Artisan & Technician

<p><strong>Indraneel--</strong><br>

Sorry for the distraction. I hope you'll skip over it and we can get back to talking about ideas.</p>

<p>“Surely there have been good priests, even good Nazis”</p>

<p>Really, good Nazis, John.</p>

<p>I’m struggling to understand the good in an organisation that believed in racial superiority, mass murder, and the total humiliation of those they chose to murder, Apart from the mass murders, their humiliation and denigration of others was a crime against humanity in itself. Much akin to how peoples who were not of Caucasian Origin were treated in recent times in S.Africa and the Southern States of the USA. From my understanding these organisations still exist in Germany and other parts of the world. Indeed in the UK we have the British National Party which steadily over the years has been gaining popularity having elected MP’s. Needless to say if you are not of the purity of race (white) you are unable to join the party.</p>

<p>Good Nazi, I think not.</p>

<p>"Since I may see you as a nice guy and someone else may see you as mean, you are dead and only each one of your two friends lives, and live in complete isolation from each other, as a matter of fact."</p>

<p>Thanks Fred, I might be beginning to understand what reincarnation and relativity are all about...</p>

<p>Anyway, I have my answer. Talk to the viewer about what he/she considers moving (e.g. what most commercial artists probably do), or toil on on expressing your soul (e.g. what a starving artist probably does). Sometimes they are balanced and the artist remains sane, sometimes they are the same and the artist attains peace. The artisan didn't have this problem to begin with, and thus was always at peace.</p>

<p><strong>Indraneel--</strong><br>

Thanks for the chat.</p>

<p><strong>Indraneel--</strong><br>

Thanks for the chat.</p>

<p><strong>Thomas</strong> ,<br>

I'm sorry I haven't read all comments before this one but I want to answer you as if mine was the first comment. I understand when you say <em>artisan</em> you mean really <em>artist</em> . If you have two photographers with tripods and similar cameras, lens and settings shooting at the same subject, it is obvious that the results will be almost the same and definitely will not artistically differ. The whole point is finding the right settings for that specific scene. A subject must be <em>seen</em> , then <em>interpreted</em> and then <em>recreated</em> on film (or sensor) before it is edited in a darkroom (or lightroom) and printed on a specific paper that can enhance our interpretation. Artistic photography is <strong>not</strong> about reproducing the real, it is about reproducing <strong>our own interpretation of the real</strong> , since reproducing a perfect copy of the real it is, in fact, impossible. In that interpretation, the technical aspect (craft) is very important. Before I can be able to interpret and artistically expose a scene, I need to do extensive tests and experiments with my films and developers and papers, in order to know what I need to do to obtain a specific result. However, some people have a stronger ability to see and interpret than others: it's called <em>creativity</em> (talent) and that cannot be taught or learned. This is what ultimately makes the difference between those two photographers you were talking on your post...</p>

<p><strong>Thanks Antonio</strong></p>

<p>It is always interesting to see where these questions lead. I tend to agree with your analysis ... which is sort of my point at the beginning.</p>

<p>My point was:</p>

<ol>

<li>In art, the project must be <strong>conceived</strong> (visualized) ... and there is "art" to this.</li>

<li>Then the project must be <strong>completed </strong>(captured, painted, or sculpted).</li>

<li>It seems to me that photography is MORE unique in the arts that the capture can me mimicked by a less artistic, but technically talented individual.</li>

</ol>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>Thomas</strong> , last night I heard a wonderful concert at Carnegie Hall. It was the final concert of the winners of the 2009 International Concert Artists Guild. There were four winners playing, all incredibly technically proficient, but only one (girl) was definitely above all others. The difference between the three and the one I liked was that they were <em>playing instruments</em> very well, she was <em>playing music</em> . All four were masters of their technical skills but only this girl was actually going <em>beyond</em> the technical aspect: she was not even thinking about the technical aspect at all, as all her mind was focused on the music. The others were wonderful players in love with their instruments, stuck in within the boundaries of technique. Unfortunately, <em>not all people can understand music</em> and if you don't, you will get stuck and eventually the technical boundary will lead you to self destruct without even knowing why. Only talented people understand music and, if they work hard enough to master the technical skills, they will be able to bring it alive.</p>

<p>Antonio, this reminds me of a couple of photography things I've been thinking about lately: Cartier Bresson's comments about knowing the controls of the camera as intuitively as a good driver knows how to shift gears -- and that going beyond that technically wasn't important. A couple of months ago, I was having an F3 repaired by a man who had been working on cameras since he was in Saigon during the Vietnamese War. His hands on the camera were beautiful, perfect control. He also was a photographer. And about me, now I've got sharp, what do I do with it.</p>

<p>If the difference between artisan and artist isn't a class marker, it's that the artisan works within the traditions given to him or her and the artist goes beyond the traditions. To be able to do this, perhaps the traditions have to be mastered, as HCB mastered the Leica and was faithful to it.</p>

<p>Other people do other things -- Ansel Adams focused far more on technique and used different cameras.</p>

<p>Both of them had studied other arts (Adams and HCB had both studied music, Adams more seriously than HCB, and HCB had studied painting), so weren't merely creatures of camera techniques.</p>

<p>The idea that we can just create without training, spontaneous soul or something like it, seems to be far more dangerous to actually accomplishing something than learning to hand the controls of a camera intuitively. HCB's eye was trained.</p>

<p><strong>Rebecca - "</strong> Other people do other things -- Ansel Adams focused far more on technique and used different cameras."</p>

<p> That is a common misunderstanding by those who are overwhelmed by Ansel's technical expertise. However, if one read the introduction to Book II, the Foreword...</p>

<p> <strong>"Photography is more than a medium for factual communication of ideas. It is a creative art. Therefore the emphasis on technique is justified only so far as it will simplify and clarify the statement of the photographer's concept."</strong></p>

<p> I almost dread defending Ansel, because people imagine automatically that one is a Zonie. I'm not.</p>

<p><br /> </p>

<p>Far more compared to HCB. HCB mastered the Leica as the tool for his eyes. Adams worked with a range of cameras. Both of them would agree that mastery was simply the beginning, I suspect.</p>

<p>Adams did his own photo-finishing, apparently. HCB knew how to well enough to direct the work of others, but wasn't the one who developed and printed his work day to day.</p>

<p>The more typical technical camera person would be the one with a range of cameras, none of which could be used fluidly and easily.</p>

<p>I've never seen a photographer's hands in RL move as beautifully over the controls as the Laotian camera repair guy's hands moved. I certainly don't have that fluidity of control. I suspect that was what HCB was talking about. Don't know if the guy's photos are great or not, though.</p>

<p>Photography can be a medium for factual communication of information -- my relatives wanted to use my camera at my Dad's 88th birthday to document the whole family as a group. This to them was the important thing.</p>

<p>Painting used to be a medium for documenting visual information as much if not more than an art as we understand art today. Photograph got left holding that bag.</p>

<p>Perhaps gear heading is something orthogonal to all this.</p><div></div>

<p>The image first needs to be pre-visualized or recognized, this requires an artistic approach. Composition, exposure, lens characteristics, etc. are the work of a competent technician. Combine all the above with solid post production skills and print making and then, show the world your view of life...<br />Don</p>

<p>Well if one is in an art class and a teacher asks students to produce a specific assignment from the same subject using a specific technique, then many students may come up with a very similar product. Besides every person may look at the same object and focus on something that to them tells a story. Each individual has a different perspective and interpretation of what they see and produce. <br /> <br />