style. Don’t get me wrong though, there is nothing wrong with trying new things out with your camera. It’s a good way to learn and master light and shade techniques and develop as a photographer, but don’t publish them on your website or in forums repeatedly and claim to be emulating the “masters”. Is it not also the case that doing so could stifle individual creativity? I think the question has to be; do I want to be known for my own photography or just as someone who goes about copying other photographer’s style and presentation? Am I the real deal or just the tribute act?
So where do I stand on this today?
