Photographic Intelligence

[luis_g]

<p>In 1983, Howard Gardner proposed that there were different types of intelligence. This has been worked out to nine types:</p>

<p>Logical-mathematical<br>

Spatial<br>

Linguistic<br>

Bodily-kinetic<br>

Musical<br>

Interpersonal<br>

Intrapersonal<br>

Naturalistic<br>

Existential</p>

<p>Regardless of the pros and cons of this theory, does it have any analogs in photography in general? Any photographers come to mind that fit any of those categories (keeping in mind that everyone has all of these qualities in varying proportions). Do you feel a particular strength in any or several of those categories?</p>

<p>For a more expanded definition...</p>

<p>http://skyview.vansd.org/lschmidt/Projects/The%20Nine%20Types%20of%20Intelligence.htm</p>

<p> </p>

[PhyloSwe]

<p>Great question(s).<br /> The always potential ambiguity of a photograph/photography enables it to chameleon between all of these 'types' of intelligence, regardless with which type of intelligence the photograph is "primarily" made in or looked at.<br /> Maybe a "good" photographer knows how to use all of these types in symbiosis to one another, maybe a "great" photographer recognises his/her main intelligence type(s) and uses it and also lets it use his/her photography.<br /> Either way, I think photography as a medium has a mind of its own, and its intelligence being only a faculty of it, not the mind or "soul" of the medium itself, nor of its practitioner for that matter.</p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Luis,<br>

I think there is; in an old thread with a misfitting title, we touched upon it. As far as I see around me, there are two (very!) rough ways of developing photography:</p>

<ol>

<li>From the technology angle: getting familiar with exposure values, operating gear and obtaining a technical proficiency - and next develop the creative side (composition, colour, developing vision).</li>

<li>From the creative angle: the reverse.</li>

</ol>

<p>I think you can map the first one relatively well to logical-mathematical intellegence. The second would be more result of a stronger linguistic / musical / ... (*) intellegence. The emphasis of our intellegence shape the way we develop, and since photography has this rather clear creative/technological sides, it actually maybe makes a really good showcase.</p>

<p>_____<br>

(*) As always, things are intertwined and not that absolute - nor do I want to imply that; when I listen to music, I can hear shapes and forms, and how they mathematically interact. Language has a logical structure too, etc.</p>

[Damon DAmato]

<p>An interesting topic. "Photography" is so many different things, so several of the streams can come into play, depending on the type of photography.</p>

<p>A fashion photographer might need Spatial, Bodily-kinetic, Musical, and Interpersonal intellegence more than a forensic or medical photographer.</p>

<p>Linguistic skills may be important to a travel photographer, but not a nature photographer or sports photographer who may require Bodily-kinetic and Spatial intelligence to handle the long lenses, the anticipation of moves, and sense of timing those require.</p>

<p>Even within a genre, like street photography, you're going to have some photographers with excellent Interpersonal skills and others that don't, and that will probably be reflected in the images they take. Both might be helped by strong Existential intelligence.</p>

<p>To shoot manual, you're going to need some Logical-mathematical intelligence, while a full auto only shooter could probably get by with lesser skills in that department, as long as their compositions-- using Spacial intelligence-- overcome the lack there.</p>

[dan_south]

Why does Gardner list a Musical intelligence but not one related to graphical art? Maybe because people think of

music as being mysterious and written by gifted people, and art as being more familiar and accessible (I would not

agree with either classification). Sculptors can profit from Spatial intelligence, but which one describes the folks who

make/made all of those amazing photos for Life and National Geographic?

[michaellinder]

<p>The problem with type theories - whether they are posed to explain behavior, intelligence, or personality - is that they never are exhaustive enough. Unfortunately, trying to proffer such a theory so that it is sufficiently exhaustive ultimately leads to trivializing the subject-matter it was intended to explain. Gardner's attempts to pigeonhole intelligence are interesting, nothing more.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Michael, sure these 'theories' are flawed and incomplete, and despite that or thanks to that, they are interesting. The moment you consider their flaws, you are atl least thinking about the scope of what it tries to do, and formulating your own thoughts and ideas to some extend. If anything, they serve to stimulate discussion.<br>

___________________<br>

I don't think Luis' question is too literal on Gardner's theory, but rather on the different types of intellegence and knowledge it takes to develop as a photographer. Damon, I think, gave a series of good examples how a photographer needs multiple skills to be really good at a type of photography - which ones do you detect in yourself that particularly aid your photography? For sure I see no way to map the 9 listed types directly, and I also detect some gaps. But at the same time, the flawed 9 types do make me consider what I lack as a photographer, and where I'm not all that bad.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Luis, I'm not sure where some sort of art historical intelligence might fit in, or if it's covered by one of the categories already listed. I think that is often used by photographers, both in terms of their awareness of painting and other arts as well as their exposure to the history of photography. The kind of thinking that allows one to locate oneself in time, in an era, while also enabling oneself to transcend that era and know what transcending it might and could be, to me, is one of the significant aspects of one's photographic approach. This doesn't mean that some won't choose simply to take pictures and that one can't still simply take pictures even with an intelligent and thoughtful awareness of art history, but some will consciously play with what's come before and build upon, reject, or even deny or degrade what's preceded them. Some of this intelligence sort of requires a bit of a bird's eye view, stepping back a bit in order to see such engagements through various epochs and gain a sense of the times, the moment, the past, the present, and importantly for some, the future.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>I look for a certain kind of intelligence in the work of artists, including photographers. It is hard to pin down. There is a formal design sense to be sure, but more importantly an ability to reveal in a surprising way aspects of the world only they saw. Often with only a simple gesture: a brush stroke, a pencil mark, a captured moment, something new is created. Its as if there is a special resource in the mind they have found and developed. In fact, I'm<br />sure it has evolved with us and we all have it. People have been able to portray the world with art in sophisticated ways from Day-1 both naturalistically and abstractly. I'm not sure why natural selection would favor artists! Perhaps the ability to communicate with art was more effective than speech. Making meaningful sounds and language are not the same. So draw me a picture.</p><div></div>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Luis, I'm not sure where some sort of art historical intelligence might fit in, or if it's covered by one of the categories already listed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"Art historical intelligence"? Fred, I'm not sure that something so heavily dependent on training would qualify as a kind of intelligence--a skill perhaps, but not likely an "intelligence," at least not according to established usage. It is true that we refer to "geniuses" in all kinds of different activities--and surely some of these activities involve mixtures of acquired skills and innate (genetic) abilities. Even so, if the acquired component far outstrips the genetic component, I am not sure that common usage would support the word "intelligence."</p>

<p>Looking back at the types of intelligence listed by Luis at the outset, I think I see not acquired skills but either skills or gifts which are at their roots genetic. I am in no way saying that traditional attempts to measure intelligence involve only measures of the genetic component, but that does seem to be the primary thing that we are looking at--or trying to measure--when we speak of something as a kind of "intelligence." that is, something overwhelmingly genetic, not acquired.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Regardless of the pros and cons of this theory, does it have any analogs in photography in general?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Luis, I think that Gardner's theory might have some value, but perhaps photographic virtuosity (for lack of a better word) might depend on more than one of the types of intelligence given by Gardner--depending on the genre of photography.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>In another thread (still struggling to get off the ground), I have raised the issue of a possible "esthetic sense." I do believe that, to the extent that photography often (but not always) depends on a certain emphasis on esthetics or beauty, there might be some sense in which good photographers have a greater or lesser gift that affects the quality of their photography. I am not willing to call it an intelligence pure and simple--although it may be--but it does seem to reflect something that starts out as a kind of raw ability before it is shaped and refined by training and practice. Now whether we should call it is an "esthetic sense" is a separate issue. I am not even sure that it exists, but there does seem to be some "sense" of what is visually pleasing that some persons have more than others. It would not be unique to photography, but at least both painting and photography (among other possible human endeavors) would seem to depend on some kind of capacity to recognize--and possibly replicate or create--visual beauty.</p>

<p>If such a capacity to recognize visual beauty exists, is it likewise a kind of intelligence? Is the capacity to recognize or create aural beauty linked to musical ability or even "musical intelligence"--one of the types mentioned by Gardner?</p>

<p>As for the possible existence of a general "esthetic sense" which transcends all possible artistic and creative endeavors, that would seem to be much more problematic.</p>

<p>My first thought about the possibility of a "photographic intelligence" is that it might be a mixture of various kinds of intelligence, as I suggested in an earlier post. I rather doubt, that is, that photography involves only one possible set of acquired skills or native abilities.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Wouter - "</strong>I don't think Luis' question is too literal on Gardner's theory, but rather on the different types of intellegence and knowledge it takes to develop as a photographer."</p>

<p>Exactly. I'm thinking them as an analog, a construct, with which to look at the diverse energies that go into photography.<br>

____________________________________________________</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>The kind of thinking that allows one to locate oneself in time, in an era, while also enabling oneself to transcend that era and know what transcending it might and could be, to me, is one of the significant aspects of one's photographic approach."</p>

<p>A lot of things, like this one, I believe are arrived at through several of our innate faculties, learning, experience and more, then synthesized into the kind of awareness that Fred mentions. When developed, practiced and integrated, it looks elegantly seamless. This can occur through chance or cultivation, internal (self) or external (cultural), but not everyone makes a mental map out of it and uses it to guide and inform their work. Plus in any medium there are discourses and those spill outside into other discourses and are influenced by them.</p>

<p>It's like the experiment where a rat is trained to run a maze, and does so well, then the roof is removed from the maze, and the rat makes a beeline straight for the end.</p>

<p>Not everyone's work can or does make use of this historical, higher-order awareness, and no, I do not place any hierearchical value on that. They're just different ways to be, think and work.<br>

_______________________________________________________<br>

<strong>Alan Zinn - "</strong>I look for a certain kind of intelligence in the work of artists, including photographers. It is hard to pin down. There is a formal design sense to be sure, but more importantly an ability to reveal in a surprising way aspects of the world only they saw."</p>

<p>All of our energies (for which I put forth Gardner's ideas) add up into one apparent kind, but if one looks, there's a lot of varying strengths and weaknesses. For example, I realize that although I love and thoroughly enjoy music, it is not one of my salient intelligences, not in relation to the others. Artists reveal the way they see and/or think and they do so through a system of visual and conceptual symbols expressed through forms and often in parallel with other existing sociological channels, which in turn address the viewers' energies. Plus we cannot help but inject ourselves, as individuals, into the work, a lot of which happens to be revisionist. In this system of forms, symbols, etc., a tiny shift can make an exponentially larger difference, personally and /or culturally.<br>

__________________________________________________<br>

<strong>Lannie K. - "</strong>Luis, I think that Gardner's theory might have some value, but perhaps photographic virtuosity (for lack of a better word) might depend on more than one of the types of intelligence given by Gardner--depending on the genre of photography."</p>

<p>Of course it depends on all the types of intelligence, and not just contingent on a particular genre, as in say, landscape requires a certain recipe or mix. There's a vast number, etc. of kinds of landscapes, and each has a potential range of aspects and strentghs, and a wide range of different proportions of our energies can be involved. To complicate matters, I think it is possible to compensate for or overcome deficits by covering/masking through the other types of intelligence.</p>

<p>Lannie, "aesthetic sense" is a different thread.<br>

__________________________________________________</p>

<p>I simply used Gardner as a way to get past the idea of a monolithic intelligence, and I'm not the only person here let alone elsewhere to bring this up. Genetics are important, but without development and use, they atrophy or remain at a crude, facile level. I am not suggesting that every photographer has to become conscious of every single thing regarding the medium in order to keep growing and blooming. I do believe that no matter what road you are on, it takes effort on many different channels to develop one's potentials and understand that of others. <br>

_____________________________________________</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Not everyone's work can or does make use of this historical, higher-order awareness . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Luis, I agree that not everyone makes intentional use of it and, like you, I don't think one has to even be aware of it. But I do wonder if everyone's work isn't affected by history and culture, unless they are truly brought up in a vacuum. Clearly some artists and photographers are not exposed to as much as others, which allows for a lot of variety. But I sort of think culture and history are built up over time and ingrain themselves in so much of the current times, ways of thinking, ways of looking, that it would be hard if not impossible to avoid them. We inherit history and can't escape it, though we can transcend it, and both the inheriting and the transcending can be done consciously or not. Of course, we also provide the continuity for history, and sometimes we may even take a step back (metaphorically). I also agree that this is not a "better than" issue, but rather something to consider for some of us both when we work and when we view photographs. Our vocabulary and grammar come to us even as we weave new ones. There's got to be a reason, including but not limited to herd mentality, that schools of thought and art develop, that in one given era, a certain sound can be heard (The Who, The Grateful Dead, The Allman Brothers . . . Hip Hop, Pictorialism, Modernism, Impressionism, Rationalism, Existentialism).</p>

<p>I tend to think that intelligence is every bit as collective as it is individual.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Fred G.-"</strong>Luis, I agree that not everyone makes intentional use of it and, like you, I don't think one has to even be aware of it. But I do wonder if everyone's work isn't affected by history and culture, unless they are truly brought up in a vacuum. Clearly some artists and photographers are not exposed to as much as others, which allows for a lot of variety. But I sort of think culture and history are built up over time and ingrain themselves in so much of the current times, ways of thinking, ways of looking, that it would be hard if not impossible to avoid them."</p>

<p>One way or another, everyone's work is affected by it. Culture & history are big determinants of our reality. That includes the socially acknowledged potentials for intelligence, and the ambient cultural intelligence, if you will.</p>

<p>Do we have any feral children-type photographers?</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>Gardiner arrived at seven, then eight, including visual-spatial, sometimes simply said to be "picture smart." Others have been happy or at least inclined to try to add their own or tailor the "intelligences." Left unfettered undoubtedly there will be more over time, perhaps granulating them all down to almost nothing. Keep in mind that in Gardner's framework, these are learning frameworks, not necessarily identifying a person's expressive or "output" abilities. </p>

<p>A person might want to "learn" photography but respond better to written instructions, spoken instructions, demonstrations, etc. Over-emphasizing the "math" (as it were) of the zone system or rigid adherence to compositional rules may well fit an individual's learning preferences or might simply stun them. </p>

<p>"Photography" might be an expressive result of different intelligences. Photographers have areas of interest/expertise that vary widely. The interpersonal "portrait" photographer that lives to work with people in studios might never find the naturalistic impetus to wade through a swamp. A visual/spatial person may be fascinated by the presence of shapes and patterns and want to learn/use photography to share and express that interest.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p> Luis,<br>

You mean Pheral Photographers?<br>

Brings up the topic of <em>Art Brut</em>. We see examples of that all the time. Where are the photographers? How would we recognize it in them? Schizophrenic art is recognizable. It is recursive and can be maddeningly complex. Sometimes has a lot of eyes, for example. I think being able to intuit a special kind of intelligence in a work is possible. How does the it transmit the makers intelligence? That also brings up the notion of <em>talent </em>and <em>gifted</em>. Neither of which I take much stock in. </p>

[luis_g]

<p>I meant Feral, as in "wild". This is a detour off the main thread, but in answer to the cultural influences.</p>

<p>You're right about the Art Brut, and the candidate that comes to mind for this in photography immediately is Miroslav Tichy.</p>

<p>Tichy's photos are basically sexual fetishes and a testimony to his own loneliness, but they have an apparent native intelligence. Of course, it cojuld be said that before going rogue he accumulated a significant amount of influences...</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miroslav_Tich%C3%BD</p>

<p>http://www.google.com/search?q=miroslav+tichy&hl=en&biw=761&bih=396&prmd=imvnso&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=kfKETtiLCJCltwey5JlE&sqi=2&ved=0CDoQsAQ</p>

<p> </p>

[alan_zinn]

<p> Luis,<br>

You couldn't have picked a more perfect example in Miroslav Tichy! I recall him now. Whata guy! Everyone should build and use a trash camera for a year. The Japanese are zany about cameras made from inappropriate (squid-cams) materials. Off topic? There is a type of genius that excells in making anything from anything: McGuiver Brain. Duct Tape Head.</p>