Learn the rules to unlearn them

<p><strong>John</strong> I notice that out of your tool box of words did not emerge an infamous term like <strong>aesthetics </strong>but terms like "pretty" and "likable" did. Why is that? <br /> You call on awareness of :</p>

<blockquote>

<p>human physiognomy, implied tension, hints of historicity or commerciality or eros</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why do you think that there is some kind of dichotomy between awareness of "aesthetics, if you accept that term as a shortcut to "pretty" and likable", and awareness of such phenomena you mention above. Other trems could be added, of course. They all work together and are more or less present in all good photos. A photographer that only search for aesthetics (here: prettiness and I-like-ness) would be working to the extreme of the surface of things. These are photographers as superficial as the "pompier" painters like <a href="http://graphics.musicme.com/wp/fr/6945/William-Adolphe_Bouguereau_%281825-1905%29_-_Head_Of_A_Young_Girl_%281898%29.jpg">Bouguereau</a>. A viewer that only can see prettiness and relate to photos as "liked" or "not liked", or the opposite, is either a viewer as superficial as the mentioned photographer and painters or a viewer that haven't yet learned to view such work. <br /><br /><br /> I don't know why you mention "<em>physiognomy</em>" (my historical awareness calls on attention getting anywhere near it when adding "human" !) but surely all photographical eyes of some training and experience would always and firstly see primarily that when observing a scene and deciding on a framing, the moment to shoot etc. <strong>Arthur'</strong>s chairs are exactly such a case in my eyes with the chairs deformed by breaking perspective in the water and by the shadows. See another example (on water again) below from my scrapbook. The boats did not move much but the light certainly did.</p><div></div>

<p>Antonio, you are exactly right. You cannot teach someone a discipline without giving them specific instructions and exercises to perform. There's no such thing as an "instant expert," that is, you cannot be learning something for the first time and proficient in its use at the same time. The student must be given tasks that he can understand and perform successfully to master the work at hand. "Rules," so called, are necessary simplifications that make it possible to structure instruction for both the student and the teacher. </p>

<p>Photographic rules get a lot of attention because they are often cast as limitations that confine people as they advance. A better way of understanding rules is to see them as techniques that really do simplify photographic ideas mostly in the area of composition for the relatively inexperienced. But there are other techniques to use as well. If that isn't complicated enough, consider that the student is also developing his judgement to guide him in applying the various techniques he knows to the very specific circumstance of very shot he might take. </p>

<p>So rules are really techniques that serve as a guide to judgement to help a person take (make) successful pictures. It should be no surprise that judgement supersedes simple techniques. We hope that one will advance to the point that he feels that he has outgrown the cut and paste of the techniques he learned in his early days.</p>

<p>Rules aren't unlearned, they are outgrown. But this is not a true representation of the facts. Techniques don't just go away, rather, one becomes more sophisticated. By way of the actual experience of doing the work, one learns to see the (photographic) problems before him in from more than one point of view so that he is actually able to intelligently select the method and treatment he wants to use for some effect in the final result. Old techniques are still available as well as new ones and even experiments. One is always confronted with questions he must work to answer to complete the task.</p>

<p>When a photographer thoroughly understands the trial and error problem solving that goes into the everyday decisions he makes behind a camera and on the computer, his concern for the "rules" he struggled to master in the early days is likely to be diminished. It isn't fair to overdo the emphasis on "unlearning the rules" because it suggests to many that there is no reason to learn technique or discipline in the first place. You might as well paint your house by throwing handfulls of paint at a wall! Clearly there is a point and purpose for learning how you go about performing the activity at hand to get a good result.</p>

<p>I think that you can see that once you are well trained in a discipline you can never have a truly empty head in regard to it again. You can reasonably expect, however, to be flexible in your approach. You are free to apply your judgement to the problems before you because you have reached the point in your development that you can appreciate the decisions you must make and the alternative endings you might reach. Every photograph is specific in some way. You must choose which ending you want, and if you want another one, you must go through the exercise again.</p>

<p>There's probably some value in mentioning that everyone has a "comfort zone" wherein he performs the tasks at hand in a fairly straightforward way that might even look simple to someone observing him. No one is a superman, however. There are always projects that take one into unfamiliar territory that renews the experience of learning and discovery all over again. Skills for dealing with collecting information for trial and error problem solving should be a foundation block in everyone's personal toolkit. The most uncomfortable time to find that you have an empty head is when you are under the gun to produce a result without a clue as to what should be done next!</p>

<p><strong>Albert</strong><br>

thank you for putting this concept in such good words. I would like to underline one thing: the importance (IMO) of what I call "forgetting", that is more "giving no relevance" to the technical and structural aspects in favor of the emotional and communicative content. I believe our brain cannot work both ways; it will always give more relevance to one or the other aspect. We must choose. The decision will not be forever but it will cover a period of time, after which it will be possible to switch to the other side. What is important is this: the technical aspect comes first, or else we will not be able to enter the emotional realm. It doesn't work the other way around, obviously. That's why I always distrust the "natural born artists". Also important: when we decide to venture in the realm of emotion (communication), the technical aspect must be "dimmed" or it will become a self-destructive insurmountable obstacle (but that doesn't mean that we won't even remember how to compose an image...).</p>

<p>ManRay <a href="http://www.ljplus.ru/img4/g/o/goodfellowww1/man-ray-.jpg">drew attention to technique</a> and <a href="http://journal.carlottamanaigo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/man_ray_2.jpg">utilized it and pointed to it</a> overtly in order to "create his art" and express his emotions (or at least to make his photographs). He didn't forget or dim technique. He used and addressed it over and over again.</p>

<p>Chopin's Etudes are technical studies that display musical genius and are emotionally exhilarating. Here is Alfred Cortot playing <a href="

25 No. 1</a></p>

<p><a href="../photodb/member-photos?user_id=3936461">Billy Kenrick's PN portfolio</a> is filled with photos that display technique and don't try to quietly absorb it but rather to address and show it.</p>

<p>________________________________________</p>

<p>Can Antonio or Arthur list 3 or 4 photographic rules (other than the supposed "rule" of thirds/golden mean)? Arthur, which rules of composition does your photo above ignore or not take into account?</p>

Antonio, yes I am a big fan of Stephane Grappelli. Jazz violin can be wonderful!

 

I think I understand your point a bit better now. I think you're talking about knowing technique well enough that you no

longer have to think about it. A wedding shooter who spends too much time thinking about how to set is speed light is

going to miss important shots, for instance. I would agree with this position wholeheartedly.

 

Incidentally, there was an episode of the American animated television series "Beavis and Butt-head" where they forgot

how to take a leak. Very humorous!

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00XWTg"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1154645">John Kelly</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Oct 20, 2010; 09:02 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'm puzzled by the ongoning confusion of "picture making" with photography.<br />There seems to be no awareness of anything in the realm of "significance" ...beyond "pretty" and "likable."<br />...seeming zero awareness of human physiognomy, implied tension, hints of historicity or commerciality or eros...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And I'm still puzzled by what Antonio's "rules" are that should be forgotten. I can't escape the impression that his rules are much less literal than what some are taking them to be. Your "picture making" vs significance, implied tension, etc., seems nearer the mark. If that isn't the case, and this thread is just a restatement of the old saw that "you must learn the rules before you can break them", well, we're all chasing our tails in a sea of confusion. </p>

<p>As for Arthur's photo: Like Fred, I do not understand what rules were broken. (And is it, in fact, only "rules of composition" that are being discussed?) I see it more simply as Arthur having framed and taken the photograph at a moment that seemed aesthetically pleasing to his eye. He was not consciously saying to himself, "I must wait until the shadows separate from the chairs...I must not cut off part of one chair...I must frame so that two of them are lined in a diagonal, in "thirds" positions....bla, bla, bla". </p>

 

 

<p>Grapelli was in thrall of <strong>Django Reinhardt</strong>, who was entirely illiterate...and knew no formal rules but had in turn been in thrall of Louis Armstrong (!), who was himself a formally trained musician. Generalizing from that, rather than speaking of "rules," I think it'd be more useful to speak of "memes." Why? Because concern with rules (or "composition") is virtually never mentioned by powerful photographers.</p>

<p><strong>Anders,</strong> "aesthetics" as a term is not similar to "pretty" or "likable." Aesthetics is a field of study or a broad reference to surface values. "Pretty" and "likable" are terms that specifically refer to winners of popularity contests. They spring from specific aesthetics.</p>

<p>It's easy to figure out what's popular and to emulate it, especially with digital technology...which enjoys chimping, zero exposure cost, and at least one Walmart-style instant popularity contest (Photo.net's ratings system). Note that although Photo.net does actively degrade photography's values with the ratings system, many fine photographers make use of it. I shop Walmart when necessary.</p>

<p>I'm more interested in the other factors I mentioned, which are difficult for me to address with my own work and are for most totally aversive or irrelevant (so they photograph flowers and cats or they contrive graphic images). For me, and when I respond to the photos of others, "aesthetics" are not nearly as important as a variety of other factors.</p>

<p> I do think craftsmanship and execution are crucial, but craftsmanship and execution are difficult to fluff if one is working with digital cameras, especially if one isn't able to print one's own work.</p>

 

<p><strong>Antonio, </strong>I understand exactly what you mean by "forgetting". When I multiply, divide, add, subtract or square numbers in my head, I do not have a mechanistic, rote experience. I just see it (sometimes with a few accompanying tones and occasional color). When I photograph, drive my manual transmission car, ride my 27-speed mountain bike, or cast a fly, I don't go through a literal inventory of the sequences involved. That dis-integrated clumsiness is well behind me.</p>

<p>They are integrated, internalized, and very close to autonomous, and this does not mean dissing the technical <em>in the slightest. </em>It simply means that one doesn't have to recite it to oneself internally, like a phone number or name you're afraid to forget.</p>

<p>I do not talk nor whisper to myself, specially while photographing. There are no homunculi in my head chatting, telling each other what to do, how to do it, and when. I am an integrated being, with multiple levels of awareness and modalities. I wordlessly and without a literal sequential awareness intuitively know (in the sense of Gnosis, not "knowing" what my wife asked me to get at the grocery store) what I want when photographing.</p>

<p>Only a brickbat-literal interpretation of "forgetting" brings forth images of amnesia, disconnection, disassociation, MPD, etc (the usual pathological labels imposed on things we do not understand). There are many kinds of forgetting.</p>

<p>In closing, <strong>Antonio, </strong>I understand what you mean by "forgetting", and I think Man Ray would have, too.</p>

<p>"I wished to distract the attention from any manual dexterity, so that the basic idea stood out. Of course there will always be those who look at words with a magnifying glass and try to see 'how', instead of using their brains and figure out 'why'." --- Man Ray<br /></p>

<p>Luis, Antonio said, specifically in order to emphasize his point, that forgetting is "giving no relevance" to technique. My examples were meant to suggest that he might think in more nuanced, less absolute terms about technique. He's used the word "must" regarding rules and technique several times in this thread, as if thinking this is something he or others must do as they become experienced photographers. I was pointing out that a photographer can address technique visually and pointedly, in their photographs. One can be purposefully self conscious of it if one wants. One may listen with prejudice to out-of-context statements and one may also look at the infinite variety of photographs and consider the abundance of methodologies, expanding rather than limiting their experience and ideas about making them.</p>

<p>John, sure esthetics is not the same as "pretty" or "likely", that's why I explicitly wrote <em>shortcut. </em>I agree with you on every word you write concerning the popularity contest here on PN (despite the efforts that are done currently to improve the system - let's cross our fingers and hope for the best). However what is interesting, in my eyes, in a discussion on "rules" (and "values", why not?) is the relationship between esthetics and such appreciated features of a photo that make them being liked (by the novice or the expert). However it is not clear to me why "esthetics" can be judged as "less important". Whatever "esthetics" are characterizing our present times, or the photos of each of us, it surely still related to what is disliked or liked (serious, fine, agreeable to watch, moral etc) in quality terms when viewing a photo or when shooting it.</p>

<p>I would like to go back to the reference <strong>Jon</strong> made to the photography of <strong><em>Frederick Evans</em></strong> (<a href="http://nccsc.net/asset/original_filename/130/EVANS01LARGE.jpg">here</a>, <a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3075/3175239674_1f0f847f59.jpg?v=1231342642">here</a> and <a href="http://www.countrylife.co.uk/imageBank/c/CL_piclib1.jpg">here</a>, which I had to admit I was not acquaintant to. I have since admired his beautiful B/W photos of English and French cathedrals and read a very well written small article on him, that I can recommend, which tell something about aesthetics, meaning in photos as well as understatement (or is it over)statement?) - as it tells much about cathedrals. In the <a href="http://nccsc.net/2006/11/15/frederick-evans-and-the-theology-of-light">article on Evans</a> and the "Theology of light" you can find the following wordings on the relation between the photographer and his subject, that I find especially well formulated:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>This (he refers to Ansel Adams and his photos of Yosemite valley) inner/outer dialogue is common to almost all great photography. You could go so far as to say that great photographers are also great lovers (not literally, of course). They fall in love with something outside themselves that focuses their lives and energizes their work, in the process teaching them something about who they are and what they care about.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

<p>Anders, remember ping-pong?</p>

<p>Thank you for your kind remarks Antonio. Something like photography is difficult enough to get right, at least in a manual world where you have to understand camera settings and what they do, that it is no trivial task to master the fundamentals. The first two to three years of very technical activities usually focus on the mechanics of the equipment needed to get things right. After this one becomes comfortable with the gear to the point that it is not so all consuming. This is when you can devote a lot more energy into the project itself instead of how to use the tools needed to get it done.</p>

<p>To say that you have forgotten the lessons learned in your early days is just plain wrong. If this were indeed the case, you would find that you no longer know what you are doing! Forgetting means that you have lost both your understanding of method as well as the purpose for using it. Rather these lessons have become second nature to you. You have repeated them so often and learned them so well that that you can use them dependably without concentrating so much direct energy on what they are. When was the last time you struggled to sort out your confusion about the appropriate f-stop for your subject? Now you just do it. F-stops are no big deal. You haven't forgotten what f-stops are or what they do: it's simply not that hard to deal with them.</p>

<p>You might forget a picture you made thirty years ago, but you remember how to make a picture the next time you do it.</p>

 

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>Luis, Antonio said, specifically in order to emphasize his point, that forgetting is "giving no relevance" to technique."</p>

<p> Perhaps wrongly, I took what Antonio wrote to mean "no (conscious) relevance", and I realize that is my inference. We'll see if Antonio agrees or disagrees with that. We agree that there are many ways of working. No one can work in all ways at once, so, as with most things, it is <em>this, not that</em> there as well. And people can elect to work in one or a multiplicity of ways, depending on their mood, situation, task at hand, etc. And there are many branches in the decision tree.</p>

<p>As far as the rules... learning is a process of accretion and erosion/shedding. It's not just things like the Rules of Thirds, etc. It's everything.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You are right Luis. I'll step on the ball.</p>

<p>I am gradually reading over a number of the responses to Antonio's OP, as well as his concentrated but salient OP. There are several concepts that have been brought forth and it is perhaps of interest to summarily separate these out.</p>

<p>1. The question of absorbing knowledge and gaining experience (knowledge) regarding the various craft related and aesthetically related rules, ones that are either based on the particular mechanism of photography (or musical instrument) or the prior knowlege about why a certain image is visually successful (or the why of certain musical instrumental approaches), and then, as Antonio suggests, placing that preoccupation with rules in the background (or as a reflex), soi as to be able to understand the subject and one's perception of it (or understanding the music).</p>

<p>He is not unlearning the rules to ignore them, but simply going on to more important aspects or layers of the photographic approach (or the analogy or understanding the music, to enable a more successful musical interpretation).</p>

<p>2. A second manifestation of "unlearning the rules", one which I spontaneously and perhaps peripherally latched on to, is that of not simply "unlearning the rules" as above, but rather that of "breaking the rules". While breaking the rules seems to be an anathema to some (I hear a very craft related discussion underlying a number of prior comments, that would insist on the rules being followed, or retained even when the approach goes beyond simple rule following - as in the manner described by Antonio).</p>

<p>Originality in art has very often been accompanied by a unique mental artistic approach of the artist and through his conscious breaking of known aesthetic and craft based rules. There is a conservatism often present in wanting to follow the rules, evident also in photography, and one which may provide an assurance of lots of first places or grand prizes in amateur photo salons (and indeed many professional photography shows), but is not so often one that contributes to making art of high value. Virtually every important movement in art has been accompanied by breaking of the prior rules in some manner. I think this also applies to originality in photography. We may copy approaches that are rule-based in our early work. We may then enjoy a freer creativity as we learn the how and the why of breaking those rules, while being motivated by our personal perceptions of subjects.</p>

<p>3. There sare no doubt other aspects of the OP that have been considered. I look forward to looping back to re-read some of the posts, and I trust that will be gratifying in that sebnse. In the meantime, I am quite glad to consider Antonio's OP in the second sense of of unlearning, the breaking of rules to achieve/express originality.</p>

<p>Steve,</p>

<p>I did wait for the chairs and shadows to separate and for the bunch of chairs to separate out. The photo was made when the position of the two chairs and their respective shadows provided a sort of enigmatic relationship, which, among other things, resided in the fact that the shadows were more dominant than the somewhat ephemeral appearing white chairs. That research, if one may all it that, had little if anything to do with rules of composition or ofa projected realism. I ignored rules, although I may not consciously have bvroken some. </p>

<p>Apologies for the typos... </p>

<p>Arthur, again, which rules, specifically, did you ignore?</p>

<p>Rules is not really the right word, seems to me at least. And, as far as my limited theoretical knowledge allows, photography is also not too bogged down under conventional wisdoms and supposed 'rules'. Apart from the rule of thirds, maybe.<br>

Technique, to me, is quite something different from rules. It's the skillset needed. And yes, one needs to outgrow it, more or less. The 'technical' decisions and technique decisions become sufficiently internalised at some point (Luis G's driving manual gear car: exactly that!). That frees up mind and focus to work on the creative.<br>

It is not forgetting. It's making it seemingly unhappening. It gives you a wider (creative/intellectual) freedom to experiment and create things that may be more unexpected to your audience.</p>

<p>Frankly, it is also like this that I've always understood the unlearning. Not forgetting, but as already said, overcoming. Climbing on the shoulders of those proverbial giants. All in all, a pretty normal learning curve?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I did wait for the chairs and shadows to separate and for the bunch of chairs to separate out. The photo was made when the position of the two chairs and their respective shadows provided a sort of enigmatic relationship, which, among other things, resided in the fact that the shadows were more dominant than the somewhat ephemeral appearing white chairs. That research, if one may all it that, had little if anything to do with rules of composition or ofa projected realism. I ignored rules, although I may not consciously have bvroken some.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly. Your actions in capturing that enigmatic relationship (what I in my simplistic fashion termed "aesthetically pleasing") came automatically, ala Luis' comments. You weren't listening to the chatting of Luisian homunculi. And I did not mean to imply that you were unconsciously following a rule of thirds, or a diagonal placement of elements. There may have been any number of things you were <strong><em>not </em></strong>doing at the time. The things I cited were examples only. </p>

<p>At least one side road of this discussion has to do with letting go. A number of years ago, at the San Diego County Fair photo exhibit, I was the poster child of what you describe as a "first prize" seeker in an amateur photo salon. My first attempt yielded me one accepted photo out of 5 submitted. I learned and absorbed what was deemed "worthy" of exhibiting and hit 5 of 5 the next year and garnered some "honorable mention" ribbons. So what? I did gain experience and honed my craft and technique. Nothing wrong with that. I also learned how to create photographs that adhered to "the rules" for being exhibited there. In a way, that too was useful. But I was left with that "so what" sensation. It wasn't enough, or it wasn't creating what I wanted to create, or...or lord knows what. I still struggle with that. "To the man who knows not where he his sailing, no wind is favorable." I'm not entirely sure what it is I seek, only that letting go is part of it, and, ironically, that learning much more than I already know now (which is not much, lest I imply otherwise) is another part of it. Fine Art college sophomore stuff, perhaps. But, despite my age, that's probably about where I am in my photographic development...if that. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I did wait for the chairs and shadows to separate and for the bunch of chairs to separate out. The photo was made when the position of the two chairs and their respective shadows provided a sort of enigmatic relationship, which, among other things, resided in the fact that the shadows were more dominant than the somewhat ephemeral appearing white chairs. That research, if one may all it that, had little if anything to do with rules of composition or ofa projected realism. I ignored rules, although I may not consciously have bvroken some.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly. Your actions in capturing that enigmatic relationship (what I in my simplistic fashion termed "aesthetically pleasing") came automatically, ala Luis' comments. You weren't listening to the chatting of Luisian homunculi. And I did not mean to imply that you were unconsciously following a rule of thirds, or a diagonal placement of elements. There may have been any number of things you were <strong><em>not </em></strong>doing at the time. The things I cited were examples only. </p>

<p>At least one side road of this discussion has to do with letting go. A number of years ago, at the San Diego County Fair photo exhibit, I was the poster child of what you describe as a "first prize" seeker in an amateur photo salon. My first attempt yielded me one accepted photo out of 5 submitted. I learned and absorbed what was deemed "worthy" of exhibiting and hit 5 of 5 the next year and garnered some "honorable mention" ribbons. So what? I did gain experience and honed my craft and technique. Nothing wrong with that. I also learned how to create photographs that adhered to "the rules" for being exhibited there. In a way, that too was useful. But I was left with that "so what" sensation. It wasn't enough, or it wasn't creating what I wanted to create, or...or lord knows what. I still struggle with that. "To the man who knows not where he his sailing, no wind is favorable." I'm not entirely sure what it is I seek, only that letting go is part of it, and, ironically, that learning much more than I already know now (which is not much, lest I imply otherwise) is another part of it. Fine Art college sophomore stuff, perhaps. But, despite my age, that's probably about where I am in my photographic development...if that. </p><div></div>

<p><strong>Hi Steve,</strong></p>

<p>I was definbitely "letting go" in this perception. You may get a better measure of that by my reply to Fred, below:</p>

<p><strong>Hi Fred,</strong></p>

<p>I just noticed your earlier comment ("...which rules of composition does your photo above ignore or not take into account?"), thanks for reminding me.</p>

<p>The short answer is virtually "ALL", but I know that won't wash with you, so here are some of the "broken rules" in the image.</p>

<p><em>The "Golden Section"</em> (which we as photographers often oversimplify, or reduce, as the rule of two-thirds) is absent in my photo which has two or four subjects, depending upon how you weight the shadows versus chairs. There is no golden rule of space division, as in a Gainsborough ("The Hay Wain") or other such work.</p>

<p><em>Color complementarity.</em> One rule is to contrast or create tensions between complementary colors, like blue and orange or red and green. There is none here, only a cold relationship that may be created by blue, black and white, something which is I think overtaken by the nature of the subject (humor rather than bleakness).</p>

<p><em>Principal subject or image point. </em>It can be argued that here there is none, unless you divide that quality among the four "subjects". Their compositional relationship shouldn't work, but I think it does, at least in creating a visual enigma of sorts.</p>

<p>There is no use of various "tool-kit" compositional elements that are known to work ("rules"), such as<br />- o<em>ptical surfaces </em>(if you are not familiar with the term, I can elaborate; it is essentially that of picture elements that have a common base line of reference, or focus, and which create movement or visual dynamics),<br />- the use of <em>different forms of lines </em>(absent here),<br /><em>- contrasts of forms</em> (they are all too similar to each other in my image to qualify, unless we consider the weak example of water form, compared to the subjects),<br /> <em>- imaginary forms</em> (such as a wheel of a wagon or a face only half shown, and imagined as existing further off frame),<br />- use of <em>disequilibrium </em>for effects (of form, of lines, of relative sizes,....),<br /> <em>- quantitative contrasts</em>,<br /> <em>- clear-obscure</em>,<br />- and other compositional "rules".</p>

<p>These are just a few of the rules that the image "ignores" (or which are "broken" or "unheeded") and, which I will venture to say, does not compromise it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Arthur, I look at your photo and Anders's photo and they seem to rely on graphic qualities, they both seem to have a sense of order, and Anders's feels restricted while yours feels contained. They don't make me think of rules but they do make me conscious of composition. Steve's image, by contrast, seems to have a life of its own, doesn't make me think of composition but rather the girl's intriguing and somewhat quirky expression drives it, and the photo feels loose and free. In terms of my taste, I happen to like your color palette, a bit reminiscent of Hockney, and the golden light in Anders's photo is rich.</p>

<p><strong>Fred</strong><br>

Chopin was a virtuoso of his instrument and his music, even if beautiful, doesn't even compare to the level of the one of Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms, Wagner, Mahler, to mention some. Especially Beethoven reached levels of humanity, purity and transcendence that are still unmatched. Yet, Beethoven didn't really need to show his technical skills in any of his music, with the exception of some piano sonatas and parts of the Emperor concerto, while Chopin relied on it (as did Liszt and Paganini and others). I would courageously say that he wrote very beautiful romantic music for the mass and his dominance on the technical aspect increased the effect dramatically (even more with Liszt and especially with Paganini). Listen to <a href="

target="_blank">this</a>, and experience Hell versus Heaven. Listen how he manages to reach the highest inner and intimate emotions by using the most simple harmonic and melodic structure (almost banal). That shows a humongous technical knowledge, that he doesn't even engage yet he is able to produce incredible music. It's not about which or how many notes are being written but the <em>consecutio</em> between them that counts. The Greeks only used five notes... Miles Davis used to say: "Why playing many notes when all you need are the beautiful ones..." and he sure did have a solid technical background.<br>

Billy's photos definitely show his technical knowledge but that's not what I see when I look at them... What I see is pure expressiveness and an attempt to go beyond just technical.<br>

About rules... I agree with you when you say</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Luis, Antonio said, specifically in order to emphasize his point, that forgetting is "giving no relevance" to technique. My examples were meant to suggest that he might think in more nuanced, less absolute terms about technique. He's used the word "must" regarding rules and technique several times in this thread, as if thinking this is something he or others must do as they become experienced photographers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Rules is not the right word, I'm talking about technical skills and procedures.<br>

<strong>Steve</strong><br>

As I said above, rules is probably the wrong word. Another good word could be approach. Let's take as an example Adams' portraits and Salgado's landscapes: I don't see Adams' portraits more expressive than Salgado's landscapes. At the same time, we cannot say that Salgado's technical skills were not sharp enough. What I'm trying to say is that Adams' approach focused more on the technical aspect with enormous results that IMO made it difficult for him to focus on the emotional aspect too. His brain worked better in the mathematical and scientific mode. Salgado, on the other hand, used his technical skills to serve emotion. No one is better, they both excelled at what they did but none of the two was able to do what the other did.<br>

Paganini never put his unmatched technique at music's service as Beethoven did. Between the two, the first is a virtuoso, the second is a musician.<br>

<strong>John</strong><br>

Django had a terrible accident that left him impaired in the use of his left hand. When he was still a child, he got caught in a terrible fire that completely burned tendons and tissue of his hand, making it impossible for him to play. He had to reinvent a different personal technique that would allow him to play the guitar again and so he did and I can assure you that that process takes a lot of technical practicing. Yes, he was a self-taught player and didn't know how to read music but that doesn't mean he didn't have technique, that he put to music's service.<br>

<strong>Luis</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Perhaps wrongly, I took what Antonio wrote to mean "no (conscious) relevance", and I realize that is my inference.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perfect, I like the (conscious) add.<br>

<strong>Arthur</strong><br>

Thank you for ordering all the thoughts, that was helpful. Sometimes it becomes difficult to follow everything. I'm sorry about the badly exposed OP and I'm glad that what I meant to talk about is coming out.</p>

 

<p>Antonio, interesting take on classical composers. I disagree substantially (all that means is that my taste varies) and maybe some day we will get to discuss it and listen to the music together. I've always found Beethoven's music architectural and, therefore, grounded (in a good way, of course). Chopin's music, more dance like in general (the Etudes notwithstanding), has always been for me more transcendent.</p>

<p>It was precisely a <em>conscious</em> awareness of technique that I was getting at in my comments to you and Luis. Yes, Billy's photographs do convey more emotion than technique but he was actively considering technique when he created those. What one puts into a photo (even if it is consciously technically considered) is not necessarily directly translated into how that photo will be perceived. I have recently made several photos where I was deliberately conscious and aware of process and technique yet I certainly hope that more than just that comes through. What I'm getting at is that, though technique may become second nature it doesn't always have to be set aside or let go of in the moment of shooting or processing. It can be consciously attended to and a great and/or compelling photo may still arise, especially when that's the issue the photographer wants to address photographically.</p>

<p>I just wanted to say how much I like this community. It's great to talk to you guys, even when I'm wrong or I have no idea of what I'm talking about and I just read your posts. Sorry for the insistence on the music but I think it's interesting to compare photography to other things. I wish I knew about painting or poetry.</p>