101 Cliches of Photography

Years ago, the often cantankerous jazz saxophonist Eddie Harris published, among his other works on musical methodology, a work entitled "The 101 Cliches of Jazz". In one of my cantankerous moods it occurred to me that Photography could be viewed through a similar lens.

Definition from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

"The term cliché is a phrase, expression, or idea that has been overused to the point of losing its intended force or novelty, especially when at some time it was considered distinctively forceful or novel. It is generally used in a negative context."

So we are speaking here of overused images in photography. As Mike Johnston pointed out in his 2003 article and the response to that article, beginning photographers are often interested in making photographs that will draw the comment "looks professional" or "looks like a postcard". Then, this is reinforced in camera clubs as members try to please contest judges who tend to traffic in a narrow set of "rules" by which to judge "good" photographs, and they are reinforced further by a community of peers with similar ambitions. I would add that the typical camera club member also has a very narrow view of the history of photography, often limited to pretty calendars, nature and/or wildlife magazines, popular photography magazines, Sierra Club publications, etc. This is all perfectly fine if one is satisfied with engaging in the phtographic equivalent of making needlepoint "Bless This House" samplers. But for the photographer who wishes to engage the world in a more serious grasp or seeks some level of self-expression exercise of the advice of the legendary art director Alexy Brodovich is required: "if you look through the viewfinder and see a photo that you've seen before, DON'T TAKE IT!"

Now professional photographers take cliched photos as well - the street photographer, the avant-gardist, no one is really immune. Photographers who allow market forces to trap them in a recognizable style begin to repeat themsleves and, in essence, their work becomes their own cliche. A cliche is a combination of subject matter and treatment. One can take a cliched subject but apply a new treatment that elevates it above the level of the cliche. Just as in music there are only 12 tones and the constraints of certain psycho-acoustical reactions, there are only a finite number of categories of visual subject matter, although it might be difficult to enumerate them exhaustively.

So, I propose to begin a list that may stretch to 101 or beyond to 1001 or whatever. You are free to add to this list. For each identified cliche (which can be either or both subject and treatment) there are historic photos (including perhaps your own, dear reader) that transcend the label of cliche. If you are sufficiently passionate about some historical photo such that you are moved to mention it, please do so only if you can supply a justification as to why it transcends cliche that is more illuminating than it is just your opinion.

Gary Winogrand (according to discussions with a former student of his) took the position that effect of stacking up enough cliches in one photo could be transcendent. An interesting proposition, but tricky, I would say.

I use this kind of thinking in the photos I take. Being an intense student of the history of photography I am very aware of the legacy that may attach itself to the image in my viewfinder. The trick is to use this as inspiration to find a way to differentiate the opportunity at hand from the photos that have preceeded us. Take the potential crush of history and squeeze something new out of the mix.

So, at any rate, here goes!

Sunsets/Sunrises (depends on your sleeping habits I suppose) Can't we declare a moratorium?

Babies - pretty babies, ugly babies, babies whose facial expressions seem "grown up"

Animals - especially baby animals - puppies and kittens and other furry creature in particular, but all young offspring, including those whose facial expressions
echo human expressions, this goes double for animals with big eyes, ears, noses, or tongues

Bees on flowers taken with macro lenses, double penalty points for a misplaced shallow depth of field

Autumn Leaves - on trees of course, but double penalty for leaves floating in a stream or lake

Rocks in Sand - with or without water wetting part of the scene or curling around the stones, extra penalty for wisps of seaweed

Reeds in a lake silhouetted against the light of the rising or setting sun

Geometric vistas formed by the patterns of contour farming

White fences - throw in gates, porticos, doorways, arched entrances

Over-saturated photos - this can be a way to double up on a cliched subject

The application of any "artistic" filter effect from Photoshop, ditto above on the doubling up

Weather-beaten barn boards, double penalty for faded red paint

On the street - the homeless, beggars, double penalty for the blind or crippled, triple penalty for the foregoing if holding a musical instrument

Any photo where the subject seems to be the existence of repeated colors within the frame, double penality if the color is red

Vistas of mountaintops fading into the distance, double penalty when combined with a sunset or sunrise

Deer in meadows

Graveyards - double penalty for fog

Blackened skies in daylight photos - have you noticed that in night photos the sky is seldom the blackest part?

Any photo that can be described by invoking the name of a historic photographer (Ansel Adams, Minor White, Diane Arbus - including some of their own.)



I invite you to join in. This can be fun and marvelously cathartic.

- Partially colored B&W. Especially if the color involved is an additive primary. Roses are red, an overall is blue, and the neighbor's grass really isn't getting any greener.

- Diffused nudes or bridal photography. Mutually exclusive of course, otherwise it might actually be interesting for once next time you're invited over to view your best friend's wedding pictures for an hour-and-a-half.

- Scarcely dressed women and motorized vehicles in a single picture. Don't get me wrong, I like women, and I like cars, but to think that the appreciation of either is in any way enhanced by combining the two is an obvious fallacy.

opgr - Excellent. That's the spirit! So how about:

Cibachrome emulations - especially of slot canyons with the reds pushed - that plastic look makes me think of bugs cast in acrylic

Graffiti

Russell: is this a list of cliches or list of weekly/monthly assignments for a photography club, course, or forum? ;)

Dale: Right! How could one tell the difference? Except most camera clubs wouldn't include opgr's scantily-clad ladies. You have put your finger on a tendancy of camera clubs to offer up cliched subject matter nouns as their contest topics. Seldom does one see a subjective topic such as "a photograph that communicates conflicting emotions" or "a photograph with powerful but ambiguous intent".

After the 101 (or 1001) list is completed, I'd like to see a list of what remains.

if anything!

Eric

What is going to remain is simple - bad pictures that no one wants to see. But hey - at least they are original!

I don't care if you've taken a good picture, your mother took the same and then her brother...that's just 3 good pictures to me.

Where's the magic line when a good picture becomes 'cliche'? Oh, and who is anyone to say?

I don't think anyone has a right to judge anyone else's image as such. For example, watching through all the LLVJ, one had the assignment of 'fall coulors'. The instructions said (paraphrased), 'no pretty pictures, no shots of trees turning colors, we've all seen it before and we don't want more cliches pictures'. Yet just one or two issues later while reviewing some travel shots the exact shot came up. Yellow and such colored leaves of fall. It was now called 'a classic shot' that was liked very much.

The point is, just because you personally don't like to see a certain shot anymore doesn't mean they should not be taken by anyone else, as much as they like. Some people can't get enough, and every shot is new to someone.

Very well put. I was thinking about that when I first read the lists.

I suggest that anyone who posts a list also posts a photo demonstrating what they think is not a cliche.

Alternatively, we could start a list of non-cliches...

Dear Readers: Some of you are missing the point. Remember that either or both (or neither of) subject and treatment are part of what may characterize the overused. The list of what remains would also subsume the list of cliches! In other words, for each of the listed items we could provide examples of succesful original photos, where the photographer, either historically fortunate by being first, or by dint of original vision created a photo that rises above the pack of other photographs that could be included in the same subject/treatment slot.

But, come on, we all know there are cliches - and anyone is welcome to add more instances to the pile of photos, if that's how they want to define themselves - and I am entitled to roll my eyes when I see one. I haven't said any of your photos are cliches. If you are offended by my list, then perhaps it's because of suspicions you have about your work. I am personally not content to take a photo that I know exists - and I take great pains to try to expand my knowledge of what already does exist.

What attracts the "photographic eye" is remarkably consistent throughout the history of photography, influenced more by technical progress than by differences in what is considered a photographic subject. Treatments ebb and flow according to fashion and fad (pictorialism, f/64 group, "tough" street photography, etc.)

Back to Eddie Harris' 101 Cliches of Jazz. Is the jazz player going to be able to avoid all the possible cliches? No, but awareness means that the player can place them in a context in which they have an altered emphasis and significance. There is a difference between playing a phrase that every other player has executed just because it "lays under the fingers" or "fits the chord" and using that same phrase as an element in a larger musical idea. This is akin to the photographer who recognizes a familiar result in the viewfinder and who asks "what can I do differently here?".

So let's see your gallery of original work

If I did not shoot cliches I would need only a 64 kb flash card and thus save lots of money.

Pointing to a problem is useful. Providing a solution to the problem is truly helpful. I agree that educating people about cliches is by building a list is useful. However, until you provide examples of cliches and non-cliches and explain why some are cliches and others not, it is not truly helpful.

One man's cliche is another mans original image - assuming of course it is the first time that he has seen that style before.

If I can't sit with my woman and watch a beautiful sunset or sunrise and still get enjoyment from them both, then where has the poetry gone in life?

Please note that we are discussing "clichés" which basically means that the subject has been tried to the point of irrelevance. The importance of a picture doesn't make it less of a cliché. Perhaps we should think more thoroughly about providing appropriate context when submitting a clichéd image.


- Pictures of Soldiers and Victims. With the causes of war these days I fail to differentiate the terms and in my completely misguided sense of irony I would note that the subject has been beaten to death.

- Crying mothers with a dead child. Especially the religiously inclined. In my most gloomy moments I honestly believe(!) that the faithful should know better. Given the concept of heaven, is a child really served by growing up with its mother but a complete lack of decent nourishment, a save environment, and proper education? I'm not denying the bond between mother and child, but I do question the usefulness of further contributions on the subject without proper context.

- Starving children in the arms of ditto parents. What goes into the human race that even at the brink of existence there is room for family planning... hope springs eternal? Of course, it is a completely different story when you're driven from your home into a refugee shelter because of ethnic separation, which goes to show that proper context really is highly relevant.

Some images are enhanced by lack of context. Most aren't.

Only to you - that's a 100% subjective statement. That's the point.

The definition of a cliched photo is very simple: a photograph that differs so little from others that we have seen that the choice among them is an indifferent one. A non-cliched photograph is one that, in spite of the fact that it may contain subject and/or treatment elements that are known, is executed in such a way that it differentiates itself from others that might be indexed by the same general description. Example: Shots of one's children. The average shot of a child posing for a photo on an outing vs. a Ralph Eugene Meatyard shot.

BTW, pointing at people is very rude.

Below is a link to my gallery. Are there some I think are cliches? Yes. Are there some I think that are not? Yes. However, the decision for you is up to you.


http://russarmstrong.com/gallery/Master

Nice gallery - too bad I've seen all of them before! Oh, and now you admit the choice is up to the viewer! Good job, you see the light. And yes, even though I have seen just about all of those shots before, I still don't call them cliches, they are just shots that have been done before.

The real voyage of discovery consists of not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes.
- Marcel Proust

the pictures will always be the same, only the eyes change.
amnon

In response to alainbriot, let me present a couple of case studies. I will use my own examples so not to ruffle anyone's feathers (to use a cliche) and to demonstrate that hardly anyone talks more trash about my images than I do.

One cliche I had not listed yet: rusting automobiles, other vehicles, farm implements, machinery

Here is my example: http://russarmstrong.com/gallery/Sargasso1/Frontal_Buick_a

And yes, this is a shameless cliche. I took this along with a great many other shots at a location I call "Sargasso Farm" (after the Sargasso Sea, an area of the Atlantic ocean where the currents are such that it traps ocean trash, compounded by the constant of matted seaweed). The former orchard and surrounding areas of Sargasso Farm contained a 50 year accumulation of all the items listed as cliches above and more, intertwined with the increasingly neglected vegetation. Although this accumulation was not what I considered my "sweet spot" as far as subject matter goes, the appeal to the "universal photographic eye" was too much to resist. So I had a great time photographing there over several months - different seasons, lens, weather conditions, etc. I had obtained permission and a signed release from the generous owners and was welcome to come and go at will. The rusted Buick was a cliche in the viewfinder - I've seen these photos before, but my inclination was to leave no rust unrecorded. (The farm was subsequently cleaned of most of the accumulation.) A bit of sharpening, a touch of saturation and it makes a quite good looking 24x36" print. And, wouldn't you know, this has been a best seller in the appropriate venue. It is still a cliche but there is an audience (nostalgia and cliches are close relatives) who enjoys it, so what the hey.

Case study 2: http://russarmstrong.com/gallery/FandF/J_E_C_and_C_II_001

This is a shot, on the most elemental level, of my son, his wife, their daughter and my wife. The photo combines some familiar elements: the cloud-strewn-sky, interesting pattern in the pipe construction and the sawdust underneath, and the device of denying easy access to a narrative by partially hiding the human activity (Kertez was one of the first that I am aware of using it). I belong to a photo club and lecture and judge at other clubs (so I know whereof I speak in that regard) and I took this image to one of the sessions with a guest critiquer and got the highly (to me) satisfactory comment "I have no idea what to say about this photo". So, I subsequently submitted it to one of the annual art photo shows of some prestige (I know: "Compared to What") and received a juror's award. Because of the stacked nature of the devices I think this photo evades being a cliche. Obtaining a narrative that is not easily articulated in a frequent goal of mine and a way to help avoid cliche. (Until such a time as we can list "obscure but curiously attractive" photos as another category.

See, now this proves everyone's taste is different, along with what they call a cliche. I like that Buick, and it's something I could see printed and hanging, and people paying for. The other, just looks like a snapshot to me, nothing I would more than glance at, let alone want to pay for, print or hang (not an insult).

I have not had the opportunity to take any shots of such rusty cars or machinery, and would gladly do so at my first. I would not at all hesitate and say 'oh gee, I shouldn't take this, I know it's been done before'. It's just completely irrelavent to me. If I like it, I'll take it. If it looks good, I'll print it. If someday I try to sell something, someone else may buy it.

Someone else may have taken a similar shot, but you can't print someone else's at will, let alone sell it I want my own!!

One of the essays on this site that I keep returning to is this one: Been there, done that. I think it summarises quite nicely why it is ok to take pictures that may have been done before. At least I felt greatly relieved when I read it.

I know that this 101 is somehow meant to be tongue in cheek, but to me it comes across as aloof and prone to spoil people's fun in taking pictures. I have seen pictures that I felt were clichéd, but I am afraid that trying to avoid perceived cliché will lead to forced results.

Karsten

A fine quote most appropriate in the context of this discussion.

Thank you.

Very true. Starting with cliches before moving to non-cliches is a common approach. Making this process inappropriate can stiffle the creativity of many upcoming photographers.

That's one school of thought - my experience with current arts education is that it follows what I term the "daycare center" model whereas my education was more of the tough-love model. If creativity is so easily stiffled how strong can it be?

The photographers that I find interesting do not necessarily take pictures for "fun", not that there's anything wrong with that, but the ones I admire were driven and neurotic, bless their hearts.

It's comes across to me that you think yourself higher than others when it comes to your skill, creativity and technique. I think that's where you are butting heads with most of us. We all produce fabolous shots here and there, to ourselves at least. For many of us this is a hobby, and it's FUN! Can it make others a living? Sure! In fact I wish it made mine!

But regardless of application of our hobby, most of us are not looking down our noses at others, because certain shots are taken & enjoyed, or we follow a methodology different to some.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Basically my objective in launching topics such as this is for entertainment. If it turns out to be educational, that's even better. I try to avoid looking down my nose - since doing so comes with the requirement to keep it clean and trimmed.

Back OT

Flower in the barrel of a gun

This is besides the point because your 101 is not aimed at photographers who are driven and neurotic; the last thing that Diane Arbus ever needed was a 101 of clichés.

Also, your story about "Sargasso Farm" does sound as if you had a lot of fun shooting there. Which is perfectly fine. I can relate very well to what you say about the "appeal to the universal photographic eye", and we all are in danger of producing cliché pictures when we give in to that appeal. But I don't believe that you can avoid it by saying "Don't take pictures of sunsets because a sunset is a cliché". And I do believe that it does not foster someone's creativity to tell him or her not to take pictures of something. A true master of photography may be able to take a picture of a sunset that speaks to you in an unclichéd way in spite of millions of other photographs?

Just for fun, I googled on Van Gogh self portraits. More than one. I suppose all those after the first were cliches and should not have been done. Or are there seperate categories for self portrait with hat, without hat, with two ears, one ear?

When did I say not to take a picture of x or y? In fact, what I am suggesting, and now saying, is that the existence of numerous examples of photos that exhibit the same or undifferentiatedly similar subject/treatment, makes it more difficult for a photographer to create another photo that does differentiate itself from the historical record. I acknowldege that there are many photographers, from hobbyists to professionals, for whom this distinction does not matter. For those for whom differentiation is a goal, the historical record - increasingly available at a click on the internet - becomes more crowded each day with individuals who have captured images that one might have preferred were one's own exclusive domain. So while it is still possible, differentiation becomes increasingly difficult - indeed, to the point that it may be rational to question if such a quest is a reasonable goal.

The underlying problem here is that we have a state of the art created by tens or hundreds of thousands of avid photographers. Da Vinci and Rembrandt didn't have to contend with that kind of competition or that sort of status quo. Vermeer died a pauper with maybe a dozen other painters in competition with him for the next commission in a bustling town of thousands of noveau riche. Fast forward to century 21 - there are 6.5 billion people on the planet and counting. Any given medium of expression is going to go rapidly saturated - all possible permutations are going to be thoroughly exploited in the time it takes Mr. Jones to pop into the loo.

Not convinced? Look at the history of art/serious painting and music from 1850 to 1950. (And were there even a single billion humans alive back then?) Like a supernova star exhausting its supply of easy hydrogen or a capitalist economy running out of exploitable fuel, ever more exotic and expensive sources of combustion are going to be systematically tapped, exhausted, and abandoned. Painting went from classical realism, to Impressionism, to Cubism and Fauvism, to Dadaism, to Expressionism, to abstract in an ever-quickening chain-reaction (with a dash of Neo-Primitivism thrown in just for a change of pace). Art music went from neo-Mozart to the Romantics to the Impressionists to the atonalists to the arhythmic atonalists in the same span of time. Once the god of Individual Expression, the supremacy of the Ego, was set up for worship everything else followed in an inevitable progression.

The situation in art photography as (I assume) practiced by the majority of people perusing this forum is even more dire. The constraints - essentially those established by the f/64 movement nearly a century ago - are extreme. Tight realism, a very narrow window of permissible self-expression, is demanded. Subject matter is restricted to naturally occurring events - and for many these must be further limited to Mother-Nature-only events.

So - yep! - it has all been done before ... yet, the only time any of this becomes an issue is when your ego swells sufficiently that it takes you into King of the Hill territory (and I plead guilty here). In that case you can either:

- Wait for a new technology to open up a brief window of new possibilities (handheld 35mm after a century of view cameras on a tripod)

- Or you can think in terms of working in a tradition instead of breaking ever-new ground (century after century of the tradition of the classical Indian raga passed on from master to student)

- Or you can follow your star so relentlessly for such a length of time that it leads you into still uncharted ground (Diane Arbus, for sure).

... None of which is meant as a knock on Russell's delightful 101 clichés. My point is that those of you who feel backed up against the wall by that ever-growing list need only whistle any one of several different tunes to resume strolling down the street at ease in the land of ItsBeenDoneBefore.

Generally one doesn't refer to subsequent instances of an artist's work that share stylistic commonalities as a cliche. However, one could argue that works that seek to capitalize on the market success of earlier work and whose instances do not contribute novel elements to the oeuvre constitute cliches of one's own work. Examples that come to mind are deChirico (who, late in his career, started faking examples of an earlier style of his that had become popular), Warhol, and Haring. Unfortunately, VanGogh didn't live long enough for this to be an issue in his work.

Dale: Excellent!

I think we are talking of different teaching styles. As you saw I do not embrace the "tough love" teaching model. This is a personal choice. I am sure that you can find other instructors ready to "tear your work apart and then rebuilt it" as someone once asked me to do (I refused).

Just remember that the tearing apart side of this approach is relatively easy. It is the rebuilding part that gives me problems. Quite simply, what if the rebuilding doesn't happen and the student remains in a torn-apart state?

In my experience, teaching can be just as effective using a different, more human approach. In fact, and also in my experience, teaching is more effective using approaches other than "tough love". Why? Simply because teaching starts by building self-confidence, not by tearing someone apart. This is particularly true with teaching art which requires that one develops the ability to express personal feelings.

In fact, and going out on a limb somewhat here, I wonder if the "tough love" approach you recommend does not result in more "cliche" images than the self-esteem-building approach I favor. The reason why I wonder that is because people whose self esteem is taken away tend to resort to formulas -cliches- because they look outside of their own experiences for answers since their own experience has been proven to lead to "bad" results. People whose self-confidence has been boosted, on the other hand, tend to look within themselves for answers, because the outcome of their experience has been valorized, thereby making what is uniquely theirs come out, with a far lower chance that cliches will emerge.

Alain: ...and birds and small animals will gather in the meadow around the school and they will all sing together....

Yes, you are right about a difference in teaching philosophy. But your assumption that tough love is a tearing down process does not match what I am thinking of as characterizing such an approach. A strong teacher against whom one can rebel creates a more resilient individual than the current frequent practice of uncritical acceptance of the lowest denominator of performance. A strong approach creates someone who has the capacity for self-criticism and improvement. It provides a concrete example to the student of someone with passion instead of apology. It creates individuals who eschew cliche. After all it is not the dead weight of the masses that defines history, but the singular individuals who redefine it. I refer you to Kati Marton's new book The Great Escape about nine Hungarians who fled Hitler and made an indelible impact on the world. Two of the nine are Andre Kertez and Robert Capa. One of the most influential music teachers of all time was Nadia Boulanger. Among her successes was telling Astor Piazzolla to forget about European music and to compose tangos.

Many years ago I had a piano teacher who used a ruler to emphasize what to do. My progress was amazing after changing teachers! Reflecting back, there are many similarities between the requirements to become a good pianist and to become a good photographer.

That sure sounds like tearing down to me. But then again I am not intimate with the nuances of tough love ;-)





Russell: and the little toughies will gather in the school yard and delight in being bullied and put down until they realize that there are more contructive ways to learn such as building your self esteem ...

Given the situation and the tremendous scale of numbers that Dale describes, one can argue that the photographing of cliches has insinuated itself into the global economy. What would happen if we were actually prohibited from shooting any of the "101 Cliches of Photography?"

At first glance, banning photographic cliches would seem to be a good thing. For example, certain on-line fora would no longer have multitudinous messages announcing, "my first photo using the new (fill in the name of latest zillion megapixel DSLR)!" with obligatory feline image. The savings in bandwidth alone would be considerable.

But, upon closer examination, the downsides become all-too-apparent.

Computer hardware makers would be the first to go under. People would no longer need more and bigger hard drives to store all of their high resolution images of cats, dogs, sunsets, etc. Larger monitors would no longer be needed to display umpteen-megapixel images of bees landing on flowers, tilted wedding photos or yet another close-up of a moving rock at the Race Track in Death Valley. Ever more powerful computers would not be necessary to process digital images. The sales of photo printers, paper and high-margin ink cartridges would plummet.

Sales of digital cameras of all types would likewise decline precipitously. Consumer and prosumer digicams would languish in warehouses and retail display cases, the lack of sales creating considerable financial chaos among their manufacturers and retailers. Ironically, high-end sales (particularly DSLRs) might actually pick up. It seems to me that a significant number of non-pro photographer buyers of these big-ticket items are the sorts who would rather spend great amounts of time on-line arguing about the superiority of their camera's specs versus competing brands than actually using the equipment. Since they apparently take no photographs, no cliches are produced.

The negative consequences are wider than just a few companies going under.

People would no longer travel great distances on vacation because they would be prohibited from taking pictures of iconic (cliche) locations at the Grand Canyon, Yosemite Valley, Yellowstone, or other natural or man-made wonders. This would affect not only the U.S. but the rest of the world as well.

France's Eiffel Tower would be deserted. Buckingham Palace's changing of the guard would go un-noted. The African savannah would be barren of photo safaris. China's Great Wall would be just another wall and the Angkor Wat temple ruins would sink back into the Cambodian jungle from lack of visitors. Airlines and other long distance transportation dependent on camera-toting vacation travelers would go bankrupt from lack of business. The world-wide tourist infrastructure -- lodging, eating establishments, car rentals, shops, etc -- would all collapse from lack of custom, inflicting massive damage on the global economy.

So, be careful what you wish for, the consequences may be catastrophic!

Paul

Oh - and for those interested in seeing my photographic cliches:

http://www.pbase.com/pauls

Paul,

Nice cliches ;-)

Care to tell us where is F8 point so we can go there and make our own cliches of this location?

Cliches are like the supreme court justice's comment about pornography: I can't define it but I know it when I see it. Sunsets often are, but not always; babies often are, but not always; & so on. Maybe the most famous landscape picture in history is a Moonrise...like, duh, that hadn't been done before.

When it comes to lists, I sort of like the Ten Commandments of Leica Photography:

1. Thy children are ugly. Do not make us look upon them...

3. Thou shalt not photograph thy dog, nor thy cat, nor thy ass. (Some dispensation may be had for thy neighbor's ass, but we'd have to look at it first...)

7. Thou shalt not photograph homeless people. Thou shalt leave them alone, or buy them a sandwich; this is pleasing in the eyes of the Lord...

I like this kind of list too. I remember one for the Zone System but haven't seen it for a while. If someone knows where to find it, or is willing to post excerpts to this page, from what I remember it was a pretty funny one as well.

Hi Alain,

I traveled with people who know how to get to what we called "F-8 Point," but I couldn't point to it on a map to save my life. This is one time I wish I owned a GPS.

Generally, the turn-off is just before Dead Horse State Park (near Moab). Getting there involves traveling a number of miles on rough dirt roads (high clearance vehicle necessary, 4-wheel drive helpful). Definitely not as easy to access as parking at the visitors center at Dead Horse (which is a surprisingly good sunset location).

If I were to do this on my own I would arrive late afternoon to shoot the sunset, camp overnight, and shoot the sunrise the next morning. Parts of the "road" are pretty nasty to drive in the dark if one is not familiar with the area.

Wish I could be more helpful.

Back to the topic at hand.

Paul

Paul,

Thank you. I am familiar with the area so finding the dirt road before Dead Horse Point should be no problem. Sometimes it involves getting lost and finding other, just as interesting locations, which is part of the fun of scouting for locations!

I saw you went to the "false Kiva" site as well. This is one that is hard to find too. We wandered around the sandstone bluff above the Kiva for hours before realizing that there was a trail. We found the Kiva the next day. It's actually a steep hike up into the ruin, but what a view. I want to return on a cloudy day to have a more moody ambiance for the photograph.

Thank you for sharing your work. I very much like your vertical composition titled "Early Morning, F8 Point" . It is actually an uncommon image of Canyonlands, definitly not a Cliche!

Best regards,

With the availability of cheap photography since the 70's and especially today, there are many taking photographs who are either copying the work of the greats and well known, or trying to emulate the styles. Why? Because their work - worked! By now give or take every conventional photographic subject has been tackled and there are people who could write books on the best way to photograph each subject from an objective point of view, i.e. what has worked over the years.

Therefore every photographic subject is by definition cliched. There is only a very very narrow window of originality open in any genre and it in itself is only an offshoot of a similarly cliched genre.

Let us take Alain. He shoots the most cliched subject in photography. Landscapes. His artistic take on the landscape is very good, it works, but because of that it is again defined by the name cliche. He isn't shooting landscapes at f1.2 or using funky tilts or fisheyes which may give originality to his art. Do I then say that his work is no longer significant? That his artistic expression is worthless? What nonsense!

I have no formal artistic training but I would not hestitate to define photography as the expression of the photographer through the medium of the camera. Just as with art. Here is where we seperate the wheat from the chaff. What has become cliched is photography based on technicalities, based on machinery. 'Nice photo' should be the ultimate curse on any photograph. The image must show the soul of the photographer through the coming together of light and composition. It has to be far more than just a 'nice photo', it has to SPEAK to the viewer in ways that another photograph may not. When I see Alain's Antelope Light Dance photo it speaks to me in ways that could not have come about from anything entitled a cliched genre. There are a few photos which I would hang on my wall and although perhaps cliched in their genre, they are anything but cliched in their execution.

I was thinking that a cliché and a trend are closely related, no?

The latest trend here that I can recall off the top of my head is Food Photography with extreme shallow depth of field. Food being a highly popular subject in general, so many magazines and commercials are now pushing those types of images, it's beyond funny. The similarity in these images is quickly making it a true cliché. But since it's a trend, some day the images will subside and be forgotten, so that the trend can be rediscovered in 20 years time as the next best thing since sliced bread (to remain consistent with the subject at hand).

So, how long does a cliché remain a cliché?

On a different note: who here believes that "cliché" is a value-judgment?

And if so, would you say that "A brilliantly executed cliché" is a contradiction bordering the sarcastic?

I would say it might demonstrate genius.