The Cliché Exercise

Big kudos to Mick Ryan and David Paterson and several others who got where I was going with the clichés list yesterday. This is the post I meant to write; I was just having trouble coming up with a list and needed your help.

To start with, we do have to distinguish between what I would call photographic conventions—techniques and strategies—and subjects. I was talking about subjects. Mick wrote,

I don't think a subject can be cliché, it can only be a subject. How it is photographed can be a cliché.

I'm not sure I'd go quite as far as that; a baby's head as the center of a giant daisy is always going to be a cliché. (And it's always going to set off klaxon horns of startled alarm deep in my amygdala: bad taste scares me.) But let me just ask, is there anybody within the sound of my voice who has never made pictures of any of the subjects listed on yesterday's list of clichés? My top three were sunsets, flowers, and cats, and I notice to my amusement that I've actually posted two out of the three right here on TOP in recent months! (A sunset and a cat. And I was actually kinda proud of the sunset picture—I thought other people would like it, and, typically, they do.)

Here are some flowers just to complete the hat trick.

Only the insecure are afraid of clichés. I'll photograph a cliché at the drop of a hat! In nothing flat!

Ahem.

As Warren Garrett and Dave Karp and several other commenters noted, pretty much everything can be a cliché. Most subjects have been done to death. (Okay, I really have to stop writing in clichés now.) And you can certainly spend most of your photographic career working very hard and never shooting anything but things other people might consider clichés. Just because closeups of flowers are a cliché, does that mean you should never shoot one? Of course not. You could shoot nothing but. You should do whatever you want to. It's your photography.

As I mentioned yesterday, though, being aware of other peoples' perceptions is important. It helps to know not only the subject itself, but how other people have photographed that subject. Familiarity with the standard and the usual in a subject-matter area helps you regardless of your aspirational intentions. It helps you if your goal is to conform to the usual standard, and it certainly is necessary if your goal is to intentionally depart from the conventional standard. How can you do something new if you're not familiar with the way it's been done in the past?

On a deeper level, the problem of clichés is the whole problem of photography. How are you going to follow Ezra Pound's dictum to "Make it new"? One of the highest goals is to make something your own: to find your own concerns, develop your own visual style, and learn to make pictures that express your particular way of seeing, feeling, thinking, being, and communicating.

A learning exercise
So here's what I started out intending to suggest. (Except that I couldn't come up with a decent list, so thanks for all the help on that.)

First, devise a list of the worst clichés. Ten (or 50—whatever number appeals to you.) Our list could be a starting point. Strike anything you know you'd never get to (for instance, I know I'll never visit a slot canyon.) Add anything you think of that you want to tackle. Then, gradually work away at taking pictures of those conventionally clichéd subjects in ways that you think are particular and peculiar to you, to your way of seeing and your level of concern for, or interest in, that subject. Can you make a picture of a sunset that's really different and that really pleases you? Even if you dislike sunset pictures? What would your picture of an old person's hands look like? How would it be different? And so on.

How you'd go about this could be any of a thousand ways. You might try to make every cliché look fresh; you might try to make every cliché look ugly; you might try to find something odd or different about it; you could do it perfectly straight; you might try to out-do the "standard" and make your picture more over-the-top beautiful than anyone else's. You could be more sincere than anyone else or more ironic, more classic or more quirky. And so on.

How creative could you be? How different could you be? Does confounding peoples' expectations or fulfilling peoples' expectations appeal to you more? You're going to learn a lot about yourself here.

Best idea: try making of each clichéd subject a picture you really like and are proud of. Could you do it?

Another way to learn from a list of clichés would be to find photographs of each subject that you think are really great. For instance, I think this is a pretty great lighthouse photograph. (By Thomas Zakowski.)

You could even find famous photographs of nearly any subject you could name. Paul Strand shot barns. Weston, vegetables. Adams, waterfalls. Mary Ellen Mark, the homeless. Walker Evans, peeling posters. Aaron Siskind, rocks. Carleton Watkins made a wonderful picture of a single tree (the JPEG is but a pale shadow of the original large albumen print) that John Szarkowski wrote eloquently about in Looking at Photographs. Sorry, those are all Americans—I know American photography best. Daido Moriyama made a signature picture of a dog. Tempted as I am to make a joke about cat pictures, in Ernie: A Photographer's Memoir, Tony Mendoza made a whole book of deeply original cat pictures—the best book of cat pictures ever made. Mick is right—the subject isn't a cliché if you engage with it sufficiently. Make it yours, make it new.

Engaging with clichés—deeply, without contempt and with full thoughtfulness—using each subject in turn as an expression of your true self and attitude—could probably help most of us become better photographers. Because, really, you can't avoid 'em, eh? The choices you make in dealing with clichés might help better define your own attitude toward all subject matter.

Mike

Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP's links!

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Gordon Lewis: "I hope I'm not splitting hairs here, but I'd define your example of a baby's face inside a giant daisy as kitsch: off-putting because of excessive sentimentality or cuteness. A cliché is something that betrays a lack of original thought or insight. The general reaction to a cliché, at least among the visually aware, is 'Ho hum, seen it all too many times before. Snore.' Where it can get tricky is when a photographer has a very distinctive and recognizable style—Annie Liebovitz or Ralph Gibson, for example. (Or Anne Geddes, for that matter.) What was at first innovative and iconoclastic can, over time, seem derivative of itself. Can your own style become a cliché?"

Mike replies: I think it can, but I also think it can be a protection. For instance, Ralph Gibson's picture of himself and the young Mary Ellen Mark touching hands is actually very sentimental and romantic, but it's armored against being "just" that by his very recognizable technical style which relates the picture to the rest of his work. His graphic way of seeing shapes and his characteristically hard tonality save it from being kitschy or sentimental.

Does it depend on how many imitators a style inspires? I used to make the argument that Ernst Haas got "lost" in his imitators—that is, he was imitated so much that he eventually just looked like any other practitioner of his style, when in fact he had developed that style. People could no longer see or sense Haas's own innovations as his. Other people shift the other way, as it seems their ownership of their style and subject extends out to other people who are doing the same thing. For instance, don't all studio shots of puzzled Weimaraners recall Wegman? (And how in the world is it that his photos of dressed-up dogs are art, whereas when anyone else does it it's kitsch?) In art school I had a classmate, Sarah Huntington, whose then-husband raised beef cattle, and she often photographed cows. When I put up a picture of a cow once in critique, another classmate exclaimed, "You can't do that! Cows are Sarah's!" It's curious and fascinating how all these associations work.

Comments

[Joe Holmes]

One of the joys of looking at photos is finding a clichéd subject done in a fresh way. I've commented several times that all concert photos are alike, and I've made the same comment about fireworks photos. But the only time I've thought to make that comment is when I come across a concert or fireworks photo that contradicts me. The cliché makes the image that much more surprising and delightful.

Here's a concert photo that once prompted my comment: http://bit.ly/1Q6xn0s

I wish I could dig out the fireworks images that prompted my response. It's been too long.

[Sergio Bartelsman]

I think that trying to avoid clichés is a waste of time and energy. Good pictures aregood pictures regardless of technique, presentation or subject matter. It is better to try to be true and honest with oneself and the way we like our images without concern of what others might think of our work. Easier said than done.

[mike plews]

I have produced my fair share of cliche images. They feel like part of the process of exploration to me. Some people have to work their way through the hackneyed approaches to a subject to get to the original stuff.
It certainly applies to me.
And may I ask why dog pictures didn't make it on to the list?

[No. 20. --Mike]

[Mike Whitten]

Mike, the video linked below addresses the topic. If we all only add our voices to the chorus that's enough.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ftDjebw8aA

[mike plews]

I stand corrected on the matter of mans best friend.

[James Bullard]

That is challenging. I'm not at all sure I could make an interesting and different photo of the cliche I mentioned (photo shot from a canoe with the bow of the canoe projecting into the bottom of the scene). Maybe if I had a nude in the bow of the canoe. That's probably been done though and anyway it would change the subject matter.

I should also have mentioned the photos of a dock or pier projecting out into the water shot with a very long exposure so that the water is all blurred. And a photographer friend of mine once commented (in response to the then current issue of OP) "If I ever see another photo of Delicate Arche I think I'll puke". Maybe you could pose a nude under the arch. ;-)

[Alan]

In my youth I extended this exercise to include technique cliches and rules: you must use a tripod, rule of thirds, etc. I then went about breaking every rule on the list.
My favourite "rule" (but not a great photo) was that you must use a lens. I used a prism to project a rainbow directly onto the shutter/film of an SLR sans lens. I guess I also checked off the "rainbow" cliche with that one...

[Mike Davis]

Wizened old faces in wide angle with their hovel, hut or home in the shadows behind them!

[Manuel]

My photographing method to avoid clichés is to think of every picture of a given theme that I can recall and try to make it different. It isn't always successful, but at least I'm aware there's an originality issue.
It wasn't always like this, though: at the beginning I did many photos that fell into cliché territory. Almost all of them, actually. Somehow I think it was necessary. We all need references: they're like those small wheels on a kid's bike: once you've learned to ride, you can do away with them. Same in photography. Everyone does clichés until they develop a personal take. I don't believe anyone started out making tremendously original pictures from the off.
There might be an issue in that some people will cling to clichés forever. They don't do that just out of lacking imagination, though that could be a factor: they shoot clichés because they want their pictures to be popular and get high levels of appreciation. Alas, such appreciation comes from people who have little ability to recognize a good photograph: they base their judgment on a superficial aesthetic impression. Pictures like sunsets, boardwalks extending into the horizon over a lake, or flowers with lots of 'creamy bokeh' will always be popular because they're easy to grasp. You don't need to delve into it. Put one of those pictures aside W. Eugene Smith's famous portrait of Albert Schweitzer and you'll realize 90% of the people will prefer the cliché.
We who love the art of photography and hate clichés are seen by many as bigoted pricks (can I use this word here?) who think they know better. This kind of reaction doesn't necessarily appear on social networks: you can often read it in dpreview's comment boxes. The clichés we've fastidiously enumerated during the past two days aren't clichés at all for the crowds: they're things of beauty. A macro of a bee over a flower is marvellous for most people, but not for some of us. We are a minority.
Yet I'd bet my life we all started out shooting clichés...

[Herman]

Cliché is also any photographic negative.

[Joseph Brunjes]

A photographer used to have to choose film, format, push or pull, developer, paper, printing techniques, toning, etc. So many choices to form a unique or at least semi-unique style of seeing. Digital cameras have eliminated many of the choices that made photographs and photographers unique. I can't tell the difference between the output of any of the major digital cameras. Of course photoshop has filled in the "style"gap to some extent though not in a way that works for me. If you have a truly unique idea or style, wait to share it with the world until you have enough work to show you are the leader and master of that style. Otherwise you run the risk of losing your individuality.

[Mike]

Pretty much anything shot by Michael Kenna.

[Dale]

A few years ago I attended a presentation at a local camera club by the photography curator of the local fine art museum, one of her examples of an image she selected as an outstanding photograph to purchase for the museum was a new excellent cliche image of the Pemaquid point lighthouse reflected in a tidal pool. The most famous example by Elliot Porter but shot in imitation in under five minutes by everyone with a camera that visits the place since. So sometimes what is cliche to "us" is fresh and new to someone else, even an academic. "Judge not lest ye be judged"

[John Camp]

Almost anything can be a cliche -- cliches happen when the subject takes over from the photographer. The interesting thing about any art form is the artist's response to an imaging possibility. When the subject takes over, you've either got journalism (which is good) or a cliche (which isn't.) Every nineteenth century Impressionist and post-Impressionist painted flowers, but nobody painted iris like Van Gogh.

[HABS HAER Photographer Stephen Schafer]

1st snow on the backyard furniture.

[Mike R]

Mr. Johnston, you are a clever man indeed.

I know someone who reveres a famous photographer, and who tries to emulate him in his own work. It's not difficult to see the "influence," but what I don't see is his own thumbprint. Your challenge to us is not to eschew clichés, but, especially since clichés are so ubiquitous, to find a way to express our own voice within them.

Thank you.

[James Gaston]

I found the list of cliches humorous and recognizable but also depressing. But then I thought about the art of writing: the stories we know and love are based on other stories we know and love and this is part of their appeal, they leverage our memory to create something new yet familiar. Perhaps photography can do the same?

[Gordon Lewis]

How's this (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/06/03/fashion/Summer-Looks-From-Bodhi-the-Menswear-Dog.html) for synchronicity with the current topic?

[Bruno Masset]

One thing I find more objectionable than clichés — be they in visual or written form — is the frequent misspelling of "cliché" as "cliche", which is indicative of a certain level of intellectual or linguistic slovenliness.

Such a bastardized spelling, where the e-acute diacritic is missing, would make "cliche" rhyme with "quiche".

The correct spelling — i.e. cliché — properly indicates that the word rhymes with "chez", as in "Chez Panisse".

[Peter Croft]

Around 30 years ago I read somewhere, "Get the cliches out of the way first. Then look again and start getting the less obvious shots", or words to that effect. In other words, we tend to see the obvious shots at first, and don't sweat about shooting them. But look harder for what you really see, then start getting serious.

My rule when shooting is always, "Isolate, simplify." Bypass the tourist shots and look at the details. Works for me.

[Euan Forrester]

This reminded me of reading David Alan Harvey's post about his experience shooting a nude:

"I knew nudes were not easy. I remembered this from my drawing class at school. Even skimpy bikini shots from Rio it was absolutely very very difficult to get a real photograph. Sure pleasing to the eye, but to go beyond the obvious takes some work. A male nude seemed almost impossible for me. So my personal status quo was indeed challenged. So to the edge I went."

http://www.burnmagazine.org/dialogue/2012/08/on-the-edge/

[Jim Roelofs]

Ahem, it's all been written, said, sung, painted or clicked before.

[NancyP]

A lot of people (me!) know there is an accent but don't spend time looking up the keystroke combinations to produce said accent in an informal email or comment.

[DavidB]

You wrote:

...for instance, I know I'll never visit a slot canyon..."

Mike, I think you should visit a slot canyon. Maybe not photograph it—it's been done. The experience is otherworldly; most photos are clichés.

Some of my better slot canyon photographs include the people with whom I am hiking. It adds a perspective that most slot canyon photographs lack. See, for example, the first two images:

http://www.dblanchard.net/blog/2012/07/buckskin-gulch-sans-water-and-mud/

The other images in that post qualify as clichés.

[David Parsons]

For me, cliche shots are something that may not break any ground, but it's mine.

I like to use part of the Rifleman's Creed to explain how I feel about the cliche shots I take:

"There are many like it, but this one is mine."

Sure plenty of people have taken the same picture in a similar way, but I took this one, and it's mine.

[ctein]

Dear Mike,

Thirty years ago, you said:

"We should not be so insecure as to avoid cliches at every turn."

I know, 'cause I wrote it down after you said it to me on your first/only visit to Daly City, after I remarked that this photograph of mine was kind of a cliché:

http://ctein.com/Bonnevill_Salt.htm

(the reflection of the sky in water thing. Not the sun, 'cause it's a sunrise, not a sunset, and if there's one thing which isn't a cliché in my life, it's sunrises!)

I wrote it down so I'd never forget it. I haven't.

http://ctein.com/Liquid_Sky.htm

pax / Ctein
==========================================
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com
==========================================