Ed Schlotzhauer

An artists journey

Category: Mastery

Style Trends
Does photography follow style trends? Of course. Most everything does. Is that bad? Maybe. Maybe not. I think it depends on why you do it.
People follow trends
Whole industries exist to create changing trends. People follow the trends, because their influencers do and we want to maintain status by being like them.
Try to think of something that does not follow trends. Clothes fashions do. Hair fashions do. Car styling does. “Health” trends come and go. Advice on dating or raising kids or looking for jobs changes all the time. Home decor and even houses themselves change all the time.
Think about it: how valuable is it to the trend setting companies to have us follow trends? They make billions because we are frequently compelled to change our wardrobe or home decor or technology products. If things were static, much more money would stay in our pocket rather than being transferred to theirs. Guess what their goal is.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Photography does, too
Photography is not at all immune to this. Some of what we follow is technology improvements. And I am glad of much of that. We now have mirrorless cameras, high resolution sensors, better software editing tools, improved printers, and much more.
I am not a Luddite where it comes to improved products.
But the work we create may also vary with drifting waves of style trends. Much of what we see, especially online, is people following a popular style or copying what a respected influencer does. At various times we have seen lots of black & white with crushed blacks reminiscent of Ansel Adams. Or brash pop art treatments in the style of Andy Warhol. Or weirdly colored simulated cross processing effects. Intentional camera movement is probably in the trend list.
There are whole libraries and applications available to change our digital images to look like your favorite film, because a film look is popular now. The limitations and distortions are sought after to recapture aspects of some remembered “good old days” of photography.
And remember the garish results when HDR first became popular? I’m glad that wave passed quickly. Actually, it did not pass, it’s just that we have better technology allowing us to use it, when necessary, without looking fake.
Lately, highly processed “high tech” looks are in vogue. We have great tools now to increase sharpening and contrast far beyond what used to could be done. We have AI to remove defects or elements we don’t want. Or to add any elements we wish had been there. It. is natural to overdo it sometimes when experimenting with new capability.
It used to be that our camera and film determined the look we would get. Now that anything can be simulated or created, it brings up the question of what photographic art really is.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Is it supposed to be “true”?
Just today (as I was writing this) I read a rant by a photographer decrying that many people misuse clarity and texture controls and end up creating something that is not completely true to the original.
But what does it mean to be “true”? Must a photograph be an exact copy of the original scene? If that is your goal, prepare to be disappointed. An image cannot be the original scene. It is a 2-dimensional projection through a lens onto a light sensitive sensor, processed through lots of software, and printed on a substrate with inks that absorb light rather than emitting it. Each stage introduces faults and distortions.
At best, you could produce a print that you would say looks a lot like the original.
But is that the real goal? Or should we shoot to produce an artistic representation of our response to a scene?
If this is the goal, as it is for me, then who is to say it is a fault if our artistic creation departs from what the original was? These intentional departures sometimes follow popular trends.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Styles
If our image is an artistic creation, then introducing trending styles is OK. I don’t necessarily think it is good, but no one should say it is bad. But “because everybody else is doing it” is not persuasive to me.
Some people feel compelled to follow the style du jour to be popular and get “likes” on social media. If that is your goal, do what you have to do.
If you are a wedding photographer, I can believe that what brides want is strongly influenced by what they see in the current issue of Bride’s magazine. Likewise, some commercial shooters must follow styles because that is what their customers want. Today.
Styles, by definition, are fashion. They are transient. In my view, they should not be the thing that defines your art. In the same way that you are not your clothes or the car you drive.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Follow your instincts
Our artistic vision develops over time as we have experiences and see great work and practice and try things and find out what resonates with us. Styles are “high frequency” noise. They come and go rapidly and should not greatly influence the vision we are building. Styles should be recognized as temporary trends.
Our artistic expression comes from something inside of us. Our particular way of seeing that is different from other people. Styles try to make everybody the same. But we should fight that normalizing force and strive to be ourselves.
So, experiment with styles when you want. Use it as a learning experience. Or maybe just for fun. “Try on” some and see if there is anything about them you want to keep. It should be guiltless. But don’t let the current prevailing style trend define your art. Trending styles are neither good or bad. Know that if you try to build your reputation on one, it will change out from under you soon.
And do not feel like a failure or left out if the art within you is not what you see the influencers pushing today. It is more important to be true to one’s self. Next week the style will change, but we must keep creating our art. Be confident about your artistic decisions.
September 30, 2026
Death by GPS
Apparently, some people blindly follow GPS directions. Sometimes leading to death. There are actually topics on the internet discussing death by GPS.
Maps
I am on record as an advocate of using maps when you are photographing or traveling. My position has not changed. I will be going on about a 3000 mile trip in a few weeks and I will go armed with maps for all the regions I plan to go through.
A quick summary of my beliefs on this is that GPS is for directions directly to a destination, when you only care about reaching the destination. Maps let us see possibilities. It shows points of interests and all the alternate routes to take.
If I am photographing or traveling for pleasure or exploration, I will use maps. If I am in a city and need to find my hotel, GPS.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Death by GPS
There is actually a wiki topic on “Death by GPS”. It looks like rangers in Death Valley National Park coined the term. There are so many dangerous incidents of people getting in trouble by following GPS directions instead of using common sense that their web site says:
GPS Navigation to remote locations like Death Valley are notoriously unreliable. Numerous travelers have been directed to the wrong location or even dead-end or closed roads. Travelers should always carry up-to-date road maps to check the accuracy of GPS directions.
DO NOT DEPEND ONLY ON YOUR VEHICLE GPS NAVIGATION SYSTEM.
Drivers blindly following GPS directions have died of thirst and heat in the desert. Others have died trying to follow GPS directions to drive from an island to the mainland, even though there was no bridge. A North Carolina man died after being led by GPS to cross a bridge that had been out for 9 years.
Some have been taken on inappropriate back roads where they ended up getting stuck and were in bad shape before they were eventually located after searchers looked for them for days.
One story I like was the elderly woman in Belgium who tried to use GPS to guide her to her home, 90 miles away, but instead drove hundreds of miles to Zagreb, only realizing her mistake when she noticed the street signs were in Croatian. Having to stop to fill up with gas several times for the 90 mile trip did not register as a problem.
A personal example is from a trip to the Oregon coast. This was in the early days of GPS, before iPhones were common. We booked reservations at a restaurant across the bay from the small town we were in. The GPS in our rental car insisted that we must drive straight across the bay. It re-directed us that way multiple times as I ignored it. I finally turned it off, since it seemed determined to drown us.
A 2025 study examined how blindly following GPS directions can lead to dangerous, and sometimes fatal navigation errors. This study identified 52 fatalities and a number of serious injuries.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Online dependent
But the reports of people dying or being injured by following their GPS directions causes me concerns. Granted, some are understandable. Like in a storm after dark and you can’t see an unmarked bridge out until too late. But in general, it seems an outgrowth of the total dependence and unquestioning belief people now have on their mobile technology.
Statistics gathered in 2025 say Americans check their phone nearly 200 times a day. And they spend over 5 hours on it a day. 40% of people surveyed say they use their phones on a date. Nearly 30% report using their phone in the car. When I drive home tonight, I will see several people using their phone while driving, even though it is illegal in my state.
Technology is not bad. Being dependent on it to the exclusion of thinking, and relationships, and what is going on in “real life”, is.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Use your head
The part of Death by GPS I can’t understand is, why did people trust what the computer said more than the evidence they could see? If the GPS says drive across the ocean when there is no bridge, doesn’t that cause a pause for reflection? If the GPS is taking you on a “shortcut” that is turning into a Jeep road, doesn’t it seem advisable to turn around and find another route? When it takes you on a road that would probably be good, except it is covered with a foot of unplowed snow, shouldn’t you decline?
This is a topic of scientific study called Automation Bias. It is “the propensity for humans to favor suggestions from automated decision-making systems and to ignore contradictory information made without automation, even if it is correct.”
Do not be a robot controlled by your GPS. You are a thinking, sensing, feeling human being. You are the one driving the car. That makes you the responsible one. Accept the GPS input as suggestions that you are free to ignore.
Before phones we had to think and learn to use tools like maps. Humans have not evolved away from being able to think. Not yet.
Do you want your obituary to say: “He died following his GPS, even though all the evidence was to turn around.”
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Mindfulness
From the point of view of photography and living a rich life, I believe mindlessly following GPS has other dangers besides serious injury. I have not seen a study, but from my experience, I believe that when we are being directed by GPS, we tend to narrow our focus to the road right around us. We become mostly oblivious to anything that is not interfering with our driving. We virtually become a robot being driven by GPS.
In a lot of my writing, I preach being mindful. Not is a mystical Zen sense but just paying attention. Being aware of what is going on around you. Quieting your mind and being receptive to what is there. Seeing things that do not register with most people.
This can be challenging going down the road at 70 mph, but it is not impossible. I often see something that might be interesting, but it takes a few seconds for it to register with my conscious mind, and I turn around to go back to see it. I do not have to contend with the GPS sternly telling me to “return to route”, because it is not on.
The routes I take are the ones I choose. If I want to wander off on a side trip, I do. My maps are showing me an overview of where I am and what options I have to get to the destination I want. My path is often not direct, but it is usually interesting.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Take back control of your life
The author Robert Heinlein once said:
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. — Specialization is for insects.
I would add to that read a map and be able to look around and decide the GPS is getting you in trouble.
Technology should help us fulfill our goals and lead a better life, not turn us into mindless robots.
People are starting to see danger in letting AI run unchecked, but other technologies are equally sapping our responsibility. Resist. Defend your humanity. One small rebellion is to use maps for navigation on your next trip. Spend some time studying the map to see all the roads and towns, rivers and mountains. View what you see as an invitation for exploration. It is exciting to spread a map out in front of you and consider all the possibilities ahead.
I have convinced a few friends to try avoiding freeways and staying on secondary roads. So far, they say they like it better. It is slower-paced and they discover charming small towns. Perhaps they are just being kind, but I know it works for me. Add that to your travel plans.
But more important, take back responsibility for your life and for your attention. Retain control of your route. Recognize danger when you see it and don’t be afraid to change plans. Be the one to exercise judgment. And always look at everything. around you as a potential photo opportunity.
You’re an artist, not a machine being controlled by GPS. As a photographer, death by GPS, to me, means it makes me miss the awe and wonder all around me for the sake of being guided along the shortest and fastest route to my next destination. Emerson was right when he said, “It’s not the destination, It”s the journey.”
Get a map. 😊
Afterword
I spoke strongly to make a point. I recognize that I am presenting my personal position and preferences. You have no reason to adopt them, other than I can speak from long experience.
In summary, my points are:
- Blindly following GPS can be dangerous
- Maps are a tool for exploring. GPS is for getting to a destination.
- Mindfulness is important to photographers. GPS tends to block mindfulness.
September 23, 2026
Intro or Extro?
Which is your natural approach to photography? Introspection or extrospection? Intro or extro?
Psychology
Psychologists work hard to try to explain human behavior and thought processes. Sometimes their ideas seem insightful. Sometimes, off the wall.
There are many different personality tests and other tools that attempt to sort people into convenient boxes. Mostly with the noble goal of helping to understand ourselves and other people. These can help some, on a surface level. But humans are far more complex than can be captured in a simple test.
Across most of the personality tests, one of the important axes that seems to occur in some form is introvert vs. extrovert. And the common underlying definitions are based on whether you get your energy from being alone (introvert)or with people (extrovert)
Personally, I believe most humans are.far too complex and interesting to be put into a box. It causes us to make snap judgments about them, or ourselves. And they are often wrong.
But lets go with the introvert/extrovert model for a while, since it seems true of many people, Introverts tend to “live in their head”. This leads to self-awareness, introspection. Extroverts, not so much. They tend to look out more than in. The term is extrospection.
For your inner Geek: intro is Latin for inward. Extro is Latin for outward. Spect is Latin for looking at. So these words are just describing whether we tend to look inward or look outward.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Introspection
An introspective person examines their thoughts, feelings, and actions. They look inward and are self-aware. We (this is me) reflect on our emotions and judgments and feelings.
Ordinarily this is a good trait. Being self-aware lets us see ourselves as others do and work to improve ourselves. We tend to be thoughtful rather than just reactive. As an artist, we tend to seek and practice creativity.
But in our photography, it can slow us down and distract us from what is around us. There can be a tendency to filter what we react to by what we are feeling or concentrating on at the time. If your work is based on what you find in the world around you, this can be a problem.
I had a world respected photographer tell me in a workshop that I think too much. Then later that day as we were showing some work, he said he had never seen that flower viewed like that and he was going to steal the idea. Go figure.
On the other hand, a great photographer Mike Langford said in Better Photography magazine: “Each destination starts with a process of quietly sitting
for a while and absorbing where I am. I genuinely try to feel
what is different about being there, as if it’s my first visit, with no
preconceptions. By being in tune with my emotions and innermost thoughts,
even the most familiar things can be seen and photographed in
a new and different way.” That sounds like a good form of introspection.
Introspection can lead to creatively trying new variations or approaches to what we are doing. It may slow us down and it may blind us to some great shots, but the potential creativity may well be worth it.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Extrospection
Extrospection is defined as the observation of things external to one’s mind. This would imply reacting to external stimuli. Many people, especially extroverts, look outward for their stimulus and validation.
Photographers with this view tend to more easily see what is there around them.They abandon preconceived plans and work freely with the reality in front of them. I have quoted Jay Maisel on this many times, but this is exactly what he means by “going out empty”. Don’t go looking for something specific. Instead, see what is there and work with it.
I said above that this is reacting to external stimuli. At least, that is the way it works for me. I think of it as shutting off my mind, at least the critical reasoning parts, and getting into a form of flow state. Shooting becomes instinctive. I’m sure a lot of it is based on experience. The scenes before me trigger the response. Composition becomes part of the instinctive response.
This is a form of mindfulness. The extrospective person is highly aware of their surroundings and ready to work with them without judgment.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Both and
So, which approach is better? Trick question: neither. Both are valuable and can lead to excellent results. Your inherent nature determines which approach you tend to.
But you are not locked in to either one. We can learn to behave in both ways. I have said that I am an introvert and I tend to introspect. Maybe too much. But I have also learned to go out with no judgment and embrace what is there at the moment. It may be harder for me to to “get in the flow” of that, but I can do it.
Both/and thinking says that you can feel more than one thing at a time. That you can hold conflicting thoughts without confusion. It is a realization that life and humans are complicated. They can’t be accurately modeled by one simple label.
When I think I am shooting with no judgment and embracing what is there, I know that that is not literally true. I try to allow myself to react emotionally to the environment, but behind the scenes, sometimes subconsciously, sometimes much more conscious, years of training and examination are guiding what is happening. Decisions about exposure and focal length and composition are being made, I just try not to let them intrude too much on my emotional state.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Do we have to decide?
I see introspection and extrospection as complimentary traits, not conflicting ones. Extrospection lets us be in the moment, to see and react to what is around us, even if it is not what we anticipated. Introspection lets us analyze what we are seeing and maybe take it to a higher level. It seeks to find the essence and answer “what if” questions.
Extrospection helps us find interesting material. Introspection helps us creatively make the best of it. Together, they make our art better.
We are not stuck just blindly following our basic nature. You are not a helpless robot. Part of growing and maturing is to learn to adapt new behaviors. To practice new thought processes. We can learn to expand our thinking. Mindfulness and creativity compliment one another. We can hold and practice both in our mind at the same time. Without breaking anything.
Don’t just react or just think. Do both. At the same time.
Intro or extro. It does not have to be either/or. It can be both/and.
September 2, 2026
Dancing With the Frame
All 2-dimensional art exists within a frame. The frame is a powerful creative spark, because it requires choices and it strongly influences the resulting image. This is the magic of the frame. I have come to consider the process “dancing with the frame”.
Finite
I do 2-dimensional art. Most paintings or photographs are. But besides being flat, 2-dimensional works are also bounded. They cannot extend to infinity. So, a print may be 16×20 inches, or maybe 6×9 feet, but there is a limit. A print of a landscape scene is not an attempt to physically transport the scene to your wall. The image is an interpretation.
And because the print is bounded, there are edges. The edges create the frame, or more precisely the bounding rectangle of the image. I am assuming rectangular prints for the discussion. So, in simple physical terms, the frame is the box that encloses the print.
Likewise, our sensors or film are rectangular. There are pragmatic reasons for this. The point is, though, that the image we see through our viewfinder and capture in our camera is rectangular. It lives within the bounding box of a frame.
It turns out, though, that this simple bounding box gives life and drama to the content. And taking a picture is dancing with the frame. At least, for me.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
A window
The frame is much more than an annoying constraint of the shape of the sensor or print. Something magical happens when we look through the viewfinder or crop our image in our processing software.
What we see through the frame is our window onto the world. This window sparks much of our creativity. As we move and zoom and continue to examine our subject through this window we compose our image within it. We visualize the image and intuitively or deliberately decide what is important to bring out, what should be excluded, and how the parts should be arranged.
Since we are photographers, we are usually working with an existing scene, at least, I am. We seldom can go physically re-arrange things to suit us – at least I don’t. Instead, we must change our position or lens selection to arrange the parts in what we consider the most advantageous orientation.
We may realize the interest is not the whole scene, but only certain parts of it., and they should be presented from a certain point of view. So, we adjust our window and keep searching for the magic.
After all, if we are an artist, we want to bring something to our viewers that is more than just what anyone would have shot if they walked up on the scene. We bring our own interpretation. A big part of this is how we decide to arrange what we see in our window.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Composition
Over the centuries many “rules” of composition have been formed. I put it in quotes because there are no real r ules. The “rules” are observations of patterns that have been found to be generally pleasing to viewers.
It was very interesting to me to realize that most of these “rules” are defined by or relative to the frame. Let’s look at a few.
The rule of thirds helps to increase dynamic tension by placing the subject along the intersection points of dividing the window into 3 groups horizontally and 3 groups vertically. This is totally relative to the frame.
Along with that is the oft quoted “do not put the subject in the center” – of the frame.
The horizon should be level – relative to the frame.
Diagonals can add a lot of interest to many compositions. The diagonals exist because of their relation to the frame.
Leading lines are often recommended. They help encourage the viewer’s eye to lead from the edge of the frame to the subject and keep them exploring.
We need to be careful to not have distracting elements at the edges of the frame.
Unless it is really your intent, we must be careful to not cut the subject off at the edge of the frame.
This could go on a long time. Go examine your favorite composition rules and see how many are describing relationships to or within the frame.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
The dance
What I describe as dancing with the frame comes from my typical shooting style. I am mostly an intuitive photographer. I don’t carry flip books of composition ideas or sample books of other photographer’s work. My shots are seldom pre-planned.
When my subconscious notifies me that there is potentially an interesting shot nearby, I get engaged. I seem to know from experience the lighting and exposure details and camera settings. Those don’t occupy much of my thought. The dance really starts when I raise my camera to my eye and see what the camera sees. What I perceive through the viewfinder now becomes the main focus of my attention. The view in the frame.
Now I can inventory what I have to work with in the scene. It probably looks like a performance art to the observer. I move and zoom and bend and twist to rearrange things in the frame. What is important? What needs to be minimized? Are there diagonals I can use? Where should I move to make the composition pop? Are there distractions at the edges that I could remove by repositioning?
These decisions seem to flow effortlessly during the dance. It is kind of like manual focusing. Turn the focus knob. Did it get better or worse? If worse, go the other way. Keep going until it gets clear then starts to get blurry again. Carefully go back a little to where the peak sharpness was.
Working within the frame is like that to me. It is a dynamic process of optimizing. The big difference is that, with manual focus, the results are objective. Composing within the frame is an intuitive process of real-time judgment. That is part of what makes it hard but fun.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Artist’s judgement
So, part of the work of a photographer is to arrange the elements within the frame in the most pleasing or impactful way. This is the magic of the frame. The frame imposes a dynamic tension between itself and its contents. It is the canvas where we compose. It is the crucible where our creativity is tested. I can only do it well while looking through the viewfinder.
Since the camera sensor captures everything in the frame, it is not only critical to arrange the elements as we wish, but it may be as important to know what to exclude. That is one of the tricks of photography. What is in view of the sensor will be in our image unless we consciously figure out how to eliminate it.
Much of the artistry is in working the frame: figuring out what is significant and how to present it within the frame. It is the stage where we work our magic. It turns out that the frame is more important in our work than we usually express. This is what, to me, is the magic of the frame.
April 15, 2026
Two Questions and a Problem
I don’t like to get too deep into philosophy, but sometimes I step in it and get some on me. Lately I have pondered the question of what is good in art. A quote by Henry James brought up 2 questions and a problem that I can’t resolve.
The quote
Henry James was a well-known literary critic in the late 1800’s to the early 1900’s. Many people rightly disagreed with Henry James, but he was articulate and good at presenting and defending his points, and never at a loss for an opinion.
Even though his work was in literary criticism, many of his comments seem to me to apply to visual art, too.
Anyway, James once proposed what might be a template for art criticism. Paraphrased, it is “What is (the artist) trying to do? Does he do it? Was it worth it?”
When I first read it, it seemed reasonable. But the more I considered it, the more I got sucked into a spiral of imponderables. I will be forced to reveal the shallowness of my philosophical thinking.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Author’s intent
This first question is the artist’s intent. At first, it seems like it shouldn’t be a problem. We just need to decide what the artist wanted to create or achieve with the work. I often hear this given as a necessary step in analyzing art.
But… how can we know? Unless the artist clearly stated their intentions, all we can do is speculate. Any criticism of the work would start with I think they were trying to do this, or I think their goal was to create that.
Doesn’t that setup a framework of our own ideas that we evaluate the work against? That seems invalid and unfair to the artist.
Some genres might be deduced with relative accuracy. We can look at some images and think that “that seems to be a traditional realistic landscape along the lines of Ansel Adams.” But it is still our interpretation of their intent. Therefore, it may or may not be right.
And, on the other hand, is the artist required to justify each piece by thoroughly describing their intent? Without doing this, does it open them to criticism based on any criteria the viewer sets up? What about the artist who wants to leave such questions to the viewer? Are they sabotaging themselves?
So, I’m already stuck on the first question and haven’t even gotten to the one I called a problem.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
Author’s success
The second question embedded in James’ statement is whether the artist achieves his intent. To me, this still has the problem of not being addressable without knowing the answer to the first question. If we don’t clearly know what they are trying to do, can we say if they did it?
We can criticize it for being out of focus, or what we consider to be an unbalanced composition, or poor lighting or exposure. But maybe the artist was making a satirical comment about postmodernism and the meaninglessness of meaning. Maybe what we criticized was exactly what they intended to do, and they successfully did it.
Without understanding intent, can we do more than saying “I don’t like it” or “this doesn’t appear to be as well done as other images that seem similar”? Maybe both are true statements, but do they address the artist’s intent?
There’s a big difference between saying “that didn’t succeed by my standards” and “that did not achieve what the author was trying to do”. One is judging it by my standards, the other is judging it by the author’s intent, which we may not know.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
The problem
But then comes the problem for me. The part of the question that asks, “was it worth it?” Who can answer that?
A Twentieth Century science fiction author named Theodore Sturgeon put forth what is known as Sturgeon’s Law. He said that “ninety percent of everything is crap”. These are words I have lived by, but my corollary to this is that Sturgeon was an optimist.
I have become rather jaded in my view of art. It seems like a small percentage of the art I see, including photography, including mine, has any great inherent worth. Value is subjective. A Rolex watch has a high price tag, but low value to me. I don’t want one. I know people who value them highly and wear them. A personal value judgment that I can’t criticize.
It is a joy to me when someone sees one of my pictures and values it enough to spend money to have it. It means that they want to hang it to see every day and it has worth to them. But that is a personal judgment based on their values. Did it mean that picture was worth it? Well, it was to them. Probably to me. But not necessarily to someone else. Worth seems a very subjective thing.
©Ed Schlotzhauer
What does it mean for me
I guess my takeaway is that I’m not going to precisely and accurately figure out the value of other artist’s work and other people are not going to be the faithful judges of my work. So, I should stop being a critic and I should develop a thick skin against criticism from others.
Should I have to write a detailed description of my intent and thought process behind a picture? I hope not. Most of the time I couldn’t give a very impressive explanation. I much prefer to leave it to my viewers to create their own story.
I have developed a cynical view of theories and movements and lots of words poured out by people who talk but don’t do.
If a critic or a juror or a gallerist or another artist gives me feedback, I should receive it gratefully as input and consider it, but not necessarily take it as a truth carved on stone that I must act on. It matters more to me if the image met my expectations. If it succeeded according to my intent. They did not know what was in my mind.
I see a scene or I have an idea, and I make an image that represents the best of my ability. If it is a true representation of what I saw or felt or wanted to convey, and if it is a level of creativity and craftsmanship that I am proud of, that, to me, may be a good image. If it delights me, it is worth it. But not all images that meet my intent actually have lasting power. That is another discussion.
I find that when I over-analyze my art or get too formal in making it, some of the life gets sucked out of it. Better results come from following my instincts and my feelings. Doing that leads to pictures that I can say are worth it.
“What is the artist trying to do? Does he do it? Was it worth it?” The 2 questions and a problem I brought that I struggle with. I can only discuss them accurately about my own pictures.
The deeper questions of criticism will have to be left to philosophers. I don’t know what makes good art. But I know what delights me.
I decided to accept as true my own thinking. I have already settled it for myself, so flattery and criticism go down the same drain, and I am quite free.
Georgia O’Keeffe
The purpose of art is to inform and delight.
Horace, 1st century AD
April 1, 2026