Is creative imperfection a good thing?

What do we mean when we say a photograph is technically perfect? In fact I wonder is it a good thing to dwell on such things? I began to consider the topic of technical perfection seriously this morning when I read comments criticizing Henry Cartier Bresson for being technically imperfect. It's no secret that at times he was technically imperfect. However I was quite surprised someone could be so obsessed with the technical as to miss the undoubted emotional and artistic merits of H.C.B.'s vast body of groundbreaking work.

To me a technically perfect photograph, one devoid of meaning, is anathema. It is a photograph that asks no questions of my eye and makes no demands on my mind. It does not engage me at all. Its like a brand new show home. Beautiful on the surface but too anodyne and sterile to stay there long.

Please don't think that I am not suggesting that technical discipline is not required in photography. I am suggesting something quite to the contrary. There are too many lazy artists already I wouldn't suggest that you join their already bloated ranks by throwing any craft to the wind and trusting only your 'muse'. What I am suggesting to you is that obsession with nothing but technical perfection is the death of a thousand cuts to your creative eye. The end result is images like thousands of others. Images with no relevance and no originality. Images that serve no purpose other than that of a dry technical exercise.

I believe strongly that our eyes and through them our minds really enjoy a visual puzzle. A visual puzzle engages us and holds our attention. It's a feast for the eye and it stops us from becoming bored with an image before we have engaged with it. In fact I'd suggest it is often an images quirks and imperfections that grip us the most.

Take the image in this article kindly provided by extremely talented Aardman Animation photographer Luke Smith. It could be argued it has technical imperfections. It has converging verticals, motion blur and some dubious areas of exposure. I'd argue strongly that it's a dynamic image, it makes suggestions to us. It tells a story that demands more of our energy to figure out what's occurring. We can even easily apply our own interpretation to it. In short it engages us as viewers and holds us there. I could go further and state it's the blur and dynamic 'on the fly' feel of the image generated by it's imperfections that add most to this image. In short it is when measured by my yardstick and excellent and engrossing image.

I'll end with Luke's own thoughts on his image:

It's been interesting reading the threads about Cartier Bresson and peoples thoughts about technical perfection in photography. In case you don't already know this image shows where I stand on the subject...

I need say no more...

Photographers Beware. Expect the Unexpected!

'Ah ha!' I hear you cry. 'If we expect the unexpected then it becomes the expected doesn't it stupid!'. I would of course blush slightly at your candour and say that this was exactly my point. Confused gentle reader? Then please bear with me and I will endeavour to make myself clearer.

The picture on the left was taken on a grand day out around Liverpool with wonderful fellow photographers Paul and Magda Indigo. The company of the Indigo's was as always splendid. However the weather was not ideal and nor where various other minor circumstantial inconveniences. As a result of this the photo opportunities seemed to be few and far between for me. At least that's how I felt at first.

This leads me neatly back on to the subject of my expectations. As you may realise my problem that day was not lack of photo opportunities. Rather the problem was that I was expecting a particular kind of photographic opportunity. This slavish adherence to 'expecting the expected' was unfortunately blinding me to the plethora of unexpected creative opportunities all around me. This self limiting mindset is a great analogy for a great many things in life not just in photography. In all cases it only serves to cripple your potential. And deny you the ability to achieve what you could of if you'd approached things with a better mindset.

A much better approach is to expect the entirely unexpected. When you do this you will without doubt go out and find it. There are always images crying out to be taken all around you but it's only when your mindset is to go out and find them that you will create something genuinely original and satisfying.

When I took the picture of the spirals and curves in the cobbles I had finally put aside my preconceptions and expectations and allowed myself to look openely at what was around me. As it happens Magda Indigo was on the ball as always and produced a wonderful photograph of me taking the picture of the cobbles. So I have a unique double perspective on that moment thanks to her also expecting the unexpected. More of Magda's images can be seen in Magda's gallery which is well worth visiting and often updated.

Breaking Photographic Rules..?

In photography there are many rules. In fact some frustrated creatives have been heard to argue that there are too many rules. Others counter that argument by stating the rules have evolved over a huge expanse of time and anyway who are you to question the rules?

There are many rules. Rules such as:

1/. Don't photograph into the sun.
2/. Don't use direct flash.
3/. Don't put people central in a frame.
4/. Don't shoot people from below.

The truth about rules, like so many other things in life, is somewhere in between. If you don't know the rules or if you dismiss them out of hand without understanding their purposes and limitations, then you may well fail to realise your creative potential. You just won't have the right creative tools to make good choices to reach your full potential.

However if you let the rules bind you rigidly without thinking for yourself, without allowing your own creative style to develop, then you'll forever be a pale imitation of someone elses ideas.