Photographer As Genius

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>And you know what, everyone is talking out of their ass, including Swift, Mark Twain, Mozart, myself, and Luis G. You don't know; I don't know; no one knows.</p>

<p>In the words of Henry David Thoreau (and I paraphrase):</p>

<p>Men say they know many things,<br />The arts and sciences and a thousand appliances,<br />The wind that blows is all that anybody knows.</p>

<p> </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>In all things, consider the source, in the available context. I'll give more credence to the balanced viewpoint that considers many aspects and outcomes to one of dull agnosticism bordering on nihilism. This is a case where the bulk of what some have written about photography over a period of time is more illuminating than their portfolios (or lack thereof).</p>

<p>Some folks seem a mite too anxious to raise questions under the guise of seeking illumination when they are actually more interested in trying to douse the lights others may bring to the matter.</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>Jeffrey... you say you have never seen a photograph that you felt was a work of genius. I think that speaks more to you and your tastes than anything else. But I am also wondering how and where you have viewed the photographs you are judging? Was it online in terrible rastery compressed images projected into the fuzzy and disaster ridden media that is the computer monitor? In a textbook reduced to 2x3 inches with no attention to proper tonal balance? A wall calander where it has been cropped to bits with text pasted over top of it? To see photographs you need to see prints. Real prints. Big as life and signed by the artist so you know you are looking at his vision. If you still are not struck with awe, then the question to ask yourself is, what is it missing.</p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>Lex, you care to name names? ;) Nevermind, I don't want to know. ;)</p>

<p>Patrick, I'm not saying that I've never seen a photograph that was a work of genius, just that if it was it never occurred to me. Look, I'm not a neophyte as some want to catalog me. I've been looking at pictures, photographing, studying, and working in my darkroom (and now lightroom too) since around 1981 or 1982. I've seen many photographs, over the years, that I've loved and admired, but the truth is that I've never equated them with genius. That's just me, I'm not speaking for anyone else.</p>

<p>I've got an idea, why don't you post a photograph, or a series of photgraphs that you feel are works of genius and tell me why they are. There's been a lot of talk here, myself included, but what's missing in this thread to back up all the talking is photographs to give the talk some credence. Me, I can't find a work of genius to post so it's up to you guys to lead me to the promised land. Deal?</p>

[charlesheckel]

<p>I cannot look at some works without awe and veneration, or at least a barbaric suspicion that they are either alive or invested by spirits, but posting pictures of them would do no good for most people, callow yuks that they are; and likewise your postings of pictures of works that touch you would do me no good, callow yuk that I am. The same is probably true of photographs. No deal.</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>But.....perhaps if we had a Genius forum.....................?</p>

[luis_g]

<p> [ Will someone please get Bob Cossar his own forum soon, please? His genius is just too overwhelming for us lesser mortals.]</p>

<p>Jeffrey wrote: "And you know what, everyone is talking out of their ass, including Swift, Mark Twain, Mozart, myself, and Luis G. You don't know; I don't know; no one knows."</p>

<p> He wishes. This is a an even more absurd statement than the earlier ones he made. All it tells us is that Jeffrey is the one blowing smoke rings and attempting to be vacuously clever. And in one swoop, he's told ALL the posters here, they, like him, know nothing -- and he knows it. LOL!</p>

<p>[JP]In the words of Henry David Thoreau (and I paraphrase):<br>

"Men say they know many things,<br /> The arts and sciences and a thousand appliances,<br /> The wind that blows is all that anybody knows."</p>

<p> By Jeffrey's own prior statement, he's invalidated the very quote he cites, but he doesn't get it.</p>

<p> Ellis Vener mentioned several geniuses in his post. Have you gone to look at their work? I'll bet you have not. I doubt anyone is going to waste their time parading pictures past you while you play Lord of the Flies pooh-poohing them, because all we'd get is :"I don't feel nuttin, NEXT!" Anyone who declares himself the arbiter of genius rules over over a small kingdom.</p>

<p>"The millions are awake enough for physical labor; but only one in a million is awake enough for effective intellectual exertion, only one in a hundred million to a poetic or divine life. To be awake is to be alive ... We must learn to reawaken and keep ourselves awake, not by mechanical aids, but by an infinite expectation of the dawn."</p>

<p align="right">Thoreau</p>

<p> </p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>Amazing debate. LOL!</p>

<p><strong>Original question: "What is it that makes one photographer a genius and another not? "</strong></p>

<p>My answer: When that photographer's work is consistently outstanding, pleasing, original, amazing, and has a distinctive signature that is generally inimitable.</p>

[terri_leech]

<p>I love the dog(weimeraner?) picture. </p>

[terri_leech]

<p>After googling "photographic genius" just for fun, this is one page that I went to.<br>

<a href="http://independent.gmnews.com/news/2007/0321/Front_page/073.html">http://independent.gmnews.com/news/2007/0321/Front_page/073.html</a><br>

Now that first pic by Elliot Erwitt IS genius to me....of course I am a dog person...but I love the point of view ,or is it viewpoint of the subjects. LOL I doubt if anyone can see it and not smile. :-) Sorry, I will take cute and happy over dark, desolate and depressing any day. I also like the spontenaity of the shot. One thing with animals, at least you don't get those horrible staged, contrived or posed looks you can get with folks. Also animals look good 'au naturel' in the buff or wearing clothes. I cannot say the same thing about some nude pics of people.</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>Thanks Terri....that's the breed all right.....you might also enjoy the "bored" look too.....regards, Bob</p><div></div>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>LOL, okay Luis, whatever. You're right; you win.</p>

<p>Epiphany! The genius is the subject, not the recorder, unless recognizing genius is genius in itself. If Bob's dog isn't a genius among dogs I'll eat my shorts. So the question seems to be if a photographer recognizes genius does that make him a genius too?</p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>Just to add a further thought, using Adam's "Half Dome" as an example. It seems to me that Half Dome is one of nature's creations of genius, not Ansel Adams'. A photographer could capture/ record/ interpret this natural wonder artfully or poorly, but in either case, the genius is nature's Half Dome no matter how the photographer records and interprets it. Without Half Dome, Adams has nothing, and therefor no genius. Does artfully recording/ interpreting nature's genius make Adams a genius too? Sort of like genius by association?</p>

[charlesheckel]

<p>Jeffrey, as Ellis Vener observed above, all genius is in some sense derivative. In your specific example, Adams' "Half Dome" is singular in making the viewer aware of the spirit--"genius"--of that place. It stands apart not only from a zillion other vacation snaps, but from the formation itself, looming largely unseen above all the tourist babble. The genius of the photograph is in revealing the genius of the place, in taking a kind of hammerlock on our sensibilities.<br>

Study Adams' work thoughtfully and intelligently. He is not simply photographing places, but shining moments, particular qualities of atmosphere and casts of light, appearances of what the Greeks used to call "the god in that place." You and I are lucky if such an awareness comes our way even once, and Adams has amassed an absolutely jaw-dropping bucket list.</p>

[joe_jackson4]

<p>"What is photographic genius?"</p>

<p>In general, it's pretty much the same as hairstyling "genius", fashion design "genius", and website design "genius"... It's just a label to be applied to whatever happens to float yer boat...</p>

<p>As for Einstein, Newton and the like, well, that type of "genius" is something else entirely.</p>

[albert_richardson1]

<p>I think I'm just about done here, but for a short afterword.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>the genius is nature's Half Dome no matter how the photographer records and interprets it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The subject in front of a camera is not photography and its presence is not a photograph. Jeffrey is certainly not the first person to ever take the position that the world of Nature has a grandeur that can only come from God, and that men can do little but make a poor copy. My own views are not the issue here, except that I am aware that artistic brilliance exists in the work made from the artist's mind sometimes influenced by his/her observation of Nature. This is our concern in applying ourselves to mastering the art and techniques of photography: we work to train our minds so that we might gain competence using the tools that rightly belong in our field. This is where we look for photographic genius.</p>

<p>Artistic excellence is a real thing. Talent is a real thing. There are people who are able to effectively call upon skills and abilities to consistently produce outstanding results and generate lasting value, even if no one else thinks so. There is no 'Prokopowicz Scale of Competent Performance' I have ever heard of. I believe if I were a genius myself, I might be too busy to notice Jeffery and his cohorts at all. I certainly wouldn't care what they think.</p>

[summitar]

<p>I think genius is something one is born with, as opposed to a skill one can practise and acquire.<br>

I have several degrees in engineering and given enough time and motivation, I think I could learn to understand most branches of physical science. I understand what goes into focussing and a good exposure, but my wife who doesn't know an f-stop from a door stop, has a much higher batting average in producing good photos than I do.<br>

My favorite example of pure genius is Einstein's general relativity, which combines space and mass to produce gravity. Most of his earlier work (done when he was a Swiss patent clerk and about 25 years old) was brilliant, for sure, but would have been formulated by others eventually. General relativity sprung out a mind that only comes along once every 500 years, like Newton.</p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>Thankyou for the latest replies gentlemen! Very thoughtful stuff.</p>

<p>Above and beyond the work itself, has the artist/ scientist/ genius altered their chosen field so that it will never be perceived the same way, or has he created a new major genre within their chosen field? Obviously Einstein changed the way we look at the universe; Newton as well; Ansel Adams created a working theory for dealing with light; Tiger Woods elevated golf to a new level previously unimagined. A genius seems to ultimately transcend their field and become a source of populist admiration; they become universal. </p>

 

[bobcossar]

<p><strong>"A genius seems to ultimately transcend their field and become a source of populist admiration; they become universal,"</strong></p>

<p>.......I see.......Sort of like the Octomom, or Brittany..........?</p>

<p> </p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>No like Newton and Einstein.</p>

[profhlynnjones]

<p>And then Jeffrey, Ansel didn't create the Zone system, two others tried it and regarded it as unusable and Ansel (the third person to use it) tried it manfully from the late 1930's until his death. Ansel Adams was a brilliant concert pianist and decided that it was too difficult to make a good living. However in photography, the same thing was true and Ansel didn't make much money until a manager took over his business making him a millionare late in his career.</p>

<p>And then, do we call large bank accounts genius or artistic recognition as genius. Einstein was a bona fide genius who said that you never learn anything new, the real genius is selecting a combination of things you already know! Einstein's sister was the best friend of a woman named Halsman, Halsman's brother couldn't get permission to enter the US, he w as a Jew and his parent company was taken over by the Soviets. Einstein's sister asked Albert to intercede for her friends brother and he did so by writing to his friend, President Franklin Roosevelt who got the genius photographer Philippe Halsman. There are lots of stories that permit genius to be recognized.</p>

<p>An on and on,</p>

<p>Lynn</p>

<p> </p>

[graham_line]

<p><br /> <em>'It’s not enough to have talent, you also have to be Hungarian.' - Robert Capa</em></p>

[DB_Gallery]

<p>This thread now has some 90+ replies to it, right? Since it started, who that has replied to this thread has shot a *seriously* good keeper photograph within that time? All this speculation and analyzation is fine for while, but is it really going to make *you* a better photographer?</p>

<p> </p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>Daniel, are you going to shoot photographs 24 hours a day? I think life offers time for some discussion too, even if it's just for fun like this thread.</p>

 

[marta_cajiao]

<p>Hi Jeffrey,<br>

I guess that the definition of genius to me--and I may be in the minority on this opinion--is in the photpgrapher's ability to convey a message that goes beyond the photgraph itself. For me when I see a photograph that makes the top of my head sizzle in it's exquisiteness--that speaks to me more than words can ever convey--to me that is genius and it doesn't matter if it was taken by a beginner or a world famous photographer...genius is sometimes liberally applied to those whom are deemed so because of who they are not what they have done,follow my thread? Okay,maybe an example should follow--How many people haven't been touched by the photo of thee young japanese girl running naked after the bomb was dropped on the japanese cities? There's a sadness and yet ethereal beauty captured by the photographer that is haunting and yet he was a field photpgrapher--a war correspondent and some would dare say a hack. What makes a photographer a genius? The ability to pull you into his/her world in a zen like reality created by his mind's eye before he/she even shot the photo--so much so that you feel that you can step into the photo and transcend time and space and be one with the subject.</p>