Landscapes Response

When Jennifer Baichwal brought up the question of whether we had any difficulty being "cliché" in our landscapes assignment, I begun to think what I did, and if I had thought of the cliché factor before I shot. Whenever I think about landscapes, I think about how much I don't like shooting it. But then, we were given an extremely relaxed approach to it which made me feel better about it. It was interesting, because even though I thought my photographs were cliché, the concept behind it might not be. I think one can shoot the same thing like another photographer did (not exactly the same, but perhaps the same subject), but it might not be redundant because of what your goal was behind the photographs. 

I think it's very easy to write off the photographs before knowing what the photographer's aim was behind it. And it's interesting because as I sat there, I realised that though the photographs might look cliché, the meaning behind it was not. This is why I liked doing the pecha kucha's, because I felt like everybody had something to say that might not be obvious. It was even more interesting to hear the critiques, because meaning that was derived from others seemingly formed the photograph. 

All in all, I enjoyed shooting what I shot. I think if viewers were to look at it, without any explanation, would seem to be redundant, but the concept or idea behind it is sometimes more important. And I think that is crucial, especially in landscape photography, when most would shoot things that are not exactly detail oriented. It's easier to look at something focused and derive meaning because you are essentially seeing the artist's point of view (it's so focused that it has to be that!) But with something vague, meaning can be lost in the big picture and that might be why I have always struggled with understanding landscape photography.