Does an extreme focus on craft lead to a loss of artistic value ?

[Bertram2]

Hi,
two times this question came to my mind recently: First when somebody stated ( not here) that Ansel Adam was an artisan but not an artist ( I would not agree ) , second when I watched photos in the gallery of an other forum, which are made above-average with a lot of skill and effort technically but are often tending to be boring too !!

It took me a time to realize it because at first I was quite amazed about the high level of craft there and this held back for quite a while the recognition that many of the photos are really good only in a technical sense, but the do not speak
to me at all.

Beeing somebody myself who finds craft to be an important part of photography I nonetheless find boring photos
the worst thing at all.

So my conclusion could be that an exaggerated concentration on the technical quality, concerning the camera work and/or the processes in the (virtual) darkroom leads to getting out of touch to the emotions after a while ?
Necessarily ?

bertram
P.S.: To avoid all misunderstandings I do not mean the guys with the "best lens of all ever" shooting test photos in the backyard only, that's another story, I mean those who are completely focused on perfecting the whole process.

 

[RJBender]

Hi,
two times this question came to my mind recently: First when somebody stated ( not here) that Ansel Adam was an artisan but not an artist ( I would not agree ) , second when I watched photos in the gallery of an other forum, which are made above-average with a lot of skill and effort technically but are often tending to be boring too !!

It took me a time to realize it because at first I was quite amazed about the high level of craft there and this held back for quite a while the recognition that many of the photos are really good only in a technical sense, but the do not speak
to me at all.

Beeing somebody myself who finds craft to be an important part of photography I nonetheless find boring photos
the worst thing at all.

So my conclusion could be that an exaggerated concentration on the technical quality, concerning the camera work and/or the processes in the (virtual) darkroom leads to getting out of touch to the emotions after a while ?
Necessarily ?

bertram
P.S.: To avoid all misunderstandings I do not mean the guys with the "best lens of all ever" shooting test photos in the backyard only, that's another story, I mean those who are completely focused on perfecting the whole process.

Bertram,

I am glad you mentioned Ansel Adams. Many dedicated landscape photographers purchase a view camera and study the zone system however they cannot get the same results as Adams. Why not?

They need to get their cameras 3.5 meters above the ground!
This photo is from Camera and Lens page 63.

R.J.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

"Does an extreme focus on..."

Yes. An extreme focus on anything will result in a lack of focus elsewhere. Extremes are not good. This applies for anything.

That would be the fast answer.

 

[remrf]

I believe in the old saying" You have to know the rules before you can break them".
Blurred or poorly lighted or composed images don't do a thing for me. I don't care how cute or pretty the image might be to some. I have watched for years as "art" photography and its followers hailed one new wunderkind or another yet rarely could I agree with their exalted opinion of the "artist". What I saw was yet another egotist who wanted the recognition and aplause but did not want to put in the hours of study and practice required for the mastery of this or any craft.

I worked for two years with a commercial photographer named Don Winston here in Tucson, Az. He was flat out the best photographer I have ever worked with and better than any I have seen since then. No matter what the subject or assignment he would deliver not just what the client wanted but each image would have that added "snap" or "zing" that brought the eye back to the image again after the first look.

We shot mostly large and medium format shooting products, locations and interiors. His lighting sense was superb and he owned enough gear to get what he wanted first time, every time. His technical ability and understanding of the photographic process was complete.

But what I think made his photo's so superb was the fact that his first love and first study was illustration. He came at photography from an illustrators point of view i.e. that of an artist rather than a photographer.

But to get what he wanted he had to have the technical aspects down cold. And he did.

So from my point of view it is not whether technique gets in the way of artistry. Rather one must have the technical skills in order that the artisrty may be expressed.

Many can "see" the shot. A photographer both sees the shot and knows how to use his or her tools to express the scene within the confines of the technology we call photography.

 

[ErnestoJL]

Technically perfect pictures don´t need to be good pictures, it is that kind of pictures that may speak or sometimes scream to you (or me) (or to somebody else).
A technically good print of a technically perfect neg would say a lot to many people if the action captured in the neg (the decisive moment?) is right, however, if this last point isn´t met, it´s just a good (technically speaking) print and nothing else.
Some years ago, a friend of mine and me were listening to the J. Rodrigo´s Aranjuez Concerto played by Narciso Yepes. The recording was excellent (vinyl) and we found that sometimes the guitar strings (and player´s fingers) made a short but a bit annoying buzzing sound. This wouldn´t surprise as this (fretting) is one of the usual "mistakes" a guitar player could face. I said at the end of the recording that it was perfect. Mi friend was a bit critic saying that Yepes made two mistakes during the play. I replied "It was perfect because of this immperfections ... those make it perfect, those show there was a man playing the best he can, not perfect, but the best".
I realized that beauty is perfect, however if something is perfect it doesn´t mean is beauty.

Think about the R. Capa picture of the Republican soldier being killed in combat.
Is that one a perfect print of a perfect neg? Perhaps not, but the action was recorded, and this is a really good picture.

A late friend of mine was also a photographer and used to teach photography at night school. He wasn´t a photojournalist, just an amateur like I am and a elementary school teacher during daytime. He gave me perhaps the best advice: Shoot, shoot and shoot, later you can check camera settings, and in the kitchen (darkroom) try to get the best picture.

Besides, I think that A. Adams was an artist with the skill of an artisan.

Ernesto

 

[nomade]

Techniques are required, one must learn how to make the best out of this shot, how to use every ray of light every element to form a nice shot, but what matters is the art of it, is the sense one gets to shoot...I know i donno how to make the best of photos, cause i'm still learning, and i'm progressing, slowly but progressing, and then when i learn maybe i'll be able to deliver what i exactly wanted...But in the end a photo perfection is the beauty of it. Regardless that some fixing job can make the ebst of it...

Well this post needn't to be any longer, so no i think that unperfection sometimes serves perfection, u don't need to extreemly focus on how this photo would be perfect, i think that id there's art, a fine touch would make it a magnificent shot, but if there isn't it's just some boring usual image...

 

[alliv]

A must read article:
http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Pontification/o_Boring_Photographs/a_Boring_Photographs.html

 

[hugivza]

This is an interesting question to which I believe there is no objective answer. The answer is totally subjective, that is it is dependent upon what we think of the two extremes, based on which side of the divide we lean: art or science. To my my mind, the type of photography undertaken will set the ground rules. Clearly, as in the photojournalism of Cartier Bresson or Capa, capturing the moment will always yield to absolutist technical perfection. Fuzzy images pulled from "near death" in the darkroom to give that special unique moment in time that is vital will set different criteria to Adams in Yosemite. Adams was a classically trained musician, which probably set a different set of criteria and disciplines in terms of his approach to the subjects of his photography. Anyone who lugs a 10 x 8 camera anywhere has more than a passing fancy for the subject. Fortunately, he also took the time to write his thoughts and methods down, and we are richer for his insight, since we all stand on the shoulders of giants of the past.

Which giant is right or which side of my brain should I give its head, I don't know. Both are essential ingredients but at opposite ends of the spectrum. A studio shoot under highly controlled conditions must have a high degree of technical input in terms of lighting, equipment etc etc in my view, whereas a 'grab" in the street with a wide lens and a guessed exposure, perhaps with movement to boot, is totally different.

It's an interesting question, but like the question of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin", it is essentially insoluble, as individual opinions and photographic circumstances will differ. I oscillate between the two extremes with a random non deterministic view at any one moment. My best artistic moments are when I do not have camera to hand, my worst when I do!

 

[Doug]

I was going to say something about how art contains craft, but is not expressed when craftsmanship is all there is. And how art has to be very good indeed to overcome poor craft. But remrf said it all... 🙂

 

[pvdhaar]

I guess it depends; for some the craftmanship is an essential part of getting the picture that you have in mind. And for a still life, it certainly is the case.

But I do know that my photos get better the less I worry about the technical side, and the more I concentrate on composition..

 

[Toby]

For me, craft is very important in the same way as grammar is important to language. BUT good photographs are expressive - and the craft is in the background. If technique is too far in the front of your mind the camera becomes more of a scientific recording device and less an expressive artistic tool. There is a balance to be struck.

Studio photography is a good example of this. When I set up a portrait I can giddy myself with light readings and exposure compensation. But when I'm set up I can forget about the technical stuff and just shoot. RF photography is rarely in such controlled environments so craft must always be in your mind as well as creativity. Shooting on a cloudy day where the sun is forever moving in and out is one such example - I find I start looking at the light more than the shot- the craft takes over from the art

 

[Poptart]

There is a kind of deadly sameness to the salon school of photography's pictures, but I think it's a result of a concentration on technique because the technique is a sublimation of weak ego; i.e., I can't really take a satisfying photo so I'll blab endlessly about the zone system.

 

[Nikon Bob]

Concentrating on one aspect, the technical, and ignoring the other artsy side leaves you with an incomplete outcome. With an unbalanced approach you get either techno crap or artsy crap.

Bob

 

[Socke]

Even with my limited skills and close to non existant talent, I see a difference between the shots I took with a Rollei 35TE some twenty years ago and what I did later.
My old shots where fun and showed mostly people on the street, I guessed on distance and got a shot or not.
Then I bought a SLR and a 35-70 zoom and started to think about composition, framing, DoF and my pictures are more and more boring and I lost interest in photography except when traveling.
When I started working on a party magazin with some friends in 2000 my interest was born again and I burnt through some three rolls a weekend. I mostly thought about fill flash ratios, framing, abient light and so on but not about the people. So I got lots of flack from my more experienced and talented friends. The more I tried the worse where my results.
So now I try to get back to the days where I just shot what I see and find interesting, no artsy light efects just plain old snapshots.
At least the fun is back and I get more shots people like and even my pro fans tell me that there is light at the end of the tunnel 🙂

 

[nomade]

I also think what spoils a photograph is thinking too much of the technical aspects...

 

[Bertram2]

They need to get their cameras 3.5 meters above the ground!
This photo is from Camera and Lens page 63.
R.J.

"Without the right standpoint it is all nothing !" = Ansel Adams ! 😀

Some of those I mentioned, claiming AA had been an "artisan only" were not able to achieve comparable results even if if the'd keep on trainin' themselves for the next 300 years.

And IMHO they have overseen completely how much this man loved the beauty of nature and how much of this emotion is in his phtography. His photos are NOT boring for me, at least the very most.

Regards,
Bertram

 

[taffer]

Bertram,

I am glad you mentioned Ansel Adams. Many dedicated landscape photographers purchase a view camera and study the zone system however they cannot get the same results as Adams. Why not?

They need to get their cameras 3.5 meters above the ground!
This photo is from Camera and Lens page 63.

R.J.

Just in case you're tempted yourself, don't forget to brake the car ! 😀

 

[Bertram2]

"Does an extreme focus on..."
Yes. An extreme focus on anything will result in a lack of focus elsewhere. Extremes are not good. This applies for anything.
That would be the fast answer.

Fast and good, I think you hit an essential point of the discussion.
Technics and the craft in the post-processing ARE important for getting a complete result, but when this ends in itself we stepped into one of the traps photography
keeps rady for us.
Notice benevolently my new signature, point in the same direction ! 🙂

Regards,
bertram

 

[RObert Budding]

A musician cannot play Bach without developing considerable technical skills. Those are absolutely required. Only then can true artistic interpretation occur. Pop in a Murray Perahia disc playing anything Bach and you will see what I mean.

There is a stage in learning where people must focus a great deal on technique. The techniques eventually become second nature. Maybe most of us never quite get there, but it is fun trying!

Robert

 

[Bertram2]

So from my point of view it is not whether technique gets in the way of artistry. .

From my POV either. I did not mean it in a contradictionary way, something like
"art OR craft", I just thought if pics can get "lifeless" when you are concentrated too much on producing technical perfect photos.
It can concern photogs who are primarily fascinated by the technical background of photography and try to build a perfect process from the neg to the print, including the rules of esthetics perfectly well btw, or photogs suffereing from a kind of aberration beein' involved in an intensive learning process, and this means my person too.

Regards,
bertram