Do we learn to see?

ok I'm curious about other peoples thoughts on image creation. Are we as photographers born with the inherent ability to see what would and would not make a good image? or is the art of photographic sight, composition and creation something everyone can be taught as they grow?

Most people don't really use their eyes, save from avoiding physical obstacles some times. Visual artists may use them more, but often they turn to look into themselves more than the outside world. Photographers become obsessed with seen, because it is the physical world that will manifest into their artwork, even if it is an internal creation. A good photographer should become a baby again: see things like for the first time, curiosity and discovery become most important, they are fascinated by every little detail, every little thing and every grand scene and they should feel the desire to capture and keep everything.

No some people can't be taught. I once employed someone who thought he'd become a professional photographer, he was hopeless. In fact he did become a full time photographer and worked for car (auto) classifieds newspaper, initially shooting Polaroid snaps of cars for sale before the company went digital.

If you have some ability to see a picture then of course you can learn or be taught to improve.

Ian

Learned.

"Good" photography is as much perceptual as it is social. I have learned a lot by picking up photography books and making an effort to "read" them. Understanding a picture is not innate. You have to know how to look at an image, and what to look for. That's just the comprehension competence. To be able to actually produce something worth its interpretative salt is an even tougher skill to develop.

But the thing you have to bear in mind is that while everyone CAN learn it, not everyone WILL do so successfully. That's where the proverbial line between nature and nurture has to be thrown away and stamped upon violently. There are many reasons why some people achieve greater vision than others, while many others hit a wall, and circumstances play as much a role as fundamental cognitive abilities.

So there is hope: everyone can grow artistically. Just not to the same level.

Craftsmanship is the process of transformation of the craftsman,
Art is the the transformation of the artist.

I can't say it's genetic, but I do believe that folks who take an interest in photography develop a keener sense of visual detail and learn to 'see things within things.' By that I mean people who casually take pictures see a "pretty" scene whereas someone more practiced will see a small corner or detail that makes a far better picture than the whole.

I had a student once who struggled with getting the print right. One day, he came and showed me a print of which he was justly quite proud. It was a portrait of a smooth - headed bald guy, at night, in a parking lot. He was SO HAPPY with this print, and so was I because I knew how hard he had worked to achieve that level of understanding.

So I said, "That's great! The skin tone is perfect! In fact, it is so perfect that it matches precisely the value of that brushed aluminum lamp-post that is extending his head right out the top of the frame."

I DIDN'T SEE THAT!!! he said. In fact, the lamp-post appeared to be the same width as the head, exactly aligned with the head, precisely the same value and apparent texture! It was like the guy's head just kept going up until it went out of the picture. I wish I had a copy of this to show. It was amazing.

Another student photographed a deer. You know, right in the middle. Since it has been on my flickr site for a long time, and she's not objected, here it is. Bull's Eye!

The guy who runs my isp saw this, and he said "If you hit that deer right there with a bullet, it would take out it's internal organs and it would drop dead on the spot!"

Think about this. Our species didn't always have cameras, and while drawing and painting are old media, the qualities of abstract vision are a sort of an extra feature that humans can have, but don't really need. How 'bout this: Two bushmen are standing looking at a wildebeest in the wild. One says to the other "I think that would look a lot better if the wildebeest would move about four feet to the left".

We don't NEED abstract vision to survive. We need the ability to isolate from context so we can shoot things, and thus acquire something to eat. The ability to impose a frame on what's out there, to order space, is not something that came with the package but something that has evolved with us. As far as seeing and appreciating beauty, who knows? How would we know whether, once having shot and killed the wildebeest, the bushman would appreciate the light that illuminates the fur.

It is a good and open, question whether 1) we are born with this ability to actually notice things, to appreciate beauty and organize space. Perhaps this atrophies in most people as we are socialized and don't use it since our societies generally assign no value to it. OR 2) those of us who have these qualities or even value them in others arrive at that through processes of learning be it through training or accidental life exposures. Or, maybe I'm forgetting something; could there be other possibilities?

When we are babies (well, once our vision has settled), and for a short time after that, we can see. And we do. We examine everything. As time goes by we see less and less, until finally, we hardly see anything. We think we see, but really all we are is conditioned to is remember things, triggered cues from our eyes. When something, such as photography, helps us see again, that is a good thing.

As a teacher, I like the idea that anybody can be taught anything. It just takes time, though, and possibly hard work. Barring fundamental disability, I do like the idea that anybody can do anything, that it's just a matter of dedication. This is every teacher's faith. We must repeat it to ourselves quite frequently until we believe it

However.... (!) as someone who like to try to find new things to photograph and new ways to do that, I also sort've like the notion that maybe I see things that others don't. And I certainly see students who find the technical stuff trivial. It is amusing to watch them progress more rapidly than their colleagues and wonder how they do it. More often than not I conclude that it is all a matter of enjoying the learning process.

But on the topic of "gifted" photography: it seems to me that we only know who the gifted photographers were/are because they were/are able to sell prints!

That means that in addition to being able to see, these photographers are also able to communicate in a not-too-lofty language that a fair quantity of viewers can appreciate.

keithwms said:

As a teacher, I like the idea that anybody can be taught anything. It just takes time, though, and possibly hard work. Barring fundamental disability, I do like the idea that anybody can do anything, that it's just a matter of dedication. This is every teacher's faith. We must repeat it to ourselves quite frequently until we believe it

.... It is amusing to watch them progress more rapidly than their colleagues and wonder how they do it. More often than not I conclude that it is all a matter of enjoying the learning process.

But on the topic of "gifted" photography: it seems to me that we only know who the gifted photographers were/are because they were/are able to sell prints! ...

Click to expand...

Perhaps anybody could do anything (within some realistic limits, whatever those might be). I've more often than not found that most people resist learning very strenuously unless their interest overcomes that resistance!

Those who love learning and really get interested will stop at nothing. I can't even go home. Getting them to stop working is almost impossible.

Gifted...a sad story about a friend. Possibly the most amazing and wonderful photographer I ever knew died a chronic acute alcoholic. He never showed his work. Never. At his memorial, a letter concerning him from Peter Bunnell, scholar and currently the photo curator at the Museum of Modern Art, was read. The point here is that not all gifts become visible to the public at large, even if they are genuine. As far as public recognition is concerned, it rarely happens for those who can't get out and promote themselves for any reason.

I think some are born to it, and use it, others never realise they had it, some think they do but don't have it, and some don't have it but through hard work, get close enough in the end. For me this is the debate of passion. If you want something badly enough, you can always excel at it, you just have to want it badly enough. So yes, I believe you can learn to see. Many who naturally see, never have enough passion to pick up a camera. K

JBrunner said:

When we are babies (well, once our vision has settled), and for a short time after that, we can see. And we do. We examine everything. As time goes by we see less and less, until finally, we hardly see anything. We think we see, but really all we are is conditioned to is remember things, triggered cues from our eyes. When something, such as photography, helps us see again, that is a good thing.

Click to expand...

I do not like extensive quotes ... but, occasionally something is written that DESERVES to be repeated in full.


When my youngest daughter was *very* young, she began to "see" rocks. Small, common stones. Each day she would excitedly display her newest finds. Breathlessly, "Look at the pretty yellow swirls in this one!! - And the sparkles in this one!!". Each day was filled with marvelous discovery of, what she perceived as, treasure.
Her bedroom was filled with thousands of "precious" stones.

Over the period of her maturation, her perception changed. I hope it was not as a result of anything her parents did, but, so many would have tried to do exactly that; with the justification of, "She has to learn what`reality' is."
Easily, Society would have had a major influence .. her friends convincing her that, "These are only worthless rocks. Look how many there are, all around us. Worthless ...".

What I fight with now is not "Learning What Is Beautiful". It is "UNlearning What I Have Been Taught is NOT Beautiful". I think MOST of us ... an overwhelming majority ... suffer from a pernicious social brainwashing, corrupting what is inherently a miraculous, vital, human-being defining "sense." We no longer ... we find it difficult ... to see those woundrous rocks with the the green swirls.

When I encounter "Primitive Art", at times I am fascinated. It usually is "all wrong" when it coms to perspective, technique, "rules of composition: ... And yet, there are times when the lack of conformance to social convention can override all this ... and a work DOES appear to me to be "beautiful."

Can we be taught to conform to convention. Sure! No real problem. We can be taught technique, we can even learn the factors that lead everyone else to label a work as "fine art".

Can we be taught "What is Beautiful"?

Simply, NO. We ALL have that knowledge. In most of us, it is wrapped, LOCKED in layers of brainwashing propaganda.

Now, to find the paring knife to peel back those layers...

Ed, those are interesting points that you and JBrunner make, and they fit my observation that the most successful photographers and scientists I know do maintain a childlike curiosity and willingness to adapt and explore as if every scene were being seen for the first time.

However! In response to some of what you implied about education, Ed, I'll just say that I think a good education develops critical thinking skills; it does not place limits on originality nor on that fundamental, childlike curiosity. There are as many different ways to educate a student as there are ways students learn, and while I agree that some of them amount to rote indoctrination, there are some ways to really help students to think in original ways.

This reminds me of Zen in the Art of Archery, which I encountered whilst reading about Minor White's unconventional teaching methods, which were said to confuse, confound but also sometimes delight his students. The book details a German professor's frustrations with (and eventual acceptance of) a unique style of learning that he'd never experienced, in which the instructor is reluctant to influence the student's experience of learning. Quite interesting little book.

keithwms said:

...the most successful photographers and scientists I know do maintain a childlike curiosity and willingness to adapt and explore...

However! In response to some of what you implied about education, Ed, I'll just say that I think a good education develops critical thinking skills...

Click to expand...

Keith,

What you say about childlike curiosity is quite true, and I don't disagree with the second paragraph, either. However I have some caveats; when you say "good education" I have to wonder. Where is this "good education" to be found? I take it you teach, but I don't know where or what your circumstances are. I'm at the end of a long career, and I have watched the quality of education deteriorate at an alarming rate. Most education seems now to be directed toward providing the workers with adequate skills so that they can do their jobs. Very heartbreaking, and it's getting worse.

Critical thinking: Here's the "official" definition of critical thinking that is adopted at my institution, which prides itself on being one of the best in the country (I think it is generally pretty good, but that may be a somewhat generous claim):

"Definition: The ability to think critically about the nature of knowledge within a discipline and about the ways in which that knowledge is constructed and validated and to be sensitive to the ways these processes often vary among disciplines."

I have a problem with this definition. First, it is narrowed to apply only to "disciplines" and does not require an observational platform that is superior to the entire context, and second, it is limited to the "nature of knowledge within a discipline...". That suggests that if the discipline is, for (a metaphorical) example, Germany under Hitler, killing Jews is consistent with the "nature of knowledge" and therefore would be seen as the right thing to do. Lots of people would think otherwise. Critical thinking would permit one to understand that a whole discipline could be flawed. CT must be outside the context in which the reasoning is practiced, and to whatever extent possible, must even consider the observer.

Ed's on to something pretty good, too. I do think it is important to be somewhat careful in condemning as brainwashing what is done with the best of intentions and is, in fact, necessary. It is essential, as any parent knows, to provide the child with the codes that will enable him/her to function within the context of the society (acceptable values and behaviors), and these codes in themselves constitute the box in which we confine ourselves. Is it brainwashing? Of course it is. My psychologist wife has told me that Erickson's theories verify what I know from life experience; that we are all brainwashed, we must be brainwashed, and that to escape that brainwashing, we must be brainwashed in another way. It is the inevitable consequence of not being as omniscient and omnipotent as we would like to see ourselves. We are subjective, and, being so, are locked into limited perspectives.

As for MW's methods, he was very controversial. I believe that was a result of his persistent subversion of conventional perspectives, which is what I think you are getting at. He was pretty good at shaking things up. That is, he got people to at least attempt to see themselves in context; critical thinking, right? Was he able to do that for himself in his own life? We all have our limits and in the end, even the great are human. Herrigel, the author you mention, wrote a pretty wonderful book, but one must wonder at his returning to Germany and joining the Nazi Party. Critical thinking?

bowzart said:

Keith,

Ed's on to something pretty good, too. I do think it is important to be somewhat careful in condemning as brainwashing what is done with the best of intentions ...

Click to expand...

... The road to hell ...

... and is, in fact, necessary. It is essential, as any parent knows, to provide the child with the codes that will enable him/her to function within the context of the society (acceptable values and behaviors), and these codes in themselves constitute the box in which we confine ourselves.

Click to expand...

I understand your point. Of course "reality testing" and an awareness of the social constructs are, if not necessary, certainly useful in making our way through the world ... but...
I will argue that an appreciation of that which is NOT understandable (see definition: Esthetics) is also of great importance.

What I am suggesting is NOT the domination of either a sense of reality OVER that of esthetics, or vice versa; but a cultivation of BOTH.

From my observations (mainly of myself!!), it is very difficult, and rare, that any of us survive into adulthood without major damage and surpression of our "childlike wonder".

Education is a wonderful thing! However, most of what we are taught now comes limited to certain boundaries. What we need are those who can modify our concepts of "proper limits". What would really work would be to ride along with Ansel Adams, or Edward Weston, not to learn their techniques, but to try to assimilate whatever it was in their psyches that triggered the impetus to take their next photograph.

Another great way to "restore" would be to again listen to Minor White, talking about everything EXCEPT photography. No one who worked with him could link what he was saying to photography; yet, over the course of time, their work changed...

Erickson's theories verify what I know from life experience; that we are all brainwashed, we must be brainwashed, and that to escape that brainwashing, we must be brainwashed in another way. It is the inevitable consequence of not being as omniscient and omnipotent as we would like to see ourselves. We are subjective, and, being so, are locked into limited perspectives.

Click to expand...

I am superficially familiar with Dr. Erickson's work. He is greatly underappreciated.

Uh oh, please keep hitler out of it, that whole subject has a way of inflaming opinions. :rolleyes: Regarding Herrigel, I merely find his take on zen interesting and fairly amusing. In the book, Herrigel comes across, in my opinion, as a person so completely trained to be trained that when his archery instructor won't provide explicit directions, he becomes frustrated. In fact, for years he is frustrated. Herrigel truly cannot fathom that anyone can learn to be satisfied with the craft through their own experience and exploration - he initially expects someone to tell him what he's doing right or wrong. The reluctance of the instructor to steer him explicitly is the whole message of the book, at least the way I read it. That message of the book goes in the complete opposite direction of indoctrination, even if it is merely an expression of Herrigel's inability to understand that. Whether Herrigel truly learned and internalized that lesson or not, I cannot say; all I know is what he wrote in that little book. You decide. If he became a nazi then apparently the answer is no, he defaulted back to an engrained need to be told how to think.

Anyway, yes, I do teach, and I teach how to question what one is taught and how to find one's own answers. I do intentionally lay out a path for my students that will require them to do some mental musclework to arrive at answers that are satisfying and can be tested. I place a lot more emphasis in my classes on thought process than arriving at whatever answer I have in mind. I do not try to teach "facts and figures" as much as how to find them and how to test and prove them.

And yes, I do think that few people in academia spend enough time learning how to teach, and very few actually enjoy teaching.

How would this work for photography (which I also have taught)? Well I think that first and foremost people need to understand the history of the field and how it came to be what it is today. Second, I think the basic techniques should be so thoroughly mastered as to leave the student unencumbered. But these things can be done through a student's own exploration and not rammed down the throat.

I am in a field where for too long the approach has been to teach solutions before students have an interest in the problems; I do spend a fair amount of time on motivating critical thought.

You'll see nothing if you aren't looking. The question is, "What are you looking for?"

I think photographers see differently to most folks because of a process of intense looking.

Beyond merely identifying things in the visible environment and classifying them as threatening, edible, harmless, etc photographers find connections, parallels, and significances. A near equivalent is a poet's use of simile, metaphor, synecdoche, and metonymy.

This happens a lot to me; maybe it happens to you too. The 8x10 camera is set up and the scene is great: brilliant trees and reflections, an apocalyptic sky, leading lines everywhere, rivers of tonal gradations and then the kibitzer arrives.

"What are you photographing?" is the usual question. Quite often, even after detailing the scene for them and even giving them a look at the ground-glass (geez, it's upside down and in colour!) they still can't SEE what is worth a sheet of 8x10.

It's not that kibitzers are stupid. Their priorities are different: pay off the house, keep the car running, get the kids through school, that sort of thing. But when it comes to seeing, really seeing, photographers are unmatched by anyone else in the visual arts.

Anyway, yes, I do teach, and I teach how to question what one is taught and how to find one's own answers. I do intentionally lay out a path for my students that will require them to do some mental musclework to arrive at answers that are satisfying and can be tested. I place a lot more emphasis in my classes on thought process than arriving at whatever answer I have in mind. I do not try to teach "facts and figures" as much as how to find them and how to test and prove them.

Click to expand...

I had one teacher in 8th grade who tried to do this. Our class responded well and was learning (I think) and this teacher lasted just 2 years at that school.
My mom was told by my 1st grade teacher that I "marched to the beat of a different drummer." I don't know exactly what she meant by that, but I think most of the other teachers tried to drum that out of me. I know my elementary school art teacher did. I think that for awhile, it worked.

I agree with someone else who said it earlier that there is some component of seeing that is either there or isn't and that we can then develop it. Some have more of it than others at the start and have to put in less effort. The rest of us have more work to do. I think it's easy to go backwards in how we see if what we do for a living makes us look at things in one particular way (ie. analytically).
I'm now trying to relearn how to see. It's not that easy, but looking at things without a goal in mind seems to work better for me. If I have a preconceived image in mind, I won't find it or any other that's better. Any suggestions on how to learn to see at 40?

Ed Sukach said:

What I am suggesting is NOT the domination of either a sense of reality OVER that of esthetics, or vice versa; but a cultivation of BOTH.

Click to expand...

I would hope for the same thing. It would be entirely up to the individual to obtain this balance, as it is not fostered in US society at least. I suspect that you Europeans (those of you who are) have a different take on it. At least, I sure hope you do.

From my observations (mainly of myself!!), it is very difficult, and rare, that any of us survive into adulthood without major damage and surpression of our "childlike wonder".

Click to expand...

We don't survive without that damage even through elementary school, but parts linger awhile longer. There is a constant increasing toll. It is a rare and fortunate individual who can retain even a part of it. Getting it BACK is very hard, and actually, I think that our fascination with the toys of the trade may help. Perhaps one will take notice.

I really appreciate your candid sharing of your personal self observation. Having the capacity to observe the self, and having the desire to do so is very unusual.

Education is a wonderful thing! However, most of what we are taught now comes limited to certain boundaries. What we need are those who can modify our concepts of "proper limits".

Click to expand...

My desire is to set my students free. Most often, though, they are so conditioned that it is very hard to get them to notice. A retired colleague of mine once said "The trouble you're having, Larry, is that you are trying to engage their minds". He was, of course, smiling when he said it, having himself worked very hard at it his whole career.

Another great way to "restore" would be to again listen to Minor White, talking about everything EXCEPT photography. No one who worked with him could link what he was saying to photography; yet, over the course of time, their work changed...

Click to expand...

Hmmm. It would be worth a great deal for me to find out how his students have dealt with this over the intervening years. For a long time, it seemed like nobody talked about it unless it was in one of the "official" publications. Somehow, I doubt that the real stuff is there.

keithwms said:

And yes, I do think that few people in academia spend enough time learning how to teach, and very few actually enjoy teaching.

How would this work for photography (which I also have taught)? Well I think that first and foremost people need to understand the history of the field and how it came to be what it is today. Second, I think the basic techniques should be so thoroughly mastered as to leave the student unencumbered. But these things can be done through a student's own exploration and not rammed down the throat.

I am in a field where for too long the approach has been to teach solutions before students have an interest in the problems; I do spend a fair amount of time on motivating critical thought.

Click to expand...

Thanks for this. I am delighted with what you've said. We probably need another thread for this. There is a great deal to say about it.

I learned that my students do not see, and have, in general, no idea what seeing would be. For example, and a particularly poignant one, I once asked "What is real?" The answer I got was "We each get to make that up for ourselves." If that is what reality is, then seeing is not important at all, is it?

So I said, "That's great! The skin tone is perfect! In fact, it is so perfect that it matches precisely the value of that brushed aluminum lamp-post that is extending his head right out the top of the frame."[/QUOTE]

That's cold, what a way to learn.

It reminds me of grade school when someone shouts out, "Hey look his drawing is crooked" That person decides at that instant to never try to be artistic again and adopts the philosophy, "I'm not artistic", when they might have developed into the greatest living artist of their time.

In reality though who is going to tell the student about the pipe. They would loose confidence in the teacher if someone pointed it out later. Learning can be tough. At a well know school in Southern California there is a no punches pulled school that simply tears up the print or negative and doesn't allow anyone to see it.

Maybe discuss composition before printing? That's another discussion.

Why some have it from the start, IE AA, or someone who struggles for years to refine the craft is not easy to define. What about Grandma Moses who worked at the end of her life, did it take that long to learn, or did he always have what it and not use it?

http://www.answers.com/topic/grandma-moses?cat=entertainment

Maris said:

...
"What are you photographing?" is the usual question. Quite often, even after detailing the scene for them and even giving them a look at the ground-glass (geez, it's upside down and in colour!) they still can't SEE what is worth a sheet of 8x10.

Click to expand...

Nope. What it is with me is "What are you taking pictures of?" Answer: "I don't do of."

...when it comes to seeing, really seeing, photographers are unmatched by anyone else in the visual arts.

Click to expand...

Well, the best lesson I ever had in seeing was in art school, in a drawing class. Harold Jacobs, Cooper Union graduate, a new and I believe transient faculty member at the Portland (Oregon) Art Museum School. He put two eggs on a scoop of white paper inside a window admitting not northlight but similar. He had us draw it with charcoal. He showed us the reflections of the light from the shell of one egg to the shell of the other. I've never lost that. It has been 44 years.

winger said:

I had one teacher in 8th grade who tried to do this. Our class responded well and was learning (I think) and this teacher lasted just 2 years at that school.

....
I'm now trying to relearn how to see. It's not that easy, but looking at things without a goal in mind seems to work better for me. If I have a preconceived image in mind, I won't find it or any other that's better. Any suggestions on how to learn to see at 40?

Click to expand...

2 years is pretty good. Often they don't make it even that long. How have I survived in my job? By never being hired to a tenure track. I'm cheap, I'm good, I'm popular enough because I learned how to be entertaining soon enough to be able to survive.

Relearning to see; 40 is not too old. Actually, I don't think there is a too old. I'm 65. I don't know if this is the place for exercises, etc. but there are things that one can do.

Curt said:

Those who can do, those who can't teach.

Click to expand...

Well, have it your way.