| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/18/2005 11:52:10 AM · #101 |
I don't know if it can be taught nor do I even know if it can be learned. I'm not sure if I have any progress in my ability to envision a composition before I shoot it or perhaps when I choose to crop one. What I do know is that I like taking photographs of people and if I can someday reproduce in a photograph something to which I respond viscerally such that the viewers of that photograph respond in some manner similarly then I believe I will have achieved one of my goals. Ribboning here or in some other competition is neither here nor there. Whether someone pays me $150 for a portrait and pays someone else who frequents this site $500 for similar work may speak more to our business acumen than to whether my work is more "artistic" in nature. Whether I enjoy relating with everyone on this site or am sharpened and honed in my skills by comments made by people who may or may not like me is irrelevant. I enjoy the process and as long as someone will stand in front of the camera so that I can take the photos I enjoy taking, then I'll be posting portraits. I'm sure that at some time in the future I'll be satisfied with my work because I will believe that I've finally proved to myself that I can consistently reproduce images of people that inspire or enflame or anger or humble the viewers in much the same way I was when I first encountered the subject. At that time, perhaps I'll turn my hand to some other style of photography. Perhaps I'll be satisfied to produce what I produce and then I'll set off in the footsteps of some of you who already demonstrate skill and vision in shooting still life work or landscapes or sports or any of a number of subjects and styles that I just have no interest in shooting now.
Maybe it can't be learned and maybe I can't learn it but I'll die before I quit trying on this front. As long as its fun and trips my trigger I'll not only do it I'll work to understand and implement what I see others doing that I feel is "successful" as I determine photographic success.
Many of you inspire me and I hope that whether you think you've attained or you feel depressed that you think you'll never get there I just hope that you, too, keep on shooting and sharing on this site and others.
Kev |
|
|
|
01/18/2005 12:08:47 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
that is digital art, not photography. |
That photo was taken back in the 60s. There weren't even such things as digtal cameras and photoshop back then.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 12:15:27 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Did Hellen Keller have the innate ability and talent for communication, or did she develop it with the help of a very devoted teacher?
|
No she didn't have that ability to begin with. She never developed into a William Shakespeare either. My point exactly.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 12:18:08 PM · #104 |
Nope. Either you have an eye or you don't. Being able to take a pretty image doesn't mean you have the eye it just means you learned a bunch of rules and trends.
Art Wolfe shoots the same things everyone else does yet his stick out like a sore thumb and talk to ya. That is the eye. The ability to communicate through a picture or any type of art. It can't be taught or learned.
All my opinion. |
|
|
|
01/18/2005 12:29:04 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by Davenit:
Art Wolfe shoots the same things everyone else does yet his stick out like a sore thumb and talk to ya. That is the eye. The ability to communicate through a picture or any type of art. It can't be taught or learned.
|
Just because not everyone can achieve what Art Wolfe has done not mean that he has "the eye" and some do not...What I'm proposing is that it's not a black and white issue, but a much more dynamic thing.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 12:59:45 PM · #106 |
nsbca7
I doubt anyone would call that image crap. That wasn't the issue. The issue was would everyone you asked in this hypothetical survey you haven't done call it 'great'. There's a universe in between 'great' and 'crap'. So back to the question:
Would everyone call that image 'great'. No. It's an excellent windowlight portrait. Most of the charm comes from the subject and her eyes. I know dozens of pros in the Cincinnati area who could duplicate it. If it's a true candid shot, it was nicely done plus there's an element of circumstance in it. Everything happened to be together at that one moment, and the photographer happened to be there.
Perhaps, also, we have different definitions of 'great'. |
|
|
|
01/18/2005 01:09:41 PM · #107 |
I feel fairly certain that there is a reasonably reliable way to tell a 'good' image (in the sense of 'sound' and 'worthy') from a 'poor' one, which would have nothing to do with its popular appeal and everything to do with a universal quality inherent in it. When, on very rare occasion, the two coincide, we would have what I'd call a 'great' image. Yet, the majority of 'great' work remains unrecognized. It is not the quality of such work which is lacking, it is only that the range of human experience itself varies significantly between individuals. Love, grief, joy, jealousy, the drama and tragedies we all share, effect us more or less profoundly, sooner or later or, sadly, not at all, if we deny them.
We can, however, ask questions to help us determine the quality of a work. These are some questions I ask which, I believe, can take us beyond a mere subjective appeal:
â€Â¢ does the photo serve to exhilarate?
â€Â¢ does it stimulate awareness?
â€Â¢ does it accommodate disscociation?
â€Â¢ does it encourage resentment against evil?
â€Â¢ does it convey a charge (as in energy)?
â€Â¢ does it have range/ can we define that range?
â€Â¢ is it an imitation, an invention or neither?
â€Â¢ if it appears to be an imitation, is the imitation well concealed or frankly acknowledged?
â€Â¢ is the mood, emotion, circumstance of the photo credible and convincing?
â€Â¢ does the work inspire transport, restlessness, action?
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 01:09:51 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by swagman:
nsbca7
...there's an element of circumstance in it. Everything happened to be together at that one moment, and the photographer happened to be there.
|
Happened to be there and happened to see what was there.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 01:12:49 PM · #109 |
Nobody has addressed the series of questions I've asked multiple times. I would never deny that some photos are objectively better than others. Of course.
I would strongly deny that there is a black and a white...a yes and no...a photographer born with "the eye" and a photographer born without "the eye". I still believe it's a sliding scale.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 01:16:22 PM · #110 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Nobody has addressed the series of questions I've asked multiple times... |
I felt I have made an attempt at addressing your questions, if not as pointedly direct as you put them. :-(
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 01:19:03 PM · #111 |
No, you're talking about photographs. The thread was about photographers until recently.
I completely agree with your points about photographs. :0)
My questions were about recognizing "the eye" in a photographer. Everyone seems more than happy to set up their own standards, yet refuses to acknowledge the subjectivity of recognizing whether a photographer has "the eye".
Message edited by author 2005-01-18 13:19:24.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 01:22:24 PM · #112 |
To answer cloud's question more directly:
"The" eye is "greatness"; almost nobody has it and it can't be taught. Yes, Cartier-Bresson had it. Adams. Weston (the elder). Avedon. Helmut Newton. Add your own to this list...
"An" eye can usually be taught, I think. An untutored eye can be urged along, right up that scale. Yes, a sliding scale exists for "eyes"...
If you're born with "no eye", I don't think "an" eye can be taught to you. Some people just don't get art or aesthetics.
IMO of course...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 01:26:34 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
that is digital art, not photography. |
That photo was taken back in the 60s. There weren't even such things as digtal cameras and photoshop back then. |
Whole quotes please
"On this site, that is digital art, not photography." (emphasis added)
Please don't crop it and change the meaning! I know back then it was not digital. Ever seen gone with the wind, the movie? All the interior shots have the ceilings matted in, as in painted. Today it is done digtially, but either method is no more or less photographic than the other, but "On this site, that is digital art, not photography" by today's standards/definitions.
I am referring to (or poking fun at) the 'photographic integrity' folks here. Here 'photographic integrity' is paramount. But posters will gladly point out as great manipulated images. Hypocricy comes to mind.
As to 'eye', well if one can manipulate the image (digitally, or in teh darkroom) one can fix what they eye failed to notice at the time the image was made. The 'vision' to see the end result is the hardest part to teach - the genius part. You can teach me to paint, you cannot teach me to be Picasso - or at least i doubt it.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 01:28:35 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Nobody has addressed the series of questions I've asked multiple times. I would never deny that some photos are objectively better than others. Of course.
I would strongly deny that there is a black and a white...a yes and no...a photographer born with "the eye" and a photographer born without "the eye". I still believe it's a sliding scale. |
I think there are varying degrees, just as in anything. Was Paul Strand a great photographer? I think so. Was his work as popular or universal as Ansel Adams? No. Were they both at the top of their field? Yes. Was their work original? Yes. Will it still be around in a hundred years? I̢۪m sure it will. And that in itself may be the true test. Some things are popular for a period of time and some are timeless. There were many very good artists around at the time of Michelangelo, yet few have survived the test of time.
Yes, I do believe in the idea of the sliding scale.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 01:29:36 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
No, you're talking about photographs. The thread was about photographers until recently.
I completely agree with your points about photographs. :0)
My questions were about recognizing "the eye" in a photographer. Everyone seems more than happy to set up their own standards, yet refuses to acknowledge the subjectivity of recognizing whether a photographer has "the eye". |
Doesn't the photo demonstrate what kind and calibre of photographer one is, whether or not he/she has an 'eye', a capacity for 'seeing'? Much attention is given to the people behind the photographs, when, IMO, the very key to determine their ways, attitudes and uniqueness lies in the pictures. ?
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 01:29:53 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
To answer cloud's question more directly:
"The" eye is "greatness"; almost nobody has it and it can't be taught. Yes, Cartier-Bresson had it. Adams. Weston (the elder). Avedon. Helmut Newton. Add your own to this list...
"An" eye can usually be taught, I think. An untutored eye can be urged along, right up that scale. Yes, a sliding scale exists for "eyes"...
If you're born with "no eye", I don't think "an" eye can be taught to you. Some people just don't get art or aesthetics.
IMO of course...
Robt. |
This is exactly what I was hoping to agree on...
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 01:32:39 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
No, you're talking about photographs. The thread was about photographers until recently.
I completely agree with your points about photographs. :0)
My questions were about recognizing "the eye" in a photographer. Everyone seems more than happy to set up their own standards, yet refuses to acknowledge the subjectivity of recognizing whether a photographer has "the eye". |
Doesn't the photo demonstrate what kind and calibre of photographer one is, whether or not he/she has an 'eye', a capacity for 'seeing'? Much attention is given to the people behind the photographs, when, IMO, the very key to determine their ways, attitudes and uniqueness lies in the pictures. ? |
Yes, but you're missing the reason for my frustration...the thread started by asking "Can THE EYE be taught?".
My answer is Yes. When others answered No, I simply wanted to find out how they determined whether somebody was gifted with "the eye" and when somebody wasn't. The photographs are the obvious results, but the debate is about the photographer.
Message edited by author 2005-01-18 13:34:33.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 01:32:45 PM · #118 |
Zeus,
I'm not sure where we're giving attention to the people behind the image, at least in this thread, but yes, definitely, the proof of the "eye" is in the body of the work. One image does not demonstrate the presence of the eye, but the portfolio does.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 01:40:10 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
that is digital art, not photography. |
That photo was taken back in the 60s. There weren't even such things as digtal cameras and photoshop back then. |
Whole quotes please
"On this site, that is digital art, not photography." (emphasis added)
Please don't crop it and change the meaning! I know back then it was not digital. Ever seen gone with the wind, the movie? All the interior shots have the ceilings matted in, as in painted. Today it is done digtially, but either method is no more or less photographic than the other, but "On this site, that is digital art, not photography" by today's standards/definitions.
I am referring to (or poking fun at) the 'photographic integrity' folks here. Here 'photographic integrity' is paramount. But posters will gladly point out as great manipulated images. Hypocricy comes to mind.
As to 'eye', well if one can manipulate the image (digitally, or in teh darkroom) one can fix what they eye failed to notice at the time the image was made. The 'vision' to see the end result is the hardest part to teach - the genius part. You can teach me to paint, you cannot teach me to be Picasso - or at least i doubt it. |
So as not to crop your meaning.
There are many out there who would argue that the mere fact that the image ever went through a computor negates it from being art. Only film qualifies. Others go farther and say if it isn't done on B/W film and printed in silver it isn't art. And yet others will go farther than that and say if it wasn't done on canvas it isn't art because art cannot be created with a camera. The premiss of drawing lines as to what process can or cannot be used to qualify as art or photography is in my oppinion, small.
I do agree with much of what you said, but I hate drawing hard lines.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 01:44:47 PM · #120 |
I hope I don't throw the momentum of this conversation, but I just had to pause and say that it's been a great discussion! I thoroughly enjoy this...
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 01:44:51 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
...Yes, but you're missing the reason for my frustration...the thread started by asking "Can THE EYE be taught?".
My answer is Yes. When others answered No, I simply wanted to find out how they determined whether somebody was gifted with "the eye" and when somebody wasn't. The photographs are the obvious results, but the debate is about the photographer. |
I sympathize, but, under the circumstances, I felt that an attempt to shift the focus to the work would, at least temporarily, benefit the discussion.
My position, here, to respond very directly, is that having or not having an 'eye' depends on a man's capacity for dissociation. The difference, uniqueness of his 'vision' is relative to his 'stance' toward the world and society.
Message edited by author 2005-01-18 13:45:27.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 01:48:36 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
...Yes, but you're missing the reason for my frustration...the thread started by asking "Can THE EYE be taught?".
My answer is Yes. When others answered No, I simply wanted to find out how they determined whether somebody was gifted with "the eye" and when somebody wasn't. The photographs are the obvious results, but the debate is about the photographer. |
I sympathize, but, under the circumstances, I felt that an attempto shift the focus to the work would, at least temporarily, benefit the discussion.
My position, here, to respond very directly, is that having or not having an 'eye' depends on a man's capacity for dissociation. The difference, uniqueness of his 'vision' is relative to his 'stance' toward the world and society. |
I completely agree that this shift in discussion is important, but for reasons of stubborness...that reason being thus:
I think discussing the question of whether or not one has "the eye" is a moot point when "the eye" is discussed in absolute terms that claim to transcend all opinion and experience.
Message edited by author 2005-01-18 13:49:20.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 01:51:20 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
...I think discussing the question of whether or not one has "the eye" is a moot point when "the eye" is discussed in absolute terms that claim to transcend all opinion and experience. |
So, let's not do that. :-)
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 01:52:55 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
...I think discussing the question of whether or not one has "the eye" is a moot point when "the eye" is discussed in absolute terms that claim to transcend all opinion and experience. |
So, let's not do that. :-) |
But I wasn't sure that anyone agreed with me...that's why I really liked bear_music's 2nd last post...
Message edited by author 2005-01-18 13:53:52.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 01:53:12 PM · #125 |
I think that it is possible to benefit from being taught, and sometimes in an inverse way. Listening to a mentor or teacher can provide a catalyst for your own creative thought.
I also believe that you can learn to have a better "eye" for photography by developing that eye. I don't believe that development has to come from a single source or method. Practicing helps. Experience helps. So does self-study and critiquing others work. And I also think guidance from someone with experience can help as well. |
|
