| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/18/2005 01:53:59 PM · #126 |
To help put this all into perstective it is important to remember that everything we do or create, eye or no eye, will be dust a million years from now. Everything we create is vanity.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 01:54:37 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
To help put this all into perstective it is important to remember that everything we do or create, eye or no eye, will be dust a million years from now. Everything we create is vanity. |
Now that's something I disagree with even more!!
I think everything we create is glory...not for us, mind you...
Message edited by author 2005-01-18 13:54:56.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 01:55:41 PM · #128 |
|
|
|
01/18/2005 01:58:26 PM · #129 |
You mean that archival paper I bought won't last a measly million years? Well, all I care about is the twenty or so years I have left. Beyond that? *shrug*
You're taking this conversation back to the cosmic, again *grin*
Message edited by author 2005-01-18 13:58:51.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 02:01:10 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Song of Solomon. |
Your post does sound like King Solomon, but taken from the Book of Lamentations...
Message edited by author 2005-01-18 14:01:38.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 02:12:15 PM · #131 |
Ecclesiastes, isn't it? The book of Lamentations is one of the Apocrypha, I believe, bewailing the fall of Jerusalem.
Further excerpt from the same "poem" as contains "vanity of vanities"...
All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full: unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
All things are full of labor; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
*******
And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this also is vexation of spirit.
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 02:14:38 PM · #132 |
|
|
|
01/18/2005 02:16:52 PM · #133 |
That's right, Ecclesiastes...but Lamentations isn't part of the Apocrypha. It's standard fare for the protestant biblical canon...
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 02:25:40 PM · #134 |
Yeah, you're right, sorry; there's "Lamentations" in the King James version. There are large portions of "Lamentations" that didn't make it in; those are the Apocryphal portions...
I think.... I ain't a Biblical scholar...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 02:28:55 PM · #135 |
I don̢۪t mean the vanity part literally. Not in all cases. If we are doing this (the pursuit of better photography) to be great photographers, if we are doing this so that our works will be hung in museums for millions to see, if we are doing this that other will think better of us, if we are doing this to one day become wealthy or if our motive simply involves being remembered, then yes, it is all vanity.
If, on the other hand, photography is used as a way to express ourselves better, to communicate better or to help the lot of our fellow man then it is a noble undertaking.
I always try to remember this in my heart.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 02:37:00 PM · #136 |
Exactly. Personally, I do this as an expression of my position as a creature who was graciously given the gift of also being able to create.
You know the line "God made me fast and when I run I feel his pleasure"? The same applies to me.
God made me creative and when I create, I feel his pleasure.
Message edited by author 2005-01-18 14:38:13.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 02:45:13 PM · #137 |
Being able to "see" a photography is similar to a violinist being able to "hear" the music.
Put it this way, there about 2 million amateur violinists out there. Some are near the professional level, some are far from it. Even within the professionals, there is only about a dozen violinists in the world who are renowed for their craft.
No amount of practice can make you into an Itzhak Perlman if you don't have the talent to begin with -- in fact, when I was in school and was actively participating with the orchestra (i play the violin), very few violinists outside of the music major world can play as well as the music majors. And out of that, very few music majors would make it as professionals :) i was one of teh fortunate few that could play at the level of teh music majors, but definitely not at teh level of professionals unless I really really devote myself. But no amount of practice will make me into an Itzhak Perlman.
Everyone can learn something about photography, but unless you have the "vision", you won't be able to convey the message. And photography, like other arts, are about talent -- there are only a few Art Wolfe's, Ansel Adams, etc. out there and for good reason because photography in the end, like oher arts, is about if you have the natural ability or not. If you don't, no amount of training can elevate you to that level.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 02:50:01 PM · #138 |
Oh no, full circle...I'm sitting this one out, unless somebody says something I can't resist.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 03:10:42 PM · #139 |
It looks to me like there are two opinions running through the DPC crowd: 1) Those who believe talent is something present at birth waiting to be discovered and nurtured, and 2) those who believe talents can be learned by the individual and then nurtured.
For the first group, life must feel fairly limited because you either have it or you don't when it comes to trying something new (for example, art, photography, music, or any other creative endeavor).
I fall into the second category because people are, IMHO, clean slates at birth and can learn anything they want. Motivation and practice can take one to the professional level if one so desires to get there. (Okay, some lucky connections with the right promoters would help too.)
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 03:17:38 PM · #140 |
There is the craft of photography and then there is the art. A good craftman/woman learns the basics and with this arsenal many good images can be created.
Then there is the elusive art.
The question is can these two be learned. The answer is an emphatic yes to both. It is the teaching that remains the most vexing problem. However, let us concede that the craft can be taught by a competent teacher. This leaves the art question and here is my answer:
Humankind benefits by what Jung termed the collective unconscious. To simplify it, it ties all human experiences into one whole. Consider children who are born genius. Well, the ancients before Jung believed that the teacher is in each one of us. Our task is to make contact with it. This teacher is nothing more than the collective unconscious.
If you yearn something that bad then eventually you will make contact with this inner teacher. Often, there is some preparation work on our part such as the very basics. By staying the path you will begin to come in communion with yourself. The answer is that it can be learned but only from your inner teacher. How to invoke it is the question.
It all depends on the intensity of your desire.
Yes, it may come naturally to some people like many different things come naturally to many different people, but the teacher is in you and he knows the subject from a to z. You must learn how to reach this inner communion.
Message edited by author 2005-01-18 15:22:51. |
|
|
|
01/18/2005 03:21:30 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by uctopuk:
It looks to me like there are two opinions running through the DPC crowd: 1) Those who believe talent is something present at birth waiting to be discovered and nurtured, and 2) those who believe talents can be learned by the individual and then nurtured.
For the first group, life must feel fairly limited because you either have it or you don't when it comes to trying something new (for example, art, photography, music, or any other creative endeavor).
I fall into the second category because people are, IMHO, clean slates at birth and can learn anything they want. Motivation and practice can take one to the professional level if one so desires to get there. (Okay, some lucky connections with the right promoters would help too.) |
I don't think the views expressed in this thread are nearly as black and white as you have presented them.
For example, I am one who thinks that there is an innate ability at play but that it can be built upon. Most people can learn most things to some extent but not everyone has the innate ability to learn all things to the highest levels.
I think most people can improve so it's certainly not a case of not trying something new.
Without trying one never finds out whether that particular activity is one of the things they are absolutely awful at and simply don't seem to be able to pick up, is one of the things they are reasonable at and can improve at with effort or one of the things they seem to be able to excel at, with or without learning.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 03:29:22 PM · #142 |
I think the underliying theme to all of this is creativity. I believe we are all creative in our own ways and that many forms of creativity carry over to other areas. For example, many ways that I am creative with my drawing and painting carry over to photography but not completely. Can you completely master any form of art such as fine art photography? I don't think you can say that definitively. You might have enough creativity in other areas to help you be semi-successful and for many people that is plenty good enough for them to enjoy the craft but I think to be a real master at anything takes some God-given natural ability to begin with. Just as a doctor will usually specialize in a particular field of medicine the artist will usually do the same even though they both may be very competent in other similar fields. Many people have the misconception that if you are an artist, such as a painter, then you are gifted in all forms of art but that really isn't true for most people. I specialize in drawing, I am competent in painting, and I struggle at creating an image from my imagination. I simply don't create my art in that way. I am far worse at the game Pictionary then people realize :) It is not all-encompassing as it might appear. Self-taught or studying from a teacher doesn't seem that relative to me because they are just different ways of learning. What seems relative to me is how much natural ability a person has to begin with and that is something maybe only the individual can know.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 04:41:49 PM · #143 |
I just went for a ciggie and there's this move on Film Four called Secrets and Lies. One of the lines I just heard was 'I've still got an eye. I am a photographer. They can't teach you that' :)
edit: usual typos
Message edited by author 2005-01-18 17:06:56. |
|
|
|
01/18/2005 05:06:13 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by Kavey:
For example, I am one who thinks that there is an innate ability at play but that it can be built upon. Most people can learn most things to some extent but not everyone has the innate ability to learn all things to the highest levels. |
Your statement places you in my first group, not that there is anything wrong with that. I just think it limits potential. And I did not mean to infer "all things," rather a focused endeavor. If I decided today to devote my life to becoming a professional artist or musician, I could. You seem to say I could not if I don't have the "innate ability." I say I don't have to have it, I can learn it if I have the motivation to do so.
BTW, this is one of the things I love about photography (and art in general), it opens up some many philosophical questions. |
|
|
|
01/18/2005 05:11:14 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by uctopuk:
Originally posted by Kavey:
For example, I am one who thinks that there is an innate ability at play but that it can be built upon. Most people can learn most things to some extent but not everyone has the innate ability to learn all things to the highest levels. |
Your statement places you in my first group... |
I might agree if you didn't then go on to express the opinion that holding that belief meant limiting life because of not trying things.
For every individual and skill combination there is a sliding scale of how much innate ability/ natural talent there is and how much can be learned as well as an upper limit, in some cases, as to how much can be achieved.
That belief doesn't for a MOMENT limit anything in my life because I don't make any assumptions about how much innate ability I have or how much I can improve by learning and practice.
I find out only by trial. I always assume I CAN do something until repeated and consistent evidence teaches me otherwise. I don't give up easily.
So absolutely no limiting of life going on.
And yet I still believe that people have differing levels of innate ability in different areas.
So I don't really fit into the little box you've described at all.
Originally posted by uctopuk:
If I decided today to devote my life to becoming a professional artist or musician, I could. You seem to say I could not if I don't have the "innate ability." I say I don't have to have it, I can learn it if I have the motivation to do so. |
Perhaps you could. Perhaps you are one of those few individuals who has innate ability in so many areas that you've never really noticed that many people don't.
But it is my belief that you couldn't take absolutely ANY individual, regardless of their motivation, and take them to the very highest levels of a particular creative arena, based only on learning and practice, if they did not have some innate talent there already.
That's simply my own belief according to my experiences of the world to date, according to the people I have met and the things I have witnessed.
Given that we all have different experiences of the world, it does not surprise me that we will hold differing opinions.
Message edited by author 2005-01-18 17:17:14.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 05:14:41 PM · #146 |
First post here, on this thread. Hmm, lets see if your a born with a skill that can not be learned, then therefore you should of had all of your photo's on magizine covers and winning ribbions from the first time you picked up a camera.
Nobody is a pro at first, everyone makes mistakes. Who ever stops learning photography I feel sorry for them.
Travis
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 05:19:24 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by Travis99:
First post here, on this thread. Hmm, lets see if your a born with a skill that can not be learned, then therefore you should of had all of your photo's on magizine covers and winning ribbions from the first time you picked up a camera. |
You're not really summing up quite what many people have been saying.
I don't think people are suggesting that anyone is born with a fully formed skill that doesn't require polishing! But perhaps with a certain creative ability that can be honed by learning and practice. They have the kernel already within them.
Others who put in the same learning and practice, or perhaps even much more, may never reach the level of skill required to achieve "photo's on magizine covers and winning ribbons".
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 05:28:33 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by uctopuk:
If I decided today to devote my life to becoming a professional artist or musician, I could. You seem to say I could not if I don't have the "innate ability." I say I don't have to have it, I can learn it if I have the motivation to do so.
BTW, this is one of the things I love about photography (and art in general), it opens up some many philosophical questions. |
It depends on what your definition of professional is and depends on what instrument.
I can tell you that 99.9% of the adults that started violin can't play to the level that an average 4 year could afte 2 years. part of the training process IS age depednent.
I'd put it another way -- if you try really hard, can you play professional basketball? Why not? You're limited by both talent + physical attributes. The brain IS a muscle :) and its development is also limited naturally.
The thing is, in the US, there is all this hype about "oh, if you work hard enough you can get this". It's simply hogwash :) If anyone has sat next to a kid playing the violin in high school in the US because his parents believe he could do it, then you'll know what i mean... better get some ear plugs.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 06:03:58 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by paganini:
...I can tell you that 99.9% of the adults that started violin can't play to the level that an average 4 year could afte 2 years. part of the training process IS age depednent.
I'd put it another way -- if you try really hard, can you play professional basketball? Why not? You're limited by both talent + physical attributes. The brain IS a muscle :) and its development is also limited naturally.
The thing is, in the US, there is all this hype about "oh, if you work hard enough you can get this". It's simply hogwash :) If anyone has sat next to a kid playing the violin in high school in the US because his parents believe he could do it, then you'll know what i mean... better get some ear plugs. |
While a strongly agree with this view, I propose that something could happen to the ear-tormenting infant terrible which could fundamentally change his musical 'sense' and his ability to 'paganini' it with newly-found gusto.
I can't say what this would be other than speculating that it would have to be profound experience effecting his 'musical' sense along with a few other ones.
Message edited by author 2005-01-18 18:04:33.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 06:08:15 PM · #150 |
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. |
I agree. This sums it up nicely.
|
|
