How do you know if you have innate ability for photography?

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Fred, I think we generally agree on what it takes to find success in the arts. Of course, someone will always be 'the best,'</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We do? We actually haven't agreed on much in this thread, which is perfectly OK but I'm not sure what gain there is in saying we do. We haven't agreed on what it takes to be successful because we haven't even defined "success in the arts" which could be anything from self-fulfillment to extraordinary wealth to critical acclaim to popularity. And we obviously don't agree on the factors, since I listed quite a few and allowed for there to be more and you restricted it to two, passion and talent. We also don't agree on your idea that talent is something you're told by others you have. Right after you say we agree, you say something with which I disagree, that "someone will always be the best." I don't think so. As I said, I don't think of art as a competition and don't often think in terms of "best" and "worst" when it comes to artists. Why even bother to wonder whether El Greco was better than Picasso or who the best painter in history is (unless you're People trying to sell magazines). Many artists over the years have each done something extraordinary and rating them against each other to me makes much less sense than understanding them in terms of each other.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Bill, to clarify, you didn't "restrict" it to passion and talent. You prioritized those two above the rest. As I said, I don't prioritize any of these qualities or factors, because I think varying degrees of all of them are found in different artists. </p>

[jordan2240]

<p>Fred,</p>

<p>You implied, or I inferred, that Mozart was better than Salieri because of Mozart's 'talent,' and I had indicated in an earlier comment that 'talent' gives one an advantage when pursuing a goal, so on that I think we agree. And the reason I put 'the best' in quote marks is because I'm aware that, particularly with the arts, it can be a judgment, but many people do often identify someone as 'the best,' and many artists can often identify someone they feel is better than they are at a similar pursuit. And outside of the arts, for example in sports where talent and passion are also involved, there IS often one person cited as 'the best.'</p>

<p>I agree that there are a number of components that go into success as an artist, but I think passion and talent are the most significant and would be the two I would choose if such a choice was to be made. So I do not disagree with your list, but simply cited what I think are the two most important traits, while you feel that no one component is more significant than any other.</p>

<p>So to me, I sense more agreement than disagreement. Obviously there is no standard formula for success in the arts, but that's not what Vika was looking for anyway.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

I am glad to see there is agreement about the innate something in the genius Mozart. That validates the idea of public affirmation, does it not. Imagine this. Gus, LA talent agent to the pre teen age Wolfgang: " Stick with it kid, you got talent. We can work with you.." Antionio Salieri had talent, at least, some of his compositions were very pleasing. Haydn had great talent to spare. Mozart had something more. Vivaldi had talent. Bach and Handel had something more.

And then we wonder how can we parse talent and talent plus popularity. Important take away to me is that all of the foregoing share in the fine pageant of musical composition.

 

And then too, not all works by all the talented display the level of talent, even less the mature genius.

 

Conductors are another fair example in the art of music. When Bruno Walter plays Mahler, or Brahms ,what did he have for breakfast that day that made this special recording sound so great. Deep waters, but a good swim.

 

 

( Incidentally, Elsa must have asked a like question recently on a forum. Anyhow, sorry.But of course we meant' Ika.')

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>You implied, or I inferred, that Mozart was better than Salieri because of Mozart's 'talent,'</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bill, I was talking about passion and making the point that Salieri's passion was not enough. As for Mozart, I'm in agreement with Wouter that his talent might well have gone unnoticed and might never have blossomed in order to produce the worthwhile works he produced without a lot of other factors of great significance. As Wouter mentioned, there was hard work and study. I'll add that there was also an advantage in having a father, Leopold, who was very influential and a musician himself. So Mozart grew up with music not only in his genes but in his bones from birth on. There was also the court for whom he wrote and from whom he got paid, which enabled him to bring his talents to fruition. My guess is there are plenty of talented artists, and probably plenty of talented musicians comparable to Mozart, who were never able to make something of their talents because of circumstance. So I'll add CIRCUMSTANCE to my list as a very key ingredient. All of these things make the man and the musician Mozart and they all give him an advantage. I wouldn't want to try to parse Mozart into pieces. Where does his talent end and his luck begin? Who knows? Where does his innate talent end and the talent he got from growing up in the home he lived in begin? I don't know. His life experience was the life experience he had and all of that went into making the music he made. It's his biography as a whole, not isolated bits of it, to me, that's important in understanding him as an artist. And, of course, it's his music, foremost. But understanding things about him comes also through knowing his circumstances. And his ability to produce, in great part, is due to those circumstances. Tchaikovsky had great talent, but who knows what music we'd have if it weren't for his patron, Madame Von Meck? Several people and the article mention the mythologizing of talent as a negative. I don't mind mythologizing talent, because it can be legendary, but I'm also for staying grounded in the reality of how most artists wind up producing and it often has to do with a lot more than their talent and a great deal is owed to their circumstance.<br>

<br>

Again, Bill, you haven't said what you mean by success, so I have no way of knowing what your foundation is for any of these claims. Do you mean recognition, remembrance, monetary goals, popularity, critical acclaim, personal fulfillment? The kind of success that's important to me is in one who is able effectively to express through their medium something of significance. Now, that's not a full view for me, because to really round it off I'd need a lot more space. But it's a start.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>I am glad to see there is agreement about the innate something in the genius Mozart.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, Gerry, several posters here would disagree. I have read good pieces denying that artistic talent is innate. I think it's not for certain and, though I think of some talent as innate, I reserve it more as a working hypothesis than a proven truth. And I'm mindful of the fact that some very good thinkers think otherwise.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Imagine this. Gus, LA talent agent to the pre teen age Wolfgang: " Stick with it kid, you got talent. We can work with you.."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can imagine Mozart giggling and running away. His father would likely have been more interested in this sort of talent-agent promotion.</p>

[vrankin]

<p>I believe someone must be gifted with a degree of innate talent, to really achieve something special as a photographer. In our photo club we have a fourteen-year-old with a mystifying ability to make stunning images. She has won both local and regional awards, and now professionally photographs weddings by invitation. Yet, she is too young to become a member, so her father has joined and brings her along. Something else besides 90% sweat and 10% luck is going on, there. And I'm happy for her.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>As I earlier contested the idea of innate talent - I am afraid it's much a matter of definition. I think we all have varying levels to which we pick up on specific ideas and/or areas of interest. Some people rationalise easier than others, some people have a more visual way of thinking than others - and so on. Is that talent, or is that latent ability? Too often I see talent imagined as some "easy victory" - and I certainly would deny talent is that. At best, it is a larger likelihood to win.<br>

To leave Mozart behind and set sights back to photography - having a good eye... as with talent above, I think it does exist, but I do not believe it is innate (and in fact, I believe it is learnable, with more effort) nor is it enough. Apart from the obvious notion you have to know how to operate a camera, you have to study, understand light and shadow, and be prepared (technically!) to deal with that, there is also a matter of subject matter choice (and/or style choices).<br>

I am trying to think about a great photographer that wasn't thinking about his subject matter, interested in the subject he was trying to capture, and studying on that. I can't think of a single one - good photos do need commitment and a time investment into learning and understanding the subject (be it a sports, a nature area or people). It's not just about having an eye for it, but rather a curiosity and a drive to show others what you learnt about that subject. Some people are more curious than others, but I wouldn't call it a talent. Yet, quite essential.</p>

<p><em>(Sorry Vika, you unleashed something.... hope we didn't loose you somewhere along the road.)</em></p>

[GerrySiegel]

Mozart and the quality of genius and talent is worth at least a few more words from me, without disputing what William Wouter writes above, William...it gets to interesting discussion re art and surely springs from the OT.

 

....................

 

Fred, what you say re genetic quality vs environment and all the rest I would agree is likely valid as a hypothesis. With strong support of course since Mozart died ca 200 years ago, so we can't call him in to the lab:-). So,like photos from the greats in photo art, we have Mozart's output from his youth to early death. A working hypothesis that is being tested all the time and still works its magic and mystery that is art.....

Where else and in what context? Well, perhaps the nature/nurture thing by experts in human resources and staffing for one.

Testing the hypothesis that he or she can spot latent talent in a hire. Or even genius when it comes to salary talk. .

 

Back to the music analogy..I have a solid feeling supported by musicologists that Mozart was a real genius from the get go. Now how can we test. Only by popular acclaim and output. Woody Allen, when asked in past to check his religion wrote " Mozart."

 

Listening on KUSC to Symphony 41 (Jupiter). Thinking not bad for a poor but spunky kid from Salzburg.

 

Here is another hypothesis. That those who have a gift for photography are also good at picking room design and clothing colors and also have a feeling for music. And typically have learned to play a musical instrument, or tried. That is testable.

[jordan2240]

<p>My brother and I both enjoy photography. I can almost guarantee you that if we were both taken to a park and told to make 20 frames of whatever we wanted, most judging our results would find his more interesting. He is two years younger than I am. Neither of us has any formal training, but he has more talent for visual arts, as he simply sees differently than I do. He also paints. He was never taught, nor do either of my parents engage in anything that would be considered art.</p>

<p>We always had a piano at home growing up. Neither of my parents played, but someone had given it to them, and they kept it. Of the four children in my family, only I could hear a tune and just start playing it by ear and play with emotion. My sister, one year younger, took lessons for a few years so had better technical skills, but I was always considered the one with more musical talent, though I never took advantage of it, not with the piano anyway.</p>

<p>So in my experience, talent is real. As others have already noted, it alone guarantees nothing, but I'd rather have it than not, given a choice.</p>

<p>As far as what success is Fred, that's defined by the individual. For some it will be self-satisfaction, for others, recognition, for others, the ability to make a living, or any combination of those or anything else that makes one think they've achieved success. For me personally, it would be the ability to make a living from selling prints<br>

</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>As far as what success is Fred, that's defined by the individual.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My question, Bill, was how do YOU define it? What do you mean when you say <em>"</em><em>And talent alone won't breed success, but you definitely have an advantage if you start with it."</em> How do you understand success in that sentence, the success for which talent will give you an advantage?</p>

[jordan2240]

<p>Success: You want to be a professional baseball player, you become a professional baseball player; you want to become a member of a professional orchestra, you become a member of a professional orchestra; you want to make a living as a photographer, you make a living as a photographer. In other words, it's achieving your goal. My contention is that anyone with a raw talent that applies to those professions above has a leg up on those who do not have it, but that doesn't mean you have to have a talent to achieve your goal. I've heard many professionals claim they felt they had no natural talent in the area that interested them, which is where passion (and sometimes desperation - we haven't talked about that yet) come into play.</p>

<p>I did define what success would personally mean for me from a photography perspective.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Sorry, Bill, I don't remember what you said about successful photography in particular. But in terms of what you just said, if I'm understanding you correctly, it's setting a goal and achieving it. And this seems consistent with your idea that talent is something others will tell you you have. In order to make a professional sports team or orchestra (your examples), you must be admitted and approved by someone else or a group of people. To me, that's only part of the story. To me, a successful photo and one that shows talent will often go beyond whatever the original goals were, sort of taking on a life of its own. If someone like Weston or Stieglitz is a success (other than in a commercial vain and other than being popular or even recognized), it's because their photos express something significant, and they, themselves, will have a measure of that as well as anyone else. And the photo may have been the result of a lot of accidental circumstance, stuff they never set out to do, and still be a success. They may have successful photos where they started out with no idea of what they wanted to achieve. Also, I think a photo can achieve its goal and actually be a dismal failure. The goal itself may not have much or any value. </p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Talent is innate, God given, if you will. We all do things innately, from the ability to learn how to speak, to walk, etc. That's innate, God given. Some people excel in that their ability puts them in a small percentage of people who can do it better, like the guy who can run a 4 minute mile.</p>

<p>We can all improve our innate abilities with practice. Maybe I can get my mile down to 10 minutes, but I'll never see 6 minutes much less 4 minutes. We pretty much hit a wall and can't go further. </p>

<p>With photography, its hard to measure your own "talent". You need outside appraisals for the most part because we tend to lie to ourselves. The runner is in a better position because he can check his ability against a stop watch. Aesthetic ability is hard to judge on your own. Also, asking your mother won;t tell you much either. That's why I suggested to the OP to post pictures. So hopefully others can provide meaningful insight into their work.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I would suggest that rather than asking a bunch of strangers for critiques, any beginning photographer is well served by looking at photography books and going to museums and picking out the stuff that speaks to them. Just sitting with that for a while. Then perhaps asking why it does. And then noticing how various good photographers have changed the dialogue, have done things a different way than what came before. What's different about their work? What seems more personal? Some combination of seeing and feeling and knowing what works for you in the photos you view and then some understanding of how visual canons get established and then get broken or changed will be of great value in both guiding and assessing your own work.</p>

<p>If some outside advice is sought, I'd go with someone who's own work you admire, who seems to speak and make sense to you or at least who communicates effectively, and someone you can build up a personal and ongoing relationship with, who can take the time and will take the necessary effort to provide valuable feedback, which will not generally be of the specific (do this) type and which will not focus on how talented you are or whether you were born with the talent or it grew through your life experience. Someone who won't focus on whether they like your work or not. They will focus on the photos <em>you're</em> making, on helping you get to know what it is you want to show or express, and perhaps helping you with some technical stuff as well, especially helping you learn how to learn, rather than teaching you what they want you to learn. Someone who will challenge you is the best guide you can find. Someone who's quick to talk about your talent one way or the other may not be a very effective guide.</p>

[Wayne Melia]

<p>(responding to the op...)<br>

Why do you want to know? It doesn't matter.<br>

If you enjoy it, do it.<br>

No, you don't have to have a passion for it. If you enjoy doing it once in a while, when the mood strikes, that's ok.<br>

Or, if you're a pro, when a spendy client wants you to produce; that's ok.<br>

And for what ever reason you want. It doesn't have be 'art'.<br>

No meaning is ok.<br>

If you just like to experiment with the technology that's ok.<br>

Good grief, do you have to have an innate ability to sing a song? Go bowling, ride a bike, watch a movie, have sex...? <br>

Seems times the finer the pin, the more angels want to dance; like moths to a light.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>I wonder if talent and originality are two different things. Some people can easily produce work that conforms to popular standards because they “have a good eye,” and some people can go beyond that and create original work that is new, which may not be appreciated initially. </p>

[michaelmowery]

<p>If you want to make money at photography you will need OTHERS to tell you you are good. Otherwise it really doesn't matter as long as you are happy.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<How do you know? Because you aren't satisfied with what you've done and you don't give up. It's that simple.>

Yes. Ellis makes a good point not to be overlooked.

 

I keep looking,not too successfully I guess, for a way to reconcile some of this business which is interesting to most thinking folk re the arts . That is the conrasting but all accurate in their context, opinions on the ratios of talent, hard work, passion, luck, affirmation by peers or customers and dissatisfaction with just OK. Probably missed a couple. Let us say that talent is a seed or a gift or a gene in the DNA. That made you see patterns in a way most cannot. And that seed is just a seed. And requires hours of development to be worth a damn. Never read Don Quixote but saw the early production of Man of La Mancha with Richard Kiley. From the almost anthem like and quixotic song: " Impossible Dream." We have a cause that is personal and makes life meaningful, not so quixotic. A kind of magical spirit in the words.

 

 

"This is my quest, to follow that star ...

No matter how hopeless, no matter how far ...

To fight for the right, without question or pause ...

To be willing to march into Hell, for a Heavenly cause ..".

-------

 

 

"And I know if I'll only be true, to this glorious quest,

That my heart will lie will lie peaceful and calm,

when I'm laid to my rest .." .

-And so on-------------------------

 

 

 

I believe we all have a cause, big or small, something the casual phone shooter of his Chipotle breakfast meal does not and does not aspire to and why waste time...

 

Does this idealist lyric try to validate the idea of perspiration or passion and persistence (practice and never giving up like the gent in that link after surgery who changed careers, shifted to love of landscapes?). Another way to look at is that the dreamer/ searcher for beauty in art and craft of photography, has the innate capacity to push hard and follow a personal quest when most would get sidetracked and say screw it and sleep in. Are we all a little neurotic, well I doubt it, :-) maybe a little bit- but"passion" for photography has the wiff some one wrote of quasi- erotic motivation. And taking that argument to its logical road, it says that the passion of moving despite obstacles (snarky comments on your photo by the usual suspects) is arguably a GIFT in itself. Why would anyone risk their life to get the shot. I wonder if we could assemble any kind of agreement around that part.

[spanky]

<p>I agree with Gordon B. Just because many people like a particular picture or series of pictures or a particular photographer has little to do with talent. I see a few street photographers on flickr who upload very (imo) mediocre pictures that always gets lots of likes and positive comments. Some of these photographers rip off the styles of other well known photographers such as Martin Parr and Daido Moriyama to name two but nobody seems to care. I guess the positive feedback they get prevents them from ever moving beyond the imitation stage of their growth as a photographer.</p>

<p>Up until recently I used to participate in a street photography group on Facebook. At the time if I remember correctly, there were several thousand members. Membership had to be approved by the moderators. Anyway, despite this number, the only people really participating was a small handful of about 10-15 photographers. One of the clique would upload a picture and the rest would fawn and gush over it. For the most part these pictures were also imo very mediocre at best. However, woe to the person who would dare speak out against one of them. Yep, that would be me. In a very civil and polite manner I would point out flaws and issues I found in some of the pictures that made the image not work for me. Well, not only did the photographer get defensive but the rest of the clique did as well which I found quite odd but I guess they felt they also had to defend their stance on the picture before I realized that the group was all about making each other feel good rather then have an honest dialogue about the merits of any one particular picture. After a few months I left because it just was an awful feeling I was getting to see people who might make progress but not in a group that values and encourages mediocrity rather then encourage excellence.</p>

<p>I also know a pleasant lady who takes herself and her photography very seriously. I've probably mentioned her before because quite honestly her personalty regarding her work fascinates me. For the most part she takes technically acceptable but predictable pictures of landscapes, flowers, babies, animals etc. She is so concerned however about being recognized as a talented photographer that she enters numerous contests throughout the year, many online such as on veiwbug. Them she turns to social media and asks all her friends and contacts to vote for her pictures. I cannot help but feel a slight tinge of embarrassment and sorrow for her. Even if she wins which she has not but has come close once or twice, has she really won? Does she really think she is a skillful and talented photographer if she does? I cannot say but I really do cringe when I see her put out a link to one of her pictures for people to vote on.</p>

<p>Lastly, about Mozart. I love Mozart (and J.S. Bach, I often find myself jumping back and fourth between the two when I'm trying to decide who I might admire more) but really, bringing Mozart into this thread is a bit much. Mozart was a freak of nature, one of which we've never seen the likes of since and probably won't for quite some time. It's one thing to be inspired but such genius which really is a gift from God and another for us mere mortals to actually strive to attain. I've always said that the cream always rises to the top. I think the best thing for one to do is simply give 100% and be content that they are giving their best at any one pint in time.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"Up until recently I used to participate in a street photography group on Facebook..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Marc, I had the same experience you described, probably on the same group. I took most street type groups off my active news feed, not because we differed in opinion so much as because I found Facebook ill suited to serious critiques, or extensive discussions about anything of any significance. The format doesn't really lend itself well to anything other than superficial banter, or simply sharing stuff that interests us and might interest folks on our contact lists. And that's fine, I enjoy FB for that sort of banter.</p>

<p>One problem is getting photos to appear in the desired quality. FB defies getting consistently good results with JPEGs. Another problem was a group whose rules seemed a bit officious, including "no copyright notices or watermarks". Most of my JPEGs for online sharing are run through Lightroom with that info automatically marked very discretely at the bottom. I don't have time to create separate sets of photos just for one FB group. Or to engage in endless pointless debates over what is or isn't "real" street photography, based on whether the person reacted angrily, shocked, or merely smiled at the camera when being photographed. Apparently some folks believe it's "real" only if the person being photographed is caught in an awkward looking position, or glares at the photographer. If the person smiles, or cooperates with the photo, it's not "real" street photography. Presumably some folks confused paparazzi snaps with street photography. Or they're more comfortable with rules they read somewhere on some blog or article, so they know they're operating within the bylaws of the salon or atelier.</p>

<p>But those were merely specific symptoms of groupthink, that same rigidity I referred to in my first post in this thread. It tends to impose uniformity to everything. Another symptom was the look-alike photo editing, with each b&w photo from every photographer emulating the same type of tonality and clarity, often verging on tonemapping in effect. If someone uploaded a scan of a silver gelatin print that looked like, well... like a b&w print, someone else would offer to "fix" it for them, to make it look the same as everyone else's.</p>

<p>I got crossways, inadvertently, with one group moderator or owner by suggesting that a particular photo - low in contrast, just a wee bit soft and slightly murky - was perfect as-is because it suited the surrealistic vibe of the photo. The mod/owner was rather imperious about the whole issue. I had to laugh, mostly at myself, because I've heard the same complaint so often about photo.net. So I just quietly took that group off my active FB feed. I still take a peek in once a month or so, but that's about all.</p>

<p>Actually, I see some really good street, candid and documentary photography on Facebook. And a lot of derivative stuff. But there's enough good stuff to keep me visiting. I put all the good stuff into a special interest folder and visiting once a week or so.</p>

<p>But these experiences did remind me that it's a very murky, squishy area concerning things like critiques that are both frank and constructive. Often, I find, there is little mutual respect for one another's opinions. Rather than saying "Hmm... interesting. I don't happen to agree, but I can see the value of that approach and it might very well work for some people", too often it's "No, you're wrong, and, to paraphrase Dr. Zoidberg from Futurama, your opinion is bad and you should feel bad."</p>

[GerrySiegel]

Marc, absolutely agree with you re trying to pitch Mozart as example of innate talent. His middle name says it, "Amadeus.: Beyond earthly descriptives even. It was nonetheless a chance to share our love of great music. Ethereally lovely. You are right on it.

 

I have just dipped into the world of FB groups, couple of them of special interest. An awakening of a sort. Sometimes great fun and new people and refreshing ideas. Sometimes the same old quibbling we know of raised to a pitch with no moderator I can detect. Brave new world. A teacher who knows positive but honest reinforcement is the kind of not common critic I would seek out and expect to pay for help and advice. One good workshop even.

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I can echo what Marc wrote, I steer clear of facebook groups mostly (a lot of clique behaviour), but even some personal profiles where people post any kind of picture and there will be people telling how great it is - just by name-recognition. 'Like' is not a measurement of quality but of popularity and networking, most of the time.<br>

But for Mozart - well, sorry, no. Great composer, but a some unique outrageous talent as we never saw again ever? Sorry, not to me. We had one better shortly after, for all I care. Seriously, I will admit to not being a huge fan of Mozart, so I am biassed to some extent... I find both Bach and Beethoven to be more innovative, original, ground-breaking composers. Considering Beethoven's deafness, coming up with something as thrilling as the opening bars of his ninth symphony, or the near-modernistic fuga for strings (op. 133) to me are accomplishments that just go that one step further. Yet, I am not willing to call Beethoven one of a kind unique either. Because of Brahms. And so the chain goes on...<br />Not saying this to 'diss' Mozart, but actually to bring that on topic: there are people with more potential than others to excel in a specific area, and Mozart was definitely one of them. It makes them relatively rare stories - but behind those rare stories, there is still a normal human being, who had to work to make use of that potential and unleash it. Who had to have opportunity to maximise that potential, and so on. Fred summed up the circumstances for Mozart quite well, and one shouldn't underestimate any of those. Putting it out there as some god-given unique occurance isn't doing justice to the hours and hours of hard work that Wolfgang (and Leopold) put in. The Jupiter symphony and that lovely Romance of piano concerto K466 didn't flow out of his pencil - he worked on it. In the same way the rest of us have to work on it (and get somewhat lesser results probably).<br>

Idiolising the talent of somebody may add a note of romantic mystique and this sense of uniqueness, but it also puts the rest of them (and us) down as never being able to reach those heights. I think that is a false dichotomy, especially when it comes to personal expression - none of us should reach the same height, and trying to judge all by the same yardstick is a relatively unfair approach. That doesn't mean he Unless of course, we discuss what Gerry mentioned before: Walter's recordings of Mahler ;-) (<em>actually not those too, because for every Walter, you need a Klemperer as well</em>).</p>

[gordonjb]

<p>FB likes are the same as PN ratings. They tell you next to nothing about the photo you posted. They do let you know the approximate size of the clique you belong to and perhaps your status within that clique. I use FB to connect with groups of people who happen to be interested in some of my more obscure interests, such as Nudubranchs ( sea slugs ), FB is large enough that there is a group dedicated to identifying species and discussing general knowledge of sea slugs with many hundreds of members. For photography I was added to a group of mostly ex-PN members who would pick a theme each week and everyone would contribute an image, sort of like the No Words forum here. I lasted a few weeks before quitting, the group was no less disingenuous and rife with politics than any other photo sharing clique.<br>

While I respect Bill's right to his opinion nothing he or anyone else has written in this thread changes my belief that telling the OP to ask others whether or not his/her work is good is dreadful advice. If a person really needs their work critiqued in order to know where a body of work stands, then put out the money and have the work critiqued by professionals, or you could always ask your Mom.</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I have to agree with Wouter that much of the glorious praise of Mozart and the need to give him this innate (God given, ahem, as they say) talent is a way of turning him into a god. Which we love to do, turn those we admire into gods. We do it with sports figures, Hollywood stars, and some do it with artists. Not necessary. They're human. Turning any artist into a god and describing him or her as untouchable and beyond mortal is much akin to calling a photo beautiful, IMO. It's actually quite hollow. What does it all mean? Something my first grade teacher counseled us not to do. Use other adjectives besides "beautiful," she would say, ones that are more descriptive and less generic (though she didn't use the word "generic" to a bunch of first graders). So, I echo her in saying, tell me what the music says to you or what it does to you. Describe its nuance with meaningful adjectives. But all this talk of "the best" and of "innate talent" gets a little flat. As to my own feelings about Mozart, on some days, I want to listen to no one else. His music is just the ticket. On other days, he might sound a little boring or sterile, too rigid or formulaic, so I'll listen to Stravinksy. And on that Stravinksy day, I don't think of Mozart as a lesser god. I'm just in the mood for something else.</p>

<p>My sense is that a search for innate talent at the very beginning of an endeavor such as photography might simply be the seeking of some sort of validation to continue. The validation needs to come from within. You know how you feel about photography and about the photos you're producing. If it's giving you some sort of fulfillment, continue on. If not, find something else. If a certain kind of passion is driving you, you might not be able to stop, innate or not. "Beauty," "innate," "best" . . . these are all just words, mostly without meaning until the blanks are filled in and most often the blanks are not filled in. That, I think, is what's wrong with a lot of photographs (including many of my own). The blanks aren't filled in. Most photos deal in generality and hyperbole. Most look like everyone else's. When we start filling in the blanks for ourselves we'll be heading somewhere. </p>

<p>And, by the way, I gave up being Mozart or Beethoven or Weston years ago. For some people, thinking big is what's demanded or what seems to work. For me, thinking small gets the job done.</p>