Do we learn to see?

Well, have it your way.

Click to expand...

I apologize for the comment, it was totally uncalled for. I had just finished reading the following. A great teacher can change a persons life, literally, I had the opportunity to have a few great teachers.

http://beartracks.wordpress.com/2006/01/03/those-who-can-do-those-who-cant-teach-2/

Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. Those who can’t teach, counsel. Those who can’t counsel, administrate. Those who can’t administrate, enter data into the computer. Those who can’t enter data into the computer, take dictation. Those who can’t take dictation, alphabetize files. Those who can’t alphabetize files, answer the phone. Those who can’t answer the phone, fry hamburgers. Those who can’t fry hamburgers, run the cash register. Those who can’t run the cash register, wait on tables. Those who can’t wait on tables, carry dirty dishes to the kitchen. Those who can’t carry dirty dishes to the kitchen, wash the dirty dishes. Those who can’t wash dirty dishes, peel potatoes. Those who can’t peel potatoes, buff the floor. Those who can’t buff the floor, haul out the garbage. Those who can’t haul out the garbage, write poetry. Those who can’t write poetry, write clever letters to the editor. Those who can’t write clever letters to the editor, write angry letters to the editor. Those who can’t write angry letters to the editor, spray-paint graffiti. Those who can’t spray-paint graffiti, write screenplays. Those who can’t write screenplays, write TV scripts. Those who can’t write TV scripts, read scripts for the studios. Those who can’t read scripts for the studios, act. Those who can’t act, take acting classes. Those who can’t take acting classes, sing. Those who can’t sing, sing Rock’N'Roll. Those who can’t sing Rock’N'Roll, sing it anyway. Those who can’t sing it anyway, become depressed. Those who can’t become depressed, get bitter. Those who can’t get bitter, get confused. Those who can’t get confused, stay confused. Those who stay confused, find it difficult to complete unfinished sentences. Those who find it difficult to complete unfinished sentences, _____________. <!– D(["mb"," \n

rob champagne said:

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

Click to expand...

But sometimes you see the most when you are not looking for anything.

On the original question posted, can we learn to see, I answer yes, we can and must, if we are to thrive in this world. In terms of seeing the types of relationships that make a good photo (and here input your own set of criteria: dark and light, new and old, social meaning, textural contrasts, line, shape, form, whatever works for you...,) it is definitely a learned skill. I have been a painter and a teacher for all of my adult life and I have (I hope) never stopped learning to see in new ways. Kids teach me all the time.

Just think about the first time you made a print. You may have been focused on the details of the image, on the expression on your sitter's face, or on the grain, or on the composition of the work. Later on, you find that there is a richness in the darks of somebody else's work that you haven't yet achieved - a fact that you had not seen before. Now you look for it and are newly sensitized to the paper type you use, the developer and the processing you do. This leads to all sorts of newly acquired sensitivities in assessing your work. As has been said, we see what we are looking for. We have to learn what to look for.

As for talent, the ability to fine tune both perception and craft to the point of being perhaps uniquely able to communicate through your work - no, I don't think that can be taught. What talent we have, however, is at the mercy of the limitations we place on it by failing to learn.

I believe that truly seeing is that when you view something - close your eyes and you can feel what you just beheld.

I have learned to observe my ability to do this in the six years I've practiced photography. But I believe it was always latent within. It took a lot of practice to use that skill, though. And since I became aware of this ability and learned how to use it, my photography is better.
- Thomas

References to writings on seeing.

I am gradually learning to get around on this wonderful site; as you can see from my ID, I've been here maybe two months, now.

A few years back, I taught an online course that was supposed to be about digital imaging (I'll never teach online again!) but I quickly learned that my students couldn't see. What is the point in a course dealing with imaging if the students aren't prepared? I've had considerable training in seeing, and have thought a lot about it. I decided to really go for it, to explore the idea of "seeing" in a great deal of depth. So here are some references:

1. Plato's Republic, book 7 the Allegory of the Cave


2. My Ape Cave story.


3. Edwin Abbott's Flatland.


4. Dead Link Removed


5. Background, not part of the material, but an acquaintance with Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract would be helpful.

Thomas Bertilsson said:

I believe that truly seeing is that when you view something - close your eyes and you can feel what you just beheld.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

One of the exercises that I recently did with some students, which worked quite well, was to have them compose a photo, and then turn away, and then while I looked at it, I asked them to tell me what they saw. I recompose based on what they tell me and irritate them iteratively by showing them what they told me.

I'll give an example. Suppose the student composes a landscape picture and it has a lot of sky and I say, what is the most important thing in the scene and he/she just says, the sky. So I tilt the camera up to the sky. They look at the ground glass and say, what did you do to my shot? I say, all you said was you liked the sky. And so forth. Eventually they get their whole scene back but they have to work for it

Another exercise which I impose on myself, and which is particularly painful but effective, is to leave the camera(s) at home and take the shots purely mentally. There can really be something therapeutic about saying to yourself, okay, I am going on this scenic hike, and I am not going to take any photos. A variant of this gear-deprivation exercise is to limit myself to one and only one shot... per day or per week... also quite effective. But painful.

eddym said:

But sometimes you see the most when you are not looking for anything.

Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely, and I think the flip side of these exercises is that there is a real danger of excessively front-loading the composition. By that I mean, the shot can become overthought and contrived. I agree with you, Eddy, on the point that sometimes when you are totally liberated from needing to see something, that's when you can see best. When you're on-assignment, so to speak, there can be too much going on in your head to allow a scene to be itself. I am a compulsive front-loader, I cannot get a meaningful photograph unless it is more or less spontaneous. I overthink things to the point of comical absurdity, I tell you. The first shot on a roll is almost always my best. All the silly thought-bracketing is what costs me time and money. So I wrestle with that tendency to overthink and analyze and do wish I could let a scene be a scene... more often. with LF I have this issue most, and I try hard to build some spontaneity into it, but I have a ways to go.

The most important part of the question is: "Do we learn"

It is probably the case that a fair majority of us on APUG have learned to see, or can still learn to see more, or some combination of the foregoing, because we appreciate seeing - otherwise we wouldn't be interested in images (and therefore wouldn't be interested in photography.

I know that I learn to see just a little bit more, when I see a photo in a thread, or in the gallery, that strikes me as interesting!

Here's a segue: where is bjorke on this subject, and what does it take to convince him to become a subscriber?

P.S. IMHO bjorke posts photos that are as much about seeing as anyone here, although he is always in danger of being described as a dilletante as a result thereof.

P.P.S. I'm not usually interested in being troll-like, but I've been looking for an excuse to get more from bjorke for a loooong time .

Matt

I think it is both, perhaps more of one for some, and more of two for others.

Myself things with photographic appeal have always cought my eye, even if at the time I didn't always realize why I was drawn to them. But since I have become heavily involved with this as a hobby, the only thing I ever see is LIGHT. Light was always a way, as mentioned, to keep from running into things. Now if I see something nicely lit out of the corner of my eye it grabs my attention like nothing else. The most photographicly appealing subjects, if poorly lit, I often overlook. That is the part I need to train myself for; to see things and commit them to memory and plan to return with ideal light conditions, or design a way to light it myself.

When I am out with out my cameras (gasp) If I see what looks like a good photo shot, I like to put it in a "frame" (thumb 90 deg. to index or even 2 hands thumb to thumb ) extended @ arms length. It has worked for me on a number of applications. I especially notice
this as it applies to a zoom lens. Something might look good until you photograph it.

Another thing is I have "learnt to see" in black & white

I'm not sure that the ability to see can be taught, per se, but I know from personal experience that it is a skill that needs to be practiced in order to accomplish the best that one can do.

When I go into an intense period of photography - say a vacation or workshop - I find that the quality of the images that I see and capture improves over time. The first images are pretty pedestrian - I can almost sense that they were forced and perhaps even contrived. But as time (hours to days) go by, I sense that my images become more relaxed and natural. I suspect that the phenomenon is really a matter of my own sensitivity to the environment - initially I am trying too hard, but as I become more relaxed, I tend to see better.

Also, I find that seeing other work, either in galleries or by sharing work with others, my sensitivity to potential images improves. That's not necessarily a matter of copying what others have done, but rather is that by seeing other work, I become more aware of the translation between a life scene and the final print, and that helps me see how I can use that translation in my own work.

HI Larry ,

Why did you gone, done and did that?

Now I have to think ...and feel

Thank you for these increadible sources of read ...

ILYA

___________________________________________________________

bowzart said:

I am gradually learning to get around on this wonderful site; as you can see from my ID, I've been here maybe two months, now.

A few years back, I taught an online course that was supposed to be about digital imaging (I'll never teach online again!) but I quickly learned that my students couldn't see. What is the point in a course dealing with imaging if the students aren't prepared? I've had considerable training in seeing, and have thought a lot about it. I decided to really go for it, to explore the idea of "seeing" in a great deal of depth. So here are some references:

1. Plato's Republic, book 7 the Allegory of the Cave

This text is basic to a lot of western philosophy, but not that far from the eastern, either. Here's where I have a problem with "social brainwashing" - not in its presence, but in its place in the picture. While our inability to see results from such brainwashing, that brainwashing itself derives from the human condition (as I see it). It can't be avoided.​

2. My Ape Cave story.

This story reports a very memorable experience that I was fortunate to have while observing groups of people traveling through a pitch-dark lava tube. It has to do with how we perceive "reality", and how that perception determines what and how we see.​

3. Edwin Abbott's Flatland.

I think a lot of people may have read this. If not, it is an easy read, and lots of fun. Women readers: Abbott's characters are 2 dimensional geometric shapes that correspond with their class, but women are simply straight lines. Lots of women get quite incensed at this. What I know about this is that Abbott was an early feminist. He was using this to chide Victorian society about its hypocrisy. Just how this would have that result, I don't know. I think it must be hard for us in our time to understand the Victorian mind.​

4. Dead Link Removed

This, of course, is very controversial, but I thought it would challenge the mind (certainly did mine!) concerning just what it is to be human, and how our perceptions are conditioned by the circumstances of our origin. There were some arguments! One man argued against the existence of feral children even as he described his experience with a girl who had been confined in a cage with dogs for the first few years of her life. Emotions get pretty hot on this topic.​

5. Background, not part of the material, but an acquaintance with Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract would be helpful.

Click to expand...

Ilya!

I try to irritate people as much as possible and you are an excellent irritation candidate! Hope you find it interesting (I bet you will).

L.

I've posted an article under "photographers" regarding Minor White's methods of teaching "seeing".

I don't think that teaching art is possible, really, and neither is it really possible to teach "seeing" but it is possible to learn to see. In order for that to happen, it can be helpful for one to be in an environment that supports it.

I hope someone will find the article useful.

Interesting thread!!! ... to say the least!

As a result of my involvement here, I have been reconsidering "What I Do" in photography.

First, my "mission", target? - goal?"

To discover, capture - and enjoy - bright, sparkly, pebble/ photographs ... with pretty swirls ...

I previously wrote about a "correlation" between lens design and the success of the photographs made with them - expressing my opinion that, "That correlation can't be great".
If so ... the question arises, "What correlation DOES exist between the photographs that I produce that are "successful" and those that are not, or are less successful"?

Porig over some of my previous work, I realized how difficult it is to describe the parameters of "success". To me, the most overwhelmingly important characteristic is the amount of "life" - the emotional "message" that the photograph radiates and infuses in me. "Seeing", in its usual sense - visual stimulation - falls short, far short, of describing that activity. Possibly "sensing" or "experiencing" would be better ....

What really seems to be the deciding factor ... I think .. Is "What was happening at the time, and how I was responding - my emotional state - at the time."

I have produced photographs where I have expended tremendous energy in "getting EVERYTHING RIGHT!"; others that were spontaneous captures of scenes that flashed before my eyes with very little conscious thought; and others, from a decidedly "pre-conscious level" - as far as I can determine - NO "conscoius" involvement (ofher than basic preparation) whatever.

There seems to be a strong correlation between my emotional sate - my BEST work occurs when I am "Up" - excited, energized, .... call it euphoric... and degrades closely as that state descends toward boredom, drudgery, doing what I HAVE to do.

One case in point ... Many years ago I was approached by someone who I considered to be a friend; there was a Chamber Music Ensemble (hint: when you hear the word "ensemble" - RUN like hell!!) who wanted PR and News photography. They were to perform at a local library. I suggested doing the photography separate from the perfomance - before? - not possible - they would be arriving at the last minute. After? No, that would interfere with the following reception. They would leave for Montreal early the next morning.
After all this discussion with their manager, It was understood that I would have to work WHILE they were performing.
We started ... shortly, the performance stopped ... they simply could NOT play with that flashgun going off, a fact they did not hesitate to communicate to me, and everyone else present.
Fine, load high speed black and white film, shut off the flash, and continue. Ten minutes later - stop again - they could not perform with the noise of the Hasselblad shutter going off!

During all this, my emotional state deteriorated from initial enthusiasm/ excitement to a sense of "being out of place" and the embarassment of beng someone "interfering."
What is interesting here is the quality of the work I produced. I can easily see where, as the time went by and the relation between me and the "ensemble" broke down, my satisfaction with the "success" of the work dropped accordingly.

So - emotion and success - linked. Just how to use this information - I'm not sure... Possibly excercises in medatation and relaxation... At any rate, recognizing the effect of "mood" ... and taking apprprialte measures ...???

Enough for now - One of my longest posts - ever.

Ed Sukach said:

We started ... shortly, the performance stopped ... they simply could NOT play with that flashgun going off, a fact they did not hesitate to communicate to me, and everyone else present.
Fine, load high speed black and white film, shut off the flash, and continue. Ten minutes later - stop again - they could not perform with the noise of the Hasselblad shutter going off!

Click to expand...

A friend of mine recounts photographing at a Keith Jarrett concert. Keith came to a rest, the mirror of the Minolta SRT slapped, and the audience got a lecture until he felt like playing the piano again.

I've done a lot of this kind of stuff (with a leica, no flash) and it introduces YET ANOTHER element of "seeing" -- how do you anticipate facial expression changes, where someone's hand is going to be, etc. I have found that if I spend some time and film learning a person or a situation, I can often anticipate quite well, but it isn't a conscious thing. It is a sort of attunement of my own rhythms with that of whatever is going on. Is that "seeing"? It isn't just visual, but certainly depends upon visual cues.

bowzart said:

I've done a lot of this kind of stuff (with a leica, no flash) and it introduces YET ANOTHER element of "seeing" -- how do you anticipate facial expression changes, where someone's hand is going to be, etc. I have found that if I spend some time and film learning a person or a situation, I can often anticipate quite well, but it isn't a conscious thing. It is a sort of attunement of my own rhythms with that of whatever is going on. Is that "seeing"? It isn't just visual, but certainly depends upon visual cues.

Click to expand...

I've been shooting dance and theater with a Leica for almost 24 years. It is indeed the ideal tool for the job, and I can identify with your "atunement with whatever is going on. It is, to me, a holistic experience: the dark theater, the music, the movement, my concentration and attempt to see what is going to happen just before it does... everything.

Unfortunately, most of my clients are now requiring me to shoot that D stuff. I hate it, but I have to please them.

eddym said:

I've been shooting dance and theater with a Leica for almost 24 years. It is indeed the ideal tool for the job, and I can identify with your "atunement with whatever is going on. It is, to me, a holistic experience: the dark theater, the music, the movement, my concentration and attempt to see what is going to happen just before it does... everything.

Unfortunately, most of my clients are now requiring me to shoot that D stuff. I hate it, but I have to please them.

Click to expand...

I guess you are a candidate for an M8, huh? My wife has the Panaleica L1 which has something a similar same gestalt. My older Panaleica LC1 is better yet, but the files are too small.

But NOTHING even comes close to the M series for this sort of work. Where wasn't it Blake who said "I see through my eyes, not with them" I can say "I see through my camera, not with it" with my M. Not so with the reflex. There, you don't see through the camera. After the fact, you see what it got.

Speaking of Learning to See -- With the reflex, it goes dark when you need to see most, because you need to learn from how close you came last time to close in on it next time.

It is interesting how individual performers vary. I've been shooting poets reading the last few years. Some of them are animated, and I can learn their movements fairly easily. Others are deadpan, then punctuate the monotony with moments of brilliant expression. Those are the hard ones.

Stephen Frizza said:

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?

Click to expand...

I believe, you're either born with it, or you're not. Some people just have a natural "eye" for what makes an image work.

There are very few who could be "taught", but I believe that's merely bringing out a natural talent they were aware of, due to their monetary or social environment.

Merely change the word "photographer" to "musician", and that's a whole other can of worms. Does anybody here believe the Beatles could have been "taught" to be a great as they are? None could read/write notation, but their songs are still with us today.

Same as with Mozart, a child prodigy. Able to write notation merely by filling in the notes (no instrument required to "find" the notes.

I'll close with my original thought: you're either born with it or you're not.

Rolleijoe

Rolleijoe said:

Does anybody here believe the Beatles could have been "taught" to be a great as they are? None could read/write notation, but their songs are still with us today.

Same as with Mozart, a child prodigy. Able to write notation merely by filling in the notes (no instrument required to "find" the notes.

Click to expand...

I, for one, believe the Beatles did not came completely formed, athena-like from the forehead of Liverpool. How many years did they spend covering up other Rock & Roll songs in divy places across Europe, notably Germany? How many hours must have they spent besides the Electrophone spinning 45 RPM records to hear what was up and current? And how many times did Mozart's father kicked him in the butt for not doing his scales?

Nothwithstanding the excellence those two people have achieved, and the fact that they are indeed one big notch above the other perhaps because of biological/cognitive reasons, it remains that the question at hand here is not "can I become a genius?" but rather "can I learn to see?"

Being a genius is a tough job, and few are called. But there are a lot among us here who have learned to see, even though we are not the Mozarts of photography. And it remains that a genius without practice, encouragement, and support, is nothing. Elevating existing geniuses on a pedestal does nothing to foster the arts at large in a population and only pursues an elitist vision of entitlement for the gifted few.

rob champagne said:

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

Click to expand...

Another brilliant small quote in this wonderful thread that is worth repeating...

As I have also practised art forms other than photography, including drawing, painting, and sculpting, I feel that each form of art teaches a different way of seeing.

- Photography taught me the rules of composition...

- Drawing taught me to *really* look... You can look at a subject for hours, yet still not grasp it's true essence of form or nature of being. Drawing teaches you that...

- Painting taught me the nature and function of colours and light in our world...

- Sculpting taught me three dimensionality, and the effect of light on three dimensionality... In fact, where there is no directional light there is no form... Even though I had had many lessons of drawing before I started sculpting, sculpting based on life human models immediately and instinctively forced me to walk around subjects... a new way of approaching a subject.

And there is cross-over... since I have sculpted, I have become more mobile with photography too, viewing a photographic subject from all angles before deciding on the final shot.

I do think, unless you practice multiple art-forms, you are unlikely to "see" the whole picture, even though you learned one "trick"...

Stephen Frizza said:

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?

Click to expand...

Just this thought - 50 and more years ago, the average snapshotter used to make pictures with tiny figures in a sea of background, and it used to take quite some time before they would learn to move in close. Pundits who wrote in photo magazines, camera-club judges etc. made whole careers of wielding L-cards and showing how tighter crops made pictures better. Modern kids who grow up with wall-to-wall TV, video etc. don't do this - even very small children taking their first pictures fill the frame and generally display great visual sophistication!

There was an interesting study I saw about a year back comparing how artists looked at a picture, as opposed to laymen. The study tracked the eye movements to determine where people were looking. Laymen looked at people's faces, and that was pretty much it. Artists scanned the whole picture, paying particular attention to patterns and textures. They hardly paid any attention to faces.

This matches my own experience. Most people seem incapable of taking a picture that doesn't have a face in it. I'm always asked how I can take pictures that "look like postcards".

thuggins said:

There was an interesting study I saw about a year back comparing how artists looked at a picture, as opposed to laymen. The study tracked the eye movements to determine where people were looking. Laymen looked at people's faces, and that was pretty much it. Artists scanned the whole picture, paying particular attention to patterns and textures. They hardly paid any attention to faces.

This matches my own experience. Most people seem incapable of taking a picture that doesn't have a face in it. I'm always asked how I can take pictures that "look like postcards".

Click to expand...

This matches my experience, too. I used to get the "postcard" comment quite often and wasn't always sure if it was a compliment or not.
And yesterday I was at a nearby state park at a waterfall with my 4x5 (for the second time) and was waiting patiently for people to move so I could take a shot. The guy who was asking me about the camera seemed surprised that I wanted the shot without people.

we all know how to see, but we forgot and had to remember.