Technique is no art

[markbarendt]

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.

+1

 

[Worker 11811]

There is a difference. You can see a painter, a sculptor or a sketch artist in the physical act of creation of his piece. While you can see a photographer in the act of taking (making) a photograph, the physical act of creation takes place out of sight and it happens in a fraction of a second.

The technique of photography is fairly academic. One can describe photography in concrete, scientific terms. One can write about them and tell others how to do the same PROCESS but it is impossible to faithfully transmit one's artistic vision until AFTER the work is complete.

You don't ask a painter how he holds his brush. You don't ask a sculptor how hard he hits his chisel with his hammer but people feel perfectly comfortable about asking a photographer what shutter speed, aperture and developing time he used.

I could invite you into my house and give you the run of my darkroom. You would use the same enlarger, the same stock of paper, the same trays and chemistry as I do. I could load my best camera with my favorite brand of film, hand you the camera, tell you what settings to use and even tell you which subject to photograph but you STILL could not produce a photograph consistent with my artistic vision unless you knew me very, very well.

Nobody would ever think that they could sit down in DaVinci's studio, in front of his easel, using his brushes and paint and create the Mona Lisa but, strangely enough, people have no problem deluding themselves that they might make photos like Ansel Adams if only they had a camera like his.

Photography is a very strange pursuit, in this respect. I can go out and buy a set of golf clubs endorsed by Tiger Woods, the very same make that he used to win the Masters. I can go out and buy a Steinway piano, the very same model that Liberace (might have) played. I can go out and buy a pair of "Air Joradn" basketball shoes, the very same brand that Jordan wore on the court but nobody would ever think that by wearing those shoes, they could play basketball like Jordan. Nobody would think that, by buying golf clubs or pianos, they could play golf like Woods or make music like Liberace.

Weirdly, there are people who think that, if they could only get their hands on a Sinar view camera, they could take pictures like Julius Shulman.

 

[Monito]

You don't ask a painter how he holds his brush. You don't ask a sculptor how hard he hits his chisel with his hammer

Well, ... actually, ... you do and you should. It is rather akin to asking a blues guitarist how they hold the string against the frets, or how a golfer grips the club. There is a performance aspect to all artistic technique.

there are people who think that, if they could only get their hands on a Sinar view camera, they could take pictures like Julius Shulman.

There are also people who think that, if they could only get their hands on a Sinar view camera, ... then they only have themselves to blame if they can't make pictures like Shulman.

In other words, they get rid of any impediments until there remains only their own failings and lack of knowledge and lack of artistic vision. So at that point they can measure, in a vague sense, how far they have to go and how much work they have to do to get there. The latter estimate is of course almost useless because they might never get there regardless of how much work they do.

 

[Monito]

There is a difference. You can see a painter, a sculptor or a sketch artist in the physical act of creation of his piece. While you can see a photographer in the act of taking (making) a photograph, the physical act of creation takes place out of sight and it happens in a fraction of a second.

That very much depends on the type of photography. Perhaps you are only thinking of the Cartier-Bresson type of snapper or a Robert Frank.

That neglects any photographer who physically arranges lighting, including the likes of W. Eugene Smith. It neglects the photographer who physically poses models like Halsman or Newman or Avedon. It forgets architectural photographers like Shulman who arrange angles and lenses and camera movements very deliberately and physically; let alone all the lighting, prop staging, and model posing they do.

This is without getting into the physical acts of film development agitation and print dodging and burning.

 

[wildbillbugman]

I must agree with Monito. I have not shot anything smaller than 5x7 in years. I take ,on average, 3 days to take 1 set of B&W color separation negs. I do not cock the shutter befor I am certain that I have what I want,Internal Subject position; Camera to subject position; Lighting. I usualy get what I am after with 4 shuter cocks. But that is because I work hard befor I cock the shutter. Someone else will have to do the 1000 shots for one good print thing.

 

[Willie Jan]

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.

+2

I too used a lot of time to get the light measuring and development at a high level. Now i do not know why it took such a lot of time to get it figured out...

 

[2F/2F]

Looking for the 'Like' button!


Steve.

Thanks!

Ansel Adams lived in a different photographic world than we do. Photography was far less widely accepted as a legitimate art medium for much of his career. Today we are pretty much expected to be artists if we are photographers. Back then, photographers often had to fight to prove that they were legitimate artists. I can see his point in making the distinction. But I don't feel it needs to be made today. Nor do I think that one should base his or her opinions of the craft on those of his or her idols.

 

[tomtraubert]

Interesting thread. Got to see your photos first, before I can agree with any of you. Otherwise, it could easily be the case of all Stetson, no cattle. I hope I do have some cattle myself... unless they ran away.

 

[Monito]

Interesting thread. Got to see your photos first, before I can agree with any of you. Otherwise, it could easily be the case of all Stetson, no cattle. I hope I do have some cattle myself... unless they ran away.

Try dealing with the words and concepts as written. It's not that difficult and you'll gain more by not falling for the fallacy of "appeal to authority".

 

[michaelbsc]

It's only language but sometimes quite interesting...

Some years ago I was in a protracted discussion that moved from biology to philosophy. Before the end I had to conclude:

Philology recaputulates Ontology.

Not the other way round.

 

[tomtraubert]

Appeal to which authority? You got me all confused, Monito.

 

[Monito]

If we only allow ourselves to read top flight practitioners and disregard all the rest, then we go down the road that ends with only Oscar-nominated movie directors being allowed to write movie reviews and only award-winning Australian photographers being allowed to write biographies of award-winning Australian photographers.

If an idea or concept or an expression or essay makes sense to you, adopt it. If it conflicts with something you already know or believe then you have to weigh your depth of research on the topic. If you've researched a topic in depth and an idea conflicts with it, regard the idea skeptically, but if it is well presented and well argued, then consider it carefully to see if there is something to learn.

The "fallacy of authority" is the bowing and kow-towing to big names just because they are big names. They probably have a portfolio to back up their reputation, but just because they say something doesn't make it true. Similarly, just because someone says something and has a stellar portfolio doesn't make it true, even if they are unknown.

Take the example of continental drift (plate tectonics). When Wegener proposed and advocated his theories, he was initially ignored because the people with the big reputations and the portfolios of published works dismissed it. However, his arguments for his theories made more and more sense as new evidence was found. It was at the point of presentation of each new geologic discovery (such as sea floor spreading) that Wegener's ideas needed to be reconsidered a bit more. Note: Wegener was an outsider, with a Ph.D. in Astronomy.

That doesn't mean that we must consider every cockanamie idea just because somebody presents it. If it makes no sense and there is no evidence for it, then it can be rejected. For example, the theory (stated as "theory" in a scientific context but it might as well be "fact") of evolution has such a massive body of evidence behind it that silly ideas like Lamarkism that come along can be easily refuted and rejected.

So it is especially in discussions of the philosophy of art, where there is less evidence, per se, and more opinion. If an opinion makes sense to you and helps you understand how to approach an art and gives you inspiration and energy and focus, then use it. There is no need to consult a portfolio. Weegee smoked cigars constantly, developed his film in the trunk (boot) of his car, and has a great portfolio. Does that mean we all have to smoke cigars and develop film in the trunk of our car? No.

 

[removed account4]

everyone has their own "authority" ...

on the internet there is a lot of BS posing as "authority"

 

[tomtraubert]

My apologies, I am somewhat new here and I didn't immediately realise that I was posting in the "philosophy" section. Please disregard my comments. (Many thanks for your detailed response, though).

This section is not for me, I much prefer the practice of photography.

 

[markbarendt]

My apologies, I am somewhat new here and I didn't immediately realise that I was posting in the "philosophy" section. Please disregard my comments. (Many thanks for your detailed response, though).

This section is not for me, I much prefer the practice of photography.

Welcome to APUG Tom.

I do enjoy the technical bits as a pass time too.

When I was first learning to print RA4, I made what I considered a nice print to share with a few buddies. Beautifully exposed, reasonably composed, nice morning light, old frilly Victorian style building in a mining town, old truck out front, incredible blue sky, vivid red orange rocks in mountain behind, truly postcardy.

I'd gotten up early and driven 75-miles one way to go shooting the day I took it, I'd worked hard in the darkroom to get any print at all let alone one that was technically nice and rich in color. Then I'd driven 250-miles to go hang out with my buddies for a week at a photography seminar.

One of my buddies asked "What were you trying to say with that shot?"

I was truly at a loss to answer.

It wasn't a snap of my wife or daughter for a memory, it wasn't a paying gig for the town or store merchant, it was just another tourist shot.

I wasn't trying to say anything, all I I had done was take a generic picture. Pretty for sure, but no emotion, nothing to connect the viewer to the scene.

That was a great lesson for me. For me, the practice of photography is about sharing and expressing emotions visually. It is truly about philosophy and ethics.

 

[michaelbsc]

My apologies, I am somewhat new here and I didn't immediately realise that I was posting in the "philosophy" section. Please disregard my comments. (Many thanks for your detailed response, though).

This section is not for me, I much prefer the practice of photography.

Don't worry about it. We all post stuff all over the place here. We act like there are members and moderators, but in reality it's more like guards and inmates sometimes.

 

[MattKing]

Don't worry about it. We all post stuff all over the place here. We act like there are members and moderators, but in reality it's more like guards and inmates sometimes.

Or possibly doctors and patients

 

[michaelbsc]

Or possibly doctors and patients

Nah, that's just what they tell you.