Can we learn to photograph,

[Norma Desmond]

<p>It's possible that it's not about the <em>answers</em>.</p>

<p>Sometimes it's about the questions and the process of pondering. </p>

<p>Do photos answer questions? Why does a discussion have to?</p>

<p>I think of these discussions, to some extent, the way I think of a photo. An experience. An activity. A sharing.</p>

[albert_richardson1]

<p>I think you make a good point. The discussions do often seem to take on a life of their own as they go on. Sometimes I think a conversation simply flows from one thread to the next.</p>

<p>This time the OP started things off by asking questions that seemed to me at least to propose that the reader might try to reconcile two very different points of view. Questions create a sort of imbalance that good answers seem to set right again. So here we have a challenge to come up with a discussion that might propose the right sort of resolution lofty issues such as the role talent plays in photography should deserve.</p>

<p>So you're right. The discussion is an activity that permits sharing and might lead one to experience the topic in a different way. I sometimes read these threads and wonder if the original intent as I read it in the beginning actually means anything to the people writing later on. They do tend to wander. What do you think? Should consideration for the person starting a thread lead you to stay on topic?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Albert, I think this thread has pretty much stayed on topic. Much more than most. I'm aware that, on the Internet, chats stray. I think an OP that gets too invested in his own take on a topic or on too narrow a view of a particular topic sets him or herself up for disappointment. That being said, it makes sense to try to maintain at least a loose thread for the meandering around on a given topic. Sometimes, posts are so off base that they seem silly. It's hard to generalize about it. I tend to take it on a case by case basis. I think Luca has participated enough in this thread and seems to have responded to all the issues taken up, so I doubt he's felt a lack of consideration for his original question. By what Luca has said here, about the infinite answers, he seems pretty open of varying approaches to the topic.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Albert, Albert, Albert. Mathematicians deal with the infinite all the time. </p>

<p>If I take one of Luca's lead questions: "[D]o we need an innate talent to view and compose?" to reduce to "choice" (talent means making "better" choices -- note that it is relative). And if I take Luca's other lead question: "Will studying and experimenting be enough?" to reduce to "execution," then the thread is about the possible ratios of choice and execution in making good photographs. Or, really, it's mostly about that bad boy, choice.</p>

<p>Choice always precedes execution. If we are faced with a scene, any scene, from which, theoretically, there are an infinite number of possible photographs that could be made, and we aren't innately talented at making "better" choices from that infinite offering, how much will prior studying and experimenting to improve execution help us?</p>

<p>The possibles are infinite but the "betters" are either not infinite, or a much smaller infinite. If you think the "betters" are fairly "thick" (there are many good photos that might be made) versus "thin" (there is only one or two "better" photos in this scene), then in order to "learn" photography, you just (!) need to get into that smaller infinite. Can you learn how to make those "better" choices? Given that the scene is new, how can you learn it before you've ever seen it?</p>

<p>Ah, but from prior experience you can learn what choices *not* to make (what have proven to be bad choices). If you've learned enough to filter out most of the bad choices, you may well end up within that smaller infinite, that range of possible "better" choices such that your work now depends only a little on your "innate talent." Or, to all intents and purposes, you have become ... talented (if you equate talent with making better choices ...)</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p><strong>Albert</strong>,</p>

<p>I think <strong>Steve Murray</strong> makes a very good point here, even if extremely concise and direct:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>... but that doesn't mean the photographs will be artistic or interesting to anyone but the photographer.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>And I fully agree to it.</p>

<p>A short preamble: we have discussed the relationship between photographic activity and photographic output quite a lot with many of the participants here. And here there is a continuity with the reasoning, at least as I see it.</p>

<p>There is one key point made by Steve</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"<em>to anyone but the photographer</em>"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It confirms my "suspicion" that it's me, as a maker of photographs, who determines what it is, how it is and where it goes. It's me who can determine impacts on viewers, who can elaborate photographic messages. To do this I have to</p>

<ul>

<li>develop my talent (the amount I have, which might be nil)</li>

<li>hone my technique</li>

<li>work on my overall approach</li>

<li>develop my craft.</li>

</ul>

<p>I also have to live with the possibility that, as Steve eloquently puts it, that my photography will not interest anyone but me. If my goal were to be a "famous photographer", and it's not, it's up to me to understand how to work on my photography to achieve this goal. And here would also be my limits.</p>

<p>In respect to your questions, Albert, Fred is right, it is not so much about answers but rather on how the reasoning of other posters strikes me. A process which is surely not linear, not necessarily rational and probably not entirely conscious.</p>

<p>But that is definitely productive of results on my photography I appreciate a lot.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Julie, nice. Introducing choice here seems important. And I can see what you're driving at in terms of how it relates to the combination of talent and learning.</p>

<p>Building on that . . .</p>

<p>Some choices are made intentionally and with great deliberateness: I have this, that, and the other choice and I choose that one. Some are made much more fluidly, really without hesitation and consideration: He had a million choices and he chose that one but he never really thought about it. He just did it. A much quicker intention was formed. Less overt selecting from among choices.</p>

<p>Not only in photography, but in other life choices, I sometimes find that my more solid choices, even my more significant choices (again, sometimes) don't seem like choices at all. They seem determined rather than free. They seem <em>a part of me</em> rather than something <em>I do</em>. I find that the more I photograph, the more I channel that. With photographing, it goes something like "I <em>have to</em> do it this way." "That's <em>the</em> way and the <em>only</em> way I see it."</p>

<p>Making photographs becomes a dialogue between actively choosing from among choices and having no choice at all because it <em>has to be</em> that way.</p>

<p>So, while talent might be related to making better choices, it's not necessarily about consciously selecting from an array of choices. I'd say talent has to do with an almost obligatory kind of choice-making: <em>He's got talent. He couldn't help but play that piano so beautifully.</em> His practicing didn't create that beautiful playing. It allowed it to break free. Others, without talent, couldn't play as beautifully even with more practice . . . because they didn't have it in them.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>Yes, you can learn. Drive, desire, persistence, honesty (with yourself), dedication, and a good work ethic will make up for just about any lack of talent short of profound blindness. And you're not alone. There modern world is full of resources that you help you develop your photography. Get out there and shoot, make some mistakes and then figure out how to do a little better the next time.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Fred said, "Making photographs becomes a dialogue between actively choosing from among choices and having no choice at all because it <em>has to be</em> that way." Because you have learned, from prior experience ... . You've removed the bad choices, and moved into the "better" possibles. Note that I never said you would know what is better; just that you learn to know what is <em>not</em> better.</p>

<p>The word "innate" means if you ain't got it, you can't get it. You're born with it; it's yours without your having to do anything to make it so. This means that when/if you believe in, rely on, "innate" talent, you will be believing that what happens "comes from" you; is "because of" you. To the extent that you rely on "innate" talent, you'll be paying attention to, "listening" to you, you, YOU. You are the source.</p>

<p>I would suggest (as I have, obliquely in my previous post) that the talent that matters is a talent for learning (and a talent for working). Is this just word play? Just moving it to one remove? No, because a talent for learning is amenable to incentives, to motivation, to development. It you ain't got it, you CAN get it. It's not what you are, it's something you can learn (learn to learn; let's do infinite regress; one can have a talent for learning to learn ...). How does the person who has learned to be talented differ from one who claims to be innately talented? The innately talented one pays attention to his innateness, to himself; the one who has learned his talent listens to what is <em>not </em>himself; listens and asks questions and listens some more.</p>

<p>I would suggest that photography is especially *not* about innate talent because it is especially about listening, relating to, interacting with what is not innate; listening with your eyes, but also <em>all</em> kinds of listening/questioning/listening. To the extent that you feel you've "got it" innately, you won't be interested in "getting it" from anywhere else.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>" ... The condition of his being a receiver, a subject, an observer, is, precisely, that he make less noise than the noise transmitted by the object observed. If he gives off more noise, it obliterates the object, covers or hides it. An immense mouth, miniscule ears, how many are thus built, animals in their misrecognition!" -- <em>Michel Serres</em>, Genesis</p>

</blockquote>

 

[je ne regrette rien]

<blockquote>

<p><em>I would suggest that photography is especially *not* about innate talent because it is especially about listening, relating to, interacting with what is not innate; listening with your eyes, but also all kinds of listening/questioning/listening. To the extent that you feel you've "got it" innately, you won't be interested in "getting it" from anywhere else.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I must admit that this statement was one I was really waiting for. I am also inclined to think that talent, if not none, has a very limited role in developing photography.<br>

Not that it does not play any role at all - I believe that there are different capabilities in viewing and perceiving - but the abilities and skills are very much prevailing.</p>

 

[michaellinder]

<p><strong>"Not only in photography, but in other life choices, I sometimes find that my more solid choices, even my more significant choices (again, sometimes) don't seem like choices at all. They seem determined rather than free. They seem <em>a part of me</em> rather than something <em>I do</em>."</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

Fred: It seems to me that choices can be "a part of" a person without being "determined rather than free." Perhaps I'm construing your point too literally. I think I'd be more comfortable with it if, by 'determined', you mean either "spontaneous" or 'unintentional'.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Sorry, Michael. I do mean "determined" literally. I think biology, genetics, cultural background, scientific cause and effect determine a lot about us. And I think we have talent or don't. I think talent is precisely what cannot be learned, though it can be harnessed. And, of course, I think a lot can be learned.</p>

<p>I also think there's an important sense of obligation that stands somewhat outside of choice. <em>I am bound to do this</em> is less free than <em>I choose to do this</em>. Many with talent seem bound by it. It's a good kind of non-freedom. Duty. (I think it happens between parents and children often. Photographs can be like children.)</p>

<p>I don't know if Julie is drawing a distinction, specifically with respect to talent, between making photographs and making sculptures or paintings, but if she is (<em>photography is especially</em> not about . . .) I disagree. Photography is different for sure, and has its own unique characteristics and methods, but regarding the involvement of talent, it is no different.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>I worked as a teacher in the schools decades ago. You can downplay talent all you want, but at the first-grade level, it's distinctly there. While most of the students visibly improved during the classes, a handful were far ahead from the start -- and some of them had never had an art lesson. I asked.</p>

<p>I don't think the talent thing is relevant except to the ego, in the sense that it is a given. You have to make do with what you have, and maximize it with what you learn and practice. Luckily for most of us, the true geniuses often lack motivation and tend to burn out at around puberty.</p>

<p>I agree with Fred's distinction of "Determined".</p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I'm a bit in between, I guess. Yes, talent seem to exist, as a way to easier learn what others need to spend more effort on. Whether it is innate, is a second thing. There seem to be little genetical about it, I think. Cultural,yes, but in my view cultural is not innate but learnt (unconsciously).<br>

In a household where creative expressions are stimulated, or normal, it will allow to blossom easier. If parents are very much scientific, the mind is more likely to develop scientifically/rational. That cause/effect is sure there, but again, not innate.</p>

<p>So while I agree with Fred and Luis, it's the "it's just there" part that does not entirely add up. At ths point, though, I might have to give a nod to Albert and wonder whether it really matters.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You have to make do with what you have, and maximize it with what you learn and practice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly what it boils down to.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>It's easy to accept that some people are tall and some are short, some guys have hairy chests and others don't, some folks are double-jointed, others not. While we are "all created equal", we are not all created the same.</p>

<p>Tallness and shortness, just because it's been determined by various physical processes and is not a choice we get to make, however, is not just there. We use it, we compensate for it, we learn about it. Some short guys can jump higher than some tall guys and some tall guys will tend to stoop over because the rest of the world is below them.</p>

<p>Guys with hairy chests can shave them. Smooth guys don't have as much of a choice there.</p>

<p>The point is that I'm not saying talent is something that's passively "just there." But I do think of it as something along the lines of being tall or short, just one of those things you can't see, except through performance or production.</p>

<p>Some people are naturally faster runners than others. A lot of that has to do with aerodynamics. There are a whole lot of physically determined factors that add up to things that we value as having something to do with our choices (to practice hard at running) or our free will (we can be anything we want -- NOT!).</p>

<p>We're just starting to learn that being gay is probably physically based and there's a lot of resistance to that especially in religious communities who are invested in it being a choice or something learned (one can be "recruited") so they can make value judgments about it. There's an investment (democratic?) in homogeneity. But it's false.</p>

<p>When I said things are determined, I didn't equate that with being innate. Culture is, of course, as Wouter says, not innate. But it is a determining factor. Not everything that's not innate is learned. Perhaps it's semantics, but I don't think the influence and background noise that we get from our culture is learned. It's ingrained. I think learning is something different from cultural and environmental influence.</p>

<p>And I think talent is akin to having green eyes or red hair.</p>

<p>I think there's much to recommend the sentiment behind:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You have to make do with what you have, and maximize it with what you learn and practice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But I think it's also good to be realistic in what we endeavor to do. Often it's good to seek to break free from our perceived limits. Reach for the stars. But it can also be wise and helpful, even a challenge, to recognize our limits and our strengths. After all, we're only human.</p>

<p>Talent. Mozart had it. Salieri did not.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>[Addition] As I see it, Salieri had many choices. He could make do with what he had and maximize it by learning and practicing. He pretty much did that. And it was obviously not enough for him. He was depressed about where that took him musically, especially compared to Mozart. (And why not look around you and put yourself into a realistic context.) Now, he could maybe have overcome that depression and just been happy with being a mediocre musician (or even tell himself blissfully that he was a great musician because that's all "subjective"). Another choice would have been to look around him and try some other endeavors and maybe come up with something that came more naturally to him and then learn about and practice that. He might have still been depressed because maybe he longed only to be a musician. Or he might have found something that suited him better and really made something of that. Many choices. We each get to decide.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Fred, I think it is semantics indeed. With learnt, I do not mean the active process of absorbing knowledge/experience only, but also the more passive ingraining/influencing.</p>

<p>Otherwise, good point about being realistic.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Maybe I’m getting too far off the topic here, but simply asking does a person need talent or not to take a photograph, and how much can be learned, is rather meaningless unless you specify to what end? Many successful professional photographers are not great innovative artists, but they do make a very good living by providing a service to individuals or companies. For this you need the <em>many other</em> <em>talents</em> like being able to work with people, to sell yourself, to understand what others want and to figure out how to provide that (technical skills), and to be savvy in business practices in general, in essence, being a professional. People who pursue the artistic end of it also have to have more than one talent; they have to learn the history of art, and what is currently the “cutting edge.” There also needs to be an intelligence and awareness of what is around you and what people are open to and looking for, which also involves fitting into the <em>art culture</em>, networking, selling yourself, etc. </p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm a bit in between, I guess. Yes, talent seem to exist, as a way to easier learn what others need to spend more effort on. Whether it is innate, is a second thing. There seem to be little genetical about it, I think. Cultural,yes, but in my view cultural is not innate but learnt (unconsciously). (<strong>Wouter</strong>).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Also <strong>Luis</strong>' observation as a teacher is important.</p>

<p>Probably we will never find the dividing line between work and talent.</p>

<p>But, since <strong>Fred </strong>mentions Salieri: are we able to distinguish a talented photographer as we can distinguish a talented musician? I don't know, but I'm inclined to think that it is easier to perceive the touch of a talented pianist or of a violin virtuoso.</p>

<p>Just only because talented photographers need to make an enormous effort to distinguish his work from a much larger mass of visual output.</p>

<p>Not that it's easier to stand out as a musician, but there are less musical works and performers to compete with.</p>

[jtk]

<p>I tend to think of "talent" as an alibi or brag, depending.</p>

<p>However, I saw contrary or confusing evidence last night when I unearthed a 1999 video of Stochelo Rosenberg and his brothers (gypsy guitarists from Netherlands) . You can find Stochelo Rosenberg in Youtube, but the video I watched was a live performance in Breda, crudely filmed.</p>

<p>What I noticed, beyond Stochelo's virtuosity and musicianship, was the way he showed his responses to his own playing, as he played. Sometimes he seemed amazed (a Taoist kind of response perhaps), sometimes he gloated (one of world's ultimate guitarists), and often he seemed humble (whatever he was doing was beyond his own doing in some way).</p>

<p>Maybe that's "talent."</p>

<p>On the other hand, it's certain that he studied from childhood, and not Euro-conventionally. He had teachers, most of whom couldn't read music (Manouch Gypsies).</p>

<p>Photographers are rarely willing to attribute much of whatever "talent" or comparable non-technical ability they may have to teachers. I attribute my miniscule bit to Minor White, who I never met, whose main accomplishment was teaching-of-teachers...through a few of his students that were most of my friends for at least five years. Through osmosis and commentary they taught something about taking the work seriously, just as we would if we thought photography was an important part of our life. By "seriously" I don't mean humorlessly :-)</p>

<p>Many photographers here are more "talented" than I am. Click their names to confirm. I wonder if they are able to at least partially credit a teacher, or if they're self-created or divinely blessed?</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Fred: I'm sorry it is taking me so long to respond. I don't think we really have a disagreement about talent. Please see my initial post on this thread, at which time I spoke about people being "hard-wired". </p>

<p>Talent to me falls into a more general category of dispositions to act, like one's DNA. But having talent is clearly different than acting on it. In a photographic context, placing the camera in automatic mode in order to shoot from a moving car's window as compared with setting the camera's aperture, exposure level, sensitivity (ISO), and shutter speed, involves a choice and doesn't necessarily involve any less - or any more - talent. </p>

[michaellinder]

<p>John: I really like your characterization of talent in the context of musical performance, especially your description of Rosenberg. It's very well put, and obviously reflects your own sensitivity toward, and appreciation of, good music.</p>

<p>As to photography, although I would not dare to dimish the role of teachers, I think that what students learn from them is how to exercise the talent they already have. I certainly acknowledge the importance of many of my teachers in graduate school in helping me achieve a certain level of competency or proficiency in doing philosophy. However, I would not have been accepted into the philosophy graduate program had there not been some prior indication of my talent. Maybe talent should just be viewed as an indicator of possible success.</p>

[catherines]

<p>I teach creative photography workshops and I have seen students create more compelling works after taking the workshops. I believe one's creative ability and imagination can be realized through the learning process.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Catherine: I have no doubt that your workshops involve valuable learning experiences for your students. The key word you used is "realized." Clearly, you are building on a foundation each student possesses, each in his/her own way. You are are not building creative ability and imagination out of nothing (ex nihilo); your starting point is with some raw material - talent.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Michael Linder said, "... you are building on a foundation ... " ... " ... your starting point is with some raw material ... "</p>

<p>Your "starting point." LOL!! Ummm ... where might that be?</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Julie: I was having difficulty making sense out of your question until I looked at one of your earlier posts on this thread. It contained in part the following: "If we can tailor the goal to our own gifts . . . ." </p>

<p>Instead of asking, "Where might that be?" I propose we ask, "What might they [our gifts] be?" My answer is that it doesn't matter. Refer to our gifts as genetics, hard-wiring, dispositions to behave, psycho-social background, raw material, parental influence, having a direct hot line to the photography gods, or ........ whatever else, it comes down to the same thing. </p>

<p>In <em><strong>Star Trek II - The Wrath of Khan</strong></em>, Captain Kirk asks Spock whether the cadets on board the Enterprise are ready for the mission they are about to understake. Spock's response, in part, was "Each according to his gifts."</p>