What is 'Style'?


Status
Not open for further replies.

xotic

New Member
Oct 5, 2005
110
0
0
#1
People tell me different photog got different 'style'. Can I ask in your opinion, what does style refers to? Does style refers to the camera action? Or post processing?
 

student

Senior Member
Jul 26, 2004
3,078
0
0
#7
Whatever you called it, "style" or otherwise,

It refers to something immediately recognisable as the work of the person, a signature, as it were.

For examples: portraits by Arnold Newman, Richard Avedon, Anton Corbijin, Peter Lindbergh, Horst, Karsh, have structures that the knowledgeable can immediately recognise.

Other examples:

Landscapes by Michael Kenna are immediately recognised as special to him. Closely similar but distinctly different are the works of Larry Wiese

"Style" is not superficial. It is the result of a long journey of experimentation, hard work, reflection, frustration, etc.

"style" is a reward for those who persevere in their journey. It is profound.
 

eikin

Senior Member
Apr 27, 2004
10,193
0
0
東京 Tokyo
#9
style kills the brain, those who don't have it try too hard to get it, those who have it try desperately to disown it.
 

student

Senior Member
Jul 26, 2004
3,078
0
0
#10
To those whose "style" are immediately recognisable, it was not a journey of "wanting".

"Style" was not an "end". It is part of the journey.

"Style" does not originate from the brain. Such as "created" from the brain are superficial.

"Style" has its origin from duende, the "soul"

And I am not surprise that so much that is shown has no "style" because so so few has what it takes to be rewarded with a "style".
 

eikin

Senior Member
Apr 27, 2004
10,193
0
0
東京 Tokyo
#11
style is created by the critique, to justify his/her own self. and style limits imagination, kills possibilities and accelerates reification of humanity. the artist knows no style.
 

student

Senior Member
Jul 26, 2004
3,078
0
0
#12
eikin said:
style is created by the critique, to justify his/her own self. and style limits imagination, kills possibilities and accelerates reification of humanity. the artist knows no style.

I think we have very different ideas what "style" is.

To me" style" has absolutely nothing to do with critiques. When I first saw Michael Kenna's landscape, I said "wow!". Then as I looked more - I recognised that although Kenna was schooled in the tradition of the grand landscape photographers, his way of seeing is obviously different, and resulted in a "style" of his own. Kenna did not need to justify himself, unlike many members here. His ethereal images are just simply gorgeous!

Kenna's "style" did not limit his imagination. On the contrary, Kenna's "style" was the result of his imagination.

Kenna's "style" did not kill humanity. On the contrary, it liberates humanity to see differently.

The artist is not interest in creating a "style". "Style" simply results from his imagination, creativity, and more importantly, his humanity. Good example is Picasso.

I think you are talking about the "superficial" form of "style" where one tries to create thing to make himself "special".

I am not referring to this banal form of "style". And I am not interested.
 

eikin

Senior Member
Apr 27, 2004
10,193
0
0
東京 Tokyo
#13
student said:
I think we have very different ideas what "style" is.

To me" style" has absolutely nothing to do with critiques. When I first saw Michael Kenna's landscape, I said "wow!". Then as I looked more - I recognised that although Kenna was schooled in the tradition of the grand landscape photographers, his way of seeing is obviously different, and resulted in a "style" of his own. Kenna did not need to justify himself, unlike many members here. His ethereal images are just simply gorgeous!

Kenna's "style" did not limit his imagination. On the contrary, Kenna's "style" was the result of his imagination.

Kenna's "style" did not kill humanity. On the contrary, it liberates humanity to see differently.

The artist is not interest in creating a "style". "Style" simply results from his imagination, creativity, and more importantly, his humanity. Good example is Picasso.

I think you are talking about the "superficial" form of "style" where one tries to create thing to make himself "special".

I am not referring to this banal form of "style". And I am not interested.
i know, i'm offering the perspective of the evil twin of what you are talking about. in a world where style is so readily saleable, i prefer to interpret it the 'dirty' way
 

#14
eikin said:
i know, i'm offering the perspective of the evil twin of what you are talking about. in a world where style is so readily saleable, i prefer to interpret it the 'dirty' way
"Dirty" interpretation of threads is a style itself. You've pioneered it. :bsmilie:
 

eikin

Senior Member
Apr 27, 2004
10,193
0
0
東京 Tokyo
#15
Sion said:
"Dirty" interpretation of threads is a style itself. You've pioneered it. :bsmilie:
:think: really? didn't know a thread can be interpreted. thought a 'thread' like this only facilitates communication, what's so dirty about it? *scratch head*
 

eikin

Senior Member
Apr 27, 2004
10,193
0
0
東京 Tokyo
#20
ortega said:
stylo no use unless have milo behind

"stylo" cannot make me full
"milo" on the other hand taste great
:bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

hmmm ... hungry again ...
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom