So has technique and education become the dirty words in photography

So has technique become a dirty word in photography? I have notice people seem to some what uptight

and defensive when these words get posted. I never thought of education or technique as a bad thing, but

I notice a tendency for people to start circling the wagons when they are brought up. Of course it just

could be me reading to much into it.

Can you give some examples of your thesis?

 

I was sort of under almost the opposite impression, that people (esp. here on p.net) are almost over-concerned with technique.

 

For example:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00OIyJ

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00O4IL

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00NYiF

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Mmdu

As Geoff says, can you show examples of what you mean?

 

There is often tension between the technical and the artistic sides of any art form or means of expression. This site is often heavily biassed towards the technical as people use it as a learning resource. Others may seek to redress that but both views are valid.

 

However I can't say I have noticed anything special of that kind happening recently.

"So has technique become a dirty word in photography?"

 

What sort of technique? This is vague... post-processing image editing technique (knowing when to sharpen, applying contrast curves, best desat for top B&W)? Printing technique -- e.g., archival quality printers and the papers and inks that support that activity?

 

Or, image capturing technique? Steady hands.... tripod... fast glass... low-noise sensor... knowing best to shoot in M, Av, or Tv modes?

 

What would any of that be verboten?

I agree with the responses with the caveat that 'it's the end result that matters' is trump in debates about technique (or "gear") here. I guess some might think it dismissive of technique.

It has become the fashion among certain groups to say, "We've gone beyond technique"; truth is, they never even reached it.

Im thinking that sometime people with a lot of education and spent half an hour on composition might feel upset if a new someone beats him at a show if someone that used the technique of putting on a blindfold and clicking buttons won first place.

 

Not everyone is like that and knows some of the best photos are random point and click. Some will never get over it.

 

Always an elitist out there think they are the best and everyone else ****s and it doesnt matter what gen of forum your in.

 

I think some groups in Myspace is pretty bad. I even see profiles that say just that. "Im an elitist and you ****." You know for sure they wont talk about technique.

 

The cool people out number the elitist in every forum.

"I have notice people seem to some what uptight and defensive when these words get posted."

 

If it is the word rather than the substance of the forums, that is different. Words are taken very seriously by many here. Art, for example and, as I've discovered recently, photograph. It may be a kind of political (photographical?) correctness, dunno. But there's some who get real worked up over a mere word.

Ralph--

 

I don't know exactly what you're referring to, but I have noticed that some do talk about

technique as if it gets in the way of art. I have read several comments in various critiques by

photographers who seem to claim that if they worry too much about technique or read about

or actually study photography that that will somehow spoil their creativity. That kind of

thinking seems like poppycock to me.

Ralph, I think I *might* have an inkling of what you are getting at, but a clarification would

be helpful.

So has technique become a dirty word in photography?

 

Why, good technique goes a long way to help explore your vision.

 

Words are taken very seriously by many here. Art, for example

 

Photography is Art. Why would you think it's any different from any other Art forms? A camera is not just a photocopier....although it can be if you wish it so.

 

No rules my friends, Photography is what you want it to be.

The word "technique" is confusing. Does one mean the immediate things such as what's in the camera's user manual, how to set up the tripod, how to edit a picture, etc. or are we talking about craftsmanship, which is a much broader knowledge encompassing the whole history of the artform?

 

Here's a quote from a book review of Richard Sennett's book "The Craftsman":

 

"Such knowledge confers authority on the one who possesses it, and, as Sennett illuminatingly argues, craft traditions have been as much under threat from the modern suspicion of authority in all its forms, as from the industrialisation of the productive process. Originality and "doing your own thing" have replaced obedience and perfection as the standards to live up to, and this is everywhere to be observed in the deskilling of modern societies and in the marginalisation of those who truly know their job, and know it as something more interesting than themselves."

 

-Julie

A few years ago, I went through a brief "toy camera" phase. A lot of the people on these toy camera web sites argue that by using a cheap plastic camera, they no longer have to worry about the technical aspects of photography and can therefore allow their artistic visions to come through. To each his own, but after shooting a few rolls with my Holga, I came to the conclusion that I can better express my "artistic vision" by taking a few seconds to deal with those pesky "technical" issues of exposure, lighting and composition before I press the shutter.

there is no art without Technique and Inspiration! Afterall, you've got to learn how to do it. the trick is to get educated and keep yourself inspired. education is a never ending process. its got nothing to do with fashion or cliches. Become a master of technique and a Slave to inspiration. regards!

If we take technique and education out of the equation then I'm as good a pianist as Daniel Barenboim, or as good a chef as Alain Ducasse. As William Blake said, "Mechanical excellence is the vehicle for genius".

"It has become the fashion among certain groups to say, "We've gone beyond technique"; truth is, they never even reached it."

 

I love this quote, Chris. :-)

 

And if what R. Berett was aluding to was gallery comments on photos, I'll have to agree. There are countless examples on my own comment pages, where I say that this or that is technically not right in this or that picture, and then someone pops in to say that "this is art" or such - art being, as we know, very superior to technique, isn't it ? Basically, for these folks, art is the opposite of technique, it's ABOVE technique as well. In my view Technique is one of the necessary tools to express artistically what you want to express.

or the lack of technique as a form of deconstruction!

"good technique" is often mis-used interchangeably with "conventional technique". <p>A backlash against photographic convention has created anti-aesthetic trends exemplified by Jurgen Teller, Terry Richardson and art school drop outs who try to emulate their anti-conventional "technique" from a position of historical ignorance. <p>Non-conventional technique (see Dan Winters and Alex Soth) is frequently mistaken as poor technique by fans of Monte Zucker <i>and</i> the Juergen Teller clones who don't see in that work the use of deliberate actions that produce specific desired results.<p>The old jazz axiom of "there are no mistakes, only opportunities" has been subverted into "mistakes repeated often enough can be sold as deliberate".<p>Neither of these approaches leaves any room for intuitive exploration through anti-conventional and random experimentation by a well trained mind with a notebook... t