Can A Technical Mindset Stifle Creativity?

[x-ray]

Forty years ago while in college my cinematography professor and I often argued about creativity vs technical skill. I always argued that creativity was only an accident unless it could be recreated and had technical merit. My professor argued technical skill wan unimportant and creativity was what it was all about. Larry, my professor, felt it didn't matter how you arrive at a final point and the ability to predict or repeat an outcome was unimportant. Accidents are as much art as precisely planned and executed work.

Today a friend emailed a link to some of her recent images. Over the years of knowing this lady I never really saw any of her work that really excited me. For the most part it was just nice snapshots but were only fair technically and not terribly creative. Today when I went to her gallery that I had never seen before I saw a totally different set of images. These images had a wonderfully free, flowing creative feel unlike I had seen in her work before. These weren't new images but were a year old. It actually shocked me into thinking about my work. She had achieved something I've been searching to achieve in my work.

After thinking about her work I took a hard look at my images. Mind you I'm certainly not unhappy with my work and I feel I have a very credible body of images that are technically excellent. Technical excellence now seems to be a double edged sword. I look back at how I shoot and images I've selected to print and realize I've been bound by the chains of technical perfection. I've not shot images that I should have and not printed images because I didn't feel they would make technically perfect prints. This has been the result of four decades as a professional shooter and in particular a commercial photographer. I've shot catalogs and national ads for major clients like Philips Electronics, John Deere, Rubbermaid, Exxon and many others that demand perfection. As a commercial photographer on this level nothing short of perfection is acceptable. After a while this becomes the mindset in everything we do and what we expect in life.

This little voice has been nagging in the back of my head for a few years now but I keep giving into the perfection monster but looking at my friends work was like a slap in the face. I now realize technical perfection isn't everything in what I do. I have to force myself to let go and become more of an experimenter and go to new areas of photography that challenge me. It has to be a world that's not perfect but is free flowing and spontaneous. My wife gave me a Canon G10 last year for my birthday and from shooting with it for a half year I believe this is the key to my freedom. Im going to set that baby on P and let it go. The images are now experiments and there are no mistakes or technical issues. I still have to walk the technical line with my clients but my personal work is going to be redefined. I want free flowing and creative work whether a technical masterpiece or not.

What are your thoughts?

 

[uhligfd]

Is there a way to view your photographs anywhere online? And those of your "freer" friend?

Thanks!

 

[Roger Hicks]

Beware, however, of the omitted middle.

"This piece of work 'breaks the rules' and is good. Therefore, the only way to get good pictures is by 'breaking the rules'."

There's at least as much work that is technically awful and also aesthetically worthless as there is work that's technically perfect and also aesthetically worthless.

Ideally, technical and aesthetic skill feed off one another in a 'benevolent spiral'; the opposite of a 'vicious circle'.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Tuna]

In most creative endeavors, technical proficiency allows for creativity to flourish in both standard and daring manners. A freeing of the creative side of the mind from the burden of linear thinking.

Then, of course, there is always the group who would rather have the monkey take the pictures and call it art.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Finding freedom after forty years of conforming to clients' expectations is a very, VERY liberating experience! If you can find some clean vinyl put some Cream on the turntable and mumble that old mantra "If it feels good DO IT!" The essence of an era, distilled down to but two words. "Do it!"

You know that you can produce technical excellence. You've been doing it long enough. Consider your creative explorations more in terms of quick sketches. If you come up with a sketch that moves you, that begs for more work, then you can always move to stage two at some point later on. Or just present the "sketches" as the finished product, smudges and all. The worst that can happen is some art director turning up at your exhibit opening and exclaiming "Damnit, man! Why couldn't you have come up with this concept thirty years ago? BRILLIANT! Absolutely BRILLANT. I LOVE it!"

 

[Oscar Levant]

One of the best photographers I ever met was a girl who knew nothing whatsoever about photography, cameras, technical matters, but one day I handed her a good "auto everything" camera (early Canon AF-35m) and she began instantly to produce photographs FAR better than me, and everyone else I knew.

At the time, I was publishing magazines, and I sent her to various other editors and publishers, where she immediately got work doing portraits, magazine covers and creative assignments.

To this day she doesn't know an f-stop from a bus stop and could care less. She even works and rents photo studios where she hires assistants who set everything up according to her directions and hand her the camera when the lights, set, etc, are all ready.

I know a lot of people like this. Men in general seem to have far more interest in esoteric camera lore, "lens tests", debating "sharpness", and what have you than woman.

It depends on what you want to fill your brain with.

I find the more a middle aged man obsesses over equipment, the worse the photographs, especially those who have no idea what they're talking about but have picked up buzz words and jargon from the internet, along with preposterous ideas about lenses, cameras, fashion camera bags, straps......and so on.

Another guy, who is very famous today, used to shoot in places like Studio 54 and bring back dismal photos. Most of them were ill-lit, out of focus, and so on. I also handed this guy a Canon AF-35m and I praised it highly, telling him how wonderful AF was. He ***-pooed it, resisted it, continued to shoot with Leicas and Nikon F in the near dark at night.

One day, to humor me, he took along the Canon AF-35m and came back to the office with startlingly clear, crisp, sharp photos of all the celebs at Studio. He not only sold a bunch to me, but he sold almost everything he shot that night to the NY Post.

He became an instant convert, but he always brought at least one Leica (never used) on his night shoots, because he thought he would be ridiculed by the other photographers and/or bouncers if he only brought the "toy" Canon. He wore the Leica around his neck all night and shot with the plastic AF camera.

Dear Fred,

Sure. And a painter needn't know how to paint...

I am sure I am not alone in being heartily sick of 'I am an ARTIST, not a [holds nose, shudders] PHOTOGRAPHER'.

Artists-with-a-capital-A who don't understand depth of field, exposure, and trivia like that are probably going to find it hard to communicate with the lowly menials they hire to produce their Photographic Art. As Tuna says below, technical proficiency allows freedom, once you have deigned to acquire any idea of what you are actually trying to do.

Cheers,

R.

 

[PlantedTao]

I think a technical mindset can restrain your creativity. It can limit your creative thinking... your mind can tell you that your creative thought is not "technically" feasible / sound, therefore you may discard that creative pursuit and just get back to what you know is possible... never looking outside the box.

I think my above statement speaks more to one who has become a master of the technical.
As a beginner, I feel I must focus on the technical for now until I have a better understanding of how things work. I guess my hope is that later, a solid technical foundation will help me explore my creative thoughts and ideas.... to be used as a tool for creative thought... hopefully one of many tools to help achieve an artistic expession / creative thought.

Edit: Ok... after reading Oscar's thoughts I see I may be falling into a bit of a trap. However, my personality (previous training?) makes me focus on the technical before pursuit of the creative... this is just something that I have learned from my other hobby, martial arts. You can not become creative without an extremely strong technical understanding of the art. But these are two different things (photography & martial arts)... I may have to start rethinking my photography and my dedication to technical mastery.

 

[sepiareverb]

The technical part was always 'fun' for me- figuring out how to expose & develop film when shooting in extreme contrast situations, or simply keeping an enlarger well tuned- while the creative part has always been bliss. The escape that shooting allows me is something I crave more and more. That the technical part is so rote now in my usual situations means I no longer ponder it, I can simply pull out (of my head) what is needed, which allows me to get all the more swallowed by the seeing.

 

[CameraQuest]

Some of the best photographers are the least technical.

And some of the best lens testers are terrible photographers.

I suppose there is a tendency to get the results we are looking for.

Stephen

 

[DougFord]

[FONT=&quot]technical proficiency is a learned skill. a+b=c[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]There is no such formula for creativity.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If technical proficiency is the preeminent expectation in your commercial work, don’t carry that crutch into your personal work.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I believe that there are many creative individuals that possess great technical prowess, however they don’t use it as a crutch, rather a departure point for creation.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Technical proficiency is reliable, repetitive and safe. It pays the bills, it sells celebutard photos, but like a cheap trick it attracts the simple minded.[/FONT]

 

[Oscar Levant]

On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with the sheer fascination with equipment.

I was reading about and collecting cameras when I was 12 years old, even writing to Russian factories and asking for catalogs. (probably on some FBI watch list).

I have probably 500 rare cameras and endless lenses all over the place, but I just pick up what's handy when I want a shot.

 

[Oscar Levant]

I wouldn't call it a cheap trick. Somebody has to engineer, design and build the cameras.

Barnack could be called a very technical guy but he produced very mundane images, mostly family snaps and pictures of the streets and buildings.

George Eastman made pretty crummy photos, for the most part.

[FONT=&quot]technical proficiency is a learned skill. a+b=c[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]There is no such formula for creativity.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If technical proficiency is the preeminent expectation in your commercial work, don’t carry that crutch into your personal work.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I believe that there are many creative individuals that possess great technical prowess, however they don’t use it as a crutch, rather a departure point for creation.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Technical proficiency is reliable, repetitive and safe. It pays the bills, it sells celebutard photos, but like a cheap trick it attracts the simple minded.[/FONT]

 

[Oscar Levant]

Magritte wore women's underwear.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Apparently Fred inadvertently edited out one of my earlier posts; he sent me a generous apology by PM, which I cheerfully accept.

Surely, what it all comes down to is this:

There are very few good photographers (Sturgeon's law: 90% of everything is rubbish).

Of those few good photographers, some are technically highly skilled, and some are all but completely ignorant.

To pretend that either state -- technical skill or technical ignorance -- is more conducive to good photography is to fly in the face of the evidence. Plenty use the "I am an ARTIST!" argument to excuse pictures that are technically as well as artistically abysmal, while others are apparently unable to understand that a picture can be technically flawless and still aesthetically a disaster.

This has nothing to do with Tony Smith, who (I am sure) would have been as indifferent to me as I am to him (apparently the dear man has been dead since 1990, hence this edit). It's just that if someone is trying to communicate a brief to me, holding themselves on high as an Artist when I am but a lowly photographer, I'd rather deal with someone who has the faintest idea of what it technically feasible, and why, than with someone who is pig-ignorant.

Tashi delek,

R.

 

[Oscar Levant]

RFF needs another sub-forum which should be entitled "The Aging Rebel Camera Lifestyle".

In this category, a bunch of fashionable guys who profess to really embrace anti-fashionism can debate and discuss fashionably tattered camera bags, pastel leatherette camera coverings, burled leather straps, oilskin vests, droopy hats, matching ensembles of gear, etc. etc.

In this context, all is fair game for discussion and nothing would be be reproachable.

 

[x-ray]

Magritte wore women's underwear.

Not sure that's my style.

Great thoughts here.

I try to focus on the final image not the equipment. I've always felt it's not so much the equipment but 99% the person behind it. That's why I've been scorched a few times over my downplaying gear. I really couldn't care less about "bokeh" and "lens character". I think I do just as well with my 1967 Nikon F and vintage Nikkors as I do my modern Leica gear. I don't think anyone could ever tell the difference in the final print.

 

[amateriat]

Finding freedom after forty years of conforming to clients' expectations is a very, VERY liberating experience! If you can find some clean vinyl put some Cream on the turntable and mumble that old mantra "If it feels good DO IT!" The essence of an era, distilled down to but two words. "Do it!"

I always preferred Blind Faith's "Do What You Like." 🙂

The philosophy that ultimately molded my approach to photography was to pretty much nail the technical jazz, to the point where I could forget it, or, more accurately, shove it to the fifth row of my consciousness while I got on with the creative problem-solving that ensues from an initial creative spark. To a point, technical chops isn't never important, although we could argue just how much technical proficiency is necessary .

As for never-touch-the-stuff-m'self, A-list artists...Warhol did a fair amount of that, if I remember right, but we're talking about hands-on sorts. If someone creates something that truly rivets me, does it matter if the artist is a technical ignoramus? To me, it might if the person made a point of parading his/her ignorance as if she's just pulled Excalibur from the stone, but that's an attitudinal response quite apart from the work itself.

Knowing what you're doing is ideal, but don't let it get in the way of doing interesting work. (Took me ages to get the hang of that, and I still need refresher courses now and then...)


- Barrett

 

[amateriat]

RFF needs another sub-forum which should be entitled "The Aging Rebel Camera Lifestyle".

In this category, a bunch of fashionable guys who profess to really embrace anti-fashionism can debate and discuss fashionably tattered camera bags, pastel leatherette camera coverings, burled leather straps, oilskin vests, droopy hats, matching ensembles of gear, etc. etc.

In this context, all is fair game for discussion and nothing would be be reproachable.

Hey, Oscar...my camera bag came to its "tatteredness" the long way 'round. It's now in every conceivable shade of black.

Maybe I can hawk it on the 'Bay, and buy an MP3 with the proceeds? 🙄


- Barrett

 

[amateriat]

Fred: That's the standing-on-the-shoulders-of-giants thing. Always good to remember.


- Barrett

 

[sepiareverb]

Magritte wore women's underwear.

Haven't we all from time to time?