Posted by David Chauvin on October 6, 2006 at 9:33 AM
Since I didn't want to hijack the original thread from an earlier post on "fashion", I'd like to continue the discussion on a tangent of that thread.
3. re: David C. wrote, "When learning any art or craft, the best way to learn is to imitate what we like. Once a solid foundation of skills are set, it may be possible to develop a personal style." - this might be the greatest and most wide-spread butt-backwards bad advice ever foisted on aspiring artists...consider this from the great American artist and educator Robert Henri - "Those who get their techique first, expecting sight (vision, personal style) to come to them later, get a technique of a very ready-made order....a great artist is both a great imaginer and great employer of practical science. First there must be the man, then the technique...the man who is forever acquiring technique with the idea that sometime he may have something to express, will never have the technique of the thing he wishes to express."
and, most importantly, "The techique learned without a purpose is a formula, which when used, knocks the life out of any idea to which it is applied."
put the damn camera on auto, go out and shoot your __s off, and find your passion...then learn/develop/invent the technique you need to express it....
If you put a camera on program and go out and shoot for a year (or ten years) to find your passion, that's fine. But what then? If you cannot recreate the feel of your favorite images due to the lack of technical skills, it's all been a happy accident. You might as well give a camera to a monkey.
It's the second part of the statement that maybe brings us closer together.
...then learn/develop/invent the technique you need to express it....
I did not mean to suggest that a paint by numbers approach to photography is the road to art. Imitating for the sake of imitation is pointless repetition. Replace the word technique with the phrase "basic technical skills" and we're closer together in thinking. Once you have a vision, capturing that vision and transferring it to print is where technique and skill come into play. You have to be able to imitate your own successes and reverse engineer those happy accidents of your monkey days or it was an enjoyable waste of time. By extension, I believe that reverse engineering the images of other artists that we enjoy can help develop skills needed to transfer our own vision to print.
"That 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." attributed to The Big Guy in the Sky
We all have the same notes to work with. It's all about the arrangement.
IMO
Posted by Mark Hobson on October 6, 2006 at 10:36 AM
yo David
"basic technical skills" in the photography world today is put the camera on auto and shoot...the result will be a slew of sharp decently exposed photographs that can form the photographic equivalent of a painter's sketch pad...photographs that the aspiring artist can use to identify the "germ" of a budding vision/passion...
then, and only then, the photographer can learn/develop/invent the techniques needed to bring that germ to fruition...technique that is learned/developed/invented in the service of a specific vision/passion...
simply acquiring technique before the discovery of vision/passion is much more apt to result in a photographer who is, as the saying goes, a "jack of all trades, master of none"...
a good idea if your wish is to be photographic commercial generalist...but, realize that at the highest levels of commercial photography most are specialists operating in a very specific speciality with a very identifiable visual style...
as far imitation goes, why would you want to burden your search for your photographic identity/vision/passion by wasting time and energy trying to disypher the voice of others unless your wish is to imitate?...
if you wish to develop and "speak" with your own unique voice, focus your time and energy on finding the "spark" of that which is your passion...meaningfu "voice"/vision is rarely, if ever, found in technique...meaningful voice/vision is found deep in that part of you that is the human soul...
Posted by Carl Donohue on October 6, 2006 at 11:43 AM
Hey Mark,
I agree with you totally on this. I think technique often serves our art in a somewhat detrimental way - when it becomes the focus. And it is, for most people, myself included at times, the focus.
I think, in all arts, we tend to become a product of how and where we start out .. for those who focus on the technical, that's something that never leaves them .. and I'm not talking about the technique, I'm talking about the vision. It's really hard to leave that behind - almost never.
That said, I think it's fine to imitate others .. we don't live in a vacuum, we live in a world of experiences and influences - and those influences WILL come through . whether we acknowledge that or not. I can't think of any artist, in any medium, who wouldn't acknowledge the power of their influences.
Last year I did a trip to Wrangell - St. Elias National Park with a fellow who told me enjoyed landscape photography. So, I scheduled the itinerary around shooting. And I was surprised when I watche him shoot - he rarely used a tripod, he rarely metered anything himself, and he just fired away. I was carefully studying the compositions and the lines and the light and the meter and the focus and the DOF and whatnot .. and I got some nice images .. but when he later sent me a page of his images, I was really taken aback .. they all had a vibrancy and an energy about them which my images didn't at all .. yet that energy and vibrancy and that 'feel' was precisely what I enjoyed about the place we had been in. Certainly, his images weren't technically 'sound', and would be lambasted if posted here or similar sites .. but they were ALL soaked in something that mine were missing. I learned a lot from that man.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by David Chauvin on October 6, 2006 at 11:44 AM
Mark,
"basic technical skills" in the photography world today is put the camera on auto and shoot...the result will be a slew of sharp decently exposed photographs that can form the photographic equivalent of a painter's sketch pad...photographs that the aspiring artist can use to identify the "germ" of a budding vision/passion...
re: It's true that modern cameras are incredible, but eventually you will have to figure out for yourself what going on inside the box if you intend to build on the happy accidents created by letting the camera do all the thinking. The sketch is fine but one day it must be fleshed out.
"then, and only then, the photographer can learn/develop/invent the techniques needed to bring that germ to fruition...technique that is learned/developed/invented in the service of a specific vision/passion..."
re: 100% agreement
"simply acquiring technique before the discovery of vision/passion is much more apt to result in a photographer who is, as the saying goes, a "jack of all trades, master of none"...
re: Again I agree. But,,,,,,,most folks that start down the road of nature photography do it for their love and passion for nature. The passion is already there. Probably the most common reasons to photograph the natural world are to bring a bit of it back home with us or to share the way we see it with others.
"a good idea if your wish is to be photographic commercial generalist...but, realize that at the highest levels of commercial photography most are specialists operating in a very specific speciality with a very identifiable visual style"...
re: Is there something inherently wrong with being a generalist? Leonardo was quite the generalist and did ok for himself. Also for the sake of this discussion, commercialism isn't the ultimate goal, is it?
"as far imitation goes, why would you want to burden your search for your photographic identity/vision/passion by wasting time and energy trying to disypher the voice of others unless your wish is to imitate?"
re: Is it a waste of time to look at great art and wonder how this inanimate thing is manipulating your thoughts and moods? I am not promoting making exact copies anyone's work. If the study of art has no value, why do you pursue it? There are techniques used by cave painters that are valid today. Is it wrong to blend these techniques into your personal recipe? Your ku series uses very specific techniques to force the viewer into seeing the image in a very controlled way. I have no desire to copy your images, but I am interested in what your technique accomplishes.
"if you wish to develop and "speak" with your own unique voice, focus your time and energy on finding the "spark" of that which is your passion...meaningfu "voice"/vision is rarely, if ever, found in technique...meaningful voice/vision is found deep in that part of you that is the human soul."
re: Amen and Hallelujah!!! But if you do not have the technical skill to bring that spark through a camera and onto a print, it will always remain locked in your soul.
Regards,
David
Posted by Carl Donohue on October 6, 2006 at 11:49 AM
Hey Mark,
I'll add one more example.
This fall, after my backpacking trips had finished, I was trying to decide how to spend a few free days I had doing some shooting on my own. I spoke with a good friend of mine, a photographer who I've enormous respect for, a couple of times about it. I couldn't decide whether to go shoot polar bears in the arctic, or go to Denali and look for wolves, or go to Katmai and shoot some grizzly bears, or head south to Jasper and Banff, or what. Finally, probably to get rid of me, he said "Carl, life's short - shoot what you love" - a cliche indeed, but wise, wise words, ones we need to be reminded of regularly. I took his words to heart, with much appreciation for the lesson, and had an awesome time. Absolutely awesome. And I shot some of the 'best' images I've ever taken. So a HUGE thanks to my friend - you know who you are. :) :) :)
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Arni Cheatham on October 6, 2006 at 1:39 PM
Carl,
Well written. In a few short sentences, you've got me (and maybe a few others) curious. Sounds like you really hit your stride because of this inspiration. Care to give a link to one of the resulting images so we can see "The rest of the story".
Posted by Jude Haase on October 6, 2006 at 10:58 PM
Guys,
I've got to get into this one! Since the age of 11 I've been a rhythm guitar, lead guitar, bass guitar player and singer. Til this day music is what pays for me to be into photography. Music to me is the total opposite of photography artistic wise, but it does have the same values. In music you take parts of many musician's playing and styles that you like and build what you would claim to be your style. Very few artist claim to be original!! Stevie Ray Vaughan was and is still rated one of the best guitar players of all time, and when he played live he would tell stories about who's style he was thinking about when he wrote certain songs. I think of photography in the same way. You take the things you like about other photographers work and build your style. You may not like everything about somebody's work, but hey it ain't your work.
And yes there are very few artist that are totally original, but those are usally the one's work that most people think are weird!!
I remember way back . . . we had some discussion along these lines and I
found the discussion very interesting and enlightening. I'll see if I can
dig it up for you if it still exists. Anyways, one thing that surprised me
was in almost all of the areas of how people approached photography there
seemed to be a 50-50 split. For example, we talked about pre-visualization
and almost exactly half the people used that approach ( in this case, I mean
thinking of an idea and then going out and capturing/creating it ) and those
that got their ideas on the spot, with no predetermined plan, made up the other half.
I suspect that if you polled people on this question, of practical /
technique vs. "learning to see" you might get a similar, 50/50 split. So,
there is no right or wrong answer really, just whatever works for you.
As an experiment I tried the opposite approach and it was fun and
interesting, but in the end I came to realize that I was more of a
spontaneous type.
In regards to your specific question, I have to agree with Mark 100%. One
of the things I said in that thread was if I were to teach some people
about photography and they were new to this craft, the last thing I would
do is give them a camera and teach them how to use the controls.
First, I would try and teach them to "see", to develop their own vision. I
would use examples of other people's photographs and paintings, not for
them to imitate, but to inspire them. In my opinion,
learning the various controls of the camera, and the other aspects of
technique such as composition
is the easiest part. However, I agree with you 100% that whatever path you
take, mastering those camera controls is essential.
What I wonder about if these various traits are a left brain / right brain
type of thing. Do the same people that believe that learning technique
first are also the same people. in most cases, that believe "planning"
their images before they venture out is the way to go. Tim
Posted by David Chauvin on October 7, 2006 at 6:14 AM
Timothy,
This is most definitely a "chicken or egg" scenario. Starting out in the dark ages when there was no "P" setting has probably skewed my perspective on the value of what that little 'f' means. :-)
The pre-vis division of photographers is also an interesting sampling and may be linked at some base level. I believe you are right in that it is mainly dependent on the individual as to which path is best.
Thanks,
David
Posted by Carl Donohue on October 9, 2006 at 8:18 PM
Carl,
Well written. In a few short sentences, you've got me (and maybe a few others) curious. Sounds like you really hit your stride because of this inspiration. Care to give a link to one of the resulting images so we can see "The rest of the story".
Hey Arni
Thanks for the kind words. I don't think it was a function of me hitting my stride .. I don't think "I" (in the traditional sense of the word) had anything to do with it. I think it's more about what happens when you shoot your passion and surrender to something deeper inside. And the images aren't necessarily 'great' in anyone else's eyes - they're just simple images, of a place I love, that move me. Though there seems to be little interest beyond the relatively few people discussing this thread, maybe this would be a good area to explore for an NPN article, with some images accompanying?
Discussion
9 repliesIf you put a camera on program and go out and shoot for a year (or ten years) to find your passion, that's fine. But what then? If you cannot recreate the feel of your favorite images due to the lack of technical skills, it's all been a happy accident. You might as well give a camera to a monkey.
It's the second part of the statement that maybe brings us closer together.
I did not mean to suggest that a paint by numbers approach to photography is the road to art. Imitating for the sake of imitation is pointless repetition. Replace the word technique with the phrase "basic technical skills" and we're closer together in thinking. Once you have a vision, capturing that vision and transferring it to print is where technique and skill come into play. You have to be able to imitate your own successes and reverse engineer those happy accidents of your monkey days or it was an enjoyable waste of time. By extension, I believe that reverse engineering the images of other artists that we enjoy can help develop skills needed to transfer our own vision to print.
"That 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." attributed to The Big Guy in the Sky
We all have the same notes to work with. It's all about the arrangement.
IMO
"basic technical skills" in the photography world today is put the camera on auto and shoot...the result will be a slew of sharp decently exposed photographs that can form the photographic equivalent of a painter's sketch pad...photographs that the aspiring artist can use to identify the "germ" of a budding vision/passion...
then, and only then, the photographer can learn/develop/invent the techniques needed to bring that germ to fruition...technique that is learned/developed/invented in the service of a specific vision/passion...
simply acquiring technique before the discovery of vision/passion is much more apt to result in a photographer who is, as the saying goes, a "jack of all trades, master of none"...
a good idea if your wish is to be photographic commercial generalist...but, realize that at the highest levels of commercial photography most are specialists operating in a very specific speciality with a very identifiable visual style...
as far imitation goes, why would you want to burden your search for your photographic identity/vision/passion by wasting time and energy trying to disypher the voice of others unless your wish is to imitate?...
if you wish to develop and "speak" with your own unique voice, focus your time and energy on finding the "spark" of that which is your passion...meaningfu "voice"/vision is rarely, if ever, found in technique...meaningful voice/vision is found deep in that part of you that is the human soul...
I agree with you totally on this. I think technique often serves our art in a somewhat detrimental way - when it becomes the focus. And it is, for most people, myself included at times, the focus.
I think, in all arts, we tend to become a product of how and where we start out .. for those who focus on the technical, that's something that never leaves them .. and I'm not talking about the technique, I'm talking about the vision. It's really hard to leave that behind - almost never.
That said, I think it's fine to imitate others .. we don't live in a vacuum, we live in a world of experiences and influences - and those influences WILL come through . whether we acknowledge that or not. I can't think of any artist, in any medium, who wouldn't acknowledge the power of their influences.
Last year I did a trip to Wrangell - St. Elias National Park with a fellow who told me enjoyed landscape photography. So, I scheduled the itinerary around shooting. And I was surprised when I watche him shoot - he rarely used a tripod, he rarely metered anything himself, and he just fired away. I was carefully studying the compositions and the lines and the light and the meter and the focus and the DOF and whatnot .. and I got some nice images .. but when he later sent me a page of his images, I was really taken aback .. they all had a vibrancy and an energy about them which my images didn't at all .. yet that energy and vibrancy and that 'feel' was precisely what I enjoyed about the place we had been in. Certainly, his images weren't technically 'sound', and would be lambasted if posted here or similar sites .. but they were ALL soaked in something that mine were missing. I learned a lot from that man.
Cheers
Carl
"basic technical skills" in the photography world today is put the camera on auto and shoot...the result will be a slew of sharp decently exposed photographs that can form the photographic equivalent of a painter's sketch pad...photographs that the aspiring artist can use to identify the "germ" of a budding vision/passion...
re: It's true that modern cameras are incredible, but eventually you will have to figure out for yourself what going on inside the box if you intend to build on the happy accidents created by letting the camera do all the thinking. The sketch is fine but one day it must be fleshed out.
"then, and only then, the photographer can learn/develop/invent the techniques needed to bring that germ to fruition...technique that is learned/developed/invented in the service of a specific vision/passion..."
re: 100% agreement
"simply acquiring technique before the discovery of vision/passion is much more apt to result in a photographer who is, as the saying goes, a "jack of all trades, master of none"...
re: Again I agree. But,,,,,,,most folks that start down the road of nature photography do it for their love and passion for nature. The passion is already there. Probably the most common reasons to photograph the natural world are to bring a bit of it back home with us or to share the way we see it with others.
"a good idea if your wish is to be photographic commercial generalist...but, realize that at the highest levels of commercial photography most are specialists operating in a very specific speciality with a very identifiable visual style"...
re: Is there something inherently wrong with being a generalist? Leonardo was quite the generalist and did ok for himself. Also for the sake of this discussion, commercialism isn't the ultimate goal, is it?
"as far imitation goes, why would you want to burden your search for your photographic identity/vision/passion by wasting time and energy trying to disypher the voice of others unless your wish is to imitate?"
re: Is it a waste of time to look at great art and wonder how this inanimate thing is manipulating your thoughts and moods? I am not promoting making exact copies anyone's work. If the study of art has no value, why do you pursue it? There are techniques used by cave painters that are valid today. Is it wrong to blend these techniques into your personal recipe? Your ku series uses very specific techniques to force the viewer into seeing the image in a very controlled way. I have no desire to copy your images, but I am interested in what your technique accomplishes.
"if you wish to develop and "speak" with your own unique voice, focus your time and energy on finding the "spark" of that which is your passion...meaningfu "voice"/vision is rarely, if ever, found in technique...meaningful voice/vision is found deep in that part of you that is the human soul."
re: Amen and Hallelujah!!! But if you do not have the technical skill to bring that spark through a camera and onto a print, it will always remain locked in your soul.
Regards,
David
I'll add one more example.
This fall, after my backpacking trips had finished, I was trying to decide how to spend a few free days I had doing some shooting on my own. I spoke with a good friend of mine, a photographer who I've enormous respect for, a couple of times about it. I couldn't decide whether to go shoot polar bears in the arctic, or go to Denali and look for wolves, or go to Katmai and shoot some grizzly bears, or head south to Jasper and Banff, or what. Finally, probably to get rid of me, he said "Carl, life's short - shoot what you love" - a cliche indeed, but wise, wise words, ones we need to be reminded of regularly. I took his words to heart, with much appreciation for the lesson, and had an awesome time. Absolutely awesome. And I shot some of the 'best' images I've ever taken. So a HUGE thanks to my friend - you know who you are. :) :) :)
Cheers
Carl
Well written. In a few short sentences, you've got me (and maybe a few others) curious. Sounds like you really hit your stride because of this inspiration. Care to give a link to one of the resulting images so we can see "The rest of the story".
I've got to get into this one! Since the age of 11 I've been a rhythm guitar, lead guitar, bass guitar player and singer. Til this day music is what pays for me to be into photography. Music to me is the total opposite of photography artistic wise, but it does have the same values. In music you take parts of many musician's playing and styles that you like and build what you would claim to be your style. Very few artist claim to be original!! Stevie Ray Vaughan was and is still rated one of the best guitar players of all time, and when he played live he would tell stories about who's style he was thinking about when he wrote certain songs. I think of photography in the same way. You take the things you like about other photographers work and build your style. You may not like everything about somebody's work, but hey it ain't your work.
And yes there are very few artist that are totally original, but those are usally the one's work that most people think are weird!!
This is a very good one guys!!!
I remember way back . . . we had some discussion along these lines and I
found the discussion very interesting and enlightening. I'll see if I can
dig it up for you if it still exists. Anyways, one thing that surprised me
was in almost all of the areas of how people approached photography there
seemed to be a 50-50 split. For example, we talked about pre-visualization
and almost exactly half the people used that approach ( in this case, I mean
thinking of an idea and then going out and capturing/creating it ) and those
that got their ideas on the spot, with no predetermined plan, made up the other half.
I suspect that if you polled people on this question, of practical /
technique vs. "learning to see" you might get a similar, 50/50 split. So,
there is no right or wrong answer really, just whatever works for you.
As an experiment I tried the opposite approach and it was fun and
interesting, but in the end I came to realize that I was more of a
spontaneous type.
In regards to your specific question, I have to agree with Mark 100%. One
of the things I said in that thread was if I were to teach some people
about photography and they were new to this craft, the last thing I would
do is give them a camera and teach them how to use the controls.
First, I would try and teach them to "see", to develop their own vision. I
would use examples of other people's photographs and paintings, not for
them to imitate, but to inspire them. In my opinion,
learning the various controls of the camera, and the other aspects of
technique such as composition
is the easiest part. However, I agree with you 100% that whatever path you
take, mastering those camera controls is essential.
What I wonder about if these various traits are a left brain / right brain
type of thing. Do the same people that believe that learning technique
first are also the same people. in most cases, that believe "planning"
their images before they venture out is the way to go. Tim
This is most definitely a "chicken or egg" scenario. Starting out in the dark ages when there was no "P" setting has probably skewed my perspective on the value of what that little 'f' means. :-)
The pre-vis division of photographers is also an interesting sampling and may be linked at some base level. I believe you are right in that it is mainly dependent on the individual as to which path is best.
Thanks,
David
Hey Arni
Thanks for the kind words. I don't think it was a function of me hitting my stride .. I don't think "I" (in the traditional sense of the word) had anything to do with it. I think it's more about what happens when you shoot your passion and surrender to something deeper inside. And the images aren't necessarily 'great' in anyone else's eyes - they're just simple images, of a place I love, that move me. Though there seems to be little interest beyond the relatively few people discussing this thread, maybe this would be a good area to explore for an NPN article, with some images accompanying?
Cheers
Carl