It is an interesting one this Ethan.
Where does it start, and what is it?
It must come from the iner soul I guess and it is influenced either negativly or possitivly, depending on how your brain work.
It can come across in rebelious anger( like the sex pistols (and even they started to conform more or less as they got older.
The most creative of people who have stud out in history have been rebelious in there arts, and challenging traditional ways of thinking, advertently or in advertantly,( maby by being open about a non conforist lifestyle which effect there thought processes a lot for that reason have had run ins with authority over there art.
Of course some artists create an art form around them selves, as in the case of Gilbert and George. Wharhol, Piere and Giles, amongst others,like the controversy over Mapl;ethorpe, by being him self, but open about it.
Maby you can explain about your creative process and at the same time it will tell me what you mean more in this thread,( hopeb I am not being ignorant on this one Eathen)
I explained to you in another link where my inspirations come from and what I am about.
Am I being interlectualy ignorant, not sure , but am prepared to learn on this.

Several lifetimes ago I worked for a famous photo agency. One time I was sent to look for a specific image by a seriously famous photographer, an old portrait of someone that a client wanted to buy an archive print of. I was taken to the ante-chamber of the cold room where originals were stored, given a big book of contact sheets open at the right place, and left with strict instructions NOT to look at any other part of the file.

But I was alone. So I couldn't help myself, I had to look...

It was amazing. In particular, one sheet has stuck in my mind because it made such a big impression on me. At the beginning, were pictures of the artist's feet, fingers, random shots. Then there was a small series leading up to a specific, iconic picture. Then away, more random stuff, fingers, feet... I understood that I wasn't supposed to see contact sheets like that because there was this sense that important photographers should be seen to only make great works, as though revealing off-shoots would diminish the importance of more significant imagery, dispell the mystique of perfection surrounding world class artists. But it was really important to me as a young photographer to realise that I could allow myself to make mistakes, and try to learn from them. It's still really hard though, hard to show anything less than the best I think I can do because that have-to-be-perfect way of thinking is so deeply ingrained.

William Klein's series of short films about photographer's contacts picked up on the interest in seeing how photographers work or look, the processes they go through to get an image that clicks. At least, the early part of the series seemed to address this - I haven't seen any for a while so I don't know if the approach has altered or not. SHOWstudio takes the idea even further. Have things changed? Has it become possible to reveal so much of the creative process because perfection is no longer much protection or success much guarentee of respect (see this forum...)?

Anyway this is just the beginning of an answer. Really interesting thread!

I think sometimes we have to be carefull, if we try to over analyse the psychology of things we can run around in cirlces, and end up going no where.
It's a bit like the sport of tomb stoning where someone stands on a rock above a small cliff, you can almost know in advance as to who will jump and who won't.The guy who stands thinking about it too long psycs himself out and does not jump.
Flux you are right a top photographer will take 100s of pictures to get the one he wants, if looked at the ones that are left out could look very ameturish, and not very good.

“L’homme est celui à qui une image manque.
Qu’il ferme les yeux et qu’il rêve la nuit, qu’il les ouvre et qu’il observe attentivement les choses réelles dans la clarté qu’épanche le soleil, que son regard se déroute et s’égare, qu’il porte les yeux sur le livre qu’il tient entre ses mains, qu’assis dans le noir il épie le déroulement d’un film, qu’il se laisse absorber dans la contemplation d’une peinture, l’homme est un regard désirant qui cherche une autre image derrière tout ce qu’il voit.”

Man is someone for whom an image is missing.
Whether he closes his eyes and dreams at night, whether he opens them and attentively observes real things in the clarity of sunlight, whether his gaze wanders and strays, whether his eyes glance at the book he holds in his hands, whether sitting in the dark he spies the unfolding of a film, whether he’s absorbed in the contemplation of a painting, Man is a desirous regard seeking another image behind all he sees.

In context, this quote is from the introduction of a book exploring, well, lots of interesting things. At the outset the author is particularly interested (as I understand him) in the notion of original sin, in the sense of this being an act we’re all intimately implicated in and aware of, and in some way haunted by, without ever being present (I’m not particularly convinced by this bit but hey). This opening argument could be reduced to just the starting point for a several hundred page apologia for pornography, but it’s so much more – along the way it takes in the transition from joyous Greek to melancholic Roman eroticism, the origin of words like pornography and fascinate (fascinus = phallos), the way we look at all sorts of things from sex to Art, and how in a very short space of time social perception and practice and forms of expression can shift radically, and then persist and influence over hundreds and thousands of years. And so on. This is not a big book really but it’s rich with information and ideas. I can’t recommend it enough, because it roots around in search of sources and explanations for…

Oh I don’t know. Things you might try to reproduce directly or indirectly, recognise unconsciously or expressly seek out, grasp tangentially (le regarde latéral, sidéré). Things overtly or openly sexual (but not necessarily taboo). Visually and physically sensual. Fascinating.

I hope this isn’t out of context to your thread Ethan, but it has had me reconsidering my favourite book by a favourite French author, that I was reading anyway, in a new light, to the extent that I’ve started it again from scratch this evening. I’ve copied out the original extract for anybody who can read it because the very rough translation is mine – I can’t find any English version of this book (‘Le Sexe et l’Effroi’ by Pascal Quingard, Editions Gallimard) so the above is my amateurish attempt.

P.S. Indirect thanks to another forum user - today I discovered a project from the SHOWstudio archive, the 2004 Power of Witches for Comme des Garçons piece. In terms of creative process, definitely fascinating!

Really I think it comes down to an issue of style and view point. For some the showing of process helps to contextualise there work, for others it’s the controlled finite beauty of an outcome. Plus factors such as if its commercial or personal work.

For me the two biggest problems are, when the process becomes more important than outcome, this can become introverted and un-engaging work. The other problem being the view that work showing process is ‘authentic’ and other more final out come work is ‘surface’.

I like the stetement about class distinction on your website ,cool, I think if you are a student at Univercity this process is looked at to see how you get to the final point, but not sure if it is good to take it to far as you can get bogged down as mentioned before.
As a matter of interest, a lot of creative people in music, art or anything relavent, develope over a period of time, get to a peak and quite often there work starts to get repetetive and boring, due to the fact that it is not going any further, staying at a peak or even going backwards. A song writer may write for years and come across the one song that is his,her, goldmine, and then thats it. I have known a few artists, while developing there skill there work has been a lot more vibrent than the work they produced after making there mark.They get in to a commercial rut where they are making money on what they do so stay with it, they may change the name of the theme, but turn out the same or worse quality work. phew.

De Neit,
I really like your point about 'surface' and 'authenticity'. Personally i find it impossible not to contextualise my ideas self-referentialy. I feel that if i were to present 'final work' without this reference then i am alluding to a perfection that doesnt exist. I think if i do that i am giving tacit approval to a world of 'surface' and facade.

F:lux I LOVE your post about the contact sheets, I am not a photographer, but of course i select images from contact sheets and it is also interesting to consider a final image as part of a series, .. I tend to think of concepts and ideas as part of series rather than distinct, and the creative process as fluid and ongoing.

Sometimes its nice to include unintentional errors in your work, (by publishing unfinished versions or intentionally halting the creative process) maybe suggesting a work in progress... presupposing an ongoing process...

"I understood that I wasn't supposed to see contact sheets like that because there was this sense that important photographers should be seen to only make great works, as though revealing off-shoots would diminish the importance of more significant imagery, dispell the mystique of perfection surrounding world class artists" (from f:lux)

I guess that is your "surface" de Neit? or am i wrong?

When experimenting I like to come across things,accidentaly, and spontanious, and not keep a record on how I got there. This to me makes the work original as well as being iriplasable.(Ethan),