Technique is no art

Gerald C Koch · Aug 17, 2011

The creation of a photograph is not a passive act. As soon as the image is made it is separated from everything else that the photographer saw. The photographer determines what is to be emphacized and what is ignored. A painter does exactly the same thing. The edge of his canvas determines what the viewer sees of the original scene. Whether the photograph is good or bad must be judged on how well the photographer conveys his vision.

Gerald C Koch · Aug 17, 2011

Worker 11811 said:
A person paints a painting.

A person sketches a drawing.

A person sculpts a sculpture.

A person designs and builds a building.

But I merely TAKE a photograph. All the others use verbs that describe constructing or creating something but I must passively "take" or "accept" what is already there. Even if you use the verbs "shoot" or "capture" you are still not describing the creation of something. It almost describes the destruction, not the construction.

Besides than "make" or "create," what are other verbs that can be used to describe the process of creating a photograph which are constructive or creative?

As George Carlan observed a person is said to "deplane" when getting off an airplane. But you cannot "deboat", "detrain" or "debus." Lacking a special verb for a particular act does not make the trip any less valid. I find the above argument rather egregious.

Worker 11811 · Aug 18, 2011

Gerald C Koch said:
As George Carlan observed a person is said to "deplane" when getting off an airplane. But you cannot "deboat", "detrain" or "debus." Lacking a special verb for a particular act does not make the trip any less valid. I find the above argument rather egregious.

De PLANE! De PLANE!

(Sorry, I just had to do that!)

Your point is taken but I like it when Andreas said:

I guess we are lucky here in Germany. We photograph, you take pictures

cougstar · Aug 18, 2011

I observe what is in front of me. Notice the elements that make me interested in that subject. Then make a photograph of how I want to see it. The technique and equipment is just a vehicle to making the photograph the way I want to view the subject.

Monito · Aug 18, 2011

The verb you are all looking for is "photograph". It requires active participation and cogitation. Photography is not a spectator sport.

coigach · Aug 18, 2011

M Stat said:
...and when we go into the darkroom, we BLOW IT UP!

markbarendt · Aug 18, 2011

I've been rattling the various arguments in this thread around my head. Couldn't quite figure out how to express what wasn't making sense.

This cleared it up.

Monito said:
Photography is not a spectator sport.

Actually, IMO, a huge amount, if not all of camera work, is a "spectator sport".

Henri Cartier-Breson described himself as a hunter, for that analogy to work his "prey" had to exist in order for him to photograph it.

HCB didn't create things from scratch, he caught things that already existed. He helped us see the Paris he already knew.

Karsh's camera work isn't any different. Karsh though took a more active roll in setting up the scene, posing the subject inside it and getting the right light, including the right elements, blah, blah, blah.

Again, like HCB, Karsh didn't create things from scratch, he photographed things that already existed. He helped us see the People he saw.

Even Uelsmann, regardless of where he ends up, starts with found or posed subjects, things that already exist.

In these three cases it seems to me that camera work is simply a technical bit, the art/creativity in their work, is somewhere else.

For me art lies creating something wasn't there.

Uelsmann shows his art in the print. The camera seems just to provide bits and pieces of raw material, found or posed, that are melded it to something that did not exist in this world.

Karsh is in a gray area for me, his work shows his art in the setup creating a collage that is put together before the fact. The camera work is just there to catch what he created.

HCB, one of my favorite photographers, is the one for me that is hardest to see as an artist. A master of finding great things to share with us surely, but that's basically journalism, not art.

Monito · Aug 18, 2011

You can't spectate a photographer at work and get much satisfaction because so much of the what goes into making a photograph (photographing, as the verb) is cerebral, intellectual.

That's why it is not a spectator sport.

Of course the photographer, the actual participant, has to observe a lot (including spectating, so to speak).

removed account4 · Aug 18, 2011

Steve Smith said:
I thought I was agreeing with you!!

Steve.

thanks !

i must have misunderstood what you said !

Gerald C Koch · Aug 18, 2011

ath said:
It's only language but sometimes quite interesting...

Precisely! What trips up many beginners when they start learning a foreign language are idioms. The verb take is used in many English expressions where it does not have the literal meaning of take or grasp. In English we say "I take a walk" while in german the verb make is used. The concept of walking is the same in both languages.

My cousin went to France to improve her french. When asked at dinner whether she wanted another helping she replied literally "No, I am full." Everyone started laughing for what she said was idiomatic in french and meant "No, I am pregnant."

Gerald C Koch · Aug 18, 2011

I must confess that the work of Jerry Uelsmann often escapes me. This may be because the idiom of surrealism does not work as well in photography as it does in painting. Certainly the paintings of Dali and Magritte are more interesting, at least to me. For example http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Le-Blanc-Seing-Posters_i389179_.htm.

markbarendt · Aug 18, 2011

Gerald C Koch said:
I must confess that the work of Jerry Uelsmann often escapes me. This may be because the idiom of surrealism does not work as well in photography as it does in painting. Certainly the paintings of Dali and Magritte are more interesting, at least to me. For example http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Le-Blanc-Seing-Posters_i389179_.htm.

I was only making a point, not commenting to whether it is good or bad.

It would be hard to classify Uelsmann's work as something besides art. HCB's though, I just don't know. :confused:

MattKing · Aug 18, 2011

Monito said:
You can't spectate a photographer at work and get much satisfaction because so much of the what goes into making a photograph (photographing, as the verb) is cerebral, intellectual.

That's why it is not a spectator sport.

Of course the photographer, the actual participant, has to observe a lot (including spectating, so to speak).

This may only apply to one photographer observing another ....

I've watched (in person and on film) a few photographers who shoot portraits, and to me it seems that the process that some of them use is akin to a spectator sport - it is a sort of dance where the parties interact, and something special results, and is recorded for future review.

The resulting art wouldn't just "happen" without the accompanying technique, but it is important to understand that the technique includes more than exposure and lighting - it includes the modes of interaction employed by the photographer with the subject.

markbarendt · Aug 18, 2011

There is definitely a show put on by photographers meant for the benefit of the subject, been there done that.

Marc B. · Aug 18, 2011

Sometimes, less is more. Maybe Ansel Adams summed it up the best.

"A photographer does not take a photo, he (or she), makes a photo."

Gerald C Koch · Aug 18, 2011

markbarendt said:
I was only making a point, not commenting to whether it is good or bad.

Didn't say that you were doing anything else.

markbarendt said:
It would be hard to classify Uelsmann's work as something besides art. HCB's though, I just don't know. :confused:

I took the opportunity to comment that surrealism is harder to do in photography than in painting. Quite frankly Uelsmann's work leaves me cold. While technically a tour de force what he is trying to say escapes me. In the Magritte painting of the equestrian, the painter is having fun with the way we see the world.

2F/2F · Aug 18, 2011

Marc B. said:
Sometimes, less is more. Maybe Ansel Adams summed it up the best.

"A photographer does not take a photo, he (or she), makes a photo."

I don't care what it's called. Work speaks for itself, regardless of titles. I take pix. I make prints. I do whatever you want to call it. It's the same product, regardless. Insisting on what verb should be used to describe one's artistic process seems needlessly arrogant to me, and pointless. Let the work speak for itself.

Steve Smith · Aug 18, 2011

2F/2F said:
I take pix. I make prints. I do whatever you want to call it. It's the same product, regardless. Insisting on what verb should be used to describe one's artistic process seems needlessly arrogant to me, and pointless. Let the work speak for itself.

Looking for the 'Like' button!

Steve.

Worker 11811 · Aug 18, 2011

I don't mean to imply that changing the verb used to describe the act of creating a photograph will make any change in the way people perceive a photographer's work. In fact, I think the way people perceive photographers dictates the verbs they use to describe photography.

If people see an activity as constructive, they are more likely to use constructive words to describe it. If they don't see it as constructive or if they don't understand what it takes to perform that activity they are less likely to use constructive words to describe it.

The truth is that photography is constructive and it takes a lot of critical thinking to make a good photograph but, since the work is done mostly inside the photographer's head, the spectator doesn't see that unless they are very familiar with the person.

Gerald C Koch · Aug 18, 2011

Worker 11811 said:
I think the way people perceive photographers dictates the verbs they use to describe photography.

I think that this is an excellent point.

I am sorry if I misinterpreted your previous post.

Worker 11811 · Aug 18, 2011

No worry. I should have made that clear, before.

wildbillbugman · Aug 20, 2011

Some painters cannot draw (or paint) something as simple as a cup on a table. So they take a brush in hand and let their arm slop the paint with little thought or planning, then call it "art". Some photographers take 500-1000 shots vin a few hours. Then they look for a negatives that looks like "art".They have 0 technique. Being able to communicate,through ones medium of choice, whatever that may be, is the heart of art (I'm a poet!). This requires technique. And practiced, refined technique. It IS all about whats in the brain and how well the hands can communicate it. Therefor it IS about technique!
Bill

wildbillbugman · Aug 20, 2011

I was in a class with a proffesional commercial photographer. He used a Hassleblad and I used a Kiev. I admired his camera and he told me that it realy,realy made no difference. OK THEN, I asked.'why did you spend so much more money than I did?' He had no answer. Obviously, in photography optics mater. In painting "Great Art" how the paint was made mattered. How many "modern day Rembrants" even know how paint is made?
I make no apologies for being a "techie". I have been told that I am a pretty good artist too.

removed account4 · Aug 20, 2011

i don't know ...

the more i read this thread the more i think about something ... there are 2 techiques

we see the world a certain way ... it doesn't matter if one uses a camera or ...
photographers are able to communicate ( through the technical medium of photography ) what they want through something that exists in the world.
they might distort it ( through camera work, through chemistry, through enlarger work )
but no matter what it is, it is distorted, and other artists use ..... ( whatever ... )
the person looking through the camera picks and chooses what in "reality" they ( want us to ) see
they choose a focal length and what to leave in and leave out and distort reality
or a certain perception of reality ( the brain + EXPERIENCE distorts too )
and photographic images are created.

photographs are taken, shot, made. created, conjured, it doesn't matter the verb ..
in the end someone sees, and uses some sort of technique to make something ..
maybe some of it is art, maybe it isn't ...
not all of it art, but it is all technique

the further one goes back, and it seems the further one goes forward
it is a mating of both the technique "of seeing" something and being able
to have the technical savvy of creating a light sensitive slurry to capture and print it on ..

Monito · Aug 20, 2011

The zen of technique, and the zenith of technique, is to practice it so much that it becomes second nature and slips away, requiring less and less thought so that the vision and envisioning can occupy the photographer's mind.

Technique is no art

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency