Is a great photographer born with it???

[Q.G.]

keithwms,what really helped me in high school math was taking electronics and drafting which held my interest ,using math in those classes was just a technical tool that was understandable necessary,but the interest was in drifting and electronics.I suppose in photography its the same,love the idea of making a beautiful image makes the technical part of it more compatible . So is the passion or interest considered Talent,it has to be a great part of it.If there is great passion or interest and have access ,then more time is spent doing it.
Mike

That's it.
I do think it indeed is interest, curiosity, fascination, passion.
And application.
The boring, tedious, hard bits become manageable first, easy later when you know why they are needed, and when you know you have to have those too to get what you want.

Nothing innate.
Not even that interest, curiosity, fascination or passion.

 

[M4cr0s]

I read some articles in various (serious) scientific magazines lately on the concept of "genius" that I personally found realistic and probable. Examples they used was fields such as mathematics, or excelling at an instrument or sports. The theory pushed was basically that ~10 years worth of training, or ~40 000 hours are needed to achieve excellence in a field. As I recall the explanation was partly physiological, it simply takes a long time to burn really deep/solid neural pathways.

That someone seem to be born with a special skill or ability within a field does not change this I think. There may be exceptions to the rule, but that alone do not change the general tendency. Most artists, scholars, musicians and so forth I know of, have spent an unholy amount of time doing what they love, which is also the reason they are so good at it. Raw talent may produce incredible results occasionally, but cannot do so consistently. Only excessive training and experience gives the ability to reproduce.

Think about it, for instance, why do most soccer players really blossom in their late teens, early 20s? Most started doing their "thing" at the age of 6-12. Ten years later countless hours of kicking that ball around combined with mental and physical maturity seem to take hold and they start to do really well, regularly. Or, another example, chess players, most of the really good ones seem to "pop" around the age of 20, which fits quite perfectly with the 10-year "rule".

..on the other hand, after living with women for 10 years I still suck at handling them.. ;-)

Mac

 

[sun of sand]

I don't believe in bad apples and I don't believe in god given gifts

 

[2F/2F]

IMO, they are born with it, raised to it, and practice it a lot. A combination of natural proclivity (perhaps brain chemistry during fetal development is involved), influences in youth (visual, academic, social, literary, philosophical, mood, temperament, communication skills and style, etc.), and then some plain-ol' hard work...but you need at least some of all three, IMO. (No getting "great" on hard work alone is what I mean.)

What really pains me is not how many photographers there are practicing who do not have a natural gift for it.....but how many naturally-talented visual artists there are out there who never "seriously" pick up a camera in their lives, or any visual art medium, for that matter.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

2F/2F's post above is the best of the theories, in particular, mention of influences in youth, where sensory pathways are heavily stimulated; I know this through my work with gifted and talented children, not many of whom pick up a camera, but who as visual/spatial learners are more in tune with their environment, can interpret it and in some later cases, commit a vision to media.

There are a score of people who pay a fortune to go through University art school and drift over time to the fringes (without graduating) and come up with stuff that has little relevance to art, stimulation or intellectual debate; only those that are disciplined and in touch with the information coming in will be successful.

And lastly, individuals who have lost a sensory faculty will often do extremely well in the arts e.g. those who are deaf will often excel in visual arts; those who are blind will find their way in music.

 

[Maris]

The actual photographs, provided they are competently done and reflect the maker's intention, are necessary but not sufficient for greatness. So many photographers, even here on APUG, produce work of an aesthetic, intellectual, emotional, and technical standard equal to or better than that of the "greats" but greatness will pass them by.

Photographers become popular through acclaim.
Photographers become great by a continuing consensus of scholarly acclaim.

Some "greats", Henri Cartier-Bresson for example, produced nothing visible, just film exposures, but are still lionised. Brett Weston, on the other hand, produced everything we see with his name on it. Both may be "great" but their greatness reflects different values and virtues.

 

[36cm2]

Thanks for all the responses. I've taken them to heart and they've been very motivating. I most closely subscribe to 2F/2F's view, but I'm encouraged by most posters' belief that great successes come more from nurture than from nature.

 

[MikeSeb]

We Americans. especially, hate the anti-egalitarian truth that not everyone is born equally gifted.

The greats are born with something, often undefinable, that separates them from their more ordinary brethren. Of course, work and practice are required to realize this potential; but work alone is not sufficient.

The Salieri/Mozart example is spot-on.

 

[Tony Egan]

I think the "greats" also took/take greater risks. Whether it be physical, financial, social, critical risk, very few played it safe. Someone mentioned fear earlier in the post. I think this is a vital element in differentiating the greats from the "work-hards". The greats were/are more fearless.
Now, is that fearlessness a product of nature or nurture? A bit of both I suspect.

 

[Videbaek]

I agree with Tony. Some are born with innate talent, but it takes a lot of hard work to reach the pinnacle of an artform (or of physics, or chemistry, or cabinet-making, or history...). Even then, one may be merely competent, refining what has been done before, and unable to find the sparks of originality which take the artform forward, to in turn influence others, and so keep the artform vital and important. This is what separates the great artist from the competent artist. The great artist cares nothing for critical opinion, the opinion of the public, or the opinion of peers, being completely preoccupied with his or her own vision, which exceeds that of his or her greatest predecessors, and obsessed with finding the ways to express that vision, stopping at nothing on the journey.

 

[Galah]

This being said, how much of our artistic photographic skill do you believe is innate vs. learned?

Well, in the words of a US President, " You can put lipstick on a pig, but...."

 

[clayne]

I do not think a great photographer is born with it. For one, great is both relative to perception AND what aspect they might be great at. One photographer might have a better knack at seeing something than another photographer - however they both may be quite adept with their preferred subjects/mediums.

I will say, in my opinion, I believe the ability to "see" is at most a result of product of environment, but more pragmatically, well-honed observational skills. Framing, composition, it's all monkey business at a certain point - as long as you can click a shutter. But knowing when to click is the specific thing I think we're talking about at the core (more applicable to people).

 

[jovo]

...Sorry to all you classical music lovers but Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, etcetera... suck. Their work, and almost all of their followers work, is truly boring. It may be technically astute but so what.

.

This is perhaps the most singularly ignorant utterance i've ever encountered by anyone outloud..but...opinions are legally permitted about anything in the USA. Yikes!

Picasso, I believe, said something to the effect that all children are born artists...the challenge is to maintain that state into adulthood.

I remember a gifted colleague saying that the attribution "talented" should not persist into adulthood. At that point, you are either accomplished, or trying your best to become accomplished, but your potential is no longer relevant. And, a la Yoda: "Do, or do not! There is no try."

 

[nolanr66]

I believe that an interested person can become very skilled but the naturally gifted person has it wired in. Many times accompanied with a touch of Autism.

 

[alanrockwood]

I encourage you all to study a little about "Talent Education" an educational philosophy originated by Shin'ichi Suzuki. It is usually thought of in the context of music education, but I think it has a lot of relevance to the present discussion.

I'll let others comment further.

 

[removed-user-1]

Defining someone as talented is a purely subjective exercise. ... My point is that our preferences define who we each think has talent.

Not necessarily. For instance, I can appreciate the quality of music that Johnny Cash wrote and performed without actually liking country music. I can recognize his talent without it speaking to me personally. This what I think you mean when you say that Bach bores you; without Bach, we would never have had Liszt, and without him, who knows where modern keyboard technique would have gone? But I digress...

I can't remember where I read this but somewhere I stumbled across a quote that I'm paraphrasing here: photographers don't mature until their late 30's, unlike many other artists who often do their best work in their youth. Does anyone recall the author of this thought?

 

[clayne]

I can't remember where I read this but somewhere I stumbled across a quote that I'm paraphrasing here: photographers don't mature until their late 30's, unlike many other artists who often do their best work in their youth. Does anyone recall the author of this thought?

I don't, but I generally agree that it makes sense. It also agrees with what I was saying about observational skills. As we become older we actually, not surprisingly, start to understand the world around us more. As such there's probably a good link between world wisdom and what/how one sees.

 

[Existing Light]

I can't remember where I read this but somewhere I stumbled across a quote that I'm paraphrasing here: photographers don't mature until their late 30's, unlike many other artists who often do their best work in their youth. Does anyone recall the author of this thought?

Didnt Ansel Adam's say something similar? Something along the lines of "it takes a photographer 15 years to master the craft?" Makes me wish I started photography 15 years ago instead of 3

 

[Ed Sukach]

Picasso, I believe, said something to the effect that all children are born artists...the challenge is to maintain that state into adulthood.

I can't agree more!

When you think of all the negativism society wraps around everyone doing art, it is nothing short of a miracle that any of us survive.
Somehow - in some way - SOME of us survive - to create wonderful work.

In writing this, I struggled with the idea of the "Great" omes. I don't have a clue as to how to tell them from the "not so great"? or - "ordinary" ?

We - ALL of us - have the capacity - "nature". Some of us are negatively affected by "nurture"

I've read a lot about how difficult it is - how doing art is a monumental struggle. In truth, nearly ALL of the great works of art were products of joy - or, possibly more accurately, exuberance! The factors that motivated the work, in some way, were THERE! - and the work appeared more effortlessly and automatically, than not.

 

[keithwms]

Well, with all due respect to Picasso, I don't care to look back nostalgically at my youth and lament each passing moment

But this reminds me of a comment in an interview with Kertész: "Technique isn't important, go on and make mistakes. I've been making mistakes since 1912." There is some playful, childlike, exploratory aspect to that way of thinking, a sort of damn-the-consequences free spirit. If that is what Picasso then I understand it better. But it does not mean that children have more insight or more experience to impart.

Anyway, I'll just say that there seems to be a correlation between major social upheaval and the greatest advances in thinking- art included. I see no formal difference between art and language: we are actually anatomically hard-wired and compelled to communicate our thoughts. And when ordinary language doesn't say what needs to be said, art emerges. It has to: we need it. It's the new language we have to invent to survive.

 

[markbarendt]

This is perhaps the most singularly ignorant utterance i've ever encountered by anyone outloud..but...opinions are legally permitted about anything in the USA. Yikes!

My point jovo, is that judging "talent" is purely subjective just as beauty is always relative to the interest of the beholder.

Our personal biases drive what we each see as truly special versus what we see as nothing more than technical prowess.

 

[Ed Sukach]

BThere is some playful, childlike, exploratory aspect to that way of thinking, a sort of damn-the-consequences free spirit. If that is what Picasso then I understand it better. But it does not mean that children have more insight or more experience to impart.

That "childlike, exploratory, damn-the-consequecs" attitude is, In My Humble Opinion, the way to go!! If you have that mindset, everything else fades in importance.

Anyway, I'll just say that there seems to be a correlation between major social upheaval and the greatest advances in thinking- art included. I see no formal difference between art and language: we are actually anatomically hard-wired and compelled to communicate our thoughts. And when ordinary language doesn't say what needs to be said, art emerges. It has to: we need it. It's the new language we have to invent to survive.

Agreed! This is a most useful and interesting observation.

I think we NEED a "social upheaval". Art, again, IMHO, is stagnating. There are few examples of off-the-wall, - damn it - OUTRAGEOUS works being done.

I miss the "Beat" generation.

 

[Tony Egan]

This is perhaps the most singularly ignorant utterance i've ever encountered by anyone outloud..but...opinions are legally permitted about anything in the USA... Yikes!

Oh come on John, he cited Olivia Newton John as a great talent (and in the same sentence as the Beatles) That surely was a dead give away his tongue was firmly in his cheek!

 

[markbarendt]

Not necessarily. For instance, I can appreciate the quality of music that Johnny Cash wrote and performed without actually liking country music. I can recognize his talent without it speaking to me personally. This what I think you mean when you say that Bach bores you;

I can't. A few of the stories he wrote into his music are cute but that's the end of it. For me there is nothing about his voice or his musical skills that I find redeeming.

without Bach, we would never have had Liszt, and without him, who knows where modern keyboard technique would have gone?

I think you are overemphasizing the effect an individual artist or two has in how history turns out.

Would it matter to us if Tesla's vision had "won" over Edison's with regard to electricity. Sure our progression might have been different, but the physics remain the same, as does the human spirit; we would still have electricity.

Similarly with music, the historical progression would have been different without Bach or Liszt, but we would have music.

 

[markbarendt]

I think we NEED a "social upheaval". Art, again, IMHO, is stagnating.

Yes, yes, yes.