Artisan & Technician

[luis_g]

<p> Every reader reads a different book when reading the same title, but there's enough in common to be able to relate our experiences of said book. Haas' comment is rooted in the conventions of Modernism.</p>

<p> I wish John could explain why he sees <em><strong>vision</strong> </em> as a bogus concept. I also wish he could explain when the landscape, as he claims, shifted there, which all too conveniently sidesteps the problems raised by the use of the word by the people I quoted, yet allows for the 'dubious' assertion. And that assertion, we discover, has zero support, or explanation. An invisible trail without so much as a crumb to guide us. It's an extraordinary and extraordinarily vaporous hermetic claim, which leaves the rest of us in Limbo, except, wait, Limbo was torn down.</p>

<p> Fred, I like the four causes way of looking at vision (and other things). On the part about portraiture breaking through the veneer, there's many ways to hack portraiture.</p>

<p>"My photographs don’t go below the surface. They don’t go below anything. They’re<br /> readings of the surface. I have great faith in surfaces. A good one is full of clues. But<br /> whenever I become absorbed in the beauty of a face, in the excellence of a single feature, I<br /> feel I’ve lost what’s really there…been seduced by someone else’s standard of beauty or by<br /> the sitter’s own idea of the best in him. That’s not usually the best. So each sitting<br /> becomes a contest.<br /> -Richard Avedon, 1980"</p>

<p>"Photography records the gamut of feelings written on the human face..." - Steichen </p>

<p> For some master portraitists (and other kinds of photographers), the surface is enough. One idea is that our lives write an autobiographical book on our own faces.</p>

<p> Maybe Garry Winogrand's razor-sharp Brooklyn-ite wisdom can slice through this Gordian knot/ <em><strong>vision </strong> </em> thing to simpler terms: "You see something happening and you bang away at it. Either you get what you saw or you get something else--and whichever is better you print."</p>

<p> </p>

[luis_g]

<p> Rebecca, often in a discussion, wonderful topics like the one you bring up about signifiers, arise, and get lost in the churning of the original topic. They deserve a new post of their own.</p>

<p> </p>

[felixg]

<p>Stephen Hipperson: “Me - I'm a photographer, I don't need any other label than that.”<br>

Interesting ... I personally see "photographer" as a tighter and more specific label than either "artist" or "technician" (or, for that matter, "artisan" which I warm to more than any and which seems more general than any of the others). I gather that you see it differently?</p>

<p>Rebecca Brown: “Is "artist" just a class marker, or a signifier for someone who is not directed in making objects?”<br>

I think the problem with many discussions which hinge around the word "artist" is that it has many different zones of signification – so participants read it (and the discussion containing it) in radically different ways, and we talk past each other. I suspect that the same is true (though to a lesser extent) of "vision" and "image".</p>

[Norma Desmond]

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

<p>Yes. I, myself, am fascinated with facades and my own work often explores the "outer" without needing to penetrate to so-called "essences." As soon as I wrote the thing about piercing through veneers, I knew there was more to say about it and I'm glad you did.</p>

<p>At the same time, the quotes of Avedon and Steichen each capture a paradox, which helps illustrate vision as well. Vision -- looking at and looking ahead or beyond -- captures both a grounded and transcendent aspect of the photographer's process, also both the particular and universal. The quotes capture the paradox between surface and beyond. Avedon says the surface is full of clues. "Clues" seem to suggest a mystery that the surface might point to. And Steichen talks about the face itself, the surface, recording feelings. Does he "see" the feelings themselves? Or does he see evidence of them, "clues" as Avedon said?</p>

<p>I often find artists to be at their best when talking in paradoxes because paradoxes, like a poetic understanding of <em>vision</em>, don't have to be read literally. They are suggestive. The quotes suggest an integration that takes place between here and there, between the world apprehended and the world transcended, between Aristotle's material and final causes. Nevertheless, I think they are significantly adding something to where discussions of portraits often go by not dwelling on deeply-hidden truths or essences as the goal of their endeavors.</p>

<p>Heraclitus: "You cannot step into the same river twice."</p>

<p>That can be taken to mean simply that the world is in a state of flux. The river is always changing. Man changes also. Even the "you" in the statement is not constant. But what he's saying is more nuanced. It is not that all things are always changing but rather that some things (like rivers) actually stay the same by changing. It is their essence to change. In some cases, change is the necessary condition for constancy. A river whose waters didn't flow and change wouldn't be much of a river.</p>

<p>Heraclitus was often dismissed as stating a contradiction and, therefore, a falsehood. Those who read this fragment, rather, as an enlightening paradox move beyond the either/or (true/false) approach that usually is not terribly visionary.</p>

[indraneel]

<p><em>"The translation of feeling from photographer to viewer doesn't correlate precisely."</em><br>

And here we come to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author">Death of the Author</a> . But, guys, we're losing focus... What exactly is art? What is it that "appeals" to the emotions or senses? What emotions and whose senses? Is "god" an artist on the canvas of nature? Seems like the viewer (even if it is the same person as the artist, think Van Gogh) is more important here.<br>

So how does an artisan's work move us? Was it a gift from a loved one? A memento from a trip perhaps?<br>

And, how does an artist's work move us? We just want to stare at it for eternity? Want to be at one with it?<br>

Where would you place the "arts"? On your dressing table? On the ceiling?</p>

[alin_daju]

<p>NOW HOW ABOUT ALL OF YOU ARTISTS AND TECHNICIANS GO OUT THERE AND PRODUCE SOME PIECES OF ART ?!? :)</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>But, guys, we're losing focus... <strong>--Indraneel</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tell us why you've included the link you have. Tell us what you think. If you feel we've lost focus, focus it.</p>

<p>The viewer is not more important to me as a photographer. Expressing myself, realizing my vision, and communicating with a viewer are important.</p>

<p>Does bringing in "god" help us focus?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Alin--</strong><br /> Did you realize that this venue is a <em>discussion</em> forum?</p>

[jtk]

<p>Luis G: <strong>"...that assertion, we discover, has zero support, or explanation. An invisible trail without so much as a crumb to guide us. It's an extraordinary and extraordinarily vaporous hermetic claim, which leaves the rest of us in Limbo, except, wait, Limbo was torn down."</strong></p>

<p><strong></strong><br />Yes. <em>Precisely</em>. That demonstrates how and why poets and playwrights come closer to truth (and "explanations") than do philosophers, theologists, scientists, or logisticians. <br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/08/03/reviews/beckett-godot.html">http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/08/03/reviews/beckett-godot.html</a><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AQ3Xj49XPE&feature=related">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AQ3Xj49XPE&feature=related</a></p>

[steve_vanslow]

<p><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." Thomas Powell.</em></p>

<p>My first question is - what is your definition of a "photograph"? Is it the raw data from the camera , a jpeg posted to the web, or a print, matted and framed on the wall?<br>

I've stood next to dozens of other photographers at dawn at the tunnel view in Yosemite. I'm pretty sure some had similar equipment and camera settings that I used. Are my prints going to look like the guy/gal that was standing next to me?, I doubt it.<br>

Ansel Adams' quote of "the negative is the score and the print is the performance" has some value to this discussion. I personally think that there is more to being a photographer than just clicking the shutter. Much of the "artistry" comes in the performance.<br>

In the end, I guess that's why I go stand next to other photographers and take my own picture instead of asking to buy a print from one of the other guys/gals standing there with me. My photograph will not be the same.<br>

Steve</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>"Dividing people according to their purported 'vision' and 'creativity' feels like dividing people for some kind of dark purpose, and perhaps usually to elevate oneself." <strong>--John Kelly</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>So let's divide them according to how close they come to "truth":</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"That demonstrates how and why poets and playwrights come closer to truth (and "explanations") than do philosophers, theologists, scientists, or logisticians." <strong>--John Kelly</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>LOL!</p>

<p>And then . . .</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"They are nouns, not adjectives....they each point to the same dubious phenomenon (unless we're talking spectacles)... with or without italics<em>." <strong>--John Kelly</strong></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>A poet would likely be able to use and understand the descriptive rather than only the naming possibilities in a word like "vision." Indeed, that would be a sort of recognition of the truth.</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>In the days of film one was probably more artisan. Today one is more of a technician. But one thing is inescapable, and that is a great photographer is measured by the impact his or her images have, rather than the technical quality of the pixels. That impact could be a rarely seen landscape, a charming portrait, a once in a million news image. If you go to Borders photography section, which large books have become too tattered to sell? The Nat Geo "best of" range and the book on photographs that changed the world. And many of these photographs are not technically good. But the image they are communicating is astounding.<br>

I think deep down we all aspire to capture the one in a million image rather than see whether one is better at Photoshop than the next guy. One can get that skill at a computer training class. The other gift is in the eye, and though training can help, its really a gift.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Stephen--</strong></p>

<p>I appreciate the difference you make between artisan and technician and think your observation about Borders does say a lot about the way technical acuity and other aspects of a photograph impact the majority of observers. I think it also depends on what we're looking at. Lots of people also appreciate Adams and Weston and their technical abilities can't, for me, be separated from what they are communicating.</p>

<p>I honestly don't find myself aspiring to capture the one in a million image. That's why I've enjoyed this discussion of vision. For me, it's about the process and it's about my own evolution both as a person and as a photographer. My goal is not the ultimate image but the achievement of or at least movement toward an individual, personal, and challenging vision that will imbue itself in all or many of my photographs. At the same time it's about the evolving person who's doing that photographing, the journey it takes me on, the people I get to know, the places I'm taken to . . .</p>

[jtk]

<p>Frederico G- <strong>"A poet would likely be able to use and understand the descriptive rather than only the naming possibilities in a word like "vision." Indeed, that would be a sort of recognition of the truth."</strong><br /><strong></strong><br /><strong></strong><br />I was sure you'd catch that distinction...but I don't think many poets write about ideas like "vision" whether adjective or noun. They have more significant fish to fry so they think in other terms.</p>

<p>I think poets <em>limn</em> things, rather than pointing to them <em>or</em> naming them. Their writing inhabits an in-between, like art did :-)</p>

<p>On "limning":<br /><a href="http://www.mobylives.com/Limning_Kakutani.html">http://www.mobylives.com/Limning_Kakutani.html</a></p>

<p>Notice the pre-dead William Safire's mistaken bet: "Safire declared limn a "vogueword," a neologism of his own, and said, "Literary types and their followers use it instead of <em>illuminate</em>." Safire was, of course, a conservative, seemingly hostile to things that couldn't be nailed down.<br /><br />Me, I've always thought "to limn" meant to sketch with the lightest, fewest possible strokes.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> Fred, I included those quotes for several reasons (and there are tons of others on the surface business), part of it being that they do contain what seems to be contradictions, which as you point out, are apparent paradoxes. I should say that many of the great photographers struggled just like we do in an attempt to understand what they were doing, why, and what worked for them. I threw in the thing about our lives becoming encoded in our faces (posture, etc) precisely to indicate that the inner leaks out to the exterior to reflect photons back at our lens. And as Avedon and many others have said, the portrait includes two people, not just the sitter.</p>

<p> And in other quotes, Avedon alludes to this very idea, the inner being manifested in the outer, yet another apparent paradox.</p>

<p>" I seldom see anything very beautiful in a young face. I do, though - - in the downward curve of Maugham’s lips, in Isak Dinesen’s hands. So much has been written there, there is so much to be read, if one could only read."</p>

<p><br /> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Luis--</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/7642273&size=lg</p>

<p>Ian thrilled me by being so surprised when he saw this. He said something along the lines that, even though he was there, he couldn't have imagined that this was what I was seeing. Yes, there were two of us. There was also a mask/facade aspect I was exploring and yet we both think it speaks much of Ian himself . . . and me.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> Ay, John..."That demonstrates how and why poets and playwrights come closer to truth (and "explanations") than do philosophers, theologists, scientists, or logisticians."</p>

<p> Except poets and playwrights, like Beckett, communicate. You choose to play Tar Baby, which could easily be misconstrued as a dodge of some sort, just like the shape-shifting landscape of <em><strong>vision. </strong> </em> Or maybe you blurted it out without in a fit of automatism? Either way, it's impossible to grasp what, if anything, you mean by that sweeping statement, unless you can, even poetically, communicate it to us.</p>

<p><em><strong> </strong> </em> The assertion that poets and playwrights come closer to the truth is laughable. There is an excellent book on Physics and the Arts somewhere on my shelves. You should read it sometime.</p>

<p>http://www.artandphysics.com/chapters.html</p>

<p> </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Well the trouble with using Wikipedia as a reference (which is not accepted in any real world context, though its popular and useful, you still have to find the information elsewhere to be able to reference it) is that for all intents and purposes the information is not attributed to a known person but some internet identity (that is not generally known). Also, Wikipedia changes all the time; to find the reference you need to look up the history of changes and decode somehow what the page said at the time it was read by the person referencing to it.</p>

<p>I think art just happens, there is no separate envisioning and implementation phase that would apply to all art.</p>

[jtk]

<p><strong>"The assertion that poets and playwrights come closer to the truth is laughable. "</strong></p>

<p>That, in a nutshell, points to "technician." :-)</p>

[isaac_hopkins]

<p>Thomas, <br>

I would argue that it isn't fair to argue artisan vs technician. You cannot be an artisan without being somewhat of a technician. You can however be a technician without being an artisan. You can't sculpt, draw, compose, write, or photograph without some technical capability. <br>

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

In This scenario there is not much room left for artistry, as the time, place, lighting, and vantage point have already been chosen. All of those things are decisions that the artisan has to decide. This is where photography is different than other mediums. Photographers have to go out and find their images, or create them in the studio, but your above scenario doesn't seem to allow for that. I would also expect that a room full of high school art students could come up with many different interpretations of a scene, despite having all of the above choices decided for them. </p>

<p>So if you're asking if 'artisans' simply pull the shutter, then the answer is no, that is the technician part. Artisan's decide the time, place, lens, exposure, vantage point, subject, film, paper, etc. Technicians clean the lens, put the camera on the tripod, unload the bag, load the film. Both are required.</p>

<p>Even an event like the Olympics 100 meter race can produce fairly different images based on the photographer. Even with the same view, time, place, etc. Timing of a particular shot can be hugely important. What is the emotion captured? determination? focus? fear? excitement? All of these can flash through a runners face in just a second or two. which runner did you focus on? the winner? the second place finisher? One of the reasons there are 800 cameras down in those pits is that there are so many different pictures to take, and you might only have one second to take them all.</p>

<p>To answer your OT, "what difference would the artistic sentiment & vision brought by one photographer bring to a photograph that the lack of sentiment & vision would hinder?"<br>

The lack of sentiment and vision would hinder everything about the photograph. Instead of provocative and touching it would probably be a flat muddled mess. Everyone gets lucky once and awhile though. </p>

<p>My photography club recently did a project. Each member chose one subject, we then took a photo of that subject each day for a week. The photos turned out excellent, the photographers learned a lot. I couldn't believe the variety in the shots. Same subject, same photographer tremendous variation.</p>

[indraneel]

<p>Wikipedia is a work of art. To come up with such a revolutionary idea of collating evolving human perception is nothing short of spectacular. No doubt the revolutionary idea itself will evolve and better methods will appear in future. Wikipedia, however, will definitely be remembered as a valiant effort in information management.<br /> <strong>If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants. -- </strong> <strong>Sir Isaac Newton </strong> <br /> <strong>That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind. -- </strong> <strong>Neil Alden Armstrong </strong> <br /> I wonder who the people were that always asked Van Gogh to stop fooling around with paints and produce art.<br /> To more mundane topics like philosophy...<br /> "If you feel we've lost focus, focus it."<br /> The OP's question is about the difference in "artistic sentiment & vision" as applied to "the end-product photograph, could you really tell whether the photographer was technician or artisan?"<br /> Yes. The viewer dictates what is art. The photographer is whatever the viewer perceives him/her to be. Even the author is a viewer/reader after the work is (partially) "completed". And the author/artist strives to "improve" according to new found "visions". Art is nearly always a work in process, with new ideas emerging from old ones, one small step at a time, by a single person or many. That is why so many are deemed incomplete by their creators. It is the viewer in the artist that comes up with visions of improvement by new interpretations of what is just completed. This is just a continuation of the initial stimulus. A sculptor or landscape photographer looks at a rock and envisions the "best" way to change/portray/release it, and the cycle begins. If the viewer in the artist is in tune with contemporary society, he'll come up with "small step" improvements and make "art" that actually sells. Otherwise, if there are "giant leaps", sometimes he has to first die for the rest of the viewers to catch up (if ever) to his/her point of view or render a different but acceptable interpretation. Since no one will interpret the text/image in the way the author intended (including the author), the author is always dead. Both Wikipedia, and the OP construe the term "art" as perceived by the viewer.<br /> Nature is continually changing, is it trying to become better at self sustenance (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis">Gaia hypothesis</a> ), is there a god that steps back to "view" at each step, and makes changes? Or is it that small changes is the final end? The god is what every artist aims to be, to be able to provide a perfect work, "true" to his/her emotions/ideas. If god is perfect (sorry for my strange concept of god/gods, it was malformed and this is the best I could come up with), and changing nature is his/her canvas, then maybe continual change is the ultimate "truth". In that, the photographer's rendering is already a work of art at every step. At each step there probably exist both viewers; one that calls the photographer an artist, and the other an artisan.<br /> If I have never gazed at the moon, will the moon landing mean anything to me?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>Indraneel--</strong></p>

<p>Thanks for the followup and fleshing out your ideas. I have no particular problem with Wikipedia. I use it a lot but tend to supplement it with other sources as well.</p>

<p><em>"Art is nearly always a work in process."</em></p>

<p>Yes!</p>

<p><em>"It is the viewer in the artist that comes up with visions of improvement by new interpretations of what is just completed."</em></p>

<p>I can't separate artist as artist and artist as viewer as much as you do. My seeing, my stepping back, my thought processes are all part of the creative process. I've said before that I don't feel like I remove one hat and put on another, even when I look at someone else's work.</p>

<p><em>"A sculptor or landscape photographer looks at a rock and envisions the 'best' way to change/portray/release it, and the cycle begins."</em></p>

<p>This seems to be a big difference in the way various people on this thread approach their work and see the work of others being generated. John Kelly provides a significant alternative to your view by observing that "culptors often speak of finding the sculpture in the block of marble . . ." John also brings up the tactile relationship the sculptor has with his materials, suggesting that it is the sculptor's relationship to his marble, wood, bronze, clay, etc. that is at play as much as his hunt for and then relationship to an object/thing he sees in the world. (John unfortunately shrouds his insight by accusing others of misconception and misunderstanding. I want to be sure to distance myself from him here, as I recognize that even people who understand and think as clearly as John can see things differently from him.) The way I spoke above of my own approach to photography was to say that "I think in terms of what photograph to create as well as what subject to shoot." Your approach, Indraneel, seems to be to find or look at the subject first and then to "change/portray/release it." Others (sometimes me . . . I have many ways of approaching my photograph making) set out to express something or have a vision of what they want to achieve and set about creating that vision using various artistic means, including a subject . . . or not.</p>

<p><em>"Since no one will interpret the text/image in the way the author intended (including the author), the author is always dead."</em></p>

<p>The author/artist/photographer/painter may have little control over the specific reactions of viewers. Yes, likely each viewer reacts even to scenes in nature differently. (I suppose that might prove that God is dead.) The way I see it is that the artist still communicates and affects the viewer, even if the artist can't completely force the viewer to have a specific reaction. As a matter of fact, when I photograph, sometimes I have rather specific emotions I have an interest in conveying and sometimes they are much more loosely defined. Ambiguity is a great artistic tool and is at play in so many instances. Even when I feel certain strong emotions and make an effort to put those into my photographs, I will understand that there are many reasons why a viewer might not react to those things I do photographically to convey an emotion. But many will. Sometimes it is simply a matter of a viewer feeling moved in whatever direction that is enough for the artist to have "succeeded." That there is not a direct correspondence between the feelings of the artist and the feelings of the viewer doesn't suggest to me that the artist is dead for the viewer. That's putting both the artist and the viewer in a very solipsistic world. As a matter of fact, to be consistent, it would seem to me you'd have to apply this not just to art but to every human endeavor and every kind of human communication. It would be like saying that all I'm hearing and all I'm understanding about you is simply my own stuff. Since I may see you as a nice guy and someone else may see you as mean, you are dead and only each one of your two friends lives, and live in complete isolation from each other, as a matter of fact. It seems to me neither a very social or cultural view of art. For me, it's a view that takes humanity and connectedness out of life and art.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Fred G: <em>"I recognize that even people who understand and think as clearly as John can see things differently from him."</em><br /><em></em><br />We have two brains.</p>

<p>One is linear, the other is much more sensory, even sensual. This is widely reported, ever-more-deeply confirmed, forty-plus year old neurological information... not a "philosophical" or "hypothetical" idea. Cut the two apart, as surgeons have done therapeutically since at least the 60s, and two modes compete rather than cooperate.</p>

<p>Remove one side entirely, as is done regularly in desperate situations (eg following horrific war injuries or some brain cancer situations) and the other side functions relatively OK...but is handicapped. (my guesses: the person may become a new-age space cadet or may become rigidly "conservative").</p>

<p>One of those brains is non-linear, non-quantitative..."perceptual", perhaps"art" oriented. The other side is linear, "logical," quantitative. This has been explored extensively for decades with electroencephalography.</p>

<p>This Forum regularly demonstrates that the hard-logic side is incapable of accepting mystery and paradox...hard-logic dismisses the possibility of such realities...but it postulates meaningless words in their place. These words are presented as "solutions" to "questions" that are invariably primative, if complex, verbal formulations . The hard logic side doesn't seem able to deal with concepts, only with linear formulations. If that side served as well as the famous Greeks hoped, many of today's word games ("truth" "vision" "art") would have vanished long ago.</p>

<p>It seems to me that the logic/linear/quant brain is often limited to authoritarian solutions..when frustrated by "problems" it can't "solve" it postulates faux solutions. It knows it can't deal with paradox, so it defends itself with desperate and angry adherence to "certainties" when threatended by ideas like art means "art", there is no god (or are multiple gods), the emperor is naked etc.</p>

<p>By "authoritarian" I don't mean "bad." Surely there have been good priests, even good Nazis. However, their characteristic-seeming handicap is that they are <em>sure</em> their unique personal understandings are definitive, which explains their anxiety, anger, and effort to suppress different understandings (as here, with "vision," "<em>vision</em>" ). Priests who entertain doubts are driven from their churches, good Nazis...</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><strong>John--</strong></p>

<p>What little I care about what you say in your last post mostly seems to apply to your own way of doing things. I can only assume you are either the priest or the Nazi you're talking about. In any case, my point was to distance myself from you because I think it's crude and boorish (and I <em>do</em> mean "bad"), not to mention distracting from and superfluous to the topic of discussion, to say that someone else must be under a misconception or misunderstanding because they approach a subject like sculpture and how it comes about differently from the way you approach or see it. That was it. Two brains and hard-logic and whatever else you were on about notwithstanding.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Fred, I'm sorry to make you anxious.</p>