Can photographic "vision" be taught?

[Ed Sukach]

I don't know about "fading to black" ... I'll just let it pastel-ize some. The idea of vision and its application is far too important to let go of, even a little bit.
A LOT of deep stuff has been written here ... I'm going to catch my breath, put my feet up and finish this glass of phony wine (does that sound like it might have been said during the "Beat" era?).

 

[SteveGangi]

Hey Ed...

Camera club judges??? Not ever being in a camera club, what goes on there? I thought about joining a local club once but never got around to it. This is a serious question from an "outsider" so to speak. Well, OK, maybe I'm stirring the pot just a little, but I am curious

 

[Jim Chinn]

No, photographic vision can not be taught. You can teach compositiion, lighting, physics of chemistry and film, history etc.

You can teach someone how to see the world better and be more aware of all the photographic possibilities, but you cannot teach them how to interpret the raw data.

If there is such a thing as photographic vision, it is the mass accumulation of a persons past history and experiences. That includes the influence of teachers and other photographers. But these influences with your current view of reality is filtered through the past experiences.

The longer you persue any medium as a form of personal expression, the more refined will be your vision. And like many things it is a moving target. We get older, wiser, more open minded or maybe more close minded. It all effects the work later on.


Thanks for all the contributors, these types of subjects make for some enjoyable discourse over the ether.

 

[inthedark]

Apparently like many others, this discussion has stuck with me through out the day. I too have read and re-read, and (being one who knows she doesn't get it), I think I have figured out what part about "vision" can't be taught; . . . the passion to try and try again and stay dedicated till the visions become reality. You all sound like you spend a truly dedicated amount of time and testing to be able to have vision and be able to capture that vision. Maybe we who can't see, just don't have the patience and passion to advance that far. What do you all think? Could you see when you first started photography, or is vision acquired more through time and test rather than learned

 

[Michael A. Smith]

"Could you see when you first started photography, or is vision acquired more through time and test rather than learned."

One's vision evolves over a lifetime of working. It is a function of who you are in the deepest sense. As such, it may be there when you begin, and it does evolve, transform, grow as you work. While strictly speaking, one's vision cannot be taught directly; the things you learn, both directly and indirectly, contribute to it because they contribute to who you are.

One of the things that goes into one's vision is a knowledge of that work in the medium that has been done before--our influences from other photographers. When an influence is new and strong our work may look somewhat like that of the photographer who influenced us. Over time, we are exposed to other photographic influences and to other life experiences and to our own photographs. If that early influence is truly meant for us something of it will remain in our work forever, although it will fuse with all the other experiences that affect us. If it is not meant for us, it will disappear. This, and having one's own vision, is nothing to worry about. It is a natural function. One's own mature vision is nothing to strive for, it is something that overtakes one in the course of a lifetime of living and working fully.

One's vision happens to one; it is something you discover after the fact when you look back over years of work to see what you have done. It is not something you pick off the shelf, like picking things at the grocery store. If you choose a vision by picking something off of the shelf, it will be something that comes from the intellect, not from the deeper part of yourself. As such, the energy to maintain it will not be there and in time you will go looking for and pick another "vision." None of the resultant work, though it may be clever, will ever represent the deeper you. Unfortunately, those who go to art school are told to be "different." Because of their young age, they end up picking their "vision" off the shelf. It is the main reason why, a few years after they get out of school, so few continue to work as artists.

The bottom line is to go photograph, enjoy the process and have a lot of fun--and don't worry about this stuff at all. It is interesting to think about this, but no understanding of it, no matter how deep, will help you make better photographs in any way.

 

[lee]

"Could you see when you first started photography, or is vision acquired more through time and test rather than learned."

I have a friend that is a college photo teacher with degrees from Rhode Island School of Design that has told me several times that he makes the same photos now that he made as a 10 year old but he is much better at them now. I think this means his vision has matured after 45 years but it is one that he had when he first started to photograph.

I was very lucky to have had a rather long email conversation with Michael and now and then Paula would join in the conversations about "What is Art". This was long before APUG.ORG was a gleam in the eye of Sean. They were just a generous then as Michael is now about discussing aspects of the philosophy of art as it relates to photography. For that, I am deeply grateful. Most people would roll there eyes upward when I would bring up the "what is art" subject. Michael just started to type. Thank you Michael.

lee/c
lee carmichael

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Thank you, Lee.

By the way, that quote at the top of your posting was not mine, but was from the previous poster and I was responding to it.

 

[lee]

No problem Michael. I always ask you this, I am dense as hell these days. What is the quote that your ex said about art and illustration? I had it hidden in a safe place on a different computer and now that computer is not mine any longer.

lee\c

 

[PaulH]

The bottom line is to go photograph, enjoy the process and have a lot of fun--and don't worry about this stuff at all. It is interesting to think about this, but no understanding of it, no matter how deep, will help you make better photographs in any way.

Precisely

And, have a lot of fun, or not -- depending on your temperment!

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Lee,

I think I quoted it earlier in this discussion (it is something I refer to often) but here it is again, with a short explanation of how it came about. Back in the late 1960s, my former wife, who is a painter, and I were discussing art and were trying to figure out the difference between fine art and illustration. She said, "Art is about space. Illustration is about things." And it seemed to explain why some work that wanted to be fine art failed and was just illustration--perhaps fine illustration, but illustration nonetheless. It explains what the difference is between say, one of the best Adam's photographs of Half Dome or El Capitan, which is fine art, and calendar art, which is just illustration.

 

[SteveGangi]

It is like music. The note you don't play (the spaces) is just as important as the note you do play. It is the silences that mark the phrases and passages.

 

[RAP]

Curtain call?

Art vs. illustration vs. calendar art? AA landscapes pretty much set the tone, standard, measuring line by which all other landscape photographs are measured. Yet most calendars are in color where as AA 95% black and white. So then how much does color influence the difference between illustration and fine art? I would think this could only apply to photography since almost all paintings and other works on paper/canvas use color. Pen and inks, sketchings use only a limited range of tones. I think photography is the only medium that uses a continuous tonal range from pure black to white, with as many tones of gray the materials used will allow.

Color photographs have more of a sense of reality that makes them more illustrative. When you view a color landscape, the realities of blue skies, green foliage, flesh tones for portraits are apparent and tend to dominate the visual impact. Colors themselves have an emotional influence. I was watching a show about prisons and their design and they did an experiment on the effects of color on an individual's strength. It seems that the color pink, has an arrested, calming effect on people, making them easier to handle and deal with.

A painter can pick and choose what colors they want for the purpose of enhancing, controlling what they want to say, what elements of the subject they want to add or omit. Painters will often repeatedly visit a spot over time so to get as much out of the landscape they can. Until they are satisfied.

A photographer has to work directly with what is in front of the lens. One moment, a minute fractional slice of time to capture on film, a sublime image of tone, time, space, and weather. The color photography can confuse the issue, the use of black and white will add to the feeling of fine art.

I guess what I trying to say is; color photography is more illustrative, where as color used by painters is considered more artistic. But black and white photography is as color is to painters. It lends far more to the fine art the photographer is trying to achieve. I would think then, that is why fine art black and white photography is so unique a medium in the arts.

A suggestion for light reading AA's Basic Photo 1, Camera and Lens, "The Creative Approach" starting on page 13. I have the original edition.

 

[inthedark]

Micheal A Smith typed, "The bottom line is to go photograph, enjoy the process and have a lot of fun--and don't worry about this stuff at all. It is interesting to think about this, but no understanding of it, no matter how deep, will help you make better photographs in any way."

This is completely true, and the ex-wife quote is great. I think someone else also mentioned a similar concept which was roughly that he takes a picture of what he likes, and then when printed notices how artistic it happened to come out.

Since I print some really fabulous prints for the local photographers, I have determined to stay in the darkroom myself. My photos simply don't have the Ahhhh or Ohhh affect that theirs and most of you folks do.

 

[Sean]

This is a great thread and it has me digging deep for what 'vision' means to me. For me vision comes from being in tune with all of my emotions. I'll see something that ignites all my emotions at once - Then I decide how to capture it in a way that the final image can still evoke those same emotions (this may be more enjoyable now that I finally have an 8x10 system). If successful then I have a perfect reflection of who I am, because I am the sum of my emotions. This is the driving force behind my photography, to leave something special behind that can show the world who I was. So maybe 'vision' is just be a byproduct of a photographer's deepest emotions?...

 

[inthedark]

Then I decide how to capture it in a way that the final image can still evoke those same emotions (this may be more enjoyable now that I finally have an 8x10 system). If successful then I have a perfect reflection of who I am, because I am the sum of my emotions.

Well, then this explains perfectly why I SHOULD stay in the darkroom. . .I would hate to ruin anyone day with my emotions or the sum of who I am. LOL :lol:

 

[Sean]

haha

 

[Donald Miller]

Lee,

I think I quoted it earlier in this discussion (it is something I refer to often) but here it is again, with a short explanation of how it came about. Back in the late 1960s, my former wife, who is a painter, and I were discussing art and were trying to figure out the difference between fine art and illustration. She said, "Art is about space. Illustration is about things." And it seemed to explain why some work that wanted to be fine art failed and was just illustration--perhaps fine illustration, but illustration nonetheless. It explains what the difference is between say, one of the best Adam's photographs of Half Dome or El Capitan, which is fine art, and calendar art, which is just illustration.

I can certainly agree with the "space" qualifier. I wonder if it is possible to go further with this particular definition? What I mean to say is (within this context) art is the portrayal of the relationship(s) of form(s) and void(s) within a space.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[c6h6o3]

What I mean to say is (within this context) art is the portrayal of the relationship(s) of form(s) and void(s) within a space.

What are your thoughts on this?

To say that "Art is about space, illustration is about things" is as far as I need to intellectualize it. After a certain point, the verbalization and intellectual pigeonholing detracts from the creative process. It needs to be intuitive to work.

 

[avandesande]

I believe that everyone has vision, wether or not other people will appreciate or care for it is the luck of the draw.

 

[inthedark]

Don, I think what you say is inevitably true as everything whether artistic or not is a compilation of forms and voids, but to me the question is more whether the protrayal is specifically focused on that compilation aspect. If what I am reading here is a fair representation, I would say the answer is yes for some and no for others. You sound like someone who at the very least considers it as part of the composition rather than a pleasant surprise after the fact.

 

[lee]

Thanks Michael for the quote. Like c6h6o3 (I think c6h6o3 is pyro, BTW) I love the quote but it certainly can stir the pot. I don't need to verbalize it anymore than that.

lee\c

 

[Ed Sukach]

Hey Ed...

Camera club judges??? Not ever being in a camera club, what goes on there? I thought about joining a local club once but never got around to it. This is a serious question from an "outsider" so to speak. Well, OK, maybe I'm stirring the pot just a little, but I am curious

I have a rather strong bias against "Camera Clubs", probably as a result of contacts with them in the -- what is becoming the distant - past.

I don't know if I've posted this before, but this something of a "descriptive kernel" of what *I* have found to be common among them.

I have a friend who lives in a nearby community - home to a *prestigious* (read "elite" and "snooty") Arts Organization with a "Photography Group". Only those who submit work for judging and are deemed good enough will be invited to join - upon the payment of a substaintial initiation fee. They have the reputation of being very harsh and demanding, but there is no sense of prestige solely from membership in this group in the larger arts community around here.

My friend - an accomplished photographer in my eyes - informed me that he had been accepted and invited to join. That surprised me, I did not consider him to be at all "elitist".
I asked him how he had survived the harsh judging process...

"It really was very simple. I visited one of their exhibitions. All of the photographs were of old, weathered wood; old, rusty farm equipment; weathered barns and out buildings ... All large black and white - all printed on warm-toned paper - all rather dark and somber images.
So - no mystery - I photographed some old, weathered wood, old rusty farm equipment ... made large prints on wamtone paper. I thought they were poor photographs, myself.
I submitted them. I never even touched the sides of the door. I was welcomed as if I was the Messiah returning.
I never joined, though. I couldn't think of a reason why I should."

I had an evil thought about that group. Someday I would reverse-cat-burglarize their gallery, and hang a saturated color print of a fleshy, Rubenesque, pink nude in the middle of a Renoir-colored floral bouquet - right in front of the entrance door. I'd set up a video camera and record their expressions when they first saw that photograph ...

Camera Clubs tend to be closed social groups. I once saw an image - a very expressive, finely done work - being viewed by the "powers that be".
One of the "wheels" made a knee-jerk comment, "Who let her in here?", and that was not meant entirely as a light-hearted jest.

About their competitions: Over time there will arise in all these organiztions a sort of sublimnal criteria of merit. A standard that will be applied as mandatory. In their judging, in ther concept of "good and bad"... and WOE to those who work outside of those artifical boundaries... in competitions or out of them.

I would caution all reading this that I am aware of some bitterness here - infused in me from a few less than pleasant experiences in Camera Clubs.

I've heard their Great Argument, "How Else Are You Gonna Learn to Make Good Photographs" ... and I've still not been able to find one significant photographer who reached that status as a result of Camera Club Membership.

I dislke stereotypes... I will not condemn them all. If you are thinking of joining a Camera Club, visit with them. Pay particular attention to the way they interact with emerging photographers and new members in general. If you lke what you see, go ahead and be associated with them.

Well ... you got me started...

 

[RAP]

Dang burn it Ed! (spit) I just came back form a local histroical farm. Shooting farm equipment, barns, etc. Thanks for pouring water on my sparkler!

(just kidding)

 

[Michael A. Smith]

Although we have strayed far from the original topic, this is as good a time as any and place for me to recount my experiences with camera clubs. I cannot see any reason to ever do it elsewhere.

Back in 1969, I believe it was, I was asked to do a presentation at a camera club. When I arrived, "judging" for one of their "competitions" was in progress. Photographs were scored, as I recall, from 1-10, with 10 being the highest score. Whenever the juror gave a print an 8 or higher, I silently said to myself, "zero." And when he gave something a 1 or 2, I said to myself, "9 or 10." Afterwards I showed some of my work and a good selection of my students' work. Toward the end of my presentation, one of the camera club members said, "These are all great photographs. Someday I would like to make a great photograph." With that as an opening, I began to discuss the difference between the photographs I was showing them and their own that I had seen. They listened avidly. About a year later I made another presentation to this group. When I looked at their work, I saw that none of them, including the fellow who had made the comment, had even begun to get it.

This did not surprise me. Previously, I had found that the most unreachable students I had were those who, as teenagers had been members of camera clubs.They had learned the "rules" and it had ruined them forever.

I cannot imagine anyone who partakes of a discussion group like this having even the slighest interest in camera clubs, but if you do, lose that interest as fast as you can. Camera club members will do their best to kill the creative spirit in you.


Michael A. Smith

 

[inthedark]

Hmmm, don't know if I should post this, but I too have found that when a group member enters my shop, I should NOT be totally open with them about how I accomplish what I do. It seems to upset them.

The more individual or amatuer artists are all very intereseted in the fact that I re-invent things and tweek a lot to get just what is wanted. They see the examples on the wall and all is fine. They seem to be more willing themselves to tweek and twist for fun and or effect.

The groupies tended to keep saying, "you can't do that!" and got rather tempermental when I suggested that I already was "doing that" with success. So now I have to feel out the customer to see if they want the full range of possibilities that can be tapped or if they just want it done "right".