Friday, 25 June 2010
i am thinking about coherence, about continuity. how does it come about? in photography, is it in the choice of subjects? something as material as the choice of camera and film? or does it lie in the way of capturing forms, light and shadow just so? does it lie in the framing, in the details we focus on? has it to do with the palette we prefer, the colours, the more subtle tones? with focus and blur? or does it start much earlier, in the way we see, the way we feel? it seems to me that all of the above is most probably the fabric that our individual style is made of. which might vary with time. it's a fragile chemistry.
but what about coherence then, and continuity? does it mean staying true to one's style unfailingly? is it still there when our preferences change, when we feel drawn to different subjects, when our palette changes, when we work with another camera? is it there, even when we experiment and go through transitions?
i'm asking myself these things when i take my camera to hand these days. sometimes it makes me uneasy. it has to do with looking at the photographs i have taken over the last one and a half years, i think. i feel that everything is in motion, that i'm constantly feeling drawn to new subjects, perspectives, tones. and i wonder if it isn't all too random. if it would help to work on one subject, just to see what happens. if my attention span isn't too short and my eclecticism isn't getting me anywhere. if i'm frittering my time and energy.
i don't know.
these two images are from my latest slide film, taken with the nikkormat EL. they are a couple of frames apart, i didn't take them immediately after one another. i still see coherence here. and i wonder why. at the same time, i don't see any coherence between these and the beach pictures below. and i don't think that's entirely to do with the different cameras and films. i'm puzzled.
follow my blog with bloglovin