Despite the title clearly being a joke, the topic of having an artistic style is one that is debated constantly. I think that part of the debate stems from a dispute about the definition of “style”. Some say that style is purely aesthetic, a common thread between the crop, colors, composition, etc. Others define style as a thematic link between someone’s work, a certain idea or concept or sentiment that is shared throughout various pieces. I will adopt the notion that style is a combination of these aspects. I personally believe that it can come to mean both aesthetics or concept, but certainly can be applied to one or the other. Take the example of fashion photography; there certainly are many fashion photographers who have a well-known aesthetic while the concept is often lacking if not neglected all together.
I want to share my thoughts on the importance of having a “style” when it comes to being an artist. I was sent an email by Sclafani who asked me to write a bit on the subject, not necessarily because I have or do not have a style of my own, but because the debate is widely spread these days and it is interesting to hear different viewpoints. I also spread the word and got a few responses back about the importance of harvesting an artistic style, and the opinions were completely ranged across the chart from people who think that having a style is only a hindrance, to those who believe having a style is a necessity in the art world.
Let me use a quote here that I found particularly interesting and hard-hitting in terms of the importance of having a style: ”A personal style is paramount if one ever hopes to be able to call him/herself an artist with a capital A” (drshrinker). This is something that I have a very hard time disputing, and will not attempt to do so here. I agree with this: I believe that almost all artists who have made a name for themselves have a specific style, and most often that is aesthetic and conceptual. I cannot think of a single artist who is well known for having an eclectic style, one that is not recognizable, one that produces pieces that are so different from one another that a clear name cannot be put with the art. Let me use some modern-day photographers as an example here.
The work of Robert and Shana ParkeHarrison is completely and unanimously “ParkeHarrison”. In my mind there is no debating this, though I’m sure someone will find a way! Their photography is textured, monotoned, highly conceptual…there are key words here that can be used to describe all work that I have seen from them. The same goes for a photographer like Gregory Crewdson: dark, real yet surreal, also conceptual…I think that having an artistic style is important in the “industry”. I have recently entered into that world and have seen first hand the judgments from gallery owners and magazines. These people, in my experience, do not want to show pieces of art that are not unique to the artist. They want a series of images, images that relate to each other and express a very specific voice. In fact, for my first solo gallery show I had to create a completely new series of images that were more tightly related to one another simply because I was being lead in the direction of developing a more coherent style. Artists, if they want to sell work, need to be collectible. Their art needs to be able to relate to each other enough that a buyer might take more than one piece.
But enough of the business side, what about artists as people? Sure, we can all step out into the world and try to create a style to please the “professionals”, but does that mean that we should? Despite my belief that most known artists these days have a specific style, I do not at all advocate pushing for a style. I think that it is something that comes naturally, or at least it should. Because of researching for this essay, I was faced with discussions about my own work and whether or not I have a style. Someone brought up the fact that because flickr is so complimentary, it is easy for artists to believe that they have a style when in fact they are simply producing the same photos over and over again. I see it happen, I’m sure you do too, where someone receives praise for a certain type of photo and then suddenly they adopt that aesthetic or concept (or both) as their “style”. I think that the fundamental difference between artists with a style and artists who *think* they have a style is the repetition of the process. I ask myself certain questions when creating images, the main question being one of repetition – I never want to repeat a photo or concept exactly, but I want there to be a common linking thread between them.
Perhaps the most common thought behind the idea of developing a style is the fear of it. Upon beginning photography, I never once thought it a bad thing that I had a very specific aesthetic and voice that I wanted to show through my photos. In fact, I never even thought about branching out and trying something else. It was not photography, exactly, that I fell in love with – it was the vision, *my* vision. If someone had handed me a paint brush and I somehow had the capacity to create what I saw in my mind, that probably would have been my weapon of choice. For me, style grew out of a longing to tell stories in my own way. Therefore, it was surprising for me to hear how many people believe that developing a style in this way is an inferior (or rather, to use a less biased word, “different”) way of progressing. The main argument is that if an artist embarks on a style early on, they will never be able to progress as an artist. That artist is then trapping themselves into a box, so to speak, that will allow them only so much growing room, and thereafter they will be confined.
This is the reason why a personal style should be organic. I think that what allows an artist to develop a style is having a point of view. Do I think that this should be forced? Certainly not. But I do believe that it is important to think about and to give careful consideration. I stutter, so to speak, over the argument that an artist must start with a different style so that they can be more well-rounded. I certainly can’t say that this is a necessity, as I feel that I never had a hugely different style (though I do acknowledge certain differences). There are many famous artists who began creating art of one style and then moved on to the style that everyone knows. The argument here is that it was the first style that informed the second and therefore the second could never have been born without the first. It is a convincing argument, one that I will wonder about in relation to myself: have I hindered myself by not experimenting?
As someone else put it, “It takes confidence and courage and an acceptance of the “style” to define yourself ” (MudKat). I think that this is very true, there are numerous artists out there who claim to have no style, and I yet I can see a very specific thread running through their work. It is an odd thing, to label yourself, but I think in a lot of cases it is far better to label yourself than to let others do the labeling. For those searching for a style, I hope that you will stand up for your art and look for a style within your own pieces before someone else can pigeonhole you. Sometimes we all need to take a subjective step back and look at our portfolios. It is surprising what can be hiding in your own images.
Another excellent point that was raised is the idea of developing a style and then falling short of it. “We’re just afraid to commit and invest the time to define ourselves perhaps for fear of falling short in the end. We prefer mediocrity because it goes by unannounced” (Camera*Girl). I think that is an incredibly powerful statement…”We prefer mediocrity because it goes by unannounced”. I have been thinking about that sentence for a couple days now. I know that it accurately represents a small fear that I have in my own work. If an artist is going to invest the time and energy into creating a name, the last thing that he/she would want to happen is to deviate from that name, or to fail to live up to it. I struggle with this on a daily basis, the idea that I might have created a name that I can’t live up to. But then I remember why I started photography, and that the passion is still there and that the ideas are still flowing and it feels like a silly fear. I can’t help but wonder how many people out there are stifled by the fear of “falling short in the end”. I hope that any reading this, whether you have a style or not, will look more carefully at their next photograph/painting/sculpture/poem/etc. and think about their voice. Who are you, the Artist? Is it in your art?
{ 5 } Comments
Thank you so much for taking this on. This is exactly the sort of insight I was looking to hear. I’m particularly interested in this idea that style requires the courage of one’s convictions. I think that a lot can be taken from that. I also agree with you very much about the difference between style and repetition.
Now to get to work on finding my own style…
Great article Brooke, well thought out and elegantly written. I think a lot about style and thing it really should be found organically.
I’m afraid I’m going to turn the subject a little bit around but what I think is that if we can show ourselves just the way we are, it will be a logical consequence that we’ll do unique things, because we are all different, the thing is that not all the people has the courage to be themselves whether we talk about art or our own very lives, we rather do what is “acceptable” for the rest, but we rarely do what we really want to do, what we are willing to, we don’t say what we really think, etc. Deep and interesting subject!
This is an excellent essay about style. I have a few thoughts…
I think it is very important for each artist to develop their own unique style and voice. It takes a fair amount of experimentation and hard work to do this, and I don’t think every artist is willing to put in the time. But if one does it is possible to develop unique sensibilities in one’s work.
Because of Flickr and blogs I’ve been exposed to an endless amount of artists work and only a small number seem to have a “personal style”. Sometimes I think this couldn’t be harder in the age of the internet because we are all constantly bombarded by images of other artists work and it seems easier to copy what someone else is doing than developing your own vision.
It seems there has to be a bell whether artist in every artistic discipline. I have always found it curious that “schools” of art have popped up throughout history. The impressionists, expressionists, cubists, the Dada-ists to name a few in the visual arts. There have always been generic styles, and always been leaders of style.
There must have been some catalysts for these groups to come into existence; one particular artist who leads the way and sets the style despite the current “fashion”. And there must be some reason for the other artists to follow trends. Is it purely for economic reasons I wonder? Or is it that in each generation there are only a few who are driven enough to dare rise above the mediocrity? Those few who are brave enough to test the waters for those who follow.
Perhaps we notice this trend more with the camera because in the digital age it is a much more accessible medium for would-be artists. And therefore much more competitive and much more difficult to be truly original.
It is difficult for artists, as business people, to dare to stray outside their market place –
away from the dollars – as you yourself recognised when you changed your exhibition. Maybe we see artists on flickr and elsewhere choose a particular style because favourable comments indicate appreciation and perhaps a potential market.
There are a lot of technically competent photographers on flickr, some of whom take stunning and technically improbable photos. But out of the hordes there are few who really stand out as original. Style is a rare commodity, and Brooke, you have it in spades.
Post a Comment