There’s a train of thought among certain photographers (or more correctly, photograpy oriented bloggers) that goes something like this: You don’t need to create images of the spectacular or the unusual or the unique to be considered a “good” photographer. (I’m purposely not going to use the term “artist” here because, quite honestly, I don’t know what that means.) The key, they say, to being good is to have an intense interest in what you’re photographing (“passionate” is a popular term) and to photograph it often. That means, of course, that the subject matter you choose needs to be readily available. Here’s where it gets a little dicey, I think. The best way to insure that subject matter is “readily available” is to photograph stuff that is close to home and common.
All you have to do, in other words, is walk out the front door and start shooting. At the very worst, there might be a short drive involved. You can then take about a zillion pictures of flowers or dogs or rotting fruit and call it a “project”. It won’t matter if nobody looks at this stuff because you are, after all, creating “art”.
Now, am I the only one who thinks this is a bunch of smelly ka-ka? If I go to someone’s website and see what is essentially the same image over and over again, isn’t it possible that I might begin to wonder about that person’s level of creativity? If the only difference between the current image and the last one is the type of flower presented or its location in the frame or the depth of field behind it, why would anyone think that this one is going to grab my attention? What’s different about it?
Frankly, if yesterday’s image was of a snow covered fern, then I’d personally prefer it if today’s image was something very, very different. Geez, try to surprise me just a little bit, please.