What are you creative influences?

As you mentioned, I take influence from everywhere—literally. It might only be little bits here and there, but they always find their way into my work. Obviously, I try not to create a direct copy of the things that inspire me, because I want to be original, or at least as close to original as I can be. But, as the saying goes, "there's nothing new under the sun," and that’s just a fact.

That’s why I speak out strongly against people who try to stifle conversations or make it harder to embrace new tools like phone cameras or Photoshop with the whole "it's not photography" argument. Trying to fit people into some rulebook for creating art, especially photography, is pointless—there are no rules for art. By definition, art is about thinking outside the box, not following the crowd or sticking to what everyone else is doing. That's just boring. I don’t want to do what someone else did—I want to do what I do. Don’t you?

I take a huge amount of inspiration from nature, movies, and unconventional artists. I never draw inspiration from things I see all the time. That’s just not where the magic happens for me.

And before anyone jumps in—yes, of course, a lot of the work I create might resemble what others create. As I said, there's nothing new under the sun, and a headshot is always going to be a headshot. But I incorporate multiple forms of art into my work. I do my own makeup, hair, and sometimes even create the clothing and dresses. I've designed aesthetics from scratch and built elaborate forest sets in my studio to complete a look, and i use photoshop to complete the work, tidy up and finish the little things.

But as well as that, some of the most inspiring images can be captured candidly—the unexpected headshot on the beach with the wind blowing, etc. These can be some of the wildest and luckiest masterpieces in our collections, which is exactly why you shouldn’t put rules on yourself. Just let your inner artist do their thing.

Edited by ANDY00

I am often surprised by photographers' insistence that their work isn't in an artistic tradition, that it has no influences etc. (I mean this generally, Allesandro B , and I'm not specifically aiming it at you!)

I don't think art really hides its influences; strong art communicates with shared cultural reference points (through reinforcement or deliberate rejection of influences) much more than it creates new ones. 

So inasmuch as I am shooting at all these days, I am quite deliberate with my influences. I engage in making "studies", with my limited abilities. I've said this too many times before now and must be a broken record.  I spend time studying several photographers and try to produce work that has visible elements of their style or era. Without a sort of slavish approach, mind you. I am still working in a digital context in general.

I do this because I think it's enormously educational to look at a photograph or set of photographs, and try to separate out, through exploration, which elements of the image come from the equipment/technical limitations of the era, which come from the social constructs of the era, which were workaday things and which were unique to that photographer's views or sensibilities, or their own influences.

Because I am me and not them, and I am living in the 21st Century and not the 19th or 20th, the work that comes out isn't reproduction. Whether or not it is any good. I don't think people will for the most part see me "ripping off" any other photographer or artist, but hopefully just speaking a similar language.

There is a lot to learn from this process, and I hope it is feeding into me going somewhere creative. But I think artists have always done this.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

I suppose we all see things differently and I could never be accused of being artistic or a follower of traditions. There was a time when I found 'next top model' a handy resource more for the use of lighting, avoiding certain mistakes, how to manage people involved and actually putting shoots together than styling though. My wife has an eye for styling and provided this back when I used to run a studio. I'll take stimulation from wherever I can find it whether that be fashion books, MTV, pop videos, trending fashion etc. FashionNetwork.com is all you need for up to date information all the shows, cat walks, you name it it's there, well worth subscribing for newsletters.

This post has been filtered based on your content filter settings because it is NSFW. View reply

I often think there’s different levels of influences,

things that inspire you to create, but there’s no attempt made to emulate

Unconscious influences which is probably significantly stronger and more diverse than we expect which include the technoligy used

Direct influences where we are taking actual aspects from something and putting them Into our own work. This one seems to go from mindlessly copying some unoriginal idea right upto the most intelligent work.

im always a bit interested in my influences as I own far too many photography books but never seem directly influenced by any. I think I absorb a whole load of minor, sometimes vaugue things and morph them into some ‘style and sensibility’ rather than anything deeper. 

Edited by Perception

Allesandro B on the subject of considering yourself to be a creative person, I'd strongly urge you to reconsider that.

At the very very least -- and please don't think I am taking the piss here or minimising, because I am not -- because "creative" is entirely relative! Huge proportions of the population do nothing but watch TV, play video games, go to pubs, watch sport, which is a defensible life choice that people clearly enjoy. You are considerably more creative than that baseline, and they'd recognise that. 

There are also so many different ways to be creative that don't necessarily involve great artistic strides, and I think a lot of us forget what creativity looks like to those who don't really engage in it in the same way: just making new stuff is what matters. Doing. Thinking of a thing and making it happen. Working with others. Observing, reproducing, trying to achieve consistency. Artistic practice. All these things you do.

Whether or not you think you're engaging in creativity, you're living it.

I said to a friend the other day that I'd always considered myself a geek, a programmer, who didn't embarrass himself at a few creative things. I taught myself to tolerably play a couple of musical instruments (aside from the one I was taught formally to play... at which I am worse). I've taught myself photography. I even taught myself my day job, because almost nobody knew it in 1995. But really the core of who I thought I was, was a knowledgeable nerd who could scratch around the edges of stuff.

But lately I've realised there is a broad, hazy line between "geek who doesn't embarrass himself when asked to do something expressive" and "frustrated creator". And I've crossed that line. I know I have. I use different labels now (I do say "photographer" but prefer "maker", really, because it fits the broad technically creative picture). But I no longer think about it in terms of shamefully not being as good as other people are. At whatever level I am at, to many observers I am one of those other people. 

And so are you.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

Perception said

Unconscious influences which is probably significantly stronger and more diverse than we expect which include the technoligy used

Sometimes they catch you out and you think "oh wow, I saw that years ago and that has somehow always been on my mind".

Francesca Woodman is one, for me. And also Lena Herzog -- particularly Flamenco.

Unfocussed Mike said

Perception said

Unconscious influences which is probably significantly stronger and more diverse than we expect which include the technoligy used

Sometimes they catch you out and you think "oh wow, I saw that years ago and that has somehow always been on my mind".

Francesca Woodman is one, for me. And also Lena Herzog -- particularly Flamenco.

I keep coming back to Woodman for inspiration but she’s a tricky one, it’s very much about her self expression as a self portraitist. She does seem to have many layers of meaning and visual stuff she reuses like doors etc. she’s another photographer who’s book I’ve gone through and failed to figure out a way to use directly for inspiration despite loving her work.

Perception said

Unfocussed Mike said

Perception said

Unconscious influences which is probably significantly stronger and more diverse than we expect which include the technoligy used

Sometimes they catch you out and you think "oh wow, I saw that years ago and that has somehow always been on my mind".

Francesca Woodman is one, for me. And also Lena Herzog -- particularly Flamenco.

I keep coming back to Woodman for inspiration but she’s a tricky one, it’s very much about her self expression as a self portraitist. She does seem to have many layers of meaning and visual stuff she reuses like doors etc. she’s another photographer who’s book I’ve gone through and failed to figure out a way to use directly for inspiration despite loving her work.

Yeah. I just sort of carry around the feeling again, having seen that Cameron/Woodman exhibition. The same way Nell Dorr got into my head and won't leave :-)

Unfocussed Mike said

Allesandro B on the subject of considering yourself to be a creative person, I'd strongly urge you to reconsider that.

At the very very least -- and please don't think I am taking the piss here or minimising, because I am not -- because "creative" is entirely relative! Huge proportions of the population do nothing but watch TV, play video games, go to pubs, watch sport, which is a defensible life choice that people clearly enjoy. You are considerably more creative than that baseline, and they'd recognise that. 

There are also so many different ways to be creative that don't necessarily involve great artistic strides, and I think a lot of us forget what creativity looks like to those who don't really engage in it in the same way: just making new stuff is what matters. Doing. Thinking of a thing and making it happen. Working with others. Observing, reproducing, trying to achieve consistency. Artistic practice. All these things you do.

Whether or not you think you're engaging in creativity, you're living it.

I said to a friend the other day that I'd always considered myself a geek, a programmer, who didn't embarrass himself at a few creative things. I taught myself to tolerably play a couple of musical instruments (aside from the one I was taught formally to play... at which I am worse). I've taught myself photography. I even taught myself my day job, because almost nobody knew it in 1995. But really the core of who I thought I was, was a knowledgeable nerd who could scratch around the edges of stuff.

But lately I've realised there is a broad, hazy line between "geek who doesn't embarrass himself when asked to do something expressive" and "frustrated creator". And I've crossed that line. I know I have. I use different labels now (I do say "photographer" but prefer "maker", really, because it fits the broad technically creative picture). But I no longer think about it in terms of shamefully not being as good as other people are. At whatever level I am at, to many observers I am one of those other people. 

And so are you.

Edited by Unfocussed Mike

thanks for the response Mike and you are correct, I guess I have my own definition of what a creative person is and I don't think I fit that description (living with someone who is very creative sort of reinforces that!)

Sources of inspiration are too numerous to list and most probably I don't even know about those I have subliminally absorbed.

However, anyone with a broad knowledge of history of art would most probably recognise general and specific examples in my work. Vermeer for lighting and genre. Balthus for poses and lighting and the chiaroscuro masters of the renaissance again for lighting. 

I have based pictures on Degas, Manet and Toulouse-Lautrec. You will find tribal influences and recent photographers who come under the title of the New Black Vanguard.

To name a few.

I would be interested to know what others can see which I can't or have forgotten.

In late 1970 I saw a production of Wedikind's Lulu at the Nottingham PLayhouse. I was 17. Of all the plays I have ever seen, it is the one that has perhaps influenced me the most. It whet my appetite for the avant garde, for eroticism, Egon Schiele, Gustav Klimt, Aubrey Beardsley and Oscar Wilde. The star of Lulu was Julia Foster and I happened to see her in the theatre restaurant after the show where I was dining with my father. For the first and only time in my life I went up and asked for her autograph, which she kindly gave.

Crikey, that's 54 years ago!

Edited by Bergman Greenstreet

By the way, there is a free Lindsay Adler webinar (in just over an hour) that may have places left and is relevant to this discussion about influences etc.:

https://invite.lindsayadlerphotography.com/creating-iconic-images-presentation/

Bergman Greenstreet said

In late 1970 I saw a production of Wedikind's Lulu at the Nottingham PLayhouse. I was 17. Of all the plays I have ever seen, it is the one that has perhaps influenced me the most. It whet my appetite for the avant garde, for eroticism, Egon Schiele, Gustav Klimt, Aubrey Beardsley and Oscar Wilde. The star of Lulu was Julia Foster and I happened to see her in the theatre restaurant after the show where I was dining with my father. For the first and only time in my life I went up and asked for her autograph, which she kindly gave.

Crikey, that's 54 years ago!

Schiele and Beardsley -- they are almost like the same person out of parallel universes where some underlying universal constant is different. (And doesn't this kind of make Wilde the parallel universe, antihero-mentor alternate of Klimt?)

Two artists who are really worth a photographer's time, simply because they were both in their own way seeking a kind of clarity while simultaneously avoiding photography, pictorialism, the Grand Style, the Pre-Raphaelites, etc.

Unfocussed Mike said

By the way, there is a free Lindsay Adler webinar (in just over an hour) that may have places left and is relevant to this discussion about influences etc.:

https://invite.lindsayadlerphotography.com/creating-iconic-images-presentation/

great thanks Mike, this is really helpful