Seen It All Before

From Behind the Lens:

One of the primary purposes of photography is to show us things and relationships we hadn't noticed before. If the only thing a photograph has to offer is that it's well composed, nicely printed and pretty, is it any wonder that we become jaded.

Does this mean, though, that the only alternative is to make photographs so odd, distorted, multiple exposed, muddy, unfocused, odd, even perverted that we can almost guarantee we haven't seen this before (or at least if we have, we threw them out years ago as a bad attempt and wouldn't in a million years have thought to submit them for publication)?

Does a photographer get credit for imagination without either purpose or execution? Seems like some editors think so.

Is it not possible to show a 'rocks and roots' image which is so well done that it takes our breath away? Should we all completely give up photographing the landscape becuse 'it's been done before". Does this mean we don't need any more war pictures or famine shots, portraits or nudes? Is it not possible to show us a photograph in one of these categories without covering the nude with post it notes, the landscape with ropes, the portrait with graffiti in order to make it new? God, I hope not.

(Follow the link to read the full post.)

I think creating a photo that relies on shock value is much less difficult than creating a photograph of a familiar subject that shows that subject in a new way or reveals something about the subject.