Photographer As Genius

[astral]

<p><em>"I've always believed that genius lies in original creation such as a great piece of literature, art, or music, but photographers seem to be more or less documenting what has already been created. A photograph is indeed a creation, but unlike a painting the photograph is more like a mirror than an original creation born from a blank sheet."</em> <br /> <br /> Well, for me, it's not just the act of artistic creation that makes a genius, there has to be more to it. True genius probably involves being the first to take a 'big step' beyond the norms of the time, and to see things in a fundamentally new and enlightened way, to innovate and (arguably) to suceed. If that's even partly true, I haven't really seen much real genius in photography for many years. As for <em>"more or less documenting what has already been created"</em> I agree that is what most photography is. However, much of art, music and literature does that as well ..... So, some personal thoughts about artistic genius - <em>trepidantly</em> :</p>

<p>Before photography, Brunelleschi, Cannaletto, Lautrec, Turner, van Gogh and many, many others observed and recorded the real world using particular techniques, media, tools, palettes, etc. Some artists also synthesised parts of the real with their imaginary worlds - Constable especially comes to mind as a bit of a 'faker'. Heironymous Bosch and many others (including Turner & van Gogh again, in later years) created scenes that are purely ficticious: maybe a couple of these 'imaginative' artists were geniuses, but at least two of them were almost certifiably insane. In contrast, Jackson Pollock, Picasso, Dali and others created visions of wholly unreal abstract 'worlds' that neither they, nor anyone else, could ever observe or record - interestingly, these <em>were </em> intended as 'mirrors'. Was Brunelleschi any less of a genius than Pollock? No way - in comparison, Pollock was regarded by many as "a dauber"! A 10 year old could "create" a Pollock painting, but would the child therefore be a genius? Hardly anyone doubts the genius of Brunellesci, a "mere draughtsman" who 'recorded' exactly what he saw.<br /> <br /> Similarly, many musical composers listened to the world around them and recorded it. Borodin, Liszt, Greig ... all listened to the 'folk' music of the day: others listened to birdsongs and babbling brooks and incorporated an 'image' of these in their work. It's even possible that Shostokovich incorporated simulated sounds from the real world - namely factories(?) - others certainly did. Harrison Birtwistle & Stockhausen may have envisaged sounds which were 'observable' in the real world, though it seems that their music came solely from their imagination. Which are the geniuses?</p>

<p>For me, simply making an 'original creation' on a blank sheet isn't necessarily genius, but neither is recording the world around us. Though if genius does relate to the making of a new work of art, surely it exists as much in the observation and interpretation, as it does in the artistic execution?</p>

<p>So, were Capa, Bresson, Lartigue, Adams and others geniuses? If the answer is 'yes', maybe that is to misjudge what 'genius' really means - I don't think they were actually <em>geniuses</em> , but I would say they were extraordinarily gifted craftsmen. For me, the real geniuses of photography were the original pioneers, like Fox Talbot and Daguerre, so let's applaud them. As for everyone else, maybe we are all just craftsmen & women with varying degrees of skill and 'originality'?</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>Crewdson's "man in the garage" is stunning, reminding me of LaChapelle but more substantive, and Salgado didn't seem to have the luxury of arrangement and yet his pictures couldn't be more powerfully arranged if he had arranged them himself. Thanks for turning me on to these amazing artists! I'd love to see their work in person. I've instantly become a fan.</em></p>

<p>Its amazing that they could be amazing back when it was said that photographers merely make something "like a mirror than an original creation" or when photographers don't create any "substance of their art" or when a "photographer is not actually creating even if that's what he wanted created".</p>

<p>Welcome to the other side.</p>

<p> </p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>Alan, thanks for the lucid comments. So well said, but Adam's was certainly the real deal (thanks Patrick Dempsey).</p>

<p>John, I was just trying to get the wolves away from my door ;). Seriously, one undeniable truth is that I need to get out more. Really, those two photographers laugh in the face of my premise. Nice talking to you, and thanks!</p>

[derek_kennedy]

<p>At least I didnt attack any one in particular. That Ellis, was just rude and uncalled for.</p>

[cyr_smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe you feel that tripping a shutter and recording a model onto blank film or a memory card is the same as a painter using his hands and his talent to do something somewhat similar, I don't.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One should first walk a mile in someone else's shoes before a statement like the above is made, at least you'll be a mile away from him and you'll have his shoes-!<br /> GRIN.</p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>Cyr, I thought I was going to get hammered worse than that. You let me off light. ;)</p>

[tholte]

<p>Jeffrey, seeing the work in person is important and necessary if you are serious about photography. The more you see, the better you will become!</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Ansel made good photographs; the Zone System is pretty good because it's backed up by some tech data to make its use easier, but it's an old idea of shifting tones; I'm not so sure I would count it as genius. Good, yes; genius? </p>

<p>I think that any pursuit of genius will end up decaying into a hunt for what we like. Who is in charge of labeling someone as a genius and why? There have been some bright spots in the history of the arts; but I'm not so sure that ultimately it has great importance. </p>

[josephbraun]

<p>i don't understand the heated discussion...who wants to be a genius anyhow? sounds like a lot of work! LOL</p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>And Tim, how could someone as myself even dare to comment on someone's work if I haven't even seen how the artist wanted his work to be seen.</p>

<p>Maybe this thread has seemed to readers to be silly spinning of the wheels, but to me I feel that I've benefitted from the great thoughtful replies and I'm grateful. Thankyou to everyone who used some of their precious time to respond. Thankyou!</p>

[bobcossar]

<p>I've read all the responses. I was the only one to actually find, and post an image to illustrate my point.<br>

I was also the only one to propose a course of <strong>action</strong> which might have allowed a hands-on exploration of the issue. Josh was the only person to even reply to the suggestion.....and his points certainly were well considered, but not in-surmountable.</p>

<p>So, out of the 60 or so posts, one was a practical approach to the original post, and one was a comment about it. Everyone else ignored what might have been an actual photographic opportunity.</p>

<p>So, perhaps "as usual", 58/60 chose to talk. No one chose to <strong>do</strong> anything......</p><div></div>

[dbcooper]

<blockquote>

<p>The photographer's creation has already been created.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That's true enough. I think the genius is in the photographer's point of view, combined with the ability to capture and communicate it in a visual way that strikes a strong emotional chord with the viewer. The more viewers are so impacted, the greater the level of genius.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>Dear Derek Kennedy ,<br>

Did I say that you weren't a genius? Or that you live in my town? Are you a genius? Do you live in my town?</p>

<p>if neither of those conditions apply to you than I wasn't attacking, or being rude to you.</p>

<p>I was merely pointing out your gross over-generalization.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>I was the only one to actually find, and post an image to illustrate my point. I was also the only one to propose a course of <strong>action</strong> which might have allowed a hands-on exploration of the issue... ...So, out of the 60 or so posts, one was a practical approach to the original post, and one was a comment about it. Everyone else ignored what might have been an actual photographic opportunity... ..."as usual", 58/60 chose to talk. No one chose to <strong>do</strong> anything.</em><br /><em></em><br />We have a genius in our midst.</p>

[derek_kennedy]

<p>Ellis. Then use someone elses name.</p>

<p>THe reason I say photographers esp in my town are not geniuses is this:</p>

<p>Local photographer goes out one early morning without telling anyone where she is going. Goes to the local Government dock (this is in winter, -25C or so temps) to get some photos with her brand new DSLR.</p>

<p>Steps off the dock onto the ice to get a shot. Ice is thin, she falls through. No one sees her fall in. No one knows she is there.</p>

<p>LUCKILY someone drives by and sees her before she drowns or freezes to death and drives her to the hospital.</p>

<p>THAT is no genius.</p>

[peter_cofran]

<p>Interesting topic. Like it or not the art world has always viewed photography as a lesser art form. The substantial monetary disparity between the value of paintings and photography supports in some degree Jeffery sentiments. In addition, paintings and sculptures far out number photography in museums, galleries, and art history books.<br /> <br /> However, the genius factor doesn't play a large role in my evaluation and enjoyment of art no matter what form it takes. Whether genius is remembered or celebrated has more to do with the timing and the persons role in starting an art movement. For instance if Adams was born today he might still be a talented artist but he wouldn't be able to have the same impact that he did. The same is also often said of Bill Gates, being at the right place at the right time. You can't deny that its a combination of skill, talent, vision, but equally important the time, place, and luck.</p>

[michaelyoung]

<p>If something produces a lasting emotional response... then it's genius... regardless of the medium.<br>

Writers, painters, and composers may take years or even lifetimes to compose a single work of art.<br>

Some photographers, already enumerated, have produced works that continue to resonate with people across decades. As often as not, they've done so in mere moments relative to the time spent on producing other works of art.<br>

The ability to recognize and inherently understand what is important--and what is not--is where the genius resides.</p>

<p> </p>

[reza motaghedi]

<p>If photographers like Joel Peter Witkin and Ralph Gibson are not genius so what are they?<br>

They don't just document what already has been created. They CREAT things.<br>

Even many of those who documet things can capture beauty out of ordinary things that we all see everyday but cannot appreciate their value.</p>

[albert_richardson1]

<blockquote>

<p>My query was never about whether or not photography is an art form, or whether or not there exist works of photographic genius, but instead how do I recognize photographic genius, and why do I have such difficulty doing so.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jeffrey this is a personal matter. The issue is simply that you are not yet in a position to appreciate the benefit the works of others might have for you. You will have to decide for yourself what difference the whole discussion makes. Some people, for example, are content to declare that they don't get "modern art," and for them this declaration is appreciation enough.</p>

<p>Everything is 'technical' in that you should not be surprised that you must learn a little to put yourself in a position to learn a little more. This is what university survey and appreciation courses are designed to do; get you started. Are you started in photography for real? I suppose everyone who sets out to climb a mountain speculates about the view from the top. But not everyone complains that he cannot recognize genius. Not everyone realizes that in technical matters a neophyte might not be able to recognize genius for the contributions it makes simply because the problems advanced workers face are too involved to be clearly laid out for beginners.</p>

<p>Why should significant contributions be simple and intuitively obvious? Someone mentioned the Zone System. This is an approach to getting exactly the right camera exposure to serve the needs of a post-processing strategy for creating dazzling results in the finished product. A definition may sound simple enough, but the actual understanding and discipline required to get the thing done right is more complicated.</p>

<p>There's no such thing as an 'instant expert.' I learned this lesson the hard way when I was an advanced Computer Systems Engineer. Clients would expect to get professional results overnight from fresh installations of strange and arbitrary software. It is simply not possible to be learning something for the first time and also expert in its use at the same time. This is a fantasy that belongs only in the realm of popular entertainment. One must have time to learn if he is to master a thing.</p>

<p>So why don't you recognize genius in photography? It's simple. You're not ready yet. Try to pay more attention to what photographers more skillful than you are actually doing to discover ways you might learn from them. Remember the analogy: you can't be walking up the foothills and seeing the view from the top of the mountain at the same time.</p>

[acarodp]

<p>Jeffrey,<br>

I don't have time to read the whole thread which has grown quite long, so I apologize if I will say something already told. Your original post, and some of the answers I have glanced through, seem to assume that the work of a genius should shine in the darkness and be immediately visible. Unfortunately, it is not so. if you go to the Louvre museum in Paris, you will see an enormous, pathetic crowd amassing in front of an armored box containing a little portrait by Leonardo which you most likely heard about. Nobody of them can actually see it clearly. Very few of them have a clue about it, except for the fact that it is the "Monna Lisa", it is very, very famous, and you have to see it. Just outside the door of that room, there is one more Leonardo's work, the "Virgin of the Rocks". It is way better in my opinion, it is larger, you can go nearer, it has no bulletproof glass nor yelling monkey crowd in front of it. So you can actually watch it. Still, much, much less people care for it. As for the Botticelli before, the magnificent Veronese in the same hall as the Monna Lisa, the two (or more?) Caravaggio... So much for the evidence of genius.<br>

Teenagers have pictures of Einstein in their room, and we all know he was a genius right? still, probably not more than 5% of mankind has actually a clue of what he did, and probably less could provide you a half-correct description of his main contribution to modern physics. Are you sure you would be able to recognize an (unknown by you) Mozart piece of music from one written by one of his less gifted contemporaries?<br>

Genius is not a matter of evidence, a genius, in most cases, is somebody you have been told to be a genius. Even in matters you are competent about, it is often not obvious, and is more visible when you look at things from far away, looking not at ONE photograph, but at the way that person consistently produced something which is inspring. As such, it also bears a component of subjectivity. Moreover, even if we agree that Ansel Adams is CONSIDERED a genius, "Moon and half dome" might be the work of a genius (in the sense of "considered as such"), but not a work of genius.<br>

I will be frank. I sincerely dislike Warhol, and am scarcely moved by Picasso. I am unable to bear Hemingway (although I admit I have not tried for a while), not to mention Wagner. Back on more trivial things, I detest U2. I don't see the problem, the only people who pretend to like any overly famous artist in any field of art are people who do not understand any: by tasting foods you discover some of them are not of your liking. This does not mean that Picasso or Wagner are not extremely inspiring for somebody else. Or that I cannot see why they have been crucial for painting and music. Still, I don't like them.</p>

<p>L.</p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>For me, if I don't have an emotional reaction, and if I'm not altered in any way forever after, the art work is not a work of genius. And this business of sometimes needing years of study to grasp a work of "genius" is a load of bunk to me, educational/ class snobbery. A work of artistic genius should be assessable to all and everyone, the initiated and the uninitiated. If a work of art requires so much intellectual understanding before "getting it," then to me it's just a clever intellectual puzzle that needs to be solved. Afterall, what kind of a genius would create a work of art that hardly anyone could grasp. Genius is for all and everyone, the common man as well as the learned.</p>

<p>As far as Einstein is concerned, science and art are not the same. A work of scientific genius is written in the language of the scientist; art is universal language, and the greater the art, all the way to genius, the greater the understanding. Genius is like a smile.</p>

[mark_chartrand]

"Genius" is such a subjective term that for you to be a "Genius" you must be judged to be a "Genius" by another "Genius" or

an "expert" in that field (often self-proclaimed or judged to be an expert by other experts). Not particularly understandable to

me is all the seemingly emotional response to trying to define a subjective term where the answer is purely personal.

 

A man, who some would say was a "Genius", wrote "Much Ado About Nothing." "Experts" to this day argue the meaning of

the word "nothing" as he used it. Trying to remember that nothing is ever as it seems, maybe we are spending too much

time on a question that has no answer, or maybe the answer is in the quest? Or the answer is the quest?

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>A definition I've always liked is: "Genius is of no country."</p>

<p>In the end, as Mark said, "genius" is just a word trying to represent something that no one is totally clear what it is representing. There seems to be plenty of hunches though, but nothing concrete, sort of like God, or love.</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Derek appears to be confusing unlucky or careless with stupid. Not quite the same thing. In fact, I can't think of a better example of true genius than being so involved in the moment that one believes one can walk on water... or, at least, thin ice.</p>

<p>I've met and know of several creative folks whose work borders on genius, even if they can barely write a coherent sentence and are occasionally nearly insane. True genius occasionally transcends the confines of a well rounded education and certainly it's been demonstrated that there is no inherent connection between genius and common sense or an equitable balance of life skills.</p>

[luis_g]

<p align="right"> <br>

"When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."</p>

<p align="right">Jonathan Swift<br>

Jeffrey wrote:</p>

 

<p>"In the end, as Mark said, "genius" is just a word trying to represent something that no one is totally clear what it is representing. There seems to be plenty of hunches though, but nothing concrete, sort of like God, or love."</p>

<p>"Neither a lofty degree of intelligence nor imagination nor both together go to the making of genius. Love, love, love, that is the soul of genius."</p>

<p align="right">Wolfgang A. Mozart</p>

<p> Not quite. Definitions exist for genius, as they do for God and Love, and they don't seem any less concrete.</p>

<p>[JP] "For me, if I don't have an emotional reaction, and if I'm not altered in any way forever after, the art work is not a work of genius."</p>

<p>You're egomaniacally leaving out the possibility that you're too blind to see it.</p>

<p>"Next to possessing genius one's self is the power of appreciating it in others."</p>

<p align="right">Mark Twain</p>

<p>[JP] "And this business of sometimes needing years of study to grasp a work of "genius" is a load of bunk to me, educational/ class snobbery. A work of artistic genius should be assessable to all and everyone, the initiated and the uninitiated."</p>

<p> That's patently untrue. At the time they were published, the three ideas of Einstein were fully understood by less than ten people in the world. It has nothing to do with the laughable notion of "snobbery". There's no requirement that genius be populist. In fact, it's quite the opposite. By Jeffrey's standards Galileo was a dumbass who should have been burnt at the stake. Some ideas born of genius are not accessible to the masses. Not even to many experts in their field. They do take education, experience insight, sometimes decades (or longer) and, yes, genius, to begin to understand them.</p>

<p>"It is frequently the tragedy of the great artist, as it is of the great scientist, that he frightens the ordinary man. If he is more than a popular story-teller it may take humanity a generation to absorb and grow accustomed to the new geography with which the scientist or artist presents us. Even then, perhaps only the more imaginative and literate may accept him. Subconsciously the genius is feared as an image breaker; frequently he does not accept the opinions of the mass, or man's opinion of himself."</p>

<p align="right">Loren Eiseley, in "The Mind as Nature"</p>

 

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />