How we let our chosen photography genre influence our judgment.
Why do some landscape photographers dismiss street photography as being too “chaotic” and surrealist photography as “suffering from over-interpretation”? Why do some street photographers see well composed photos as “too pretty” or “lacking depth”? In all my years spending time with friends active in various fields of photography, I’ve witnessed a recurring pattern when discussing the photography of others: assuming the output quality is somewhat equal, criticism is harshest when it is a style that falls outside of the critique’s own niche or field.
The criticism often devolves in the style — rather than the image itself — being subjected to ridicule.
Being a Jack-of-all-trades, my usual response to the intensity and the venom of this sort of comments would often be to raise an eyebrow in mixed disappointment and disbelief, while not knowing exactly how to address this fundamental flaw in thought processing.
Intuitively, it is easy to understand that styles of photography and their purpose often can come to clash, just like different currents in other art forms do. But the answer I feel, is a bit more complex, sitting at the crossroads of dogmas, echo-chambers amplified in internet-communities and finally, the divergences in purpose and values inherent to each style of photography.
Dogma, is by definition a rule that isn’t supposed to be questioned. It’s a holy doctrine in a belief system. In photography, this takes the form of rules that might be inherited from an older era but might have lost in relevance yet are still adamantly pushed onto practitioners, or it might be rules that make perfect sense in certain conditions but that have become so prevalent that it has become standardized and ubiquitous to the point where they can't be easily deviated from without eliciting fiery responses from one's peers.
The desire for artistic purity or rather, the propensity for starting purity-spirals of any sort is one of the most profoundly human characteristic there is. It happens to all groups about all subjects. Unless one is sufficiently individualistic and self-aware, reverting into in-group and out-group dynamics seems pretty much inevitable. I’d argue that it is inevitable whatever kind of person one might be; the only aspect of this one can hope to influence is the depth at which we fall into this particular cognitive-bias mælstrøm.
Understanding the mechanics of our minds and becoming aware of our instinctive but flawed reactions is the best and probably only lever we have to push back against the unsubstantiated and/or one-sided opinions we might harbor. It is muscle that needs training, so let’s flex it now!
Let’s take a look at how this might translate within a few different styles of photography:
Landscape Photography:
Landscape photography is fundamentally about highlighting the beauty of the natural world. The goal is to present nature in its most magnificent form — vibrant, detailed, and seemingly untouched by human influence. Its core values center on technical perfection and the idealization of scenes that often evoke awe or tranquility. Photographers in this genre prioritize sharpness, accurate exposure and composition, often electing a patient and slow-paced approach that involves waiting for the ideal meteorological and lighting conditions and performing meticulous adjustments in order to make the best possible capture of a given scenery.
However, within this emphasis on natural beauty lies the opinion that perceives heavily edited or abstract interpretations of landscapes as less authentic or lacking respect for the subject matter. There is also the general aversion to shallow depth of field, as according to the genre’s precepts, it would detract from the intention of showing the detail of the environment as a whole.
When landscape photographers look at other genres, they may see them as less methodical or lacking in aesthetic value. For example, street photography might appear chaotic, unrefined, or too random to those who are used to carefully crafted compositions and meticulously processed files.
Street Photography:
In contrast to the slow, methodical nature of landscape photography, street photography thrives on spontaneity and the rawness of everyday life. The core values of this genre emphasize candidness and a desire to capture the fleeting moments that characterize urban life and its social interactions. There is an inherent dynamism in street photography — images are rarely posed, and often, the most compelling shots are those that depict real people in unguarded moments.
The street photographer’s dogma often leads them to reject photos that seem staged, overly polished, or orchestrated. To them, these images lose the vitality and authenticity that make street photography powerful. Street photographers also tend to shun longer focal lengths, as it puts distance between them and their subject. In that regard, the tools used by street photographers to capture images also have their mythos. Compact range finder cameras of a certain red-dotted brand equipped with a wide angle lens constitute the quintessential street photographer’s camera choice — sometimes doubling down as a fashion statement.
When looking at other genres, street photographers may criticize them for lacking emotional depth or relevance. For instance, they might see landscape or portrait photography as removed from reality, focusing more on aesthetics than the genuine, immediate human experience.
Documentary Photography:
Documentary photography is deeply rooted in the idea of truth-telling. Its core values revolve around objectivity, narrative, and a commitment to capturing real events or social issues without interference or manipulation. Photographers in this genre see their work as an important tool for raising awareness and fostering change, often focusing on topics like poverty, injustice, or environmental degradation.
The dogmatic views in documentary photography are particularly strong when it comes to authenticity. Any form of staging, alteration, or heavy editing is seen as unethical, as it distorts the reality the photographer is trying to convey. When documentary photographers judge other styles, they may criticize them for being too concerned with aesthetics, accusing them of "beautifying" reality at the expense of truth. To them, landscape or portrait photography may seem overly idealized, while street photography could be seen as lacking the narrative depth required to communicate larger societal issues.
Surrealist Photography:
Surrealist photography exists in a realm far removed from documentary or street photography. Here, the focus is on conceptual depth, artistic expression, and often a departure from the constraints of reality. Surrealist photographers experiment with techniques, compositions, and subjects to create images that challenge the viewer’s perception of the world. For them, the core values lie not in representing what is, but in creating new realities or exploring abstract ideas while following the modern art principle that as long as what is produced elicits a reaction — be it positive or negative — the piece achieves its primary goal.
Dogmatism in surrealist photography arises from the emphasis on artistic vision over any technical consideration. To these photographers, the rules of traditional photography — sharpness, accurate exposure, realistic representation, are secondary to the expression of an idea or feeling. As a result, surrealist photographers might view other styles as rigid and entrenched in conventional rules. They could see landscape photography as too focused on technicalities or documentary photography as lacking creativity, as both genres prioritize real-world accuracy over artistic freedom.
Our 2.0 environment, making it worse?
The rise of social media and online photography communities has probably amplified the effect of dogmas within photography. Platforms like Instagram, Flickr, and various photography forums tend to create echo chambers, where photographers predominantly engage with others who share their stylistic preferences. In these spaces, certain styles and approaches are constantly reinforced, while alternative viewpoints are often sidelined or dismissed. While these communities can be supportive and validating, they can also reinforce dogmatic views and create resistance to different styles. (as well as reinforcing the current trend of privileging one-shots over narrative photography, but that is another matter entirely). This insularity can limit personal growth and stifle creativity, as photographers become more focused on adhering to the norms of their respective genres/sub-communities rather than exploring new ideas or techniques. These rigidities of thought within photography communities can lead to tensions and conflicts that often arise when photographers from different genres engage with each other, only to find that their values are at odds.
Becoming more aware of theses dynamics doesn’t require abandoning one’s own beliefs but rather expanding the lens through which we view photography. When a street photographer appreciates the technical prowess and patience involved in landscape photography, or when a portrait photographer sees the value in the raw moments captured by their street photography peers, they gain a deeper appreciation for the art form as a whole.
This recognition of differences may hopefully lead to one's stepping outside their comfort zone, and slowly breaking free from the limitations of their genre by discovering new creative possibilities and broadening their artistic horizons. As one who sits squarely at the crossroads of several approaches, I tend to believe that embracing these different perspectives can lead to richer creative outputs, with the blending and incorporating of elements from various genres into your own individuality, therefore enhance one’s work in unique and personal ways. After all, shouldn’t finding our own voice within the practice what we should really strive to achieve? Finding our own voice within the practice?
The challenge this poses, however, is substantial. Ignoring the pressure to adhere to a photography style’s norms can be daunting, as straying too far from established conventions can risk the perception of being self-indulgent or unfocused. It’s a delicate balance between embracing personal creativity and ensuring that the images produced maintain a certain level of quality.
Venturing into unfamiliar territory can also feel like leaving behind a proven formula for success, especially in an environment where likes, shares, and comments often reward conformity to popular trends. Yet, it is essential to challenge these limitations and find one’s own style.
The true artistic breakthrough comes from blending technical skill with personal expression, allowing one’s individuality to shine through while still producing work that is meaningful. By daring to step beyond the comfort of genre norms and, by extension, the opinions of the majority, photographers have a chance to develop a unique voice that not only reflects their vision but might also push the boundaries of the medium itself.
Comments