Mark Laubenheimer wrote:
i learn to simplify. i learn more and more what i truly love to photograph.

Do you really lean to simplify or do you grow a taste for more simple concepts ?

Martin-Manuel Beaulne wrote:

Do you really lean to simplify or do you grow a taste for more simple concepts ?

learning and growing a taste are the same thing to me.

Martin-Manuel Beaulne wrote:
Karl, I think you're right.

But I also think, sometimes, when you change your vision of the world, or some aspects of it which does not relate to photography, your photography "style" will change. That's why I talked about economy, social waves, etc...

The main question was "Am I alone in this situation ? If not, how did yours changed, and why.", but your two answers told me I, indeed, am alone... you seem to consider your photography style change only from a photography point of view.

Maybe I don't see my photo work as I should...

well....there is the fine artist that creates personal work (i fall into this category). then there is the other type of photographer that is creating work with a client in mind.

a fine artist perhaps has no need to think about outside variables....

Martin-Manuel Beaulne wrote:
Karl, I think you're right.

But I also think, sometimes, when you change your vision of the world, or some aspects of it which does not relate to photography, your photography "style" will change. That's why I talked about economy, social waves, etc...

The main question was "Am I alone in this situation ? If not, how did yours changed, and why.", but your two answers told me I, indeed, am alone... you seem to consider your photography style change only from a photography point of view.

Maybe I don't see my photo work as I should...

Mark Laubenheimer wrote:
well....there is the fine artist that creates personal work (i fall into this category). then there is the other type of photographer that is creating work with a client in mind.

a fine artist perhaps has no need to think about outside variables....

I don't know if that's true.

Perhaps if you're just creating your work for yourself it is, and sure that's how we all start, but what about when you start selling?  30% of what I do is gallery sales, and delivering "what sells" is certainly something that is on my mind, if not naturally, it certainly is when my gallarista calls.  Or when I present what I think is a really great idea, and she agrees that it is, only to tell me that no one will buy it.

Read Bloomberg Art News everyday and keep on top of what's being sold.  It is a market, a business.  I'm about to shoot two more still life series.  One, I think is solid and quite good.  The other is banal.  I will probably have both exhibited and I will get some nice things written about the first, but producing it will cost be money.  The second, the banal one, we estimate will net me $50k in no more than five years.  That's an outside variable that is sometimes hard to ignore.

I also get commissioned to do artwork.  Not commercial work, artwork.  Yes, I get to do what I want, but the customer still has to like it...

Paramour Productions wrote:

Martin-Manuel Beaulne wrote:
Karl, I think you're right.

But I also think, sometimes, when you change your vision of the world, or some aspects of it which does not relate to photography, your photography "style" will change. That's why I talked about economy, social waves, etc...

The main question was "Am I alone in this situation ? If not, how did yours changed, and why.", but your two answers told me I, indeed, am alone... you seem to consider your photography style change only from a photography point of view.

Maybe I don't see my photo work as I should...

I don't know if that's true.

Perhaps if you're just creating your work for yourself it is, and sure that's how we all start, but what about when you start selling?  30% of what I do is gallery sales, and delivering "what sells" is certainly something that is on my mind, if not naturally, it certainly is when my gallarista calls.  Or when I present what I think is a really great idea, and she agrees that it is, only to tell me that no one will buy it.

Read Bloomberg Art News everyday and keep on top of what's being sold.  It is a market, a business.  I'm about to shoot two more still life series.  One, I think is solid and quite good.  The other is banal.  I will probably have both exhibited and I will get some nice things written about the first, but producing it will cost be money.  The second, the banal one, we estimate will net me $50k in no more than five years.  That's an outside variable that is sometimes hard to ignore.

I also get commissioned to do artwork.  Not commercial work, artwork.  Yes, I get to do what I want, but the customer still has to like it...

ah, but then perhaps one is no longer a fine artist...

Mark Laubenheimer wrote:
ah, but then perhaps one is no longer a fine artist...

I don't agree with that.  And, as much as the romantic notion of the "starving artist" is popularized, history doesn't really agree with that either.  Sure, there are outliers, but most are not van Gogh.  Most artists, that we celebrate today, did much of their best work for patrons.  At the end of the day, you still need to eat. This is true for painters, sculptors, composers, instrumentalists, authors, etc.

Usually when I hear that argument (and I'm not saying this is you - I don't know you) it is by someone with left over teenage angst that is just upset that they're not successful.  And hell, let's face it, we ALL feel that way sometimes.  But being an artist, and yes, this includes being a fine artist, is about existing, creating, developing, showing, being appreciated and selling in a world larger than one's own bedroom.

Paramour Productions wrote:
I don't agree with that.  And, as much as the romantic notion of the "starving artist" is popularized, history doesn't really agree with that either.  Sure, there are outliers, but most are not van Gogh.  Most artists, that we celebrate today, did much of their best work for patrons.  At the end of the day, you still need to eat. This is true for painters, sculptors, composers, instrumentalists, authors, etc.

Usually when I hear that argument (and I'm not saying this is you - I don't know you) it is by someone with left over teenage angst that is just upset that they're not successful.  And hell, let's face it, we ALL feel that way sometimes.  But being an artist, and yes, this includes being a fine artist, is about existing, creating, developing, showing, being appreciated and selling in a world larger than one's own bedroom.

you still have to stay true to yourself.  no one likes a sellout.

but i understand what you are saying.

Martin-Manuel Beaulne wrote:
Karl, I think you're right.

But I also think, sometimes, when you change your vision of the world, or some aspects of it which does not relate to photography, your photography "style" will change. That's why I talked about economy, social waves, etc...

The main question was "Am I alone in this situation ? If not, how did yours changed, and why.", but your two answers told me I, indeed, am alone... you seem to consider your photography style change only from a photography point of view.

Maybe I don't see my photo work as I should...

I agree that things outside of photography knowledge/skills/experience may well affect your photography style.  I would like to think that these effects are not as transient as things such as economy, social waves etc. but rather more along the lines of what I think Mark  L. was referring to in terms of personal growth affecting style and changes in taste being inherently tied to personal growth.

For example, my daughters involvement in dance changed the way I perceive dance instruction (and dance as an activity for children).  This certainly affected my photography in terms of me having an interest in shooting some dance phots as well as how I envisoned shooting dancers.  I think about how dance can help to positively shape an individual both physically and mentally and how developing such focus and discipline (I am speaking of serious dance students) will provide a foundation for good life skills and habits in their future.  I believe this is a perspective that i would not as likely have obtained (and had any desire to portray) had I not been father of child involved in dance.

I believe that portrait photography (done well) reflects as much about the photographer as the subject which is what makes seeing a body of work of a single photographer (many subjects) or a single subject shot by many photographers so interesting.

Mark Laubenheimer wrote:
well....there is the fine artist that creates personal work (i fall into this category). then there is the other type of photographer that is creating work with a client in mind.

a fine artist perhaps has no need to think about outside variables....

I'm not necessarily talking about money or buyers. I'm talking more about how I see things in life. Politics will affect my style. Death in the family will affect how I will shoot my next nudes, etc.

A photographer said, once: « It is me you see when you look at my pictures » for a photographer ( a fine artist, that is ) will create art from what he sees of a, say, model.

As I change, I see the world differently, so I create different art.

In Blade Runner, the Nexus 6 robot says to the eye designer a very interesting thing: « If only you could see what I've seen with your eyes », which meant he was more than a pair of eyes and could understand life through what he saw.

Today, I could say the same thing to the guy who designed my camera lens « Look at my pictures, you will see what I've seen with your lens » in a way that... I didn't just saw things through the lens but used it as a mirror of my comprehension ( passion or disdain, sometimes ) of the world.

In Twelve Monkeys, James Cole says how different the same movie could look, depending on when you look at it: « The movie doesn't change, but you see it differently because you've changed ». When you change, you will definetely create art differently, even for a « I shoot existing things » photographer, because your style, your pulse will be different.

That is how I feel it. That is why, even if I say that my style changes not only because of « photography things », I disagree with the:
« a fine artist perhaps has no need to think about outside variables »

In fact, I think a fine artist has to think about outside variables.

S W I N S K E Y wrote:
laziness has changed my style a great deal....

That is very true too, but it seems to be a lack of passion instead of a style change.

Nevertheless, I feel it too, sometimes, when depression comes

Martin-Manuel Beaulne wrote:
That is very true too, but it seems to be a lack of passion instead of a style change.

lolz..

Sean J Photo wrote:
Changing style is the worst thing ever. I do it all the time, but to build up a base of work, you want to display the style that you will be shooting with potential future clients.

If you only shoot for fun, it's not an issue. If you want to make money, it's horrible. I mean, as I have progressed, I change style every year. I try to stay consistent but that's like asking the sun not to set.

Why would I say it's bad for making money? Well, I make money selling artistic prints. But the way to sell prints is to build a fan base who want to buy your photos. It's hard to build a base if you do something different every week. Or if you're working with clients like I also sometime do, you want to show them what they will get from you when they work with you. If your old work is irrelevant, then your clients might feel like you deceived them with the final product.

That's just my two cents. Change is good, but hurts my wallet.

I would agree that frequent, drastic, and abrupt changes in style would not be conducive to promoting commercial work, but everyone's style should evolve over time as you grow and change throughout your life experiences.

This is why it makes sense that your portfolio change over time to reflect your current style.  If a client wishes me to shoot similarly to work I did 10 years ago then they should specify that from the beginning at which point I could determine whether or not I was willing and capable of doing so.

It is difficult to see the world in the same way you saw it in the past - it has changed and so have you.  Just like a musician, your style can evolve with the times and still produce a body of work which is clearly recognizable as being you/yours.  Style need not be narrow, nor static.