Moving from technique, form and equipment to art???

[Q.G.]

i never understand why people insist that there is a craft to using a camera, processing + printing ... it is technique and skill.
once one understands the technique and modifies it to fit their own needs, and improvises, it becomes "art".

is it a "craft" because it is made by hand ?? sorry for my confusion ...

I think the confusion is not yours. (But you know that.)

It would appear that very many confuse being able to do something well and showing that they mastered a skill (craft) with art.
They are, of course, two entirely different things.

 

[stradibarrius]

I think this is an excellent discussion!!!! Many great valid points being made. This what I hoped would happen.

 

[zenrhino]

I messed around with cameras and techniques for years and years. Since I've finally decided on a format and method of working, I am finally able to really work on seeing.
juan

I think you hit it right on the head.

 

[lxdude]

I actually feel like the simplcity of shooting with my newly aquired Rolleix has helped me walk across the bridge into the more artistic side. I am feeling with a fixed lens high qulality machine that gives me options I need, I no longer make the technical stuff a worry at all when I am shooting. I am just concerned about getting my visions painted onto the film. I will always be interested in the techinal stuff though as is naturally my nature with everything but I am now making art more than ever.

Patrick, my young friend, you have become wiser than some several times your age.

 

[2F/2F]

I get what you are saying, but the way I see it, the amount of technique one needs to learn in order to get started with expressing concepts with the camera is minimal; much, much, much more minimal than almost any other artistic medium, IMO. The basic techniques take about a day to explain to a group of students (composing, how shutter speeds and apertures affect the picture, exposure, how light meters work and how to use them, focusing, depth of field). Then it is just a little practice, and you can start expressing concepts visually. The great (and terrible) thing about photography is that you can do a whole lot with it if you have just a little bit of very basic information.

So, I think there is an initial technical hurdle that takes just a little bit of understanding and practice, but after that, most of the visual vocabulary is complete, and there are just bits and pieces to learn as you go on practicing.

I believe "artistry" is mainly something that is a characteristic of a person, and has little to do with medium or technique. These things simply hone and focus ones artistry. I don't think that you can become an artist just because you start using a medium that is used for making art.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I agree with this completely

I get what you are saying, but the way I see it, the amount of technique one needs to learn in order to get started with expressing concepts with the camera is minimal; much, much, much more minimal than almost any other artistic medium, IMO. The basic techniques take about a day to explain to a group of students (composing, how shutter speeds and apertures affect the picture, exposure, how light meters work and how to use them, focusing, depth of field). Then it is just a little practice, and you can start expressing concepts visually. The great (and terrible) thing about photography is that you can do a whole lot with it if you have just a little bit of very basic information.

So, I think there is an initial technical hurdle that takes just a little bit of understanding and practice, but after that, most of the visual vocabulary is complete, and there are just bits and pieces to learn as you go on practicing.

I believe "artistry" is mainly something that is a characteristic of a person, and has little to do with medium or technique. These things simply hone and focus ones artistry. I don't think that you can become an artist just because you start using a medium that is used for making art.

 

[Ian Leake]

I suspect that it's harder to learn what you want to say, than it is to learn the technical skills which will enable you to say it.

 

[Ian David]

I too think that 2F has hit the nail on the head. Perfection of craft/technique/skill, the making of 10000 negatives, etc, may certainly aid one's ability to make a certain kind of art or even art generally. But it is clearly possible to produce powerful photographic art with a limited or narrow technical mastery.

Often, I think, an obsession with technical mastery simply helps those of us who are not great artists to bridge the gap slightly, or at least allows us to pretend to ourselves that we are bridging the gap

Ian

 

[Q.G.]

I too think that 2F has hit the nail on the head. Perfection of craft/technique/skill, the making of 10000 negatives, etc, may certainly aid one's ability to make a certain kind of art or even art generally. But it is clearly possible to produce powerful photographic art with a limited or narrow technical mastery.

Often, I think, an obsession with technical mastery simply helps those of us who are not great artists to bridge the gap slightly, or at least allows us to pretend to ourselves that we are bridging the gap

Ian

I'd still say that if you try to bridge the gap (even slightly), or even pretend to do so, by obsessing about technique, you are wasting your time.

 

[Ian Leake]

I'd still say that if you try to bridge the gap (even slightly), or even pretend to do so, by obsessing about technique, you are wasting your time.

Well you should still strive to make the highest quality work you can. That way your technical skills will improve; and this will give you more options. But you shouldn't allow the search for technical skills to become the object of your work, which should should remain art making.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Interesting discussion!!!

For ME ... I have given up the quest for "mastery" - of anything - a long time ago. I can't define, nor can I come up with any sort of concept of "mastery". After 10,000 images, or 100,000 - or ten - does some deity materialize out of thin air and write "Master of ..." on your forehead? Or do you experience some sort of mystical epiphany where a loud voice speaks the word "Master" to you?

Even if all this does happen - so what? Will you then be transferred into some sort of infallable... (searching here - I don't now of any beings on this earthly plane that are infallable).

I've been at this for a while. I honestly do not consider myself anywhere nearer to "mastery" than when I started ... and (brace yourselves...) I not only do not care, but I think additional effort to that end only saps my energy - energy that can be exerted in finding the areas and circumstances where "seeing" will be effortless and - more or less - automatic.

I remember one of the most informed people I've ever met - the Instructor in Psyche 101 - considered by his peers to be at the top of the pyramid - "I've been studying Psychology for more than thirty years. Recently I've begun to realize how little I know."

I DO photography. Every once in a while, I get a good one. There are enough of the good ones to make the entire effort worthwhile - more than enough.

 

[Q.G.]

Well you should still strive to make the highest quality work you can. That way your technical skills will improve; and this will give you more options. But you shouldn't allow the search for technical skills to become the object of your work, which should should remain art making.

It will give you more options, but do nothing to your artistic skills.
Skill in using tools does not lead to artistry. That is drawn from something quite different entirely.

 

[wclark5179]

When you are talking, do you have to think about the words you use, from the standpoint of pronouncing them, formulating the words & sentences, getting your point across? Get the picture? I believe you'll find most of us speak, especially in our native language, without thinking about it. Words can flow out of the mouth because we know the underlying way to pronounce them as well as the meaning, getting our point across. Most of us pay attention to other things, like gestures, when talking.

Same for photography. If I can get the basics down with people photography, so well it's a part of me like speaking and I see it just like we annunciate our words, then I can focus on other things, which to me, are more important. It takes a lot of work to get to that point. Are you up for it? It's not easy.

People feel they don't need to learn the basics anymore. I hear them say, "I can do my own thing, I will get the moment and record it!" Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Fix it in PS or the darkroom! Maybe luck will get you a photograph every once in while. I've found the old adage to be true, "the harder I work the luckier I get!" I'm always sharpening, honing my basics and technical skills but I don't do it with a client. Perhaps that's a little kernal of wisdom to take in as to why I'm still very busy.

At any rate, the basics are important, very important. How are you going to break the rules if someone doesn't know them in the first place?

 

[MattKing]

Technique, form, equipment - they are all means that permit you to translate what you see and feel into a result. That result may indeed be art.

Even if the result isn't art, it certainly can be of value.

 

[Ian Leake]

It will give you more options, but do nothing to your artistic skills.
Skill in using tools does not lead to artistry. That is drawn from something quite different entirely.

I completely agree. Your artistic skills develop from making art; and these are not the same as technical skills.

 

[markbarendt]

Well you should still strive to make the highest quality work you can. That way your technical skills will improve; and this will give you more options. But you shouldn't allow the search for technical skills to become the object of your work, which should should remain art making.

http://kottke.org/08/08/photographer-miroslav-tichy

Or not.

 

[Ian Leake]

http://kottke.org/08/08/photographer-miroslav-tichy

Or not.

Miroslav Tichy was the exception that proves the rule

 

[Ian Leake]

Of course the level of technical skill you need depends on what you're trying to achieve. But if you want an audience then you'd better be good enough to satisfy them. (Tichy wasn't looking for an audience so he's a special case.)

For example, are your technical skills (exposure, development, printing, etc.) good enough to enable you to consistently make satisfying prints? And do they satisfy both you and your potential audience? If not, then you probably need to gain more technical skills. Or are there specific situations in which you'd like to be able to make something but currently can't? If there are, then it's probably worth learning some more technical skills.

But if the making is its own reward, or if both you and your audience are satisfied with what you make, then searching for more technical skills is at best an academic exercise and at worst a distraction.

 

[markbarendt]

How have you discerned that Tichy wasn't looking for an audience/market/way to make a living off his art?

 

[markbarendt]

...if both you and your audience are satisfied with what you make, then searching for more technical skills is at best an academic exercise and at worst a distraction.

Or a hobby.

I do agree with that thought, in a business sense.

 

[Ian Leake]

How have you discerned that Tichy wasn't looking for an audience/market/way to make a living off his art?

I went to the Tichy exhibition in Frankfurt a couple of years ago. He was an archetypal loner, he made vast numbers of pictures but they were stored in boxes and never exhibited until very late in the day, he chased a journalist away with an axe.

Afterthought:

Just to clarify, by 'stored in boxes' I mean dumped any old how around his shack: in boxes, on the floor, and anywhere else that they fell.

After-afterthought:

His photos were fascinating and compulsive to look at. Here's what I said at the time:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[lxdude]

he chased a journalist away with an axe.

He may be a little nutty, but he's got his priorities straight!

 

[phaedrus]

As 2F/2F says, there a very limited minimum set of skills needed to work in photography. Artists out of other fields take up photography all the time, often with results humbling the technique-enamoured amateur.
So, once you got the basics down pat, it's just a question about wanting to do art. There are creative techniques, too. Looking, hearing, feeling, experiencing artworks with the expectation of a synesthetic experience is one. Project work is another. This is, sadly, less often taught than technical skills. I suspect it's because no equipment sales come out of it

 

[Ian Grant]

i never understand why people insist that there is a craft to using a camera, processing + printing ... it is technique and skill.
once one understands the technique and modifies it to fit their own needs, and improvises, it becomes "art".

is it a "craft" because it is made by hand ?? sorry for my confusion ...

Craft [Noun] - The skilled practice of a practical occupation

So in our terms John - Craft - is technique and skill (Craft [Verb] is the hand made bit, not really used that way in photography)

However it's still just craft as you learn & improve skills, and understand more, not everyone (any field) with good or even great craft is going to produce art.

I messed around with cameras and techniques for years and years. Since I've finally decided on a format and method of working, I am finally able to really work on seeing.
juan

I think you hit the nail on the head here, and 2F/2F, Bob Carnie, etc's comments tie in and follow on.


The basic craft isn't difficult and it's quite simple, it's just having the discipline to learn how to get the best from one at the most two films initially, and a developer, and of course the equipment used.

This always starts with the negative because with a good negative you have the possibility of interpreting it in different ways in the darkroom.

There are international renowned artist/photographers who have worked that way for years, and a good example is John Blakemore who shoots only FP4 processed in ID-11 for his early landscapes and later still life work (5x4). He works differently with 35mm using HP5 but again in ID-11. A simple choice but John's honing of technique, choice of exposure & development gives him immense freedom to produce amazing work. (Worth listening to the Audio link on this page http://www.lensculture.com/blakemore.html#)

Salgado was working just as simply usually with one film Tri-X, now also 6x7 as well as 35mm, and I think his work was lab processed to his directions. He now shoots digital.

Two very different ways of working, and in John's case total mastery of the negative stage, which carries on through in his printing skills as well.

As 2F/2F says, there a very limited minimum set of skills needed to work in photography. Artists out of other fields take up photography all the time, often with results humbling the technique-enamoured amateur. So, once you got the basics down pat, it's just a question about wanting to do art. There are creative techniques, too. Looking, hearing, feeling, experiencing artworks with the expectation of a synesthetic experience is one. Project work is another. This is, sadly, less often taught than technical skills. I suspect it's because no equipment sales come out of it

Perhaps artists from other fields understand the importance of honing basic skills quickly, so they can get on with using the medium creatively.

The easiest way to learn to hone the core skills is on a workshop, a good one integrates the craft alongside the art/photography of a leading photographer with a separate course leader. In addition they usually incorporate discussion & examples of the other issues “phaedrus” mentions, like project work, methods of presentation, maybe sequencing, etc, as well as critique sessions of participants work. You can learn far more in 3-5 days on a workshop than possibly a year from books etc in isolation wasting time and materials.

Ian

 

[archer]

Lucky accidents happen to unskilled people all the time. It is when you have mastered the craft, that the confidence to produce the "lucky accident", when it is elusive, ie "Moonrise Hernandez New Mexico", that separates the artist from the lucky amature. "Fortune favors the prepared mind."
Denise Libby