I feel there are three levels of creative intent or creative necessity depending on how you look at it.
Trade
A trade can be done well, but creativity is not the point of it.Accuracy and consistency are. The trades person is not re-inventing the design (certainly no the wheel), but is aiming to give what is expected. Individually, standards are set, ranging from just enough to call it down to exceeding expectations. The Japanese term ikigai suits the upper end of this where the process is refined and perfected, transcending the process and touching on art, but not quite.
This image is a simple effort to just get the job done. Little is added, nothing abstracted away from literal representation.
Craft
Craft is the next step creatively from trade, where the maker becomes the designer, the modifier and the door is open for evolution. Craft often comes with an expectation of beauty. This is not beauty for beauties sake, but beauty in the craft, taking a trade and improving on its practical, no nonsense requirements. Again ikigai is relevant, probably even more so, but either way, once perfected, another step up in thinking is needed to go further.
Using light, tight framing and a little luck, this image takes a literal image of a building, then pushes past the basic need to represent to transport us into a better, stronger place.
Art
The artisan takes craft or even a trade and intentionally focusses all their efforts on eliciting an emotive response. It does not have to be beautiful or even nice, but it does have to be meaningful. Literal interpretation becomes the enemy, the let down.
Removing any attempt to simply and literally show the subject, this image relies entirely on interpretation. Without scale, colour or context, this image either works or it doesn’t on an emotional level.
From the trade level where an image basically just needs to work, then to craft where the potential for it to be improved upon or at least look better while working, finally to an art form where function means less than the object itself.
So, why this wander down the philosophy of creative process?
I have finally worked out why I cannot commit myself to the paper full time.
This was my preferred shot from a recent shoot. It had the mood of each player caught as I saw them, but in colour it did not work (had to be colour) and my interpretation of the band members was not ideal for the paper. Rolling Stone maybe, but not the local paper.
If it is a trade level job, there is little room for craft, as most processes are set in stone and certainly no art. Ironically the only time art comes into it is when we are doing one of our “behind the lens articles” where we often showcase our own interests, usually totally at odds with the job we are employed to do.
You can do your trade better or worse, but you cannot do it to differently. Maybe a shooter for National Geo or The Sunday Times has the time and resiurces to elevate a trade to a true craft, but in a small provincial news paper, a trade is the limit of our purview.
I have felt from the start that I am not a perfect fit for this work. I can do it, but I more often than not compromise my own preferences and processes. The school and drama productions I have been involved with allowed me work as suits me for the benefit of all, but time, relevance and expectations curtail that at the paper. Always have, always will.
A rare time when the subjects were found and not staged (they were taking a selfie). This is me, but unfortunately, the rest of the images were not as real or relaxed.
Am I being unfair?
It is what it is, or more to the point it is what it has to be. Sport and the odd call-out does allow me to shoot my way, but generally editorial is a place of little interest.
Sometimes the subject brings their interest to you and you can meet them in the middle, but even then, I would love to immerse myself into their environment, not just drop by and grab quick snap.
I know me enough to know that I can adapt to a point, but I have to have an outlet for my methods, both to satisfy my life balance, but also to allow me better control on what I dislike doing. If the editorial stuff is a part time thing, then I can switch hats knowing there is more to life. If it became permanent, I do not like the fit or the look of just that one hat.
People being themselves in their environment always works, but is so very often impossible to achieve.
Could I find an outlet and stay full time? Maybe but to be honest I do not want to. A camera in my hand seven days a week, ten hours a day is not the secret to a creative workflow, especially if most of that time is spent conforming and going through the motions.
Reducing my hours, but retaining as many weekend shifts as possible gives me plenty of sport, arts and time to chase other fields which may be more schools, personal projects, portraiture, travel, but what ever it is, it will not be the same process, rinse and repeat.
A favourite, this is one of those times when the process such as it is, actually succeeds. If I can, I prefer to put people into a natural space and let them be them. It’s easier with kids as their limited attention span, balanced with a natural desire to perform, usually paves the way.
The tools of my trade are also a consideration. I use my own gear in preference and still add to it (S5, EM1x etc), but often I am buying for work of a shape the paper will never want. Also, leaving most of my gear at work seems disheartening, like it is given over and lost to me. I feel disconnected to my processes, my kit and my feeling of ownership.
A vast studio kit and capable video setup is never going to be utilised, my capable sound kit boils down to basically a MKE-400 mic and several cameras and lenses are simply surplus. This is not an exciting prospect. I bought these things to use, not sell off near new, through lack of use.
It cannot be all there is.