On Style/Voice

Brooke Shaden, photographer on a post, Are you in Style?

it is easy for artists to believe that they have a style when in fact they are simply producing the same photos over and over again. I see it happen, I’m sure you do too, where someone receives praise for a certain type of photo and then suddenly they adopt that aesthetic or concept (or both) as their “style”. I think that the fundamental difference between artists with a style and artists who *think* they have a style is the repetition of the process.

Must be competent in many styles to be well-rounded, well-educated in field, or is it about telling your story your way and choosing typecasting if people want to call it that? A recognizable look is useful for marketing but is it good for the artist? She debates a lot of point which applies well to writing.

Join the Conversation

2 Comments

  1. You always open so many cans…
    At least this post is finite enough to attempt..heh.
    Musicians are an interesting analog. Some do the
    same thing over and over, others have variety.
    Some are successful only with this, and curse the
    public because the public won’t let them do that.
    Persona helps, especially in poetry. Muses, too.
    To get yourself entrained, as another person, or to
    perform for another person. Some distrust that.
    They say poetry lies. But to ring true you have to
    at least be complete. Mythology isn’t factual, but
    it’s true to self-consistent personalities…
    People has different tolerances for what’s
    ‘recognizable’. If you have a huge capacity to
    shift you might find it hard to settle in. But
    how to be entrained without holding still for
    a moment? I posed one way per line once.
    14 times. I don’t think anyone knew. I think they
    stitched their own stories. It did very well.
    I was shocked. There are things going on we
    don’t know about. We can at least explore
    and fiddle, If you’re internally prolific, you have
    that luxury. Not everyone does.
    I wish there were actually cognitive research into
    poetry, oddly enough. The people types, the limits
    and schemes. Millions of years leave marks,
    limbs, trees.
    The open mic is neat sometimes….the reactions,
    the feel of the group, the differences.
    When I was with artists, some were stuck, others
    moved. One made 120 sketches of limestone caves
    the never looked the same way twice….static
    subject, moving views. I went to the caves….
    ..nothing. Hers were all alive in her mind by then.
    A morphing artist feel…almost infinite, for a moment.
    Art is a great way to unhinge the poetic mind,
    I guess. But so many parallels too..

  2. that limestone sketcher sounds like a fascinating person to know.
    >Millions of years leave marks,
    limbs, trees.
    love that remark. 🙂
    prolific is nothing more than a habit of priorities isn’t it? put in the time and the brain switches to generative gears, push it and it goes faster.
    this tethering together of Identity and what one writes seems very north american culture somehow. one can write anything.
    poetry, like everything, else is acting and pitching sales of ideas and performance.
    my concern with house style for a person is what list of things one is closing self off to, can’t think or produce or feel such and such because the ideology of expression has suchandsuch constraints. how do the other aspects get out? or is there diversity and creativity within the small boundaries? but at what point is one rehashing and trying to brainwash oneself, obsessing rather than moving on and outwards?
    conversely, if one relentlessly switches up styles one may be adaptable and trying to apprentice, or avoiding something? what is one afraid of when one doesn’t repeat some small thing to nth degree?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.