Someone told me the other day that my White Trees series of photographs (see e.g. last month’s post) is “repetitive” and merely travels “well-trodden” subject material.
Okay, this different enough for you?
Maybe the three panels here simply are repetitive of one another. Maybe this abstract simply is derivative of all those abstracts that have trod before it. Truth is, so many people are doing so much photography these days that just about any photograph likely can be said to be derivative of something else. At least one relatively well-known photographer’s name comes to mind that this abstract might be said to be derivative of, though personally I didn’t even know that name when I started the series of photographs of which this one is a part. As for repetitive, what a subjective judgment that is. Is Alfred Stieglitz’s “Equivalents” series repetitive because they all are of clouds? Is a series of portraits repetitive because they all are of people?
Good thing I make my work pretty much for myself, or else that little bit of criticism might have stung a bit.