What drives cinematography fads such as handheld?

[Filip Plesha]

My favorite, and probably the most subtle uses of handheld camera, was in 1977 Star Wars, in the scene when Jawa creatures kidnap R2D2.

It really brakes the whole staged, theater feel of previous scenes on the ship. It adds to the mistery and tension of the scene with Jawas

 

 

A nice alternative to handheld is steadycam. One of my favorite steadycam shots...well I can't exactly remember if it was steadycam or handheld (haven't seen the film in a while) was that long shot

from Monty Python's Meaning of life, where the camera follows that waiter to his home where he used to live.

Edited April 6, 2006 by Filip Plesha

[Leo Anthony Vale]

As for the film school commandment remark, I've been in film school for a few years now and can tell you, from my personal experience here, that if anything, people need to experiment more with camera movement; it's hardly a fad here at all.

 

---I used to be on a committee for a filmmaking grant where I used to work.

We viewed lots of sample works that were submitted. I was shocked at how conservative the camera work, lighting and editing were in most of those student films.

 

& most every shot on the boat in 'Jaws' was hand held. Boats bob. Even if you didn't mind rocking images, where do you put a dolly?

Suppossedly Spielberg and Butler were always joking about making the most expensive hand held movie ever.

 

I suspect most people only notice and complain about hand held when it's poorly done.

 

The shot of Veronika getting off the bus and going through the crowd in 'Cranes are Flying' is one of the smoothest and most magical shots ever done, yet can only have been hand held.

 

Camera movement is one of the musical aspects of cinematography and is just as important as composition and lighting.

 

---LV

[Brad Grimmett]

Thank you! I've been trying to make that distinction clear for years, on this forum and in conversations with other filmmakers.

 

But it does go to show that excessive "framing" movement tends to bother a lot of people, regardless if the camera is handheld or on a head.

The fact that framing movement bothers people is often the whole point. If camera movement and composition ellicit emotion from the viewer then it's serving it's purpose. Sure, there are plenty of filmmakers that misuse handheld....but there are also plenty of filmmakers that misuse cranes and steadicam or other tools.

Making definitive choices is important. Some people will dislike your choices and some people will love them. But that's the whole point. If a filmmaker refuses to make choices, and take chances, then they will make a bland film. Sure, less people will probably dislike it, but less people will love it as well. Some of my favorite movies are movies that other people couldn't stand, and vice versa.

In my opinion, the best movies are the ones that promote discussion. Most of the time that discussion is brought on because one person likes a film and another doesn't. I think that's great. But the films that don't take chances don't generally promote discussion and generally aren't as good.

Sorry I got a bit off the point of the thread.

[Andy_Alderslade]

---I used to be on a committee for a filmmaking grant where I used to work.

We viewed lots of sample works that were submitted. I was shocked at how conservative the camera work, lighting and editing were in most of those student films.

 

I think thats because students and particularly their teachers associate conservative camera work with 'quality,' just as TV executives seem to associate handheld as gritty. I think teachers also try to prevent students doing handheld as to preserve live sound recording, which can be complicated with long handheld shots.

 

At my old film school the camera teacher was always dead against students considering hand held, and I caught another teacher saying that handheld camera work was 'showy' and there to cover up for a bad script; my mouth droped open at his stupidity. When finally watching the end of year films, all looked the same and there was very limited camera movement in them, it reminded me of early sound films where the camera was locked down in a booth completly unable to perform movement of any kind. I'm sure students could use more camera movement when needed, be it handheld with an Arri SR, DV with a fluid-cam, or possibly one could try a lighter film camera like an aaton aminima or A-Cam on a fluid-cam (though never tried it myself).

 

 

I think handheld is a great tool in the right instance, but yes it can be distracting especially on the small screen, I remember when seeing City Of God in the cinema and not being distracted by the style at all, then latter when watching on TV I felt it was giving me motion sickness, i felt the same when trying to watch Ali.

 

Films like Jaws and the original Star Wars show you that big films can use non-conservative camera work effectively, with Jaws being shot 'off the lap' and Star Wars having delibrartly off framing which Lucas (when he was actually a director and not a technology salesman) always did, especially in American Graffiti to make it look more real and documentry like. I heard Speilberg didn't use handheld again till Schindlers List, does anyone now about this?'

 

My personal favourite recent use of hand held is in Y Tu Mamma Tambien where it feels just right, non-intrusive suttle use of handheld on wide lenses.

Edited April 6, 2006 by Andy_Alderslade

[Michael Nash]

The fact that framing movement bothers people is often the whole point. If camera movement and composition ellicit emotion from the viewer then it's serving it's purpose.

 

I agree, but only up to a point. The problem often comes when the choice is so half-assed or underdeveloped that the filmmaker's language becomes dilluted, and you end up with nothing more than just a "style." In that case, it's not the fact that the camera is moving that becomes bothersome, it's the fact that it seems so arbitrary and irrelevant. When that happens it's not eliciting the right emotion.

 

Personally I don't have a problem with handheld as such. It's only when the camera movement seems out-of-synch with all the other lingustic devices being used. Then the motion calls undue attention to itself. Maybe you notice it more because it's moving -- I mean, if the production design was mismatched to other stylstic cues in the movie, it might take me a little longer to figure out why the visuals weren't working...

[Rik Andino]

rlogan - perhaps your problem isn't with 'handheld' despite your long and very irritating rant about it but perhaps is a problem with copycat or fashionable filmmaking - from BAD filmmakers. This is nothing new if it wasn't handheld camera work, it was formula editing in the 40s/50s where every scene would start on a wide go into medium close ups for dialougue and then a close-up for the emotional revelation. BAD filmmakers is nothing new, and they will always copy the thing of the day (ever watched the show Dragnet - that set of a chain of copies).

 

I'd be careful calling people who've worked in the industry for years BAD filmmakers...

Yeah they might make bad or let's just call them unexceptional & mediocre films...

But they're not bad filmmakers.

 

Everyone has a job to do, remember this is an industry people have to make a living...

And everything can't always be great...

So while these folks might make unexceptional films, by no way are they bad filmmakers.

 

Most of those Hollywood films are shot by ASC members with years of experience

Are you saying these people are horrible cinematographers because they used unmotivated handheld shots

And because they didn't create a work of art?

[Rik Andino]

From Rik, and others with the MTV history of this abominable fad:

This is getting closer to the heart of my question on marketing data.

Will a film that has outstanding characters, actors, plot, and so forth

Be viewed by producers and directors as a failure to this marketing group

if it does not have the in-your-face camera movement?

Exactly how have producers and directors determined so?

 

Well the best way to determined what works and what doesn't is to track viewer trends...

You put out a movie out and see who goes sees it

And you ASSUME that if you make a movie similar to that again you'll attract the same audience.

 

Of course it's never an exact science, or else many of us would be rich.

What works and what doesn't isn't easy to predict.

But when researching viewing trends you notice certain patterns..

Films that are marketed for teens usually follow a certain style...

Films that are marketed for adults are different.

And then there is class structure and regional concerns and ethnic films...

And a whole mess of ASSUMPTIONS of what a certain group of people wants to see.

 

And the thing people forget to see is that many times hollywood tells people what to see...

The hype sucks people in and they wind up doing what people think they should be doing...

It's sort of a vicious cycle...

Producers think teens want to see horror films because they're popular--so they dish them out...

Teens go out to see horror films cause they think that's what cool from what hollywood says...

Producers think teens want to see horror films cause horror films are sucessful so they make more...

You see...it doesn't end.

 

So to simply answer your question

There are ways to research what groups watch what kinds of movies...

And what ideas, FX, stories, shots, style, etc... they're attracted to.

 

Unfortunately we're living in an age where the world caters to youth (basically teens)

They're the largest consumers the most influenced by marketing trends and most willing to try new things...

So you'll see more and more things that don't appeal to you because they're not meant for you...

Perhaps in few years this teen fad will disappear and adults will take over the world again...but I'm not sure.

 

Eitherways there are still alot of good films out there to watch.

[stephen lamb]

Hey all,

what do you guys think of the handheld shot in the Constant Gardner, when Ralph Fiennes character approaches the body of his wife, it's a POV handheld shot. When i saw the film, i was struck by how powerful that one shot was, it was a beautiful performance all its own. A month or two ago, i was reading AC, and i read that DP for the film (i dont remember his name) actually had Ralph Fiennes operate for that shot! Brilliant move i say. The handholding of it created a real feel of tension, and really put me there in the morgue, and letting Ralph operate gave the audience a view literally through his eyes. Beautiful work.

Steve

[James Steven Beverly]

My favorite, and probably the most subtle uses of handheld camera, was in 1977 Star Wars, in the scene when Jawa creatures kidnap R2D2.

It really brakes the whole staged, theater feel of previous scenes on the ship. It adds to the mistery and tension of the scene with Jawas

A nice alternative to handheld is steadycam. One of my favorite steadycam shots...well I can't exactly remember if it was steadycam or handheld (haven't seen the film in a while) was that long shot

from Monty Python's Meaning of life, where the camera follows that waiter to his home where he used to live.

 

My fravorite steadicam shot this the hallway scene where the kid is riding his Bigwheel and comes face to face with the 2 little girls in The Shining. Very effective.

[Ken Hendricks]

"Look at the film Traffic would it have been a better film had it been shot more conservatively, definatly not."

 

I totally disagree with this statement. I couldn't even finish watching "Traffic" because of the mindless, unmotivated handheld "style". Don't even get me started on "Solaris"... shaky camera work in space where weightlessness would make difficult to do shaky camera work!

 

The handheld camera takes me right out of the story. I believe it calls attention to the camera, and it has nothing to do with anything lifelike (unless you're trying to show a camera's POV). The camera just doesn't see things the way a person does. A person can focus on an object across the room, move their head all over the place, and yet still maintain a steady image of the object across the room. Your eyes can track whatever you want to see. It just doesn't work that way with a camera lens.

 

Handheld camera work does have its place, and I shoot handheld occasionally, but there has to be a good reason for it. If it's not motivated by the story, it just looks unprofessional. I just don't buy into the whole "Handheld is edgy, lifelike, and realistic" school of thought, especially if you're trying to make it seem like the audience is experiencing the scene through the eyes of one of the characters.

[David Mullen ASC]

Kubrick used handheld effectively, like in the fight scenes in "Barry Lyndon" and "Clockwork Orange", or some of the cockpit in "Dr. Strangelove" when the bomber is hit by a missile (which Ridley Scott seemed to have copied for the scene in "Alien" when the spaceships lands and malfunctions, shooting handheld into emergency lights. etc.)

[Arni Heimir]

John Mctiernan uses hand held all the time with great result.

[James Steven Beverly]

Kubrick used handheld effectively, like in the fight scenes in "Barry Lyndon" and "Clockwork Orange", or some of the cockpit in "Dr. Strangelove" when the bomber is hit by a missile (which Ridley Scott seemed to have copied for the scene in "Alien" when the spaceships lands and malfunctions, shooting handheld into emergency lights. etc.)

 

I'm not surprised. Handheld is spectacular for creating a sense of confusion and urgency. It's a great way to convey the chaos of a disaster sequence. Thery're a certain excitment that can be attained when hand held is done right.

[Robert Hughes]

Lenny Lipton in "The Super 8 Book" recommended that beginning filmmakers shoot the majority of their footage handheld, and avoid tripods. He also preferred zooms to panoramic movements. But what did he know? :D

[Robert Jackson]

Lenny Lipton in "The Super 8 Book" recommended that beginning filmmakers shoot the majority of their footage handheld, and avoid tripods. He also preferred zooms to panoramic movements. But what did he know? :D

 

It's hard to shoot from a stick right out of the gate. Knowing where to put a tripod so people looking at the shot won't immediately be aware that the camera is immobile is tough at first. In film school I can recall a lot of people trying to make one shot do a lot more than it could do, I suppose to avoid multiple setups. So you'd see a medium shot that went on forever. The Kevin Smith shot, as I've heard people call it.

 

Shooting hand-held is much more stressful in its own way because you're hyper-aware of your body and its movements, but it also allows you to put the camera where you instinctively want to be in relation to the scene.

 

I spent years doing broadcast television and so much of what we did was immobile. A slow zoom in the studio was about as creative as it got and even less so doing standups in the field. About the only times we got to hand-hold was during basketball coverage or if we were shooting a concert or some kind of live event. When you're stuck with a tripod all the time it feels so claustrophobic that I really looked forward to the times when I could throw the camera up on my shoulder and follow my instincts.

 

When I was younger I could shoot really steady hand-held footage. I remember our station manager once saying he couldn't tell my hand-held footage from the footage I shot with a tripod and at the time I took that as an insult, but he meant it as a compliment. I'm not as rock-steady anymore, but I think I have a better eye now.

 

At the end of the day it's just another part of the vocabulary. You'd think someone was insane if they told you that verbs were amateurish and they never wanted to hear you use them again. You don't abandon tripods just like you don't abandon nouns. You don't abandon dolly shots just like you wouldn't abandon pronouns, etc. Of course, if someone spoke entirely in verbs you'd ask your friends not to bring that person around anymore.

[rlogan]

I couldn't even finish watching "Traffic" because of the mindless, unmotivated handheld "style". Don't even get me started on "Solaris"... shaky camera work in space where weightlessness would make difficult to do shaky camera work!

 

The handheld camera takes me right out of the story. I believe it calls attention to the camera, and it has nothing to do with anything lifelike (unless you're trying to show a camera's POV). The camera just doesn't see things the way a person does. A person can focus on an object across the room, move their head all over the place, and yet still maintain a steady image of the object across the room. Your eyes can track whatever you want to see. It just doesn't work that way with a camera lens.

 

Handheld camera work does have its place, and I shoot handheld occasionally, but there has to be a good reason for it. If it's not motivated by the story, it just looks unprofessional. I just don't buy into the whole "Handheld is edgy, lifelike, and realistic" school of thought, especially if you're trying to make it seem like the audience is experiencing the scene through the eyes of one of the characters.

 

Obviosly I would agree with this. I don't want to speak for KHendrix2, but whatever you want to call the "Shaky" camera work that is not hand-held - it imparts no sense of reality to me whatsoever. Contrary to it, in fact. After many years of boxing, I always felt fight scenes that had the shaky camera work were just cover for bad choreography. You don't see Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan fight scenes waving the camera all over the place because there is a lot of merit in the choreography itself.

 

Yes, a sense of chaos and confusion is induced with shaky camera work, panning too quickly and what-not. And there is a place for it. But the NYPD style put me on edge not because it was realistic, but because it was totally contrary to real life where I could actually focus on something while moving myself.

 

Brian Reynolds won an emmy for it. It was not "Blair Witch" level of shaky handheld - but that camera just had to be moving at all times. I just disagree that this is "reality". Reynolds thinks so, and I agree there is an "edge" created by it. The very same edge I get when someone in the room is talking to me while I am on the phone with someone else. Tension, yes. But not a tension associated with plot, character conflict, or whatever - it is the tension of an annoyance making the brain work harder to process chaotic information.

 

If you google Bourne Supremacy, you'll find a tremendous number of complaints about the shaky camera work for example. Tension in fans. But not the right kind.

 

To those who have responded with the comment "you don't have to watch it" - that's right. I don't. What I have asked is how this fad has become so dominating, and there have been several good posts on it. I am hoping that it is rather like clothing fads - and its overuse will pass.

[Guest vwrenn]

all things come and then go my friend. Zooms in the 70's could be the most glaring example of this. all the sudden some of the best DP?s in the world had a new toy and they abused the hell out of it. be patient it'll fade, just as overt ramping did, just as silver retention is no longer the only way to show a flash back or a dream sequence.

all the below mentioned have their time and place. sadly reality tv, show's like curb your enthusiasm and 24 drive this trend in handheld work as well as the refound love for zooms.

take a deep breath - we'll back to geared heads and long dolly shots before you know it. if you just can't wait take in a wes anderson film or rent Once upon a time in the west.

 

 

 

 

 

I am sick beyond description of the ubiquitous "in your face" camerawork the industry seems to have fallen into, and am curious what is actually driving this stupid fad.

 

One facet is the extreme overuse and exaggertation of handheld. It isn't just mandatory that all fight scenes have the camera shaking so badly that you can't tell what is going on - even scenes where almost nothing at all is happening have this annoying intrusion on the plot and characters.

 

But that isn't all. It is also in zooming, panning, close-ups, quick cuts lasting no longer than .0000000001 second and the ridiculous swooping 360's.

 

I know full well what some industry people claim about handheld, for example - that it supposedly creates "tension". Sure it does - it makes me want to tension my hands around the throat of the person responsible for it.

 

Likewise, each of the other techniques has some purported benefit. But most of them have been around for many decades, and it is only in recent years that I find myself leaving movies that would otherwise have been fine because of the nauseating distractions of this pox.

 

Forget how revolting this is for me, and what a huge fan of it that you may be. My question is what is actually driving this fad? Is there some marketing data demonstrating that fans pay more for movies where they cannot focus on anything for more than a millisecond?

 

I don't mean opinion. I mean are there any facts? Obviously, directors who worship the speeding, shaky camera think they are doing the right thing. I am not interested in opinion because frankly this crap makes me angry and I am not wishing to be patronized.

 

Instead, has there been (for example) surveys, focus groups, sales figures or whatever from the consumers that demand front-to-back waving, zooming, cut-cut-cut? Is this now the 11th commandment of film school: "Thou shalt never hold the camera still?"

[David Mullen ASC]

I remember this quotation that I read in college that seems appropriate:

 

You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough.

-- William Blake

[Tom Bays]

I'm still waiting for lockdown zooms to come back :D

[Michael Nash]

whatever you want to call the "Shaky" camera work that is not hand-held - it imparts no sense of reality to me whatsoever.

 

It's not supposed to! It's there to represent a point of view, a perception of the action that's taking place. It doesn't have to be any more "realistic" than a Monet painting -- it's expressing an emotional point of view as much as it's covering the action. It's SUBjective, not OBjective.

 

 

Tension, yes. But not a tension associated with plot, character conflict, or whatever - it is the tension of an annoyance making the brain work harder to process chaotic information.

 

Well it sounds like you got the right feel from it at least. It tries to use tension to sustain that point of view. But apparently having that point of view enforced upon you gets bothersome, and I can understand that.

 

While the "NYPD Blue" camera movement never bothered me, I'm extremely bothered by the overuse of extreme closeups in shows like 24. Not because the movement bothers me, but because the framing almost completely omits any context. It's subject and action only. Without context (wider frames with less "active" or "engaged" camera operating), I feel denied the oportunity to "digest" the information, and have my own thoughts and reactions to the material. It's like being force-fed a meal, instead of being able to sit down and eat it on your own.

 

But even there I recognize that it's the visual language the filmmakers have chosen, and it works effectively. I just don't enjoy the process of watching it, and so I skip it altogether.

[F. Felix]

Interesting conversation.

 

Responding to the initial question about science behind the use of specific camera techniques, eye-tracking studies are commonly used to assess media engagement. The amount of time spent looking at an image can be used to evaluate the interest level of observers. This has been used many ways: for instance, researchers employed these (& other) techniques to establish rudimentary mathmatical skills in infants & dogs.

 

More to the current point, eye-tracking has been used to develop educational television, as in the series "Blue's Clues" which used it to assess the effectiveness of various "Sesame Street" segments & employed this information to develop more focussed, compelling content for children.

 

As for film targeted at (semi) grown-ups, I don't imagine film schools discuss this research directly. The job of a school is to teach the rules so that the students can eventually go out & break them usefully. Ineffective film technique choice is probably more about style & fashion--answer the question of why the same audience feels it necessary to wear pants down around their butt cheeks & you will undoubtedly have discovered why shaky camera work is also the rage. The fact that fashion generally originates in a practical situation--gang prisoners having their belts taken away in the case of the pants--doesn't mitigate the power of the associated image: tough guys wear their pants low, ergo only wimps hang their sartorial splendor from their hip-bones.

 

In the case of the influential, precedented, yet still pioneering handheld camera work on MTV, I might speculate that it originated not in science, but in the use of low-budget workers & techniques, since the operation was an underfunded experiment--to wit, the infamous astronaut logo was chosen entirely because NASA imagery is public domain, therefore no royalty fees. The association of the camera work with the coolness of the music videos probably lent "street-cred" to the amateurish shakiness that we are still witnessing today.

 

I suppose we should also remember the post-modern contributions of thinkers like Derrida & McLuhan who pointed out that the packaging of the message carries at least as much power & information as the message itself...& perhaps more effectively, since being hidden in plain sight, it bypasses our sceptical filters. Maybe that's why we object so much to film fluff: when style trumps story, the only purpose is to reinforce the culture represented by the technique. This is nothing more than brainwashing.

[Adam White]

I recently shot a fight scene and the setup went as followed

 

Dir: I want it all hand held

AW: Ahh. . . why?

Dir: I want that moody/flashy/tension (five minutes of handwaving) look!

AW: Um. . .

Dir: And?

AW: Would you want me to do anything that may detract from the delicate performances of the actors?

Dir: No.

AW: Why exactly do you want to shoot it handheld?

Dir: Well. . . everyone else shoots that way.

AW: Everyone?

Dir: Yeah, American shows, y'know! all the movies have them.

AW: Oldboy.

Dir: Okay then. Not all films have them. But this will give it that unnerving sense of danger! like an NYPD/24/Ect episode!!

AW: It may do if we are in downtown NY with Jimmy Smitts but we are in a public toilet in Nottingham, its 2am and the only police action we are likely to get is if they think we are making hardcore!!

Dir: So I cant do it?

AW: What do you want to do. Forget TV

Dir: I would actualy prefer sticks.

AW: Good choice.

 

Ive known the guy for years so I could argue. I feel that many directors follow fads because other shows appear to have had success with the same tecniques. ho hum.

[Rik Andino]

Interesting conversation.

 

Responding to the initial question about science behind the use of specific camera techniques, eye-tracking studies are commonly used to assess media engagement. The amount of time spent looking at an image can be used to evaluate the interest level of observers. This has been used many ways: for instance, researchers employed these (& other) techniques to establish rudimentary mathmatical skills in infants & dogs.

 

More to the current point, eye-tracking has been used to develop educational television, as in the series "Blue's Clues" which used it to assess the effectiveness of various "Sesame Street" segments & employed this information to develop more focussed, compelling content for children.

 

As for film targeted at (semi) grown-ups, I don't imagine film schools discuss this research directly. The job of a school is to teach the rules so that the students can eventually go out & break them usefully. Ineffective film technique choice is probably more about style & fashion--answer the question of why the same audience feels it necessary to wear pants down around their butt cheeks & you will undoubtedly have discovered why shaky camera work is also the rage. The fact that fashion generally originates in a practical situation--gang prisoners having their belts taken away in the case of the pants--doesn't mitigate the power of the associated image: tough guys wear their pants low, ergo only wimps hang their sartorial splendor from their hip-bones.

 

In the case of the influential, precedented, yet still pioneering handheld camera work on MTV, I might speculate that it originated not in science, but in the use of low-budget workers & techniques, since the operation was an underfunded experiment--to wit, the infamous astronaut logo was chosen entirely because NASA imagery is public domain, therefore no royalty fees. The association of the camera work with the coolness of the music videos probably lent "street-cred" to the amateurish shakiness that we are still witnessing today.

 

I suppose we should also remember the post-modern contributions of thinkers like Derrida & McLuhan who pointed out that the packaging of the message carries at least as much power & information as the message itself...& perhaps more effectively, since being hidden in plain sight, it bypasses our sceptical filters. Maybe that's why we object so much to film fluff: when style trumps story, the only purpose is to reinforce the culture represented by the technique. This is nothing more than brainwashing.

 

So you're basically saying

That the reason so many films have the shaky handheld look

Is because people (and studios) think it's cool...?

 

And the reason some people don't like it because they don't get the new sub-culture...?

 

 

This a very good & interesting post.

[Michael Nash]

I suppose we should also remember the post-modern contributions of thinkers like Derrida & McLuhan who pointed out that the packaging of the message carries at least as much power & information as the message itself...& perhaps more effectively, since being hidden in plain sight, it bypasses our sceptical filters.

 

So in other words the film form is part of the language. And some artists are going to be more eloquent with their use of the language than others. This much we know, and it's true of all art forms.

 

 

Maybe that's why we object so much to film fluff: when style trumps story, the only purpose is to reinforce the culture represented by the technique. This is nothing more than brainwashing.

 

Or simply just bad handling of the language. Or having nothing really important to say with it. Style over substance isn't brainwashing; maybe more like brain "flushing" ;-)

 

This whole argument can be applied to any art form, and music comes to mind. For example the trend in R&B singing to sort of "yodel" or sing every note except the right one. You know what I mean. That's called an affectation, or behavior that's used simply to impress. In the hands of a skilled artist this vocal tool can be used to express or convey powerful emotion. In the hands of an "American Idol" contestant it's unfulfilling, distracting and annoying.

 

I'd say the difference between a superficial "affectation" and a valid "expression" lies in the skill and integrity of the artist. A skilled artist is earnest about what they're trying to convey and the style is simply a byproduct; an under-skilled artist will try to use a style to elevate or disguise their lack of skill or substance.

[Brad Grimmett]

I'd say the difference between a superficial "affectation" and a valid "expression" lies in the skill and integrity of the artist. A skilled artist is earnest about what they're trying to convey and the style is simply a byproduct; an under-skilled artist will try to use a style to elevate or disguise their lack of skill or substance.

Very good point and very well stated.