Can we learn to photograph,

[Julie H]

<p>Michael said, "What might they [our gifts] be?" YES!! Yes, yes, yes. (It's so cool when someone "gets" what I'm after. Thank you, Michael.)</p>

<p>I also said, in the same previous post that "we can be the best at what we are the best at." Before basketball was invented, Michael Jordon was just an extra big mouth to feed. Before horse racing was invented, Bill Shoemaker was just a tiny mouth to feed. Before photography was invented, Ansel Adams was probably pretty hungry, too. The difference between Michael, Bill, and Ansel is that Ansel, as an photographic artist, gets to invent or define his own game *as he's playing it* -- on the fly, simultaneous with its being played.</p>

<p>If I can't play Ansel Adams's game, or Richard Avedon's game, or James Nachtwey's game or Garry Winogrand's game ... it doesn't mean I don't have "talent." It means I haven't yet found the game in which I *do* have "talent."</p>

<p>Note how "talent" is a case of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent">affirming the consequent</a>.</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p><strong>Julie</strong>,</p>

<p>Excellent.</p>

<p>Myself, I don't want to to play any other's "photographic game" as you call it. I do want to develop <em><strong>my own</strong></em> game. This does not happen in isolation but in interaction with imagery and photographers I like and which inspire me.</p>

<p>But always in relation to what I want to achieve, building on my (large or small) talent.</p>

<p>This thread, as others, has been of great help to me to continue my photographic work.</p>

<p>L.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I urge Julie to read many of the responses to Arthur in a <a href="../casual-conversations-forum/00YQi5">recent thread he initiated</a>. Most of the responses suggest that all art is a matter of both playing the game as handed down and not playing that game. Ansel Adams, Richard Avedon, James Nachtwey, and Garry Winogrand were not blank slates. They were parts of a photographic tradition, they learned how to use cameras, they all had their influences. In short, they were as human as Michael Jordan. </p>

<p>No one of these figures invented or defined the game. Some, more than others, redefined or broke rules or established new methods or traditions but all within their game. </p>

<p>Chances are, if you're [generic you, of course] not playing Avedon's game, at least to some extent, you're simply going to be one of those people telling themselves they're an artist because art is completely subjective and because all the title requires is that one refer to themselves as one. And, you might fool yourself into doing this with no talent or vision or photographic skills at all. Then, of course, you've rendered meaningless and debased the term "artist."</p>

[studio460]

<p>I think there's a similarly subtle distinction in filmmaking. Many amateur filmmakers are competent enough to make something that looks like a "real movie," just as many photographers can emulate a particular technique, compositional rubrick, or style. I'm certainly no expert, nor am I a photographer of any note, but I think many of the "seeing" techniques can be taught in a rote manner. I know that in my photography (as well as in my filmmaking) I'm still just practicing mimickry of popular styles.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Luca, I think that, as a simple matter of fact, each person plays his/her own game. Maybe, that's what Fred was addressing when he spoke earlier in this thread about obligation. </p>

<p>One can, however, choose to play lots of other games. This can be dangerous in a sense, inasmuch as one's development may not have reached the level at which playing these other games may be successful. Theroretically at least, I may have the same raw talent as any of the "big name" photographers. What I don't have is their level of expertise, craft, etc. </p>

<p>Ralph, that techniques can be taught is clearly demonstrated by human experience. In a photographic context, however, it's not just the technique. "Seeing" is more akin to "seeing as", involving an interpretive element. When a photographer encounters a couple locked in a passionate embrace, or reaches the summit of a mountain, or beholds the intricate geometric structure of a building, there's the realization "<strong>THIS</strong> is a photograph." It's an "aha moment." We all have them, photographers or otherwise. I really don't think that ths is something that can be taught.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>I am glad to see someone brought up the fact that many people simply attempt to simulate great work by mimicking its signifiers. I think a huge percentage of photography (and art, too) is just that. And that is a game.</p>

<p>While people play games of all kinds, and it makes life seem simpler and clearer, it is a falsehood to think of art as a game. It's not.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Luis, good point about "games." In a recent thread, art was called a "business" and, though I know there's a business side to art, I thought that was a denigration of it. I don't know if the analogy to games just went a little far and if Julie really meant that art is a game, but I think you're right to caution against such thinking.</p>

<p>I think art not being taken seriously leads to a belief that we each invent it. Art, like most disciplines, has values, traditions, it uses media (which do evolve), it utilizes signs and symbols, references itself often, engages in dialogues throughout the ages. Art does not take place in a vacuum and it is not <em>played</em>.</p>

<p>For the most part, art is CRAFTED.</p>

<p>_________________________________</p>

<p>Michael, I understand what you're saying about Aha moments. Recognition is certainly a big part of seeing. Good point.</p>

<p>I don't generally <em>encounter</em> the situations of my photographs. I usually have a big role, along with my subjects, in creating those moments. Often, the Aha! is not a surprise to me, it is simply the culmination of thinking, seeing, and some amount of directing and listening/observing. In other words, I think Aha moments can be <em>crafted</em> as well as encountered.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Regarding the "aha moments" of Michael and Fred</p>

<p>Since recently hearing just a little about Theodor Reik, Freudian psychoanalyst, I've begun to see his (and Freud's) sort of thinking closely relevant to photography, unlike "philosophy."</p>

<p>Jung is ever-popular among photographers, but I think that has to do with his symbol-laden neo-religiosity, and his comfort with ideas that sometimes seem racist. It's said that Freud embraced Jung specifically to make psychoanalysis seem more aryan.</p>

<p>Why is psychoanalytic thinking potentially more relevant than philosophy? Because philosophy consists entirely of verbal formulations. It attempts to fabricate a parallel, entirely verbal world...whereas psychology (psychiatry, psychoanalysis etc) has directly to do with human experience. Reik, a non-physician, sought to separate psychoanalysis from medicine and was interested especially in <em>surprise</em> in human experience. This appeals to me partially because I worked with the flip side of that in research, having to do with sensory deprivation and a technical version of "boredom."</p>

<p><em>Surprise</em> can't be taught, but we can set the stage for it, virtually seek it. We do know where surprises lurk sometimes. That's why some of us photograph people face-to-face, for example. And why some of us treasure doubts.</p>

<p>http://www.enotes.com/psychoanalysis-encyclopedia/reik-theodor</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>John:</p>

<p>I wish we could meet in a bar over several rounds of good whiskey to hash out why you have such disdain for philosophy. Although I know I could not convince you to abandon that attitude, at least I could try to convince you to extend some additional tolerance toward those of us who hold philosophy in high esteem.</p>

<p>Since this is not in the cards for me, I will have to resort to saying - very simply and very directly - that your distinction between philosophy and psychology in terms of human experience begs at least a few questions. Indeed, your characterization is flatly wrong. You confuse the activity of philosophy, the verbal stuff, with its subject-matter, which certainly encompasses human experience. Since you obviously have spent a great deal of time and effort dealing with personality theory, I am confident you will see that it is at least closely akin to philosophy. Granted, behavioral psychologists studying rats in a maze may be described as dealing "directly" with human beavior, that's quite different than dealing with human experience, directly or otherwise. </p>

<p>The bottom line: No discipline - whether it be philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology, mathematics, etc. - has a corner on the market. Ultimately, I feel that human experience is best understood in an interdisplinary fashion. We should not arbitrarily limit what we are willing to consider in answering significant questions. </p>

[jtk]

<p>Michael, I too wish we could knock a few back, and Bud Light would be more than good enough (I live in Bud country). I don't disagree with your "interdisciplinary" advocacy. And I don't think rat running relates well to my understanding of humanity, but it does hint at a few central realities.</p>

<p>I was always amused by Skinner and, especially, Watson...and I did use learning theory to work almost-effectively with autistic kids...but my real interest was always perception, and that relates directly to a boredom/variability/surprise continuum.</p>

<p>Surprise, which relates to risk, at a certain level may explain why I like photos that raise questions more than I like photos that provide answers (decorative or clearly thematic). I may be a linear thinker who enjoys the anxiious precipace of doubt rather than a wholistic thinker who seeks conclusions.</p>

[studio460]

<blockquote>

<p>Ralph, that techniques can be taught is clearly demonstrated by human experience. In a photographic context, however, it's not just the technique. "Seeing" is more akin to "seeing as", involving an interpretive element. When a photographer encounters a couple locked in a passionate embrace, or reaches the summit of a mountain, or beholds the intricate geometric structure of a building, there's the realization "<strong>THIS</strong> is a photograph." It's an "aha moment." We all have them, photographers or otherwise. I really don't think that ths is something that can be taught.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Michael, while I would agree that "imagination," "insight," and "creative abstract interpretation," are more elusive métiers which cannot be "taught," most beginners can easily be instructed on training their eye to percieve the most basic and commonly agreed upon principles of "good" two-dimensional design. In the broadest of definitions, to me, there are two types of photographs: 1.) Those that are pre-produced, storyboarded, or specifically art-directed. 2.) Those that are captured spontaneously. Photographers able to elicit "the moment" in spontaneous capture have mastered the skill of visual "editing." The ability to frame the essential part of the world, while excluding (from view) the "other parts." The first thing I always try to imbue to anyone I know with a beginning interest in photography, are those two things: some 2D design basics, and this concept of "editing." Of course, the real essence of any art is the "idea," and, there I would agree; ideas cannot be taught.</p>

[antoniobassiphotography]

<p>Sure we can learn how to <em>photograph</em>, just like most of us can learn how to play the piano but we will not learn how to be <em>musicians</em>. There is a difference between <em>playing an instrument</em> and <em>playing music</em> and I can assure that today, even at the highest levels of fame, there are only few music makers that are real musicians and understand this language-art. Same for everything else.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>John: To me, wrestling with hte questions is far more gratifying than reaching thge conclusion.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p>Ralph: I believe that my best response to your last post is to refer you to Antonio's comment. <strong>"Sure we can learn how to <em>photograph</em>, just like most of us can learn how to play the piano but we will not learn how to be <em>musicians</em>." </strong>On the one hand, there's teaching others the principles of composition and design. On the other, there's no teaching anyone when to <strong>experience</strong> something through their senses <strong>as a subject worthy of a photograph</strong>.</p>

[studio460]

<blockquote>

<p>Ralph: I believe that my best response to your last post is to refer you to Antonio's comment. <strong>"Sure we can learn how to <em>photograph</em>, just like most of us can learn how to play the piano but we will not learn how to be <em>musicians</em>." </strong>On the one hand, there's teaching others the principles of composition and design. On the other, there's no teaching anyone when to <strong>experience</strong> something through their senses <strong>as a subject worthy of a photograph</strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Michael, while I'm sure I agree with the spirit of Antonio's post, I think the analogy is too concrete. The statement suggests an either/or classification (and a purely subjective one at that), but the differentiation between a person who merely sight-reads a piece of sheet music, and a "musician," varies to an infinite degree. Similarly, I would argue that the difference between someone instructed to compose a pleasing frame, and a "seeing" photographer is just as finely gradiated. Sometimes when shooting, a non-photographer will "suggest" a different angle--many times it's an angle I didn't consider, and many times, it was worth considering.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I think talent has something to do with <em>consistent</em> ability. It's my experience, as well, that a non-photographer can sometimes make a great suggestion. Those occasions don't read to me as talent. Now, if a non-photographer <em>consistently</em> made great suggestions, particularly of a specific type, my reaction might be to say,"Hey you should learn how to take your own photos. You seem to have some talent."</p>

[antoniobassiphotography]

<p>ralph oshiro, there is definitely a variation to an infinite degree, like you said, between sight reading and playing music but the concept is clear: you can be a good player but will never be a musician if you aren't a musician first. Now, I think in music this concept might apply better than with photography, because in photography the artistic-emotional-creative process happens before releasing the shutter (IMO), while in music it happens before and after (since it is an eternally evolving and mutating process). Wow!</p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<p>Luis G.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I am glad to see someone brought up the fact that many people simply attempt to simulate great work by mimicking its signifiers. I think a huge percentage of photography (and art, too) is just that. And that is a game.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>This brings me back to a recent post by Fred G. where he mentioned that originality can't be the issue, but rather the photographer's own interpretation of what has been done (photographed) in the past.<br>

The issue in my opinion is that</p>

<ol>

<li>imitating is not re-interpreting. You need to understand why a "famous" photo produces a certain effect, how this has been achieved</li>

<li>then you need to have a personal technique and awareness of how you control or not control composition</li>

</ol>

<p>only then the imitation becomes re-interpretation and the work is personal. In principle there is nothing new under the sun, but matching what we see with our unique personal interpretation makes the difference.</p>

<p>And this is the point: we need to recognize out unique personality - in this case in photography - and learn the craft to reflect it in the pictures we make.</p>

<p>It does not mean that photography is only technique, not at all. It's talent (here we go again!), it's sensorial sensitivity (it's difficult to learn to play an instrument if your ear is not sensitive to the nuances of musical notes).</p>

<p>And it's work, thought, reflection, reaction and feedback.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Luca, I was not talking about imitating either one specific photograph or photographer, but the real and imagined qualities that signify successful photographs.</p>

<p>There are many things that make a difference. Assuming you make peace with who you are, and work out of that, it may still not be enough. You may need to change, to become your own agent provocateur. Not necessarily towards an ideal (though perhaps away from one).</p>

<p><strong> </strong></p>

[je ne regrette rien]

<blockquote>

<p>but the real and imagined qualities that signify successful photographs</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree, but photographs are not an abstract conception. Simulating "Simulating great work" is not only an action of fantasy, the signifiers of great work are in our experience, in our neural connections, in our preference. And partially in our imagination.</p>

<p>I see very well your point about universal signifiers, but still I believe they refer, if not directly, to the photographs and photographers we feel responsive to. We see photographs that strike us, we imagine what their qualities are (which makes us like them), and we try to repodude them.</p>

<p>Being my own "agent provocateur"? I try hard.</p>

<p>However the diving line is thin between building on experience rather than turning the experience constantly acquired upside down.</p>

<p>L.</p>

[studio460]

<blockquote>

<p>Can we learn to photograph, or do we need an innate talent to view and compose? Will studying and experimenting be enough?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Boy, that's a good one! It's a question I ask myself every time I pick up a camera. One of my old photography instructors opened his lecture in advanced portraiture with the question, "What's the difference between a 'snapshot,' and a 'photograph?'" (answer: " . . . snapshots are only meaningful to the person who took them."). He left the method of discovery to learn to discern between the two to our own devices. I took that lecture decades ago, and my own creative myopia haunts me every day. "How do I advance beyond mere craft?" "Can I 'learn' how to move beyond the subject:background paradigm (my current aesthetic crisis)? Will study and experimentation be "enough?" I'm finally where I want to be technically, and I feel like I'm ready to approach the next level's challenge. I am starting to study, analytically, what contributes to an image's "interest." I'm making lists. I'm looking at others' work. I'm looking at other media. I bought some sketch pads, pencils, and a set of Prismacolors last night. Soon, I will be doing more "experimenting." If study and experimentation aren't enough, god help me.</p><div></div>

[studio460]

<p>See? Anyone can put a pretty girl in front of a background, bounce a Speedlight of a wall, and have an alluring image. It's alluring because the subject is alluring. There's no "concept" to the image. There's no "meaning." The lighting is simple and straightforward. No serious study of form or color. I like the photo because I think the model is beautiful. These are the stereotypes I'm struggling with now (and, perhaps may be better served in another thread).</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>See? Anyone can put a pretty girl in front of a background, bounce a Speedlight of a wall, and have an alluring image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not at all.</p>

<p>I think you've made good use of the lighting and I like the skin tone (though it's a little irregular), and it reads nicely against the red dress. She certainly stands out from the background. I actually find it a non-alluring photo. There's little life in her expression. To me, she looks like she has the flu and is miserable. She may be a beautiful woman, but there is no beauty in her expression, so I don't see her as beautiful photographically speaking.</p>

[studio460]

<blockquote>

<p>Ralph, I actually find it a very non-alluring photo. There's little life in her expression. To me, she looks like she has the flu and is miserable. She may be a beautiful woman, but there is no beauty in her expression, so I don't see her as beautiful photographically speaking.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, it wasn't my intention to elicit any critique, I was just looking for a girl-on-a-background shot to illustrate my point.</p>

[studio460]

<blockquote>

<p>I think you've made good use of the lighting and I like the skin tone (though it's a little irregular), and it reads nicely against the red dress.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for adding that, but I admit, it's a very technically flawed image (color temperature issues).</p>