Unconventional vs. Conventional

[purplerose]

I want to start a healthy discussion (not debate!) consisting of your views on conventional and unconventional photography.

We all see conventional photography everday, but we hardly see unconventional photography. By unconventional, I refer to alternative methods, various film techniques, highly conceptual, some abstract, etc. (the list could go on). What are your views/ideas on why we don't see unconventional methods as much? Is it because regular photography is easier? Is it the growing popularity of digital photography? Do we not care? Do we not know? Are we comfortable with seeing the same photography over and over again? Or are we as photographers developing a bias towards photographs that are created using normal methods?

Once again, I just want to start a healthy discussion, not a fiery debate.

I hope to see some input! :)

[alucard]

well ... i'll say that unconventional photography it's like the underground of photography. not all the eyes like it if you know what i mean. wile the conventional photogrpahy pleases everyone.
conv. photography it's all about sharpnes, good light, great colours and perfect composition.
with unconv. photography you will do it for your eyes in the first place and not obeying the rules .... and if you are lucky some other people will like it to, if you dare to share. cuz some people my not understand what you were tryng to transmit.

but people have diferent opinions and concept's about this two terms.

so let's what everybody thinks.

at least we can do something else. not just commenting everybodys photo's and downloading the photos we like. an i'll be honest, i havent don that in a wile.

good job makeing this thread puplerose. we need more people with initiative. we have some but they are not always online.

so let's talk. take a cup of cofee and share your mind with us.

[Rhynome]

I don't really have anything to say in here for the moment, because to be honest I don't really know where unconventional photography lies, something which I hope shall become clearer over time with discussion in this thread.

However, I can say thanks to the Rose for making this thread; this is, as Alin said, it's more of what we need. This calls for both kudos and hugses.

[purplerose]

I think unconventional photography is like a 7 layer cake, only the brave are willing to dive in and experience it. Another thing that could be a factor is that some people (including me at times) don't like to think when they view art.

[Cartoonbear]

Perhaps this is a topic that could even help me with my own art. From what has already been said I am taking that unconventional photos stand in the spectrum of art. Conventional photos would be more like commercial photography, photos you don't really have to think about to be a true audience member.

Not to steal the thread, more of an example really.

I see my own current photos as conventional and this is what I am being guided away from by the kind folks here at CA. For my photography to make the change from conventional to unconventional the subjects, settings, etc need to change. The photos would need to fill the audience with expressions, feelings, and moods rather than showing them simply how beautiful something can be.

As an example, I would say this is one of my photos closer to the idea of unconventional photography
http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r126/cartoonbear86/1-11.jpg

whereas this is much closer to the idea of conventional photography
http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r126/cartoonbear86/5-8.jpg

Would you agree with my definition?

Another note on this :)

Perhaps it is not okay to deem unconventional photos as art and conventional as something else. There are many paintings considered "art" that have no representations and no feeling expressed by the, many are just pretty pictures. If those are art then I say conventional photos are considered art as well. Perhaps they are 2 different kinds of art (haha conventional and unconventional...). I do see the art in creating a very esthetically pleasing photo that requires no thought alongside one that is filled with emotion.

Just to clarify what "requires no thought" means. I mean that it does not provoke deep thought, which would be another thing to define :)

[purplerose]

Hey Cartoon. :)

Personally, I think your two posted photos are conventional. They have the technical aspects down to a "T." By unconventional I'm referring to those photos that "break" technical guidelines to convey a concept or a mood and those photos created using different techniques (pinhole, double exposure, etc.) that would make them seem technically inferior to some people.

I don't think it's subject matter and setting that create conventional and un-, I think it's the approach to the subject matter and setting.

I'll round up some examples later today folks.

[Cartoonbear]

Ok, so what you are saying is that unconventional photos are those taken is a specific way: over/under exposed, over saturated, awkward composition, etc to get a certain feel out of the picture.

If this definition is what you are getting at then I have many thoughts on the subject ;)

[Cigaro]

Unconventional requires a deeper understanding in art. conventional imo isnt real art, its just commercial.
unconventional is seeing something people dont usually see, its like reading between the lines. thusly it requires a healthy amount of brains too, imo

i could go on for hours only i reckon the juice has already been drank

[Cartoonbear]

so from what u say, if it is not somewhat abstract than it is commercial and therefore not art and the photographer lacks this healthy amount of brains?

Sorry, but just to clarify on your views do you see non representational paintings as commercial? I do not mean to attack, simply assess. Yes I did take what you said a little harshly, but then I am trying not to :)

I think we are hitting a little snag here, I think that we are seeing that there are different, personal even, definitions of the idea of conventional and unconventional art...or maybe its just me...

[purplerose]

Ok, so what you are saying is that unconventional photos are those taken is a specific way: over/under exposed, over saturated, awkward composition, etc to get a certain feel out of the picture.

If this definition is what you are getting at then I have many thoughts on the subject ;)


Yupp. :) When you think about it, those are the most widely used critiques in the photo world today.

I slightly disagree with Cigaro though. Both forms are art to me and there is a BIG difference between commercial and commercial with a fine art twist. One is a boring photo used to sell products and the latter is a beautiful photo used to sell products.

Unconventional to me is purposely bending the rules to get a desired effect.

[Rhynome]

i could go on for hours only i reckon the juice has already been drank

Hasn't for me, and I'm sure it hasn't for some of the other less-learned fellows here, so if you've got hours...

[someone]

Yeah, to me... Conventional photography would be what you see MOST of the time on this website. Unconventional would be something like the photochallenge "defocused". Or something like using your lens backwards as a macro or something like that. At least that's what my definition is personally.

That said, I'm always looking for an idea to have for some "unconventional" photography. I think it's so cool in any area (art, music, whatever) when somebody does something completely new, and I've always thought that if would be just awesome if I would be one of those people one day...

[someone]

Unconventional to me is purposely bending the rules to get a desired effect.

Very well said.:yayca:

[alucard]

after reading everybody posts, i've done some thinking and i gues that betwen the 2 terms it's a thin red line. i mean, unconventional photography is based on the tricks you are aplying on a photo to achiev a diferent and original fealing. but the photo that you used was taked with conventional ways. but that's to simple to leave it like that.

so i'll say that unconventional photography is more than that. it's all about breaking the rules and going to exile. and it's true that only the brave ones are takeing that path. if they find it ofcorse. so are we talking about ordinary photographs,like me and you, versus the genius of this kind of art.

wen we are commeting a photo we are stiking to judje it obeying the rules of photography. is it expoused enough? is the compsotion perfect? ...the subject and so on...

i say : free you'r mind

[purplerose]

wen we are commeting a photo we are stiking to judje it obeying the rules of photography. is it expoused enough? is the compsotion perfect? ...the subject and so on...

I think that's when titles and even small descriptions are very important when dealing with unconventional photos.

[Rhynome]

I have no idea where this comes in [un]conventional photography, but to carry on with the Rose's point of titles, etc. if you check Stine's thread you'll see that she adds some very good titles or descriptions/captions to her photos. If you remove those the photos aren't nearly as good. They're still good compositionally, but they lack something, that's what the caption provides. Stine's photos need Stine's titles.

Carrying on from this; words aren't photos, are they [if they're contributed separately (as in a caption)]?; so is that unconventional?, that the captions have such a large part to play.

(Sorry about the slightly vague wording, I've had trouble with words today. And I'm fed up with Punctuation, there's only one type of ? when there really should be a ? for , . ; and : )

[klips]

I've never understood why people try to draw a line between the 'conventional' and 'unconventional'. In my arrogant opinion there are many more interesting separations to look at, such as concept driven vs results driven (which some people I know would like to say is art vs happy snaps, but they're all art school wankers anyway :P). This may lead to different styles of crits, such as those who want their concept resolution critted rather than the technical image quality, and I am happy to do this if people will ask, however that is a request I am yet to see on these forums so I have been unable to do it yet.

I do not think that there is a need to promote any singular form of photography over others on these forums. As long as people are willing to learn and accept critiques, I don't care if they do macro photography, portraiture, long exposure drawings with a torch, conceptualised semi-focused tilt/shift work or sharp stock photography, as long as they are happy to be part of the community. I see no need for a divide, and see good reasons for diversity.

[/rant]

Cheers,
Klips

EDIT: I just noticed my sig kinda counteracts what I was saying, but there's a difference between artistic and happy snaps, and that's what that related to. Happy snaps are something I am less keen on in this forum, but I will allow everyone their own style :D

[Cigaro]

Well that's just the thing isnt it? art itself is subjective and people dont have the same taste. so therefore people will perceive (un)conventional photography in a subjective way.i myself may see the boundaries in a different way than any of you do. :) not that i mind though, non of us should

Cartoonbear, I believe we're talking about photography here, not paintings. thusly i dont really see what you're trying to clarify by going slightly off-topic. and dont worry, it takes a lot more to make me perceive something as an attack :)

Rose, I agree. A beautiful photo will hit it's spot, for sure, but then again anyone can learn how to do conventional photography. all you need to do is learn some rules and generally go with them. unconventional, as previously said, is twisting those rules to your advantage. in the end, you cant teach yourself art, you can only learn the meanings to do it.

And yes, like klips says, diversity is good...as long as it pleases the eyes and mind ;)

As for descriptions for a photo...hmm. never really liked those, mainly because it might spoil the fun of you trying to discover the meaning of photo. but then again a photo might have a completely different meaning once included a description. imo it depends on the photo :)
you can, for example, give a conventional photo a specific description, thus making it unconventional, like stine's pictures. that itself is imo a way of seeing between the lines, being capable of linking feelings with images in a subtle way.
poetic isnt it?

[Cartoonbear]

I guess I was just trying to compare art, just in different mediums :)

Isn't this kind of the point? Aren't we not supposed to know? Isn't it supposed to be up to whoever is viewing it?

But then this isnt about what art is, this is about what we think of a way to create it.

personally I like what has been deemed "unconventional art", that is if it is done with taste, which is again, all in opinion.

I feel like this could be a never ending discussion, so Im putting in my hard standing point. It is all relative.

[Cigaro]

Well...thanks for repeating what I've just said lol :D

[Cartoonbear]

No problem :)

consider it a compliment