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

[perkeleellinen]

In moving toward art, I think that technique is fluid and ever changing - not least because new materials are introduced and old ones are discontinued. But I do think it's possible to move from equipment to art and my experience is that once I stopped thinking that new stuff = better photos and rather started concentrating on getting the best out of what I had, I was able to become much more confident and perhaps even relegate technique and focus upon artistic form.

 

[markbarendt]

I know it may be considered heresy, but it is important to remember that once we define the art we want to make (the product we expect), the craft of photography becomes nothing more than a means to an end, part of an assembly line, the creation of "lucky accidents" over and over again.

Weston had a style, Adams had a style, Picasso, Rembrandt, etcetera all defined a style then worked within it.

Wedding and portrait photographers do this all the time. In a given situation they do a, b, c and d and it works every time.

Example-
a - backlight your subject against a late afternoon sky
b - have them kiss or spin or whatever or just wait for "the moment"
c - shoot 400 speed C-41 film at 400 and f4
d - send it to the lab

(this a,b,c,d process is essentially Henri Cartier-Bresson's process)

If a wedding shooter has 8 or 10 of these setups, that is all the craft they need to know to reliably produce a very artistic product. There is no need for thought about the craft or process or style or DOF or blur, camera work becomes all about the composition and posing. For most setup's you don't even need a meter.

It doesn't require sticking with or knowing "just one film", Fuji and Kodak become fully interchangeable as does color and B&W, heck consumer films like Superia and Gold will work just fine in a pinch.

 

[stradibarrius]

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.

I think you are right. It takes less to get "started" of course there is mountains to learn about the equipment.
I have met guitar players that really don't care much about the "gear". They will have a preference, say a Fender over a Gibson but beyond that they just want to play and they will rock you back on your heels. Other players want to know every thing they can, theoretical as well as pratical some care really play and some are just gear guys. I think to your point 2F/2F, the artistry comes from the person obviously and not the gear. When I first started I thought that photography was more about learning to use the camera, lights, film and then you would be good but like everything else artistic, it comes from the inside of the person behind the camera. We can be gear chasers, but still not be a photographer. From another thread here I discovered Ralph Gibson and really like his work. According to what I read he only used a Leica and primes and it seems mostly available light so his gear and set up were not overly complicated but what results!
I am afraid that I have gained a fair amount of technical knowledge but lack the real vision that I want? Is that the way many of you feel as well?

 

[markbarendt]

I am afraid that I have gained a fair amount of technical knowledge but lack the real vision that I want?

I don't know If I'd put it that way.

I would say I haven't finished defining my style.

 

[removed account4]

thanks ian
that explains a lot ..

john

 

[Ian Leake]

I am afraid that I have gained a fair amount of technical knowledge but lack the real vision that I want

You could always try the traditional way: copy pictures. (I don't mean copy and pass off as your own, of course.) Choose a picture, study it for a while (5 or 10 minutes, perhaps more), ask yourself why it works and what it is that appeals to you, then make your own version. Repeat.

At some point you'll find that you prefer your versions to the originals, and you'll find your own style emerging. (Don't be disheartened if you don't reach this place for a while.) When you start to feel that you're exploring something important then repeat the exercise, but using your pictures as the starting point.

Don't limit yourself to photographs as inspiration. Look at some paintings or sculptures. Look at architecture and design. Look at the people around you. Look at clouds (Stieglitz's Equivalents). Do something daring that pushes you right outside your comfort zone. Stop listening to people who say that you're doing it wrong - if it feels right to you then it's right. Keep exploring.

 

[Q.G.]

I wouldn't recommend the copy-cat school.

You get, perhaps not quicker, but more direct to where you want to be if you ponder for as long as it takes what it is you want to do using photography. And why photography?
Keep exploring, yes. But explore that, before even thinking about using a camera, i'd say.

Trying to find out what that something important is is much better than waiting for the moment you stumble across it while doing what not you, but other people do/did/have done.

 

[Ian Leake]

All art is experiential - i.e. you can only understand it by experiencing it. This is true regardless of whether you are making it or are in the audience. In other words you've got to do it to learn it. And making art is exploratory. When you're exploring then, by definition, you can't know where you're going before you start. The best you can do is work out a plan for exploring efficiently and effectively. Then you have to start your exploration - and that means making pictures.

 

[stradibarrius]

The suggestion of selecting others work that appeals to me and try to understand "why" I like seems as though it would help me decide what "my style" is or at least a point from which to start.

 

[Ian Grant]

I wouldn't recommend the copy-cat school.

You get, perhaps not quicker, but more direct to where you want to be if you ponder for as long as it takes what it is you want to do using photography. And why photography?
Keep exploring, yes. But explore that, before even thinking about using a camera, i'd say.

Trying to find out what that something important is is much better than waiting for the moment you stumble across it while doing what not you, but other people do/did/have done.

Back in the 80's I went on a workshop with Paul Hill at Duckspool,.

A rather wealthy photographer (heir to the family fortune, had never worked) showed an immaculate portfolio, the pints were fantastic quality & composition except there was nothing of him in the images. He'd done one Ansel Adams style, another Cartier Bresson and so on, he was torn to shteds.

Photography (or any art form) is all about achieving your own personal style.

Ian

 

[thanos]

Photography (or any art form) is all about achieving your own personal style.

Nothing more true than that. In my Photoshop class I see every year people trying to imitate the style they see on the ads. It's a great shock for them when later in the year they realize that ironed images and flawless smooth skin is not art on itself. From that point on they sort of "reboot" themselves to a new brain. Then they start to "destroy" and reconstruct their images to something new, until they realize that other people have done this and even better. Then they "reboot" to a new version of themselfs and so goes the circle on and on until they "mature" but several years after they have finished the class.

 

[thanos]

Like so many things that are a combination of skills, you initially struggle with the technical aspect of the art form.
...
I hope that I am about to make that next step in my effort to create photographs that I truly like...the step where I am able to concentrate on the end results and not my gear.

Since art cannot exist in a vacuum I believe the proponent and even the mature artist should carefully consider the critique of peers and people he respects. I'm not talking about mentors here as I believe the OP started the discussion refering to a level beyond formal education, even though mature artists do consider other artists as mentors, too.
Someone in this thread mentioned the "Equivalents" of Steiglitz. This series was Steiglitz's reaction to a critique that he was capable of producing strong "people" photos only. So for the next several years he was the first to introduce abastract art in the photography domain by means of photographing clouds. But, he did not just turn his camera to the sky and started clicking. He was worried that the orthochromatic emulsions he used didn't reproduce exactly his vision (that's the technical part) and also that he wanted the poetic nature of the pictures to come through so that Bloch would exclaim "This is music!" (that's the artistic part).

So, I believe personal progress except tools mastery is also a product of the artist's reaction to sincere critique of his/her work. And by this I do not mean the comments below photos that show up on popular photo sites.
One should pick his critics as carefully as his photographs.

 

[Ian Leake]

Photography (or any art form) is all about achieving your own personal style.

I'd say it's more about communicating with others, but your personal style is fundamental to this so I'm splitting hairs

A rather wealthy photographer (heir to the family fortune, had never worked) showed an immaculate portfolio, the pints were fantastic quality & composition except there was nothing of him in the images. He'd done one Ansel Adams style, another Cartier Bresson and so on, he was torn to shteds.

I think we're talking about slightly different things here. Robotically copying a style is not the same thing as learning through copying (at least in my mind it isn't). With the former you're consciously (or sub-consciously) trying to see through the eyes of a master (How would Ansel compose this picture?). With the latter you're using another picture as a starting point for exploration.

As you explore, if you keep asking yourself what works for me and what doesn't (the "for me" is really important), and if you apply the results of that questioning to your next pictures, then you will find that the pictures you make will soon start to diverge from the master's and your style will emerge.

We worship originality to such an extent that we sometimes seem to expect new artists to appear on the scene perfectly formed, already with sparkling originality. (IMO, this has led us directly to the shallow rubbish that the art schools churn out.) But this is an entirely unreasonable expectation.

Take Edward Weston, for example. He didn't arrive like some revolutionary leader, already perfectly formed. Neither did he have an epiphany moment and transform himself overnight. He started out as a pictorialist - making pictures in the accepted style of the day. But he continually questioned what he was making and what he saw around him, and thus re-shaped his work into something new and revolutionary. In my opinion, his genius was in his continual questioning, his willingness to explore, and his obsession, rather than in his undoubted technical skills.

 

[sun of sand]

the gear should never factor into it if you truly care about creating photographs till youre already doing so

lots of people say you should start out with the be

phooey
garbage
nonsense

 

[markbarendt]

Since art cannot exist in a vacuum I believe the proponent and even the mature artist should carefully consider the critique of peers and people he respects.

I've heard this over and over and over, and I don't buy it.

I do many artistic things that are banal, transitory, and meant just for me.

Some are as simple as dishing up dinner, taking a picture of my wife, or building a sand castle. Where "I" am the whole audience, no other opinions matter.

I know some people might suggest that that dishing up dinner isn't art.

I'd also bet that any great chef would give you an earful if you disparaged the art of meal presentation as simply throwing food on the plate.

What can't happen in a vacuum is earning a living off art.

It is only when we expect to profit from our art and fit into "the market" that external opinions begins to matter.

It could be easily argued that personal art, made in a vacuum, is actually more pure, special, and important.

If that personal work happens to find a market, that's just gravy.

 

[thanos]

What can't happen in a vacuum is earning a living off art.

Well, I like to relate art and the way of self expression with self improvement, not money. In that sense I always believed that a carefully selected critic(s) will improve and inspire an artist instead of make his/her product more marketable.
Often I see an external critique from a person I trust as a yardstick for my personal improvement as an artist.
If I ever add money to the equation then perhaps I'll choose a different critic.

 

[markbarendt]

Often I see an external critique from a person I trust as a yardstick for my personal improvement as an artist.
If I ever add money to the equation then perhaps I'll choose a different critic.

Let me use an example to illustrate my point.

Right now I have an idea that I'm working on for a series of themed painted works.

The idea is fully formed, I know exactly what I want to end up with.

I don't need help with my vision for the project, I am the audience.

What I don't know is how to do it. I need to learn Impasto techniques. I need help and practice to learn how to mix oil paints and move the paint around to get what I want.

The only criticism I need or want is on how I use the tools and materiels. I flat don't care if anybody else likes the style at this point. I want a teacher for the craft.

If they turn out special I may ask some friends what they think. The only reasons I'd be asking is to either 1-get my ego stroked or 2-determine if they have any commercial possibilities. I just don't see any other reason to bother getting critiqued.

 

[clayne]

I just don't see any other reason to bother getting critiqued.

Seriously you can't see any beneficial reason to having someone of more experience critique your work? Work that you are effectively a novice in and may want to learn how to improve on?

 

[markbarendt]

Seriously you can't see any beneficial reason to having someone of more experience critique your work? Work that you are effectively a novice in and may want to learn how to improve on?

Yes seriously.

Why in the world would I (or you) want to modify my (or your) artistic vision?

All I can think of is money or ego.

Now the technique and craft I need to accomplish this sure I want help with, but I don't care one whit what about what my teachers think of the idea.

I don't want to be an apprentice or mimic or be tainted by others artistic visions.

 

[Ian Leake]

Yes seriously.
Why in the world would I (or you) want to modify my (or your) artistic vision?

All artists evolve over time as they discover new things, and as they absorb new influences.

One way of allowing yourself to grow as an artist is to listen to constructive critique from people who've followed the path before you.

Of course each artist's path is different, but constructive critique can help you clarify your choices - either by accepting or rejecting it.

Critique starting with the word, "why," can also help you to understand your motives and your path.

 

[stradibarrius]

Being involved in the music business I see this conflict a lot. Musicians want to write and perform certain types of music and the public wants to hear something different. Some work is to please your artistic sensibilities and other work has to please the public IF there is a financial interest. If you want to make a living at your artistic work you may have to do both. If money is not a factor then you can do exactly as YOU please.

 

[keithwms]

Yes seriously.

Why in the world would I (or you) want to modify my (or your) artistic vision?

All I can think of is money or ego.

I don't think it's a matter of modifying your artistic vision. Those with artistic vision will simply refine it over time. And those without artistic vision won't gain it by following some critic or formula.

To me, at its core, photography is a communicative act. I wouldn't do it otherwise.

 

[Ian Grant]

It's more about tightening up and honing that vision with the feedback you get with a critique session, maybe expanding it as well. A good workshop critique session should also be a two way thing, with the photographer sharing his thoughts and possible areas concern etc.

Ian

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I've been struggling with it for years

It's almost like an aspiring writer trying to master grammar and poetic structure then masters both. But the toughest part is to fine one's own voice and offering something to the world that is completely original and one's own. What I've learned so far is do work just for the joy of it, not for money nor fame. Also, don't let critics derail you from your path of self discovery through one's art. I also find reading about artist's lives and looking and their work to find that thread sheds some light on the process. As an artist I don't think this path will ever end, but enjoy the journey.

 

[wclark5179]

"one's own voice and offering something to the world that is completely original and one's own."

What if people, most of the time, don't listen to you?

Should art be a mirror to what is happening in the world?

Suggest viewing the movie, "Smash His Camera!" It shows different opinions from people who think they know art. Do they know art? Is his photography "snaps"? Or is there more to the photographs?

Here is a page where you can view articles on the movie:

http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=S...tertainment"]&FORM=EWRE&qpvt=Smash+His+Camera

Does art become more arty after the artist dies?

Interesting, don't you think?