Artisan & Technician

<p>I am not proposing the usual "<em><strong>Is Photography an Art</strong></em>" discussion.</p>

<p>The empirical part of me would like to propose the question ... "<em><strong>from the end-product photograph, could you really tell whether the photographer was technician or artisan?</strong></em>"</p>

<p>It would seem that 2 individuals who set up on a tripod with similar lighting & vantage, and then use similar settings would get essentially similar photographs.</p>

<p>In the end, what difference would the artistic sentiment & vision brought by one photographer bring to a photograph that the lack of sentiment & vision would hinder? </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3967393"><em>Thomas Powell</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"></a><em>, Oct 13, 2009; 07:25 a.m.</em><br>

<em>It would seem that 2 individuals who set up on a tripod with similar lighting & vantage, and then use similar settings would get essentially similar photographs.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thomas, you're right, both photographs would be similar. I think what you're really getting at is......</p>

<p>Who decides <em>what</em> to shoot, the technician or the artisan ?</p>

<p>It's obvious to me when a technician posts a photograph. It's usually an artistic disaster, the subject matter is boring, uninspired, etc., and technically overprocessed to meet a set of "photographically correct" criteria.</p>

<p>The artisan (artist), on the other hand, uses vision to select a subject that is interesting, moving, etc., in other words, a photo that is a delight to view. Of course that photo has to meet certain techmical specs to be visually pleasing, and not distracting to the subject matter.</p>

<p>For me, that's what separates the artisan from the technician.</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>Not to get pedantic and whatnot, but I find the use of the word "artisan" to be a curious choice, here. An artisan is, essentially, a <em>craftsperson</em> working in a particular trade. This is not the same an <em>artist</em>. The artisan may also produce art, but the two terms really address very different things.<br /><br />Art is communication. Artisans generally create useful items (say, cheese ... or wooden furniture). A wooden chair may, of course, have aspects of its design that cross over into art (clever whimsy? the juxtaposition of two periods that make a statement of some sort?).<br /><br />So your two side-by-side photographers looking at the same subject in the same light with their equipment being used in the same way are about to practice the <em>craft</em> of photography, having already practiced some of the <em>art</em> by deciding what it is they're going to shoot, where, when, how, and <em>why</em>.</p>

<p>I don't think Matt's being pedantic. The standard definitions of artisan and technician are so similar, it's not clear what kind of distinction the OP is trying to draw. I'm not very clear on how the example provided relates to the issue. Could you give a bit more explanation?</p>

<p>I think in terms of what photograph to create as well as what subject to shoot.</p>

<p>The craftsman, the forensic photographer, the documentarian, the photojournalist, the real estate broker, the e-bay poster may not choose their subjects with an artistic approach and may produce technically impressive, also purposeful, photographs.</p>

<p>I don't think there's a distinct separation between art and the practice of craft. An artist crafts as an artist. His use of focus, his choice of lenses, his snap of the shutter will serve his vision and expression and will be made based on more that craft. He doesn't switch hats when he's at different stages of making a photograph.</p>

<p>Most good artists are good technicians.</p>

<p>I sometimes appreciate experiencing strong and difficult, even negative emotions when creating and when looking at expressive and/or artistic photographs.</p>

<p>Two guys standing in front of the same subject: One thinks, "What's the <em>best</em> lens to use, the <em>right</em> exposure to set, the <em>nicest</em> way to present this subject. The other goes about expressing himself, still crafting, but to different ends.</p>

<p>see below</p>

<p>Fred's interpretation is on track. I like it. I also believe that it is the "artist" that decides whether his/her work is art.</p>

<p>"The word 'art' is very slippery. It really has no importance in relation to one's work. I work for the pleasure, for the pleasure of the work, and everything else is a matter for the critics." -Manuel Alvarez Bravo</p>

Sorry to be boring, but isn't this question several decades too late?

 

"The artist is dead", and only the text remains. We look at the photograph and experience it we experience it, it does or does not stimulate us. The conersation is between image and viewr, and the skill or intent os the photographer is no longer relevant or accessible from within that conversation.

 

The only way to compare the two photographers would be through a sort of summative statistical arhaeology -- out of MANY images, does one of them produce examples which hit the button, producing valed conversations, significantly more or less often than the other?

<p>Felix: sure, if the photographer isn't there to provide context by other means, or otherwise communicate to the photograph's audience, then the photograph itself has to do all the heavy lifting.<br /><br />But surely you're not suggesting that the photograph's power to communicate isn't dependent on the photographer?</p>

<p>I guess some of my point relates to what has been said.</p>

<p>A sculptor/painter chooses a subject and presentation/vantage (similar to a photographer's choice of subject and composition). The sculptor/painter then must be able to translate his brain image into a sculpture or painting. I have had many "visions of fancy" that I have been able to envision, but unable to communicate with a painting/drawing. 2 very distinct processes. I am convinced that I could never "accidentally" create a beautiful painting/sculpture from my vision.</p>

<p>With photography ... if it can be visualized ... can anyone with decent setup capture it?</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em><strong>"The sculptor/painter then must be able to translate his brain image into a sculpture or painting."</strong></em><br>

<strong><em></em></strong><br>

<em>That's only one of a sequence of misconceptions here. </em><br>

<em></em><br>

The first was the distinction between "technician" and "artisan." Its odd to propose a distinction between words when one of the key words is used improperly. </p>

<p>Another is a failed analogy to painting and sculpture, made due to a lack of understanding of the work of many painters and sculptors ...</p>

<p>Sculptors often speak of finding the sculpture (not necessarily "image", as sculptures aren't entirely visual )in the block of marble, chunk of wood etc. Sculptures are often tactile as well as visual.<em> </em><br>

<em></em><br>

<em></em><br>

Painters often paint until they arrive at what they want.. or they use a process that lead to a painting, NOT beginning with an image. </p>

<p>Some paintings take years to complete...while the painter's goals evolve. Picasso's Guernica was, like many paintings, the result of an incredibly long sequence of explorations...around 100 preliminary major sketches and paintings (displayed at the Guggenheim just before Guernica was returned to Spain.</p>

<p>Photographers engage in an extended work process too. Their preparation often includes education in other fields (even "art") as well as intentional learning of their craft, as well as continual practice, trial and error. All of that may or may not come out in their work.</p>

<p>The fact that galleries rarely display accidental work attests to the fact that humanity in general gives credit to preparation and context and has limited interest in accidentally amusing "images."<br>

<em></em></p>

<p>My apology for using the word artisan instead of the phrase "artist, or one who practices an art".<br>

The analogy to painting and sculpting I do not apologize for ... it is actually perfect. Whether it takes someone one day or a lifetime to complete an artistic work is not an issue. There are still 2 processes of a works completion "the envisioning" and "the implementation". With painting & sculpting, it is easy to attribute "Art" at work throughout the entire process.<br>

If you've been around photographers enough, you will have heard the joke ... "I became a photographer because I could not paint". I think there is always some truth to jokes. I think with photography, there is an arbitrary separation of the "envisioning" and the "implementation".</p>

<p>My original question was an attempt to tease it out.</p>

 

<p><strong>Thomas--</strong></p>

<p>Would you consider it possible that <em>your</em> approach to photography separates the envisioning from the implementation but that may not apply to photography <em>per se</em>?</p>

<p>I don't disagree that there are differences between painting and photography. There are many. And I find it helpful to think about those. I also enjoy working with and even visually commenting on or at least utilizing effectively what I consider to be some unique aspects of photography.</p>

<p>I do think, as has been discussed in these forums quite a bit, photographs have a closer relationship to what is commonly called "objective reality" than the other visual mediums mentioned.</p>

<p>But I'm not sure what you're saying other than you find it easier to take pictures than to paint. I imagine many painters would find it easier to paint than take pictures.</p>

<p>About your point, I'd say it is likelier easier to directly represent things in the world with a photograph than with a painting. Though in a courtroom, for example, because of lighting and restrictions on where you could stand, a quick sketch or drawing might be more appropriate.</p>

<p>But certainly neither art nor painting are limited to directly representing things in the world, so as soon as you go beyond that, the difference you are suggesting seems to pretty much vanish.</p>

<p>You seem to keep coming back to choosing a subject and then capturing it. But that's only one approach either to painting or photography. If we limit the conversation to picking a subject and capturing it, I can understand why someone might come to the conclusion that one would become a photographer because they couldn't paint. But if we explore all the many different ways of approaching painting and making photographs, their communicative and expressive value which can be much more significant to the artist than capturing a subject, then I can't understand where you're coming from. Like I said, painting, to me, is not about finding a subject and painting it and photography, to me, is not about finding a subject and photographing it. (I think for some it is, but definitely not for all.) Painting is about making paintings and photography is about making photographs. The making can be about creating, expressing, communicating, changing, altering perceptions, inspiring, annoying.</p>

<p>The process of making a photograph is not just a choosing a subject and then a passive act of representing that subject. A photographer who necessarily approaches a photograph more passively than a painter paints is doing so by choice (or without even thinking or realizing he's made that choice) and not because photography dictates that that's what he must do.</p>

<p>Fred', right on! "... painting, to me, is not about finding a subject and painting it and photography, to me, is not about finding a subject and photographing it." <br>

Photography is "about" nothing. Carpentry and brain surgery are "about" nothing.<br>

If one is into "finding a subject and photographing it" then one is someone who enjoys something about photography but doesn't have anything in particular in mind. If one has nothing in particular in mind, where's the harm? Remember Wizard of Oz? Remember W?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Fred & John;</p>

<p>Interesting insight. Are you saying that someone who whips out their camera when they stumble upon a scene of interest ... differs substantially from someone who plans to "stumble" onto that scene?</p>

<p>Can the artistic aspect of a Photograph be retrospective? (e.g. You see something interesting in a past photo ... and tease it into a vision)</p>

<p>For me, it's often not about either stumbling on a scene or planning to stumble on a scene.</p>

<p>It can be about feeling lonely on a day and having my camera with me. It may be about actively wanting to express that loneliness or it may just be photographing and allowing the loneliness to influence and help create a compelling photograph. In order to do that, I take a picture of something and the motivation could be the light and/or texture, the way the haze hides some of the facade of something. It is NOT always about the subject. It is about the feeling of the subject, the focus of the subject, the relationship of the subject to other matter and space.</p>

<p>I don't see photographs strictly in terms of taking a picture of something, whether it's intentional or stumbled upon. It's not always about the thing "out there" and it's not always about my relationship to the thing "out there." It can be more about what I want to express or what I happen to feel. I'm not often looking for things or scenes to photograph or to stumble upon. I'm feeling stuff and photographing or I'm finding ideas and emotions to express and using my camera and the world to do that.</p>

<p>There are no scenes of interest, except when I take vacation pictures, which are a blast to take. There are scenes that, when I photograph them, they will mean or say something to me or express something for me. I can do this very spontaneously or with a lot of planning. Out there, they are just scenes, either to look for or stumble across. When in non-vacation snap mode, they are participants in an expression.</p>

<p>It's not just about what I see. It's about how and why I see what I see. And it's not just about what I want the thing to look like. It's what I want a photograph to look like and how a thing -- in combination with light, shadow, focus, texture, contrast, highlights, grain, noise, color manipulation, and all the rest -- will participate in that process.</p>

<p>Thomas, I tend not to "stumble upon" photographs, I seek them or set myself up for them...seek where and when I'll find...pretty intentional. If I carry a camera somewhere without intentionality I rarely make a photograph. Not bragging or complaining...that's just the fact.</p>

<p>I met a Freudian couple last week, shrinks in their 70s. I gave them my social card and proposed their portrait. Except for their physical beauty, or because of it, it will be challenging to execute (like most photographs IMO). I need to confirm that appointment (maybe they think I'm nuts). I wish I had a studio...</p>

<p>I don't like certain things I see in photography...such as when fear, inattention, and limited aspirations can be seen in the results. I become especially unhappy about those things in myself. </p>

<p>What about you Thomas P...you own answers to your own questions?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I am a notorious stumbler. I generally know that the location I am going will generate a need for a camera ... but I rarely compose in advance (although I have). Once in a location, I am mostly in "hunting" mode. I enjoy this process, though I am not sure there is any "art" in it. I don't return to an area either. I fail in capturing something moving more than I succeed.</p>

<p>Recently, I find joy in retrospective fiddling with a photo in Photoshop. I love to create a scene that never existed, except in my mind.</p>

<p>I'd like to draw attention to Matt Needham's statement, way above:</p>

<p>...in the context of his several simple and elegant website/s (primary link below)</p>

<p>...and the amusing contradiction between his Manuel Alvarez Bravo quotation and one of his labels for his own work...all of which add up nicely to some paradoxical things he says about himself.</p>

<p>Without contradictions there can be no truth. Contradictions are the source of paradox, and there's no higher value than paradox, since truth can't exist without it.</p>

<p>I dislike wedding photography in general. How is that possible, given Matt Needham's photography?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.mattneedham.com/">http://www.mattneedham.com/</a></p>

<p>I'd much rather think about contradiction and paradox in photography than how superior one type of photographer is over another type of photographer..</p>

<p>Let me know when you guys come to an agreement on this subject...I shall like to read the conclusion.</p>

<p> Hal, though I hadn't been posting to this thread, I've been reading it closely. It is unlikely there will be a consensus, or neat conclusion to this. It's an exploratory type of discussion.</p>

<p>B#**er ... wrote a long reply, then clicked "notify me of responses" ... and my reply disappeared forever.<br>

OK ...<br>

<strong>First an apology to Thomas:</strong> re-reading, I realise that in writing my comment above I committed the sin of forgetting your "The empirical part of me would like..." That makes my opening, at least, and possible the rest of my comment as well, irrelevant and unhelpful: I'm sorry.<br>

<strong>Matt Laur:</strong> “But surely you're not suggesting that the photograph's power to communicate isn't dependent on the photographer?” No, you're right. The part played by the photographer's power to communicate varies (from nil to majority partner) from circumstance to circumstance, but in most cases is a significant component. I was only suggesting that it is not possible to retrospectively establish (I did grasp that bit of the original question! :-) from the resulting image the extent to which the photographer's power to communicate (or or visualise in the first place – and the fact that you find your visualisations in "hunting mode" rather than conceiving them in advance doesn't make them any the less visualisations) contributed in that particular case.<br>

<strong>To Thomas again:</strong> “With photography ... if it can be visualized ... can anyone with decent setup capture it?” That, again, depends on the case. Sometimes, yes. More often, no. And in many (possibly even most, though certainly not all) cases, a "decent setup" has nothing whatsoever to do with capturing a visualised idea.</p>

<p>I can feel it when something draws me in so much that I want to extract it through the viewfinder. Usually can't see it with bare eyes, but a vision appears for a fleeting moment while peering at the subject through the lens. Does that count as anything or am I a nut case?</p><div></div>

<p>An artist or ("artisan"), whatever form their art chooses to take, has to be two different people. First, you have to have the idea, the vision, of what you want to create (right brain), and then you have to have the technical ability to do it (left brain). It does no good to have the ideas if you don't have the technical skill to bring them to life, and you can have all the technical ability in the word but if you have no vision you will produce perfectly technical crap.</p>