The Myth of Originality

Digital Mona Lisa by Robert Silver

"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9

Let's face it: when King Solomon wrote these words  nearly three thousand years ago, they were true as true could be, and still are. Technology may come along that changes how we do certain things, but what we actually do artistically is pretty much just a repeat of what people have been doing since we first found out how to smear pigments on cave walls or use a bird's hollow bone as a whistle.

This is certainly obvious in photography. In fact, redoing what has already been done with new technology was the basis of an entire movement of photography called Pictorialism. A movement that thrived from 1885 until around 1915, it was dominated by efforts of photographers to manipulate photos in order to emulate the look of paintings. It was also intended to adopt the concept of a painter creating an image into photography, which was primarily viewed as a medium for recording an image.

Anyone who currently visits the many photography websites, reads photography magazines, or any other sites or magazines for that matter, will certainly see that the lighting, poses and styles presented now are little different from those of the past. The technology has changed, allowing for effects to be added to a given base image to create fantastic images that were virtually unheard of in photography in years past (or at least extremely difficult to create). However, what we photograph is no different now than it was 100 years ago.

How often has a pretty woman posed with her hands behind her head? How often has the Brooklyn Bridge or Sydney Opera House been photographed at night? How many angles are there at which El Capitan or the Half Dome in Yosemite can be photographed?

There is no such thing as an original photograph anymore.  (Some might consider the photos of Comet 67P to be original by virtue of being photos taken from the surface of a comet, but they are really just an advancement in technology over photos taken from the surface of the moon or Mars.) Every subject, every pose, every bit of action, every landscape, every visual concept we see has been done in some form or another already. Some done to excess.

So what is a photographer to do in the quest for creating original photographs?

Give up the idea of thinking originality is exclusive, for starters. Then also put the idea of copying or emulating someone else's work in its place: a learning experience, not an expression of one's own artistic achievement. I visit one website where, on a weekly basis, virtually identical types of photos by different people are posted. Yes, often it's a matter of seeking feedback on whether the photographer has successfully duplicated the effect, but personally I think that some efforts need to be kept private. Or not pursued at all.

Someone might argue that their photos of baby Allison are original because no one else has taken photos of her. My view is that Allison is a baby, and billions of baby photos are produced every year. Photos of her may be unique because she, as Allison, is unique, but they are not original inasmuch as no one has ever taken photos of a baby before in all of history.

So it's important to understand that unique and original are not synonymous. A given photographer can produce work that is unique because he/she's the only one doing it, but the images still involve elements that have already been done before. Annie Liebovitz was unique when her style of portraiture and advertising photos hit the scene, but they were not truly original. Everything from the lighting to the poses to the juxtaposition of elements could be found in classical paintings. What made her work unique was that she used a camera and lights to produce those images for advertising purposes at a time when most ad shots were fairly straightforward and uncomplicated.

Of course, the down side of Annie's unique style becoming so successful is that a plethora of photographers followed who copied her style directly or emulated it closely enough that it lost its uniqueness. Which is part of the reason why there is nothing new. Unique doesn't stay that way very long if it proves popular.

Some say I have a unique style of concert photography. It's only unique when compared to what most people see as concert photos. It's not original by any means, and owes a great deal of any perceived uniqueness to the fact that I consciously seek to emulate the appearance of studio portraits in many of my shots that are actually captured during live performances. So the degree to which my photos are set apart from others is really only a measure of how most concert photographers want to make sure their photos look like concert photos.

Therein lies why I have pursued what I hope is a unique style while conceding there is nothing original about it. Lots and lots of photographers out there take concert photos that conform to current tastes. Seeking  artistic and/or commercial success in such a milieu is difficult. There are already music togs out there creating great images in a variety of styles, so why should anyone give much regard to someone producing pretty much the same images?

The answer is they don't.

At the top of any list of great/popular photographers who have a few people whose style is, or at least was at one time, unique and appealing. They have the fame and, if doing things right, the income to match the fame. Then at the bottom of the list you will find photographers who basically copy what the people at the top of the list do, sometimes as directly as they can manage. They are at the bottom of the list not because they lack talent or ability. They certainly must have some business acumen to even get on the list. Their low placement comes simply from the fact that they're style is not unique. It's not unique because it depends too heavily upon the original.

Since there is nothing new, meaning nothing original to photograph, then developing and offering a unique style is a bit like doing a school term paper without completely plagiarizing the resources. A bit of quotation here, some slightly rearranged verbiage there, and enough personalized filler and Brittany's review of "To Kill a Mockingbird" is different enough from the Cliff Notes and reviews she read to qualify as being uniquely hers.

That's the key to uniqueness in photography. It's not attempting to find and capture an "original" subject. Nor is it attempting to capture a subject in an "original" way.  But non-original material can be used to create truly unique works. Take the above version of the Mona Lisa created by Robert Silver. It's made up of thousands of details from other classical paintings by scores of painters. Technically, there is not a single original element in the image. But there is no arguing its uniqueness. In many ways, it's more fascinating to view and explore than the original Mona Lisa or any of the hundreds of source paintings.

Every year, thousands of art students and artists paint copies of the Mona Lisa, either as an exercise to develop technique or for pleasure. Robert Baron did something special, because in recognizing that there was nothing he could do in regards to art that was original, he instead sought to do something unique. A painting of the Mona Lisa would simply be "Ho, Hum, there's another one". But Robert Silver's rendering demands attention.

That's what uniqueness does: demand attention. So, as a photographer, I seek not to find something original to photograph, or even an supposedly original way to photograph something. Instead I try to create photos that demand attention, which can't be done if I am simply copying what is already out there or spinning my wheels trying to be original without being unique. I suggest anyone serious about photography explore the idea of commanding attention through unique style.