Can photographic "vision" be taught?

Ed Sukach · Jun 30, 2003

Photography - and all art - shares a characteristic of Rorshack Ink Blot tests.
Those tests serve to offer insights into the client's pre-conditioning, personality traits, "their state of being". Art is probably more complicated, certainly NOT standardized (hopefully, not standardized) but the process of interpretation appears to be quite similar.

Each individual will interpret Ink Blots tests differently. The entire validity of the tests, and the derived inferences, depends on this "difference". All of us ... neophytes, "accomplished " photographers, civilians - and critics (n.b. "critics") WILL interpret ink blots, and art, differently.

There is NO "right" or "wrong" in our responses to ink blot tests - only "automatic" honesty - it is an interesting fact that we can lie about what we "see" in them, and still it will have no effect on the final results.

This, in my mind, proves that the critic is really saying far more about him/herself than they do about the photograph in question.

That process - that interpretation - is a "living" thing ... not an afterthought. We "interpret" constantly -- and THAT is my concept of "Vision".

The Ink Blot story:

A Therapist was administering the Standard Rorshack Ink Blot Tests to a Client:

Therapist (showing the first ink blot: "Now, what do you "see" here?"

Client: "A really pornographic image of two people, uh,.. going at it."

T: "Uh huh. And in this one?"

C. Wow!!! A whole group ... "

T: ( somewhat flustered): "And this one?"

C: "Oh, now - really. That kind of sex just isn't possible!!"

Therapist: "Well - I have to tell you, you are severely obsessed with sexual fanatasies ... and you have a dirty mind!"

Client: "Me!!! -- You say that about me? YOU'RE the one with the dirty pictures!!!"

SteveGangi · Jun 30, 2003

Like I said before, vision whatever it is. is personal and unique. If it could be reduced to rules, formulas and checklists, there would be no art at all. It would be pointless. Some of you, Michael included, teach. Think about this though... by the time a student comes to you, he or she is already fairly familiar with photography and probably could be considered an advanced amateur. Nobody I know ever started out on day 1 with a burning desire to print 8x10 Azo or platinum-palladium, that came later. The students you get already have an idea of what they want to accomplish and you are giving them the benefit of your own experience - how to get there. They already have a vision, but you give them the tools and skills to realize that vision. No matter how good a teacher you are, you just can't MAKE them see if the ability is not there. You can only encourage and refine what is already there and offer new things to try.

"Never try teaching a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig"

Les McLean · Jul 1, 2003

SteveGangi said:
The students you get already have an idea of what they want to accomplish and you are giving them the benefit of your own experience - how to get there. They already have a vision, but you give them the tools and skills to realize that vision. No matter how good a teacher you are, you just can't MAKE them see if the ability is not there. You can only encourage and refine what is already there and offer new things to try.

I have followed this thread and found it very stimulating even when I disagreed with some posts. I don't believe that you can create a formula for teaching vision, which seemed to me to be the basis of the thinking on one side of the debate although I did enjoy the presentation. I think Steve's post is absolutely on the mark. He has described just about every student I have worked with in the years that I have been teaching photography in colleges throughout the UK.

RAP · Jul 1, 2003

I have been thinking about this. Vision is not just how a person creates, composes art, it is far more. Vision is his personal view of the world based on personality, background, upbringing, all the nuances, influences that go into shaping a person throughout his life, formulates their own unique vision of the world; that changes with age and experience, that can be as individualistic as a finger print. We do not compose the world as we go through life, we view it, live it, invision it.

Where as composition is merely how an artist projects his unique vision onto, into his chosen medium.

Simple enough?

Michael A. Smith · Jul 1, 2003

Steve Gangi " Like I said before, vision whatever it is. is personal and unique. If it could be reduced to rules, formulas and checklists, there would be no art at all. It would be pointless."

Of course. There are certainly no rules for "vision." There are as many ways of expressing what you feel--your vision--as there are people on the planet. Anyone who reduced anything about the process to "rules, formulas, and checklists," would be far of the mark.

Steve Gangi: "They already have a vision, but you give them the tools and skills to realize that vision. No matter how good a teacher you are, you just can't MAKE them see if the ability is not there. You can only encourage and refine what is already there and offer new things to try."

Well put and is absolutely true, with the addition that there are many who do not seem to have the ability, but who really do. I have found the just about everyone, with few exceptions (the exceptions are found mostly among those who had the misfortune of learning rules of compostion and approach in camera clubs, and commercial photographers, who are to used to photographing things rather than seeing space [Art is about space, illustration is about things.]) has the ability to see photographically and everyone has their own vision. The job of the teacher is to not only "encourage and refine what is already there and offer new things to try," but also to elicit what is latent--so latent that it may not seem to be there at all.

Michael A. Smith

RAP · Jul 1, 2003

If that is all art is to you, spatial relationships, juxtapositions, contrasts, then all there is, is an endless line of redundent, meaningless works on paper with nothing more then superficial meanings no deeper then the emulsion of the paper or canvas its made on.

The world has so much more to offer.

Ed Sukach · Jul 1, 2003

RAP said:
If that is all art is to you, spatial relationships, juxtapositions, contrasts, then all there is, is an endless line of redundent, meaningless works on paper with nothing more then superficial meanings no deeper then the emulsion of the paper or canvas its made on.
The world has so much more to offer.

After all the discussion - all the mis-interpretations, all the *intense opinions* (after all, some of these are the results of many "slashes" and we protect them with "scar tissue"), we seem to be reaching a "Common Ground". I have seen very little in the last few posts that I would disagree with ... possibly I would modify a few of the comments by "degree" ... but I think that the overall image is pretty damned indicative of a shared philosophy among all of us.

Interesting, and something that has been an ongoing pastime-study of mine for years, is the correlation of our individual works with our particular "philosophies" ... possibly that is not the right word for it ... uh, "mindsets", pre-conditioning, ... BEING. Nothing is "predictable" from this, but at the same time, one might say, a new work is "understandable".

Some here predicted a "flame war" ... I was confident that was not happening. We are, of necessity, sensitive - and I think most of us over time have learned to "handle" that sensitivity. I have an invention - "Flavored Inner Tube", to be placed between one's teeth when the occasion is apporopriate. This month's flavor in MacAllens. It works wonders.

inthedark · Jul 1, 2003

I have some experience on this topic. Being very analytical and technical, I have found that I can learn to "see" in the ways discussed here, BUT I lack the . . . .(??) whatever it is that gets the "vision" successfully onto the media. I will say however that although I have no better artistic skills for having learned to see and tried to present; I do have a much greater respect and pleasure upon seeing others' work because I can "see" their skills and "eye" better.

Michael A. Smith · Jul 1, 2003

RAP: "If that is all art is to you, spatial relationships, juxtapositions, contrasts, then all there is, is an endless line of redundent, meaningless works on paper with nothing more then superficial meanings no deeper then the emulsion of the paper or canvas its made on."

I assume you are talking about me. I can't imagine where you got that from. That is certainly not what art is or is about. Read what I have written. Among other things, I wrote that an emotional response is taken for granted--otherwise why bother. But it is the form of the picture--the structure--the spatial relationships, juxtapositions, contrasts, that make the emotional expression into art. And it is this that can be taught. Substitute "vision" for emotional response and you'll get it --assuming that you are serious and are not just being antagonistic. The emotional response--the "what you are trying to say" cannot be taught. We all have something to say--something that is in us already. The other--the photographic seeing--the understanding of spatial relationships, juxtapositions, contrasts, etc. can be taught. And so, as a teacher, it is where my energies go to help the student make better pictures. I have always believed it was condescending to try to teach students "what their pictures should be saying" or what kind or depth of emotional response they have or should have, and I have never done that. Who knows, they may feel more deeply than I do. What can be done, however, is to help them see photographically more clearly--something that can be learned--so that their emotional responses, their vision, can be transmitted into a more meaningful photograph--more maningful to others, not just to themselves.

Again, if are serious and are not just being snide and antagonistic, and if you have not done so, read my writing in "On Teaching Photography" for a fuller description of what can be taught. In the article I define art as "expression contained within a form" and state that the expression part cannot be taught. So I don't discuss that there, or here, but that does not mean it does not exist. Without it you just get superficial, boring, design. That, I think, would be obvious to anyone.

RAP · Jul 1, 2003

Mike,

This is what I responded to;

"I have found the just about everyone, with few exceptions (the exceptions are found mostly among those who had the misfortune of learning rules of compostion and approach in camera clubs, and commercial photographers, who are to used to photographing things rather than seeing space [Art is about space, illustration is about things.]) has the ability to see photographically and everyone has their own vision."

Spatial relationships is just a small fraction of the art equation, which can be as complicated as quantum mechanics or as simple as 1+1=2 or 11. The depth of the arts is as deep as the human psyche, and possibly as little understood. You could write volumes on the subject and is far beyond the scope if this message board.

No I am not trying to be snide. This has been a great exchange of thoughts and ideas. I do respect your comments. I will read your article and comment more later. It is just too nice a day!

THANKS!

blansky · Jul 1, 2003

Interesting thread.

A few things I find interesting.

What's up with this whole "communicating" thing. Why the desperate need to communicate. This is all new to me. I have always been interested in photography, for the sole reason to photograph people. Landscapes just don't excite me. Even when turning professional years ago, I was then, and still do, take pictures for me. I make a living making portraits for customers but the pictures are really for me. I'm have no burning desire to communicate anything, I don't have a desire to show the world anything. I love the process of photography, the magic, the alchemy and even usually like the results. Communicate - who cares.

The whole "vision" thing. As I wrote in another thread. I believe unless we are some sort of savant, we learn by seeing someone elses work and copying until eventually get to the point where we develop a style, years down the road. This "vision" as has been stated by many more eloquent that me is really the sum total of self, that is lurking behind the camera, determining the shot we want to make.

As for having the perfect negative, this is like having the perfect blueprint, or the perfect idea. Am I missing something. I thought the idea of photography was to make prints. This fetish about perfect negatives, escapes me. Of course you need great negatives to make great prints but this addiction and mental fondling of the perfect negatives seems rather perverse. Just make the print and get over it.

Great photographers occasionally take a great picture. Bad photographers ocassionally take a great picture. You may be a technical phenom but sometimes you are at a crappy location. You may be a technical moron, but luckily stumbled into Eden. You may be Ansel but you're bored. Avedon, but are feeling your mortality. Weston, caught in a rut. People photograph for a lifetime and maybe make a hundred good prints, maybe less. Maybe there is too much hero worship. These people were going through phases like we all do.

Why do I do this? Why do I do that? What are my feelings? What am I trying to communicate? What is my vision today? What is my style? Perhaps all this over analysis creates too much ego.

Just an opinion,

Michael McBlane

Michael A. Smith · Jul 1, 2003

Space is certainly not all there is, RAP, but without seeing the picture space, and that seeing is ususally intuitive, you ain't got nuthin'.

What can be taught is getting people to be aware of and see picture space, and not just things.

Think of a great photograph by one of your favorite photographers. What is the difference between their photograph and a similiarly heartfelt one by someone who photographed the same thing, but who made a boring picture? It is not the thing. That is in both pictures It is not the feeling that went into it--let's assume for the sake of argument, that the boring photograph was made by someone who had a great deal of feeling for what he was photographing. And let's assume that the boring photograph was made by a photograph who had equal technical ability to the photographer who made the great photograph. So what is the difference--it is not the subject, nor the amount of emotion that went into it, nor the technical stuff. It is the way the space was seen. If you, or anyone else, does not understand this, that's not a problem--just give up the idea of making a photograph that can be called a work of art, except by accident.

Ed Sukach · Jul 1, 2003

Michael A. Smith said:
Space is certainly not all there is, RAP, but without seeing the picture space, and that seeing is ususally intuitive, you ain't got nuthin'.
What can be taught is getting people to be aware of and see picture space, and not just things.
-it is not the subject, nor the amount of emotion that went into it, nor the technical stuff. It is the way the space was seen. If you, or anyone else, does not understand this, that's not a problem--just give up the idea of making a photograph that can be called a work of art, except by accident.

I have been quietly wrestling with this entire concept for a while now. This sounds to me to be a "thunderous pronouncement from the mountain top"; "If you do not understand --- it is bad, bad, bad."

I disagree. I do not understand art. I stand in awe of a pheonomenon that I cannot, and haven't seen others, "explain". If the terrible consequence of "being ignorant" is damnation to a state where I can only produce art (in the form of fine photography) by extraodinary "luck", then so be it. A percentage of my photographs do not "work". The appreciation of those "fortunate accidents" that do is more than just compensation for the failures.

i agree that it is not the subject, nor (entirely) the emotion that went into the photograph, but additionally, this formula is not completed by the "way the space was seen", either. It is far more ... and I have no idea of extent the boundaries.

If I "understand" fully, I have denied the "mystery" in art ... and that to me is the KEY that adds life to the work.

c6h6o3 · Jul 1, 2003

Ed Sukach said:
"mystery" in art ... and that to me is the KEY that adds life to the work.

There it is, there's that word we needed to hear. Why, pray tell, did you feel the need to put it in quotes?

RAP · Jul 2, 2003

Michael

I can think of several photographs and photographers I have tried to imitate over the years. What landscape photographer has not asked him, what would AA do in this situation? Or, holding a finished print in hand say to himself with pride, wow, just like AA. I know I have. There is a measure of accomplishment there. But the point when an artist starts to think independently is when he asks himself, how do I NOT make a photograph that imitates his idol, mentor, or what so many have done before him. How do I create an image that says what I want to say, that reflects me? That is the point when an artist is born.

Yes, I fully understand what you are saying about spatial relationships. But lets put landscapes aside, and focus on an image by Gordon Parks of the black cleaning women with the broom, mop and the American flag in the background. The spatial relations, juxtapositions between those four elements are only a fraction, maybe 25% of the visual impact when compared to the symbolism of the flag, broom, mop and black women. The photograph as a whole, with the spatial relationships, and symbolism add up to present a powerful image of American life, racial issues, and working class America. That portrait was purely spontaneous, though posed. Did Parks use any rules of thirds and golden means? No, it was his pure sense, sensitivity, and feel that combined all the elements into a powerful statement.

Now what about AA's Moonrise Hernandez, the most celebrated landscape photograph ever made. I am sure you have read the account how he was racing the setting sun, and in a matter of minutes, set up his 8x10, composed the image, figure filter factor, exposure, all from memory. The composition was form pure instinct, intuition, creative talent, feel, experience, to place houses, grave stones with such a huge, over bearing black sky as about 3/4 the image.

Two totally different photographers, two very powerful images, both were musicians by the way. To the best of my knowledge, neither of the two had much formal artistic training.

Spatial relationships played an important role in these two icons of photographic history, but only a piece of the equation. A great photograph is where all the creative elements of form, shapes, textures, spatial relationships, symbolism, technique, all meld together and disappear, leaving only the emotional statement, impact the artist wants to say, and the viewer to ponder.

Michael A. Smith · Jul 2, 2003

The "understanding" I referred to needn't be conscious nor articulated. In fact, in most artists this understanding is totally intuitive. But for all visual artists this understanding is there.

RAP: "The spatial relations, juxtapositions between those four elements are only a fraction, maybe 25% of the visual impact when compared to the symbolism of the flag, broom, mop and black women. The photograph as a whole, with the spatial relationships, and symbolism add up to present a powerful image of American life, racial issues, and working class America. That portrait was purely spontaneous, though posed. Did Parks use any rules of thirds and golden means? No, it was his pure sense, sensitivity, and feel that combined all the elements into a powerful statement."

Well, sure. But without the spatial relationships, whatever percentage you want to assign to them, Parks would not have made a work of art with any resopnance.

RAP: "Now what about AA's Moonrise Hernandez, the most celebrated landscape photograph ever made. I am sure you have read the account how he was racing the setting sun, and in a matter of minutes, set up his 8x10, composed the image, figure filter factor, exposure, all from memory. The composition was form pure instinct, intuition, creative talent, feel, experience, to place houses, grave stones with such a huge, over bearing black sky as about 3/4 the image."

Well, sure. But without the spatial relationships, Adams would not have made a work of art with any resopnance.

RAP: "Spatial relationships played an important role in these two icons of photographic history, but only a piece of the equation."

Absolutely true. Spatial relationships are not all there is by any means.

RAP: "A great photograph is where all the creative elements of form, shapes, textures, spatial relationships, symbolism, technique, all meld together and disappear, leaving only the emotional statement, impact the artist wants to say, and the viewer to ponder."

Well put. And absolutely correct. I am more than well aware that spatial relationships is not all a work of art consists of. I defined art as expression contained within a form. It is the form that makes it art. Expression alone is never art. Give it form and it is. Give it, at the same time, deep expression and you may get great art. Form alone without expression will yield sterile results. But you can't teach expression. That's the part the comes from the soul. But since it is the spatial part (and that includes form shapes, textures--all the "formal" stuff) that can be taught, it is what I emphasized as this discussion progressed.

The mystery is in the way expression and form intermingle and coalesce. Ultimately visual works of art are beyond words.

"Works of art are of an infinite lonliness and with nothing to be so little reached as with criticism. Only love can grasp and hold and fairly judge them." --Rilke

Ole · Jul 2, 2003

I have noticed that some of my best pictures follow classical rules of composition. However, I can guarantee that I didn't think of that at the time of exposure!

But I did notice what I call the "sweet finger" - a good feeling in the trigger finger that says everything is good. To me, photography is in a way related to zen archery: I shoot for the feeling, not the target. Does that make sense to anyone?

The one time I tried "composing" a picture in terms of "golden section" etc, it turned out utterly boring. And my finger should have told me so...

Donald Miller · Jul 2, 2003

An interesting thread and discussion. As I read and reread the posts, I am taken back to a point when someone asked me "how do you define the indefinable?" The limiting factor in all of this discourse is that very often we fail to realize the limitations in the use of language. One can never directly transfer his or her experience to another. "Words are simply conventions . These conventions are mankinds idle attempts to approximate experience.

If I were to relate to you that I had seen this humongous thundercloud today, your mind may paint a picture of a thundercloud that you had observed at some time in your experience. However unless you were there at the same time and place you would not have seen what I had seen. Even If you had been there, your experience would not have paralleled mine since your experience of that event would have been colored, as mine was, by all of our life's experiences to that point. Therefore is it possible for someone to transfer knowledge of an experience regarding vision? I wonder...but I think not.

Ed Sukach · Jul 2, 2003

c6h6o3 said:
Ed Sukach said:

"mystery" in art ... and that to me is the KEY that adds life to the work.

Click to expand...

There it is, there's that word we needed to hear. Why, pray tell, did you feel the need to put it in quotes?

I don't know. I use too many quotes ... Why...? Another one of those mysteries.

RAP · Jul 2, 2003

Michael,

Well I really do not know what to say. You mean after all this, we finally agree!? Except the part about teaching expression. Yes it is something that can be taught but only to the point that the individual is able to learn. You can teach fundamentals, techniques, and theories in any art medium. But ultimately it is up to the individual to apply it to the extent their abilities, soul, will allow. They will either grasp it and make it there own and run with it, or not. Whether they will produce great works of art, time and history would be the judge.

Just how many artists have come and gone over the centuries that are unknown, yet produced fine works. How many have had their works spurned during their lifetime, only to achieve fame and fortune for others, posthumously? Only very few achieve fame and fortune during their lifetime, that survives long after their deaths.

Michael A. Smith · Jul 2, 2003

If I read you right, RAP, I think we agree about teaching expression, too. We agree that it cannot be taught. A teacher can help elicit it, and in fact that is what every good teacher does, along with the other things they do, but expression cannot be taught directly.

A handshake,

Michael A. Smith

RAP · Jul 2, 2003

Handshake, sure.

Teaching expression though, like stoking a fire, should be nurtured, encouraged, even proded along. There is a fine line between forcing your own vision on a student, and helping, teaching them to find their own way. But yes, it has to ultimatly come from within the individual.

Ed Sukach · Jul 2, 2003

I'd like to return to the fundamental question here: "Can photographic vision be taught?"

I am convinced that there is no simple, or single answer.

*MY* macro, black or white answer: No.

But ... We can do a LOT to help, each other gain in the application of our individual visions. I would submit that our individual visions are sacred, and "off limits". They define, or possibly more properly, are manifestations of our being. We have no more authority to change the vision of another than we have to change anything else ... the size of their ears, the color of their feet, what they are inspired to photograph ... And an even more important question: Why would we want to?

We already come with a - our - vision pre-installed. Teaching cannot be a matter of starting one where none existed before. We *DO* effect change on other's visions by the very act of interfacing with them - and we all change every day anyway, as a result of the the many stimuli that come our way.

We can teach techniques. We can *suggest* different approaches ... and we can influence vision to some small degree, by presenting a different point of view. We can try to induce some information about our vision - we can, in short, try to ease the way.

To me, the noblest mission of education in art is the "removal of fear", loosening - ELIMINATING the limits and barriers of the critics - and - ...don't get me started on "Camera Club Judges" and their roles in beating down the neophytes - the dominating negative types are the personifiation of evil in art.

It took years to learn this ... I found a quote that is so important ... If I could teach but one thing ... it would be this:

"Don't be afraid that the work will not be "good". The real fear is that it will not be.

George Losse · Jul 2, 2003

Ed Sukach said:
I'd like to return to the fundamental question here: "Can photographic vision be taught?"

I am convinced that there is no simple, or single answer.

*MY* macro, black or white answer: No.

Ed,
Glad you brought this back to the question....
my short answer would be "vision" can't be taught, it has to be learned.

Learned from others, from actually doing some work, and from life. Also our "vision" should always be changing, growing from our experiences.

George

blansky · Jul 2, 2003

THE END

fade to black...

Man, I love a happy ending.

:

Can photographic "vision" be taught?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency