LensWork - Photography and the Creative Process Brooks Jensen

We are all advised to photograph from our heart. The temptation is, however, to jump to the conclusion that the more personal our images the better they will be. The problem with this is that if your images become too personal, only you will be able to relate to them. The trick is to make it personal, but still preserve a sense of universality.

When I think of the word "artwork," I immediately think of physical things: Painting, prints, sculptures. But then there are lots of artistic media that are not physical in the sense that the art is not a thing: dance, music, theater, poetry, even novels. Where does this leave photography?

In an age in which life seems to be progressing at an ever faster pace, the still image/photograph is having a difficult time competing. I have no doubt that it's only a matter of time before we visit the Louvre and have an AI generated personal conversation with the Mona Lisa herself. Forget I said that. Shhhh. Don't give them any ideas.

A book stuck on the shelf is a sad thing. Don't you think that if books were sentient that they would want to be opened and enjoyed? I've been known to purchase a book because I have intentions of reading it, but never do. It's a bad habit and not only an insult to the book but also to the photographer.

As we all know, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Well, mostly, anyway. And as the creator of our artwork, we decided which is our best image and that is the one we typically print. What makes us think that our selection of "the best" is the same image that others will choose as their favorite?

A book is not artwork, but a novel is. A book is a medium of delivery, a novel is the content that is delivered. Does the same logic apply to photography? What if I said that a print or a book is a medium of delivery the same way that an LP or a CD is a medium of delivery for music, but neither are the artwork itself?