denishr said:Thanks, joe... it's been a while
Too long Denis, and very nice to see you again. I hope all is well.
As for teaching, I am on the side that these three things cannot be taught, but one's own sense of each could be learned from doing.
FrankS
Registered User
How about: photographic craft can be taught, the art/vision/creativity is innate and must come from within?
arbib
Well-known
Pablito said:
That last statement, I find myself in. Some days, I just don't have a topic or Idea to photograph.
I can teach Tech stuff, F/stops, Rule of 3rds, Focus points, some composition I guess. But, taking someone out on an assignment and discussing the results is a far better teacher. Years ago, I tried this approach with a friend. And they really enjoyed it.
Give them a basic ground rule for a shoot, (Wide F/stop, or no more than 2 main elements). And then compare frames and learn.
Last edited:
VinceC
Veteran
>>How about: photographic craft can be taught, the art/vision/creativity is innate and must come from within?<<
Photographic craft can be taught. The art/vision/creativity can be studied, explored and nurtured.
I think I had a photographic eye. I had no idea what to do with it until I attended an afternoon lecture at an Army newspaper seminar in Germany in 1983 in which an ethnusiastic, brilliant and gifted teacher -- and only a good, not great, photographer -- opened my eyes and showed me how to use a camera as a tool to capture unique moments and viewpoints that tell a story. I can't for the life of me remember that sergeant's name, but he was extraordinary. And he taught.
Photographic craft can be taught. The art/vision/creativity can be studied, explored and nurtured.
I think I had a photographic eye. I had no idea what to do with it until I attended an afternoon lecture at an Army newspaper seminar in Germany in 1983 in which an ethnusiastic, brilliant and gifted teacher -- and only a good, not great, photographer -- opened my eyes and showed me how to use a camera as a tool to capture unique moments and viewpoints that tell a story. I can't for the life of me remember that sergeant's name, but he was extraordinary. And he taught.
easyrider
Photo addict
FrankS said:
Is there a reason why you are asking this question? Just curious.
(I taught journalism (mainly TV) for a while and decided it cannot be taught. It was a grad course. It was clear that the students with the highest marks were good at BS but would never work in journalism.)
FrankS
Registered User
No special reason - idle curiousity, making conversation.
40oz
...
I think for a lot of people, the art/vision part of things needs to be taught. Or at least learned. In browsing sites like flickr, I come across far too many photos of some baby being held by a guy, and the comments gush over what the photo "says." There are many, many photos on sites like that where the comments are geared towards the subject, which can lead one to think that as long as the exposure is correct, all you need to do is find a compelling subject or pose models in a unique way to create fantastic photography. And I find that disappointing.
I've gone through periods of not wanting to look at others' photography in general because it seemed to all blur together - they are just pictures. So many times there is something I'm missing if this guy's work is supposed to be "great," for example. But now I have realized that there are aesthetic reasons to do certain things, like push a film when you could just use a slower shutter on a static scene, for example. And I have begun to look at shots with an eye towards composition. Why is it important to use focus to isolate the subject, or why does the river start to wind it's way through the scene in a corner? Why do I like that one shot with the subject facing into the scene over the shot with the subject facing out?
I don't have a problem with considering the subject the main feature of the photograph, but it gets tiring to read "great shot!" every time someone posts a half-way decently exposed image of a child. Or a pretty girl. Or read an emotionally charged discussion of the use of underage models in various states of undress, tying the aesthetic value of the images entirely to one's moral stance on naked teenagers. It just seems like there is so much more to an image than the obvious subject. By looking at photographs, paintings, sketches, murals, etc., I think I've learned to consider more than just the exposure and subject in my pictures.
I certainly wasn't born with that notion, and don't think it would come to me if I hadn't actively looked for something more. And I certainly don't think I've learned to use all I've learned, or that I've learned all there is. I still don't like images that look like the shooter just asked the model to disrobe for the sake of sprucing up an otherwise boring picture. But I think I have learned to see beyond the model or the impressive building/mountain/tree and start looking for more in an image. And if I can learn to do that, so can anyone else, IMHO. I'm certainly not special in that regard.
Or at least learned. In browsing sites like flickr, I come across far too many photos of some baby being held by a guy, and the comments gush over what the photo "says." There are many, many photos on sites like that where the comments are geared towards the subject, which can lead one to think that as long as the exposure is correct, all you need to do is find a compelling subject or pose models in a unique way to create fantastic photography. And I find that disappointing.I've gone through periods of not wanting to look at others' photography in general because it seemed to all blur together - they are just pictures. So many times there is something I'm missing if this guy's work is supposed to be "great," for example. But now I have realized that there are aesthetic reasons to do certain things, like push a film when you could just use a slower shutter on a static scene, for example. And I have begun to look at shots with an eye towards composition. Why is it important to use focus to isolate the subject, or why does the river start to wind it's way through the scene in a corner? Why do I like that one shot with the subject facing into the scene over the shot with the subject facing out?
I don't have a problem with considering the subject the main feature of the photograph, but it gets tiring to read "great shot!" every time someone posts a half-way decently exposed image of a child. Or a pretty girl. Or read an emotionally charged discussion of the use of underage models in various states of undress, tying the aesthetic value of the images entirely to one's moral stance on naked teenagers. It just seems like there is so much more to an image than the obvious subject. By looking at photographs, paintings, sketches, murals, etc., I think I've learned to consider more than just the exposure and subject in my pictures.
I certainly wasn't born with that notion, and don't think it would come to me if I hadn't actively looked for something more. And I certainly don't think I've learned to use all I've learned, or that I've learned all there is. I still don't like images that look like the shooter just asked the model to disrobe for the sake of sprucing up an otherwise boring picture. But I think I have learned to see beyond the model or the impressive building/mountain/tree and start looking for more in an image. And if I can learn to do that, so can anyone else, IMHO. I'm certainly not special in that regard.
dnk512
Well-known
Are we born great (artists ?) or can we became great by going to school? Is this your question?
My thought is that we are all born we certain qualities. Each of us with some more than others. But, those of us wish to became great need more than just what we were born with.
In Colorado's Olympic sports research facilities there was sign: Genes can get you in the Olympics, but we can make you win the gold (or something like that).
Some of us are born with zero quality in a particilar task. Can we excell is such task? Well, most likely no. But, with practice we can improve and be much better than we where before the lessons.
My thought is that we are all born we certain qualities. Each of us with some more than others. But, those of us wish to became great need more than just what we were born with.
In Colorado's Olympic sports research facilities there was sign: Genes can get you in the Olympics, but we can make you win the gold (or something like that).
Some of us are born with zero quality in a particilar task. Can we excell is such task? Well, most likely no. But, with practice we can improve and be much better than we where before the lessons.
John Camp
Well-known
A long time ago, after a divorce, I began to do a lot of traveling alone, and decided that the best way to get to know about a place was to take some sort of school there -- a class. That way, you start immediately hanging out with people who live there. So I studied sailing in Key West and SCUBA in the British Virgins and photography in Santa Fe and skiing in Salt Lake and golf in Palm Springs, etc. So I know for sure that you can learn things and even get to a certain kind of skill in them even if it turns out you have no particular talent or even interest in it. (I like the *idea* of sailing more than the actuality; the actuality, for me, is like driving across Kansas in the winter in an RV that's going 7 miles an hour with no exits from the freeway, unless you get unlucky, and then you drown.)
There are two things that really distinguish fine anythings (skiers, photographers, sailors, divers.) First, is a serious passion for it -- you do it all the time, and you work at it. This often starts a feed-back loop in which people express pleasure or interest in your skill, so you work harder at it, and you get even better, and you attract more interest, so you work harder and get better, etc. Second, you have to have some ideas, and the ideas have to have some substance.
If you have those two things, plus a work ethic, you'll do well. If you want to be *successful* at it, in a monetary sense, a large ego and a talent for self-promotion (hidden behind a well-developed camouflage of affability and modesty) also helps. As do good looks.
JC
There are two things that really distinguish fine anythings (skiers, photographers, sailors, divers.) First, is a serious passion for it -- you do it all the time, and you work at it. This often starts a feed-back loop in which people express pleasure or interest in your skill, so you work harder at it, and you get even better, and you attract more interest, so you work harder and get better, etc. Second, you have to have some ideas, and the ideas have to have some substance.
If you have those two things, plus a work ethic, you'll do well. If you want to be *successful* at it, in a monetary sense, a large ego and a talent for self-promotion (hidden behind a well-developed camouflage of affability and modesty) also helps. As do good looks.
JC
BillBingham2
Registered User
JC,
I've seen tons of folks who have huge monkey buck cameras and BIG EGOs and can self-promote. Sadly, many of them would be better off using their cameras as a hammer and learning to build houses for Katrina victims.
Frank,
I think one of the keys in teaching is having the student apply what they have learned in their own way. Find their own voice, look, approach or style. Once this happens, then, IMHO, you have truly taught and the student has truly learned. While I do not think you can teach someone a "Photographic Eye", I do think you can teach them about the journey to find their own. You can expose them to different approach, views, different tools. You can challenge them (4 rolls, one room, one hour, YO!) to expand their horizons with different assignments.
I think student needs to have a voice, a brain, an opinion, something to express. A teachers job is to find out what the students trying to say and help them say it. Be with with Tri-X and some Dektol or watercolors or a welding torch. There are qualities that help make great pictures and good teacher can expose his or her students to ways to discover them within themselves.
B2 (;->
I've seen tons of folks who have huge monkey buck cameras and BIG EGOs and can self-promote. Sadly, many of them would be better off using their cameras as a hammer and learning to build houses for Katrina victims.
Frank,
I think one of the keys in teaching is having the student apply what they have learned in their own way. Find their own voice, look, approach or style. Once this happens, then, IMHO, you have truly taught and the student has truly learned. While I do not think you can teach someone a "Photographic Eye", I do think you can teach them about the journey to find their own. You can expose them to different approach, views, different tools. You can challenge them (4 rolls, one room, one hour, YO!) to expand their horizons with different assignments.
I think student needs to have a voice, a brain, an opinion, something to express. A teachers job is to find out what the students trying to say and help them say it. Be with with Tri-X and some Dektol or watercolors or a welding torch. There are qualities that help make great pictures and good teacher can expose his or her students to ways to discover them within themselves.
B2 (;->
ferider
Veteran
FrankS said:
Everything a teacher knows can be taught. Believing this is identical to
believing into people being able to change. A human is not a dog. Plus,
you find a teaching dog that can fly, and I'll find you a dog student
Roland.
JoeFriday
Agent Provacateur
I think the secret to having 'the eye' is understanding how your gear will make the image.. the problem with most amateur photogs is that they don't realize that the human mind sees things very differently than a piece of film or a digital sensor 'sees'.. our minds will single out a specific aspect of a photo opportunity, but the camera doesn't.. learning how to see objectively but knowing how to change your perspective (through distance, depth of field, angle, etc) in a way that is straight forward to the camera is the key
people who are considered to 'have the eye' without any photographic training probably start out with a pretty tight lens and are able to capitalize on the fact that the lens inherently singles out a subject
however, it takes an fairly observant person to extend his skills into other focal lengths and maintain his ability to capture what his mind sees.. I think this can be taught to just about anyone who has the interest, patience, and an open mind.. unfortunately most amateurs don't want to put that much effort into their 'art'.. they consider, as is the argument here, that it's a gift that will always elude them
perhaps even with coaching and experience they might never attain a great degree of artistic talent, just as I'm pretty sure I'll never be a piano virtuoso.. but I feel that most people could learn to have 'the eye' if it was their priority to do so, much as I could learn to be proficient on the piano if I had a teacher and time to practice
people who are considered to 'have the eye' without any photographic training probably start out with a pretty tight lens and are able to capitalize on the fact that the lens inherently singles out a subject
however, it takes an fairly observant person to extend his skills into other focal lengths and maintain his ability to capture what his mind sees.. I think this can be taught to just about anyone who has the interest, patience, and an open mind.. unfortunately most amateurs don't want to put that much effort into their 'art'.. they consider, as is the argument here, that it's a gift that will always elude them
perhaps even with coaching and experience they might never attain a great degree of artistic talent, just as I'm pretty sure I'll never be a piano virtuoso.. but I feel that most people could learn to have 'the eye' if it was their priority to do so, much as I could learn to be proficient on the piano if I had a teacher and time to practice
Last edited:
VinceC
Veteran
FYI, here's are some Wikipedia paragraphs onn the education of Henri Cartier-Bresson (he had, an acknowledged, many teachers):
Cartier-Bresson studied in Paris at the École Fénelon, a Catholic school. His uncle Louis, a gifted painter, introduced Cartier-Bresson to oil painting. "Painting has been my obsession from the time that my 'mythical father', my father's brother, led me into his studio during the Christmas holidays in 1913, when I was five years old. There I lived in the atmosphere of painting; I inhaled the canvases."[citation needed] Uncle Louis' painting lessons were cut short, however, when he died in World War I.
In 1927, at the age of 19, Cartier-Bresson entered a private art school and the Lhote Academy, the Parisian studio of the Cubist painter and sculptor André Lhote. Lhote's ambition was to unify the Cubists' approach to reality with classical artistic forms, and to link the French classical tradition of Nicolas Poussin and Jacques-Louis David to Modernism. Cartier-Bresson also studied painting with society portraitist Jacques Émile Blanche. During this period he read Dostoevsky, Schopenhauer, Rimbaud, Nietzsche, Mallarmé, Freud, Proust, Joyce, Hegel, Engels and Marx. Lhote took his pupils to the Louvre to study classical artists and to Parisian galleries to study contemporary art. Cartier-Bresson's interest in modern art was combined with an admiration for the works of the Renaissance—of masterpieces from Jan van Eyck, Paolo Uccello, Masaccio and Piero della Francesca. Cartier-Bresson often regarded Lhote as his teacher of photography without a camera.
Although Cartier-Bresson gradually began to feel uncomfortable with Lhote's "rule-laden" approach to art, his rigorous theoretical training would later help him to confront and resolve problems of artistic form and composition in photography. In the 1920s, schools of photographic realism were popping up throughout Europe, but each had a different view on the direction photography should take. The photography revolution had begun: "Crush tradition! Photograph things as they are!"[citation needed] The Surrealist movement (founded in 1924) was a catalyst for this paradigm shift. While still studying at Lhote's studio, Cartier-Bresson began socializing with the Surrealists at the Café Cyrano, in the Place Blanche. He met a number of the movement's leading protagonists, and was particularly drawn to the Surrealist movement of linking the subconscious and the immediate to their work. Peter Galassi explains:
The Surrealists approached photography in the same way that Aragon and Breton...approached the street: with a voracious appetite for the usual and unusual...The Surrealists recognized in plain photographic fact an essential quality that had been excluded from prior theories of photographic realism. They saw that ordinary photographs, especially when uprooted from their practical functions, contain a wealth of unintended, unpredictable meanings.[1]
Cartier-Bresson matured artistically in this stormy cultural and political environment. He was aware of the concepts and theories mentioned but could not find a way of expressing this imaginatively in his paintings. He was very frustrated with his experiments and subsequently destroyed the majority of his early works.
From 1928 to 1929, Cartier-Bresson attended the University of Cambridge studying English art and literature and became bilingual.
Cartier-Bresson studied in Paris at the École Fénelon, a Catholic school. His uncle Louis, a gifted painter, introduced Cartier-Bresson to oil painting. "Painting has been my obsession from the time that my 'mythical father', my father's brother, led me into his studio during the Christmas holidays in 1913, when I was five years old. There I lived in the atmosphere of painting; I inhaled the canvases."[citation needed] Uncle Louis' painting lessons were cut short, however, when he died in World War I.
In 1927, at the age of 19, Cartier-Bresson entered a private art school and the Lhote Academy, the Parisian studio of the Cubist painter and sculptor André Lhote. Lhote's ambition was to unify the Cubists' approach to reality with classical artistic forms, and to link the French classical tradition of Nicolas Poussin and Jacques-Louis David to Modernism. Cartier-Bresson also studied painting with society portraitist Jacques Émile Blanche. During this period he read Dostoevsky, Schopenhauer, Rimbaud, Nietzsche, Mallarmé, Freud, Proust, Joyce, Hegel, Engels and Marx. Lhote took his pupils to the Louvre to study classical artists and to Parisian galleries to study contemporary art. Cartier-Bresson's interest in modern art was combined with an admiration for the works of the Renaissance—of masterpieces from Jan van Eyck, Paolo Uccello, Masaccio and Piero della Francesca. Cartier-Bresson often regarded Lhote as his teacher of photography without a camera.
Although Cartier-Bresson gradually began to feel uncomfortable with Lhote's "rule-laden" approach to art, his rigorous theoretical training would later help him to confront and resolve problems of artistic form and composition in photography. In the 1920s, schools of photographic realism were popping up throughout Europe, but each had a different view on the direction photography should take. The photography revolution had begun: "Crush tradition! Photograph things as they are!"[citation needed] The Surrealist movement (founded in 1924) was a catalyst for this paradigm shift. While still studying at Lhote's studio, Cartier-Bresson began socializing with the Surrealists at the Café Cyrano, in the Place Blanche. He met a number of the movement's leading protagonists, and was particularly drawn to the Surrealist movement of linking the subconscious and the immediate to their work. Peter Galassi explains:
The Surrealists approached photography in the same way that Aragon and Breton...approached the street: with a voracious appetite for the usual and unusual...The Surrealists recognized in plain photographic fact an essential quality that had been excluded from prior theories of photographic realism. They saw that ordinary photographs, especially when uprooted from their practical functions, contain a wealth of unintended, unpredictable meanings.[1]
Cartier-Bresson matured artistically in this stormy cultural and political environment. He was aware of the concepts and theories mentioned but could not find a way of expressing this imaginatively in his paintings. He was very frustrated with his experiments and subsequently destroyed the majority of his early works.
From 1928 to 1929, Cartier-Bresson attended the University of Cambridge studying English art and literature and became bilingual.
VinceC
Veteran
This thread touches on an interesting, and very old, discussion. Because anyone can operate a camera to make images, it is assumed that everyone is a photographer, so the individual differences in image quality must be due to some kind of innate talent.
Those who operate cameras often don't understand that most of the images influencing our society were created by people who, at some point in their educations, were taught photography, not just how to operate a camera.
Just about any accomplished photographer you encounter will happily talk about his/hear teachers and influences. And the majority of people who do this for a living also served some kind of apprenticeship in which, following their education, their talents and abilities were developed and reinforced with extensive on-the-job training, usually under the mentorship of one or more experienced photographers.
If a "photographic eye" were truly an inborn talent, then teenagers and those in their young 20s would be our finest photographers, just as they have sometimes been our finest musicians -- for they have much of society's passion and drive, not yet tempered by too many setbacks or responsibilities. Yet, nearly all the photographs we admire were taken by people aged 25 and up. So they had to go through an important learning process.
Those who operate cameras often don't understand that most of the images influencing our society were created by people who, at some point in their educations, were taught photography, not just how to operate a camera.
Just about any accomplished photographer you encounter will happily talk about his/hear teachers and influences. And the majority of people who do this for a living also served some kind of apprenticeship in which, following their education, their talents and abilities were developed and reinforced with extensive on-the-job training, usually under the mentorship of one or more experienced photographers.
If a "photographic eye" were truly an inborn talent, then teenagers and those in their young 20s would be our finest photographers, just as they have sometimes been our finest musicians -- for they have much of society's passion and drive, not yet tempered by too many setbacks or responsibilities. Yet, nearly all the photographs we admire were taken by people aged 25 and up. So they had to go through an important learning process.
Last edited:
VinceC
Veteran
One more Wikipedia bio:
Garry Winogrand (1928, New York City – 1984) was a noted street photographer known for his portrayal of America in the mid twentieth century.
Winogrand studied painting at City College of New York and painting and photography at Columbia University in New York City in 1948. He also attended a photojournalism class taught by Alexey Brodovich at The New School for Social Research in New York City in 1951.
Garry Winogrand (1928, New York City – 1984) was a noted street photographer known for his portrayal of America in the mid twentieth century.
Winogrand studied painting at City College of New York and painting and photography at Columbia University in New York City in 1948. He also attended a photojournalism class taught by Alexey Brodovich at The New School for Social Research in New York City in 1951.
DMG
waiting for friday
Hi Frank, again this all depends on the view point of different people as what I may find aesthetically pleasing you may not..remember beauty is in the eye of the beer holder
FrankS
Registered User
Thanks, DMG, I like that - beauty is in the eye of the beer holder!
There is no doubt that skills will improve with practice, but I'm talking about that last 5%. IMO, a gawky dancer can improve with instruction and practice, but will never approach the beauty of a dance performed by a person (yes, who also practices) who FEELS and BECOMES the music. (You all may both types of these people.) The same holds true in music - instrumental and vocal, and in visual arts.
No argument that instruction and inspiration from a talented teacher is necessary or at least helps. But I believe there are inate talents/abilities that are drawn upon. I'm sure you all know someone who as an adult has never progressed beyond stick-figure drawings. Could that person improve with instruction, of course. Could that person, even with endless practice with the most gifted teacher, become a highly talented realistic sketch-artist? IMO, no. It's just not in them. There are inate abilities (genetics) that you can not discount. This is just my opinion. I could be wrong.
I know this sounds fatalistic.
There is no doubt that skills will improve with practice, but I'm talking about that last 5%. IMO, a gawky dancer can improve with instruction and practice, but will never approach the beauty of a dance performed by a person (yes, who also practices) who FEELS and BECOMES the music. (You all may both types of these people.) The same holds true in music - instrumental and vocal, and in visual arts.
No argument that instruction and inspiration from a talented teacher is necessary or at least helps. But I believe there are inate talents/abilities that are drawn upon. I'm sure you all know someone who as an adult has never progressed beyond stick-figure drawings. Could that person improve with instruction, of course. Could that person, even with endless practice with the most gifted teacher, become a highly talented realistic sketch-artist? IMO, no. It's just not in them. There are inate abilities (genetics) that you can not discount. This is just my opinion. I could be wrong.
I know this sounds fatalistic.
VinceC
Veteran
Isn't the art of teaching really about helping students discover their innate talents and, rarely, genius?
And yes, the world is filled with teachers who are neither talented nor geniuses of the craft of teaching.
And yes, the world is filled with teachers who are neither talented nor geniuses of the craft of teaching.
Jerevan
Recycled User
VinceC said:
I found out while attending a course in creative writing, with a lot of younger people in their early twenties, that the passion for writing was not backed up by any passion for reading. Many expressed their wish to learn how to operate their writing skills, and got bored out of their skulls trying to get through the required reading. Which in the end was supposed to help their writing forward.
To me, that felt akin to being a photographer but not being interested in photos.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
FrankS said:
In a word - no.
I have taught in the past. One can copy, one can emulate, but the hardest thing to do is to express who you are. Photograph what is close. A teacher once said to me, "If you look through the viewfinder and you've seen it before, don't press the shutter."