redisburning
Well-known
I agree with this.
talking about it is important. I really wish I had someone to do that with; but generally speaking the people I know would rather keep it shallow =/
al1966
Feed Your Head
Yes and No; left to their own devices a person may with a 'natural' talent create something good. I would bet though that those who did not have any schooling will have looked through books, read articles etc. All these things are making the person self taught, they learn better technique giving them the ability to take on harder work. They will look at photographs of others and some place they will store what they feel is good and bad about the works. The person who goes to art school, university and so on is shown how to read a photograph and from this they can take apart their own work. They will be shown more difficult techniques etc and will get from a-b faster. Either way the person is taught, the person who picks up a camera without doing any more than reading the manual and being the only one looking at their work will more than likely be stagnant, anyway with no one viewing it does not matter. If you just asked your immediate family do you like this over time you would get to know from their tone of reply what is working better than others, you would in a round about way still be learning what works better. Now I am of the opinion that the artist should look to more than just the visual arts, poetry and literature or a passion for human justice can inform your art (as can any other).
skibeerr
Well-known
Learn the basics, be inspired by other photographers, seek guidance, from there on you are on your own.
Merkin
For the Weekend
I think that it can only be taught, or at least only be learned.
What does it mean to have a 'personal' and 'unique' vision?
As to "personal," every person's vision is inherently, by definition, personal. Even if someone is a hack who just goes out with a camera to consciously copy Ansel Adams (shudder), they are still personally ripping off Ansel Adams.
"Unique," on the other hand, is an entirely different can of worms. For something to be unique, it has to be "existing as the only one or as the sole example; single; solitary in type or characteristics." How do you determine whether or not something is unique? You have to have been around the proverbial block, you have to have seen a good portion of what is out there to be seen. In other words, you have to have learned what has gone before. If someone learns the mechanical basics of photography and nothing else, and then goes out, shoots a lot, and develops their personal style, it isn't necessarily a unique style. They could find out down the road that all of their shots look like Diane Arbus ripoffs, even if the person had never heard of Diane Arbus.
Developing a unique vision is not something that happens overnight, and it does not happen in a vacuum. It requires years of practice. It requires careful study of technique and good design. It requires critique. It requires careful study of the works of lots of other artists that have come before, as well as careful study of the works of your contemporaries. It requires taking a bit here, a bit there, selectively ignoring that bit over there, and mixing them all up until what comes out on the paper is a true or mostly true reflection of what you see and want to see in your eye, mind, and heart.
All of that requires tutelage, either formally or informally. I have been shooting off and on for 20 years now, and my 'personal, unique vision' is still developing, still changing. The driving force behind that change comes from learning more and more, and being taught more and more.
What does it mean to have a 'personal' and 'unique' vision?
As to "personal," every person's vision is inherently, by definition, personal. Even if someone is a hack who just goes out with a camera to consciously copy Ansel Adams (shudder), they are still personally ripping off Ansel Adams.
"Unique," on the other hand, is an entirely different can of worms. For something to be unique, it has to be "existing as the only one or as the sole example; single; solitary in type or characteristics." How do you determine whether or not something is unique? You have to have been around the proverbial block, you have to have seen a good portion of what is out there to be seen. In other words, you have to have learned what has gone before. If someone learns the mechanical basics of photography and nothing else, and then goes out, shoots a lot, and develops their personal style, it isn't necessarily a unique style. They could find out down the road that all of their shots look like Diane Arbus ripoffs, even if the person had never heard of Diane Arbus.
Developing a unique vision is not something that happens overnight, and it does not happen in a vacuum. It requires years of practice. It requires careful study of technique and good design. It requires critique. It requires careful study of the works of lots of other artists that have come before, as well as careful study of the works of your contemporaries. It requires taking a bit here, a bit there, selectively ignoring that bit over there, and mixing them all up until what comes out on the paper is a true or mostly true reflection of what you see and want to see in your eye, mind, and heart.
All of that requires tutelage, either formally or informally. I have been shooting off and on for 20 years now, and my 'personal, unique vision' is still developing, still changing. The driving force behind that change comes from learning more and more, and being taught more and more.
peterm1
Veteran
You can teach people the basics and you can help people to bring out their personal best (partly by studying the characteristics of other great photos) but I think you cannot teach them a personal unique vision precisely because its personal and unique. Besides the study part - thats all left brained logical stuff. The vision and art - thats right brained and intuitive. You got that or you aint!
You cannot do this in any form of art otherwise the world would be full of Picassos and Rodins. Clearly it is not. Same in photography. My own belief is that the photographer has to be able to "see" the image before its taken.
That takes talent and not everyone is wired up the same. When I look at Flickr or similar I see thousands of photos that just dont have "it" and my impression is that most of the photographers who took these could take photos every day for the rest of their life and still turn in photos that are not much better than snap shots - no matter how well composed and in focus they are.
You cannot do this in any form of art otherwise the world would be full of Picassos and Rodins. Clearly it is not. Same in photography. My own belief is that the photographer has to be able to "see" the image before its taken.
That takes talent and not everyone is wired up the same. When I look at Flickr or similar I see thousands of photos that just dont have "it" and my impression is that most of the photographers who took these could take photos every day for the rest of their life and still turn in photos that are not much better than snap shots - no matter how well composed and in focus they are.
peterm1
Veteran
"Originally Posted by peterm1
You got that or you aint!
That would be really sad."
Maybe I am overstating it a bit Ferider and I understand where you are coming from I think.
But my point is that not everyone who comes out of art school is going to be a great artist. Yes they may graduate having developed a "unique vision" - its just that its a unique vision that is crap.
Look, for example, at the kids doing graffiti on walls and fences in city streets. Some think these have a unique vision.
I am yet to see any graffiti "art" that is worthwhile and think the "artists" are just destructive little ****s who have no respect for others' property, who should be made to pay for the damage they cause - but thats another story.
(OK I know some people are collecting graffiti art - that does not make it good or worthwhile art it simply demonstrates the depths to which our western culture has sunk.)
redisburning
Well-known
well that's a sad comment.
Merkin
For the Weekend
Merkin
For the Weekend
Thanks!
Part of the beauty is that not many people do. I try to not bring it to people's attention, unless there are some of those bothersome prudes about, who like to take offense at (read whine about) any little thing.
Part of the beauty is that not many people do. I try to not bring it to people's attention, unless there are some of those bothersome prudes about, who like to take offense at (read whine about) any little thing.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
At its best, that's exactly what teaching is — and what it should be.
Araakii
Well-known
I am a pretty straight forward person and I tend to speak out what I think on most things. However, whenever I criticize a photo, I get labeled as discouraging and mean. Maybe that's how the internet culture is like.
Araakii
Well-known
Ya, some of those back patting could be genuine. With so many viewers looking at others' work every day, how many of them are actually literate in photography? The environment that people were brought up also didn't help. Now in the age of photoshopping and HDR, that's what people think is cool and if you don't do any of that, you are considered cynical and old school.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
As a consequence of your honesty, you will be lambasted by aggressive individuals, who will tell you how many pictures they have sold, how many competitions they have won and how you are too stupid to understand art.
Just remember the little boy, who pointed out that the emperor was naked
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I can see someone teaching how to make exceptional wine, as the wine is a palpable object. But "a vision" is not an object, and cannot be taught. One can be taught "how to see" and "how to think", but you cannot create "personal unique" stuff on somebody else's "soul".
This would mean one can create people at will. I like to think that people have their own will.
I think people are getting confused with the question --I'm not sure if the question itself is correct. I believe that the question meant to be "Can someone be taught to create their own photographic 'vision'?"
Call it grammar "gymnastics", but the answer(s) is(are) usually as good as the question.
This would mean one can create people at will. I like to think that people have their own will.
I think people are getting confused with the question --I'm not sure if the question itself is correct. I believe that the question meant to be "Can someone be taught to create their own photographic 'vision'?"
Call it grammar "gymnastics", but the answer(s) is(are) usually as good as the question.
Araakii
Well-known
Taught is just the wrong word. Guided would probably be more appropriate.
DominikDUK
Well-known
Can a persons unique vision be taught, no simple because it's your or some other persons unique vision emphasis on unique.
You have to find your vision look trough all your photographs and with some luck you'll find a common denominator in your photos. Finding your voice/vision takes time or sometimes none at all. Get out take some pictures. A mentor can help you realize that you have an unique vision but he can't teach how to get there.
Dominik
You have to find your vision look trough all your photographs and with some luck you'll find a common denominator in your photos. Finding your voice/vision takes time or sometimes none at all. Get out take some pictures. A mentor can help you realize that you have an unique vision but he can't teach how to get there.
Dominik
daveleo
what?
Yes !
As several folks above have noted, "teaching" is (at its core) encouraging, guiding, mentoring, nuturing, supporting people on their path to learning stuff.
I think that most people are not "creative" because they are never encouraged to take risks, to get out of the boxes their parents and teachers and bosses (and sometimes their families) want them to stay in. A really great teacher will get you out the box and encourage you to "find" yourself and be bold and bring something new to the party. Most everyone else won't "get it".
Wow, really? Way to lump them all together.
Spyro
Well-known
havent read the whole thread but here's my 2c anyway
no, because then it would probably not be personal, or unique...
but you can learn from somebody else a tried process that *might* take you there. For example, most people learn to edit their work from the first few painful encounters with more experienced peers. I dont know how you can ever produce something unique and personal without that skill, or how you can be so conscious of the quality of your work and so honest to yourself to develop it by yourself, in the void. I've seen Trent Parke once in my life, he had a bag full of developed 6X7 colour slides and he was going through them super quickly against the light (no light table) and it was literally a case of nah-nah-nah-bin the roll. I think he kept two rolls that had one "maybe" in it each. To scan and have a better look (and maybe bin). How the hell do you get there on your own?
Besides, there's always more of other peoples' vision to learn and be aware of, and that can be taught. There is no such thing as parthenogenesis in art, consciously or subconsciously you always mix and match different things you've seen somewhere or impressed you recently, try to add your thing, fail, start over, master, rinse and repeat until your work starts to stabilise and create a concrete repeated pattern, a visual platform which is now yours and allows your own personality and input to show through. Hopefully
Like I said just my 2c, possibly gibberish
no, because then it would probably not be personal, or unique...
but you can learn from somebody else a tried process that *might* take you there. For example, most people learn to edit their work from the first few painful encounters with more experienced peers. I dont know how you can ever produce something unique and personal without that skill, or how you can be so conscious of the quality of your work and so honest to yourself to develop it by yourself, in the void. I've seen Trent Parke once in my life, he had a bag full of developed 6X7 colour slides and he was going through them super quickly against the light (no light table) and it was literally a case of nah-nah-nah-bin the roll. I think he kept two rolls that had one "maybe" in it each. To scan and have a better look (and maybe bin). How the hell do you get there on your own?
Besides, there's always more of other peoples' vision to learn and be aware of, and that can be taught. There is no such thing as parthenogenesis in art, consciously or subconsciously you always mix and match different things you've seen somewhere or impressed you recently, try to add your thing, fail, start over, master, rinse and repeat until your work starts to stabilise and create a concrete repeated pattern, a visual platform which is now yours and allows your own personality and input to show through. Hopefully
Like I said just my 2c, possibly gibberish
Sparrow
Veteran
... and sometimes they even reward the buggers :shocked:
http://www.viewbristol.co.uk/listings/banksy-art-exhibition-bristol-feature-3057.html
http://www.viewbristol.co.uk/listings/banksy-art-exhibition-bristol-feature-3057.html