Dearest APUG...I noticed you've been missing something...

[reellis67]

... when I setup a shot, I don't necessarily think about the "rules" of composition, but subconciously they are there...

Exactly! I have internalized many of these concepts to a greater or lesser extent, and when I 'see' photographicaly, I am using those concepts, or rejecting them, in an indirect way rather than a directly applying each and accepting or discarding them.

- Randy

 

[reellis67]

...most of them are my students, and we spend a great deal of time talking about what is meant by that first statement of mine that you quoted...

It is good to see that there are people still investing in their students. I've seen too many good instructors ruined by administrative BS, to the detriment of the students. Too many of the students here (I work at a school) cleave to the work of others and think that to be great they need to emulate the work of those photographers. The constant rotation of over-worked and under-paid adjuncts never exposes them to anyone who could help them get past that point in their development, so they don't, and eventualy get frustrated and often quit, or worse, join the swelling ranks of those that believe their problems are due to not having the best equipment rather than to a lack of ability to see.

-Randy

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

Randy, yes, it's sad at times, especially when the arts and creative aspects are being taught. I've spoken several times at the Art Institute, and it's depressing just how little of value most of the students are getting. The imposed limitations are hard on the faculty and hard on the students.

Personally, I teach independent workshops and have avoided sponsorship for just those reasons. I don't want to be bound by a certain agenda or have to work within limitations I don't agree with. Teaching independently allows me to give the students what they need in a way that truly makes them think.

It's easy enough to help someone figure out how to make a picture say what they want it to say. The tough part is for them to figure out what they want to say! All the technique in the world won't help them there.

 

[tim atherton]

If someone asked me how to write a story, I would not advise them to seek their inner being and then write about that journey (not that the resulting story would not possibly be interesting). I might tell them about the elements of a typical story - plot construction, introduction, character development, crisis, resolution, dialog, voice, denouement, and so on. Those are a few of the 'rules' of writing stories.

No - they are really much more techniques and methods

 

[catem]

It's easy enough to help someone figure out how to make a picture say what they want it to say. The tough part is for them to figure out what they want to say! All the technique in the world won't help them there.

That's very true - and yet technique can be a part of what you're trying to say, it's not always easy to separate the two, and say which comes first...

Wigwam - sorry if we were saying the same thing. I find that happens quite often in internet discussions

 

[Wigwam Jones]

Tell me how you would give them precise, step-by-step directions to shooting with depth and emotion. It just isn't that simple. The already know the rules of thumb. They know exposure and basic composition. They know their light. They don't need me to teach them that. It's not what they asked. They asked how to develop personal style... and that cannot be explained in terms of technique.

I did not have that information when I responded to your statement. Not to sound petulant, but I was unaware that "a lot of photographers" were your students, or that you spent a lot of time discussing what you meant by "concentrate on developing as a human being." From what little context I had, it appeared that your universal advice to photographers seeking a personal style was to go find themselves.

Now that I understand the context, your statements make more sense to me. Mea culpa.

 

[Helen B]

Though the thought of 'rules of composition' and of 'teaching composition' gives me nightmares, I have found value in describing ways to approach composition or framing as I call it (as in 'Helen couldn't find a frame in an art gallery'). That seems to be one of the things that people turn to me for, in the same way that I don't try to teach how to light, I only teach ways of approaching how to light.

I view the technical and practical aspects as prerequisites. We need to get those down pat so they are out of the way. They don't diminish the artistic* side of things at all.

Best,
Helen


*Oops, I wrote a dirty word.

 

[Drew B.]

I suspect that's the basis for the old adage that one should learn the rules first - then you'll know when to break them.

I'm not a religious person....but amen.

I think this thread is great. Thanks.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

They asked how to develop personal style... and that cannot be explained in terms of technique.

I think examples can be given in terms of technique, can't they?

Clyde Butcher has a unique style, and a very definite technique he uses to express it. Brassai had another. Christenberry, yet another. One can learn about the techniques others used to express their personal style and make decisions about how they wish to express themselves and what they might do to develop that concept.

 

[jovo]

Isn't the critique gallery the appropriate forum to discuss what works, what doesn't and why? Unlike most other sites, APUG offers posters the choice of simply presenting their work, or having it critiqued. Yes, there are many whose comments amount to an "attaboy/girl", but there's some substantial 'criticism' offered there as well. From such worthwhile reactions, not only the posters, but readers of the comments can derive what they feel is of value and perhaps glean some insights into how a good photograph got to be that way or how one that isn't very good went astray. I'd like to see more use made of that very valuable forum.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

"A lot of photographers" aren't always my students, however they are always people who know my photography and philosophy and teaching style, so they have the background to understand what I'm saying. And I can't say that it's a bad thing to tell photographers seeking a personal style to go find themselves. What would that be a bad thing? Because it's vague? Because they have to interpret what is meant by it? Because I didn't give them specific steps to follow to get there?

I did not have that information when I responded to your statement. Not to sound petulant, but I was unaware that "a lot of photographers" were your students, or that you spent a lot of time discussing what you meant by "concentrate on developing as a human being." From what little context I had, it appeared that your universal advice to photographers seeking a personal style was to go find themselves.

Now that I understand the context, your statements make more sense to me. Mea culpa.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

At both the fine art schools and at the college photography program I went to, never once did we discuss 'rules of composition'.

Murray

 

[catem]

I might tell them about the elements of a typical story - plot construction, introduction, character development, crisis, resolution, dialog, voice, denouement, and so on. Those are a few of the 'rules' of writing stories.

And then came post modernism

To be fair, I think there's a lot to what you say about writing - but I think writing and photography should not be compared in this way. The 'conventions' (a much better word than 'rules') for story-telling are not the same as the conventions for other kinds of writing (e.g. poetry). I often think a photograph is quite akin to a poem, and much less akin to prose story-telling (though a photograph can of course contain narrative, as can a poem). With a photograph (and a poem) there is less to tie it down, it has the capacity to be more easily and quickly spoilt, (or rescued) and there is less to fall back on when it comes to putting into words quite what it is that is the particular formula for it's success.

If nothing else, the answer to what makes a successful photograph or poem is less 'wordy', and more heart-felt.

Cate

 

[MurrayMinchin]

Cheryl...I like that you help your students find, rather than point them towards, their own way.

Murray

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

This is a BIG danger zone for most photographers, in my opinion. It's much easier to emulate another artist than to start with a blank canvas, however it's VERY hard to learn to separate other artists work from your own afterward. There's enough tendency to copy without encouraging it.

Besides, the bigger challenge is to figure out what you wish to express in the first place. It is illogical, in my opinion, to expect to figure out what's in your heart by looking at other peoples' technique. Instead, I encourage students to figure out what they value, what life experiences have shaped them in major or minor ways, what moves them, what makes them laugh. Anything to get them concentrating on where the art comes from. Technique is vehicle, that's all.

I think examples can be given in terms of technique, can't they?

Clyde Butcher has a unique style, and a very definite technique he uses to express it. Brassai had another. Christenberry, yet another. One can learn about the techniques others used to express their personal style and make decisions about how they wish to express themselves and what they might do to develop that concept.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

"A lot of photographers" aren't always my students, however they are always people who know my photography and philosophy and teaching style, so they have the background to understand what I'm saying.

Fair enough. I can only say I didn't have that information, so my response was based only on what I did know.

And I can't say that it's a bad thing to tell photographers seeking a personal style to go find themselves. What would that be a bad thing?

It would be for me. I can't speak for anyone else, but I've never been much into navel-gazing emo, and don't know how to do it, really.

Because it's vague?

Because, taken by itself, to me it is meaningless. One might as well ask me to consult my duodenum for advice as ask me to 'go find myself'. I know what is meant by seeking one's personal inner being and vision questing and so on, but it's just not in my nature.

Because they have to interpret what is meant by it?

Because I can't interpret what is meant by it. Again, applying this only to myself. I have no doubt your students have a different take on it.

Because I didn't give them specific steps to follow to get there?

Given what I now know of your situation and that of your students and photographic aquaintances, I would not suggest that you'd need to give them specific steps. I mean no harm or insult.

 

[reellis67]

Instead of saying Clyde has a unique style (I think his style is quite similar to Ansel's, but that's just an opinion) I think it would be better to tell how he lost his son and found relief through his photography. Then, instead of seeing somone who takes a certain type of photo, the kids may begin to see that strong emotions drive the creative force.

- Randy

 

[Wigwam Jones]

It is illogical, in my opinion, to expect to figure out what's in your heart by looking at other peoples' technique.

While I find it illogical to ignore the technique of others when through close examination of the work of others, one may learn what resonates in one's own heart and what does not.

Just my 2 cents, I'll be happy to let it go now.

 

[bill schwab]

Many of us are gratified when we able to provide enjoyment to others.

True, but if that is the only reason you are doing this, it won't get you far. For me, any pleasure derived by the viewer of my work is bonus. However, it is not made for them.

... I find many photographers who have some concern with how their photographs make others feel more accessible.

How? I don't get this at all.

... does a storyteller tell stories to make themselves happy?

I certainly hope so! If not, I am guessing it isn't going to be a story I want to hear.

I understand your point of obtaining pleasure from simply making others happy with your work, but can't that also lead to pretty homogenous and potentially uninteresting stuff? I also agree that studying another's technique and style can be beneficial, but one is never going to get anywhere until all of these things become second nature and the mind is no longer polluted by them during the process of creation. There comes a time when you simply have to stop looking to others for the way.

Technique, gadgetry, rules and science are all quantifiable things. IMO it is the nature of many people that are drawn to photography to be done so because of one or more of these things. Trying to apply this to art and aesthetics is crazy however as there truly are no rules there. There can be accepted and acceptable guidelines to be sure, but not going beyond them as with technique and gadgetry is a disservice to yourself as an "artist". This is fine for photo clubs and anyone simply satisfied with making pretty pictures. Who can be faulted for that? This is why there are so many different types of photo enthusiasts.

As far as teaching "style" or how to inject "meaning" into your work. I doubt that it can be done. A good teacher can point you in the right direction, but just like the saying about leading a horse to water, sometimes it isn't going to happen. It is my experience that you either get "it" or you don't. It is also my experience that just about anyone is capable of getting it. It is finding the way there that is the battle. I have to agree with Cheryl that it is the person and the collective life experience that truly makes the work of those that attract me. It is not the film, paper or developer they use. I mean no disrespect to anyone's work, but I suppose it is for this reason that I am less drawn to the works of "hot" young artists. Aside from the lightning strikes... Dylan, Basquiat, etc., in many cases there just isn't that much life there yet. As a wonderful artist and friend once said to me years ago when I was feeling a lack of accomplishment with my work, "40 may be old for a baseball player, but is childhood for an artist." It makes a lot more sense the older I get.

Bill

 

[catem]

Is it also that women and men tend to regard (massive generalisation coming) the importance of "rules", "technique", "conventions" (we seem to be covering them all) rather differently?

I can't help thinking if women had been more involved in making the "rules" in the first place, - and let's face it the 'rule of thirds' is only a concept that arose from the works of old masters and designers who were overwhelmingly male - what is deemed acceptable (and successful) and what is not acceptable (and unsuccessful) might be a little different?

Which is not to say all these "conventions", "rules", and "ideas" don't have a good use...

Cate

 

[Jose A Martinez]

Aesthetic Constants

At both the fine art schools and at the college photography program I went to, never once did we discuss 'rules of composition'.

Murray

I studied Industrial Design at the Iberoamericana University in Mexico City. The main subject was 'Design', of course, and we never discuss, or been taught on 'rules of composition', we were taught about good or bad compositions, about compositions that work and the ones that doesn't, in a practical way, in our own designs. In the History of Art class we review the so called 'rules' or 'laws of composition' through the time in different cultures, as the ancient Greek 'gold proportion' or the 'frontality law' in old Egypt; and in the Theory of Art class we discussed what the teacher called the 'aesthetics constants' of a culture or a ethnic group, and we find out that the so called 'constants' were the most variable thing in art.

In short, Rules of Composition or Aesthetic Constants are product of a culture and, I totaly agree with it, are made to be broken

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

And then came post modernism

To be fair, I think there's a lot to what you say about writing - but I think writing and photography should not be compared in this way. The 'conventions' (a much better word than 'rules') for story-telling are not the same as the conventions for other kinds of writing (e.g. poetry). I often think a photograph is quite akin to a poem, and much less akin to prose story-telling (though a photograph can of course contain narrative, as can a poem). With a photograph (and a poem) there is less to tie it down, it has the capacity to be more easily and quickly spoilt, (or rescued) and there is less to fall back on when it comes to putting into words quite what it is that is the particular formula for it's success.

If nothing else, the answer to what makes a successful photograph or poem is less 'wordy', and more heart-felt.

Cate

Po-mo schpo-mo! Postmodernism depends on the existence of preexisting methods/conventions/rules/law/blah of writing. You can't have Pynchon without a lot of leg work before him, so it's not like he's working without rules. Au contraire, he goes against the flow of the river, so that the river is still there!

I disagree about your comparison between photo and poetry. People always think of poems as beautiful heartfelt meaninglessness, especially in the West since the late 19th-early 20th Century, but a large portion of western poetry is narrative to a large extent. The Illiad? Paradise Lost? Elegy written in a country churchyard? Beowulf? Granted, you can point to Donne's poetry as more symbolic, but it is nevertheless highly structured. Rhyme, versification, prosody, sound effects, all that we call poetics is what structures poetry. Shakespeare didn't write poetry like Jackson Pollock paints. Rimbaud was one of the first to tear down the edifice of classical poetics, but he also was a master of it at seventeenth. Yet he came with his own principles: vision, hallucination, impressions. All of which you could call "technique."

You might argue in return that eastern poetry is different, but here I must retreat into my ignorance, and point to the fact that the most ethereal form (for westerners), the Japanese Haiku, still has a codified number of syllables.

Back to Wigwam Jones's original comment, he rightly pointed out that there are elements to a photo. Those elements are contignent, the product of a practice, but they exist nevertheless. I'm not a Positivist-type of codifier, but I don't think we can work on intuition alone in working/appreciating a photo, or any work of art for that matter. I'm also sick of people discrediting all sort of structure/technique because they are historically contingent. By the same reasoning, every person is historically contingent, therefore worthy of elimination.

The final point I'd like to raise is the fact that creating a photo can be a matter of seconds, so that by chance one can subscribe to a very elaborate but beautiful composition. Or not. People who paint "realist" painting take pains to decide which line goes where, and by doing so they force a compositional structure. Photo is a rare art in that composition can be left to chance. Not so with literature, music, sculpture or painting.

Cartier-Bresson was saying that the rules of composition help us understand why a picture is good, but also that we don't need to engrave the golden square on our ground glass. A trained eye will perceive a harmonious balance faster than it can be explicitely identified. All successful "intuitionists" are probably more aware of form than they'd care to admit...

 

[Flotsam]

Many of us are gratified when we able to provide enjoyment to others.

I agree with Wiggy on this. All my life I have heard people tell me that the Artist must create only to please himself as if to say that to consider how others might relate to a work somehow soils its artistic purity.

I have always said that my photography is about communication, not masturbation.

 

[bill schwab]

The final point I'd like to raise is the fact that creating a photo can be a matter of seconds, so that by chance one can subscribe to a very elaborate but beautiful composition. Or not. People who paint "realist" painting take pains to decide which line goes where, and by doing so they force a compositional structure. Photo is a rare art in that composition can be left to chance. Not so with literature, music, sculpture or painting.

To say that because one is a photographer they either choose a composition or not and cannot "force" a compositional structure is oversimplification at best.

B.

 

[bill schwab]

I have always said that my photography is about communication, not masturbation.

As long as you have something to say. If you don't, it speaks louder than your image.

B.