Learn the rules to unlearn them

<p>I think that a prescriptive approach to photography (or most things) is less uselful than a descriptive approach. If you try to say that a photo (or most other things) must be precisely such and such in order to be good, bad, or mediocre, or whatever, it is surely more harmful than helpful. If however you look at the photo and say it works for me because of such and such, it becomes more of a learning experience.</p>

<p>I don't think that you can forget what you've learned as much as you can become less conscious about it, assuming you do a lot of photography (or music, or carpentry, or whichever endeavor it might be). You become better and don't have to consciously remember what it is, that makes your photographs work. In addition, I also believe, as has been mentioned here before, that people work in very different ways. Some people like prescriptive rules and structures more than others.</p>

<p>I do, however, get the point about forgetting what you've learned, or not being too attached to the rules that you've learned. The less bound you are by self imposed rules, the more freely you can conduct your photography.</p>

<p>I am fairly new to PhotoNet. I had not really perused the forum section until yesterday when I was surprised to find a section on the Philosophy of Photography. Since I have been interested in the History of Photography going back to the early 1970’s I found it interesting that there would be philosophical discussions on a site such as this. If you were to go to similar sites and write something intelligent you would be accused of being a snob or just trying to show off your intellect.</p>

<p>I must first say that I majored in Photography in college and actually attended an art school. During this time we were introduced to the “rules”, as people are calling them here, but were called the “elements and principals of art”. These elements and principals were a codification of an analysis of design over the centuries. They were a description of commonalities that had appeared within all art, over time, that if considered within ones work would help make it more visually pleasing. In other words the elements and principals of art informed you as to what worked and what didn’t.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that this list of elements and principals is malleable depending on whose model is used. We were taught along the lines of the tenants proposed by the Bauhaus movement. This would include the works of Josef Alber on color theory and the Gestalt Theories of Perception advanced by the German psychologists in the 1910’2 and 1920’s. Gestalt awareness is lacking in most books and internet information on photography.</p>

<p><strong>During these classes it was pointed out to us that any of these elements or principals could be ignored within the context of any one work at any time.They were NOT rules by which our work was to be governed; instead they were guidelines that may help us make our work more successful.</strong></p>

<p>A good example of someone breaking some of the principals while adhering to others would be Jackson Pollock. He held on to elements such as color, tension, and balance while tossing out form, line and (some would say) harmony. A good example of someone using them to their fullest would be the late works of Rubens.</p>

<p>So knowing the tools (the principals and elements of art), or the “rules” if you so wish to call them, are ways to make your work more readable, cohesive and successful than if you weren’t at least aware of them. Once learned they are not "called up" when creating a work, instead they may be considered more when trying to solve a visual problem with the design of an image. Having been incorporated into the brain they are usually put to use by the brain subconsciously.</p>

<p>Rejecting them completely is difficult in a good work because it is the use of these tools that help make that work succeed. Those who know these tools will find it easier to communicate their ideas than one who doesn’t use the tools. There will always be those people who, though they don’t know the tools, will be successful because of an inherent talent and a brain that seeks harmony. Most visually creative people have at least a semblance of inherent talent that improves over time, but only at a rate equivalent to the amount of work they put into educating their talent. So informing your brain and eye is better than not doing so.</p>

<p><strong>Guy M</strong> has hit various appropriate nails squarely on their heads. As well, he's a far better writer than most here....beginning with the fact that he's lucid, grammatical, and not self-aggrandizing.</p>

<p><em>"...informing your brain and eye is better than not doing so." </em></p>

<p><strong>Yes. But that doesn't imply rules so much as experience.</strong> Rules exist to reduce choices, to reduce reliance upon experience. When they're doted-upon the purpose often has to do with oppression. Study the work of photographers you admire as well as the work of photographers you hate. Maybe it's better to ignore the bon mots of the great photographers (Ernst Haas was a student's insightful-sounding bon-mot generator, but his genuine importance, his photography, is often ignored...as on this Forum). <a href="http://www.ernst-haas.com/">http://www.ernst-haas.com/</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Yes. But that doesn't imply rules so much as experience.</strong> Rules exist to reduce choices, to reduce reliance upon experience. When they're doted-upon the purpose often has to do with oppression.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't accept the term "rules", the elements and principal are not rules but guidelines at best. but for this argument I will accept the term rules to mean the same as elements and principals.</p>

<p>I feel that your statement above might be true, but only to some of the narrow minded who feel that any doctrine is to be rebelled against. I saw this in school; the 'Rebels" came in complaining about the rules they were being fed. The funny thing about it is, once they were exposed to the tools they found them useful. Many of the "rebels" ended up being the most formal in their work. Those who rejected anything they were taught usually didn't make it due to lack of the ability to communicate their ideas, they refused to learn. Some of the more successful rebels found that they actually had a more advanced sense of design than they imagined coming into the game and already knew many of the elements and principals through experience. In my case the eye seemed to know them but the brain needed to be informed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Study the work of photographers you admire as well as the work of photographers you hate.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree, look at as much imagery as you can and analyze what works and what doesn't. If one doesn't know what to look for to begin with, it is going to be a long hard fight to learn anything from the images. Part of critiquing an image is dependent upon the formalistics of design, and one who has learned some of these tools will be better equipped to critique their own and others images.</p>

<p>As an example; one of the things I keep seeing on photo sites is using the "rule of thirds". Ok, but who made it a rule and what happened to the other compositional tools:</p>

<ul>

<li>a rise and fall (pyramid) composition, </li>

<li>a diamond composition, </li>

<li>a sweep and block composition, </li>

<li>a circular composition </li>

<li>etc. </li>

</ul>

<p>It seems that somewhere, someone who didn't have a formal background found out about the rule of thirds and passed it off on all the others just getting interested in composition. Now it seems to be, unfortunately, the only compositional tool taught to photographers. I recently spent a lot of time looking for a good book relating to the principals and elements as they relate to photography to recommend to someone who wanted to move on from the technical. The best one I found was from Freeman Patterson entitled, "Photographing the World Around You - A Visual Design Workshop" originally published over 30 years ago. Unfortunately, even it is somewhat limited as it pretty much ignores color theory and Gestalt.<br /></p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>"Part of critiquing an image is dependent upon the formalistics of design, and one who has learned some of these tools will be better equipped to critique their own and others images."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

That is valid to the extent that one wants to think about an image as a graphical composition. But I think graphical composition occurs naturally, untutored, thanks to the media in which we swim from birth and the exposure we've had to the work of others. Analysis/critique doesn't imply appreciation of whatever may be most important.</p>

<p>In general, rules are ways to arrive at popularly acceptable "pictures"...they don't lead toward significance. I think mentoring (simply being around people who are accomplished or assisting (re the many who assisted Irving Penn), or study of the work we find important offers more potential <em>if the goal is significance</em>. The problem with significance is that it's not as easy as perfect composition. Walmart sells perfectly composed posters. </p>

<p>"Critique" isn't comparable to producing or appreciating work, it is often little more than ego trip or theft (critic as thief).</p>

<p>John,<br>

From what I have read of your posts here and in other threads; it seems that your philosophy is to reject any type of judgment or structure of the medium. If so I would think that you would be posting every exposure you made, but I am sure you have made more than 13 exposures in your lifetime.</p>

<p>The act of editing which images to put on a site is a form of judgment/critique of your own work. So I will just assume you are arguing for arguments sake.</p>

<p>Guy, yes my images are heavily edited. I like your work a great deal, particularly the color.</p>

<p>I've not shown decades of earlier work, professional and snapshooting and "art", because I don't want to be understood in those terms. I do want to be understood in terms of my writing and the photos I share now. Times change, right?</p>

<p>As I've mentioned, photos I've not personally printed aren't fully my own: that's my current understanding. In other words, I don't post unprinted files, don't post anything processed by labs or anybody else. Nothing wrong with posting unprinted files or the work of labs, but it's not me. Maybe if I had more time and was a better photographer I'd post more images. I don't want to post tear sheet images (oysters, pharma, machines, technology). Nothing wrong with that, but I don't want to freight my writing with old images. If I had no images to share, I wouldn't post at all. Different strokes.</p>

<p>Rules are created to help explain what the brain already finds pleasant. To train us and make us aware what makes things feel good and work in our brain. They aren't created in the abstract by some tyrant who thinks he knows what's right and wants to impose his thinking on us.</p>

<p>If you use an adverb to describe a noun, the brain says "tilt". The brain knows something is wrong with the sentence. So you create a rule that reminds you not to use an adverb with a noun but rather adjectives. When someone says, "Excuse my English, (or French ir whatever), he knows that he's not following the rules and your native ear hears the descrepancies. So rules remind us, teaches us what the brain already knows. Ain't that tru?</p>

<p>There is a road map for everyone learning something. In short, Rules are the first stage, bending it is the second, and third if he is able to break the rule, that is when he has establish himself significant in that industry. To end the circle he would pass on his own knowledge on which i believe is the pinnacle of what one should reach to achieve.<br /> And to bend the rules, you need to know what they are. Which mean studying whats out there. Looking and seeing, be curious, try and experiment, have ambition.<br /> And to break the rules, one must have self-reliance on his work. Don't listen to what other have to say but what he believes his is own heart. This will eventually lead back with great reward. In due time your in most with become your out most. Imitation is suicide. From the works of Emerson titled Self-reliance. I recommend everyone to read it. The great master of our time have all broken rules.<br /> so to the OP yes, you learn to unlearn to go your own way.<br>

<img src="http://kahhoewan.com/photography/images/pp/01.jpg" alt="" width="452" height="362" /><br>

from the series P.P</p>