the great schism of photography

[blansky]

I completely agree with the above disagreement.

All in favor say......

 

[pdeeh]

So perhaps it's not about ability, but instead about interest..

I do think this is one of the core facets of the debate (not that a core having a facet makes much sense, but y'know what I mean I'm sure)

 

[Vaughn]

I don't know the scientific aspects of it and I agree that new thinking has debunked it to some extent through MRIs, but that doesn't really explain the fact that some people are more one way than the other. And in personal experience it has nothing to do with whether I thought about being bad in math, the fact was that I was, and bored and didn't really care about the technical as much as the creative/ artistic aspects of things. And to this day sort of glaze over when people discuss the mathematical or the technical.. So perhaps it's not about ability, but instead about interest.

So to me it's not provable but it is observable.

But we are all different. Some people are also susceptible to addictions and others are not.

And ironically, your post may have been sort of a classic case of, I like math, and am creative also, so really everyone else is and they just don't realize it, which is just more manifestation of the schism.

The mind can not know the Mind.

First off...it is just what I think -- I am quite willing to accept that others think differently...and what they think is correct for them.

I think it would take deep personal anaylsis to eliminate social and developmental factors from one's actual capabilities in technical and creative endeavors. Someone's "I am bad at math" could come from an early reinforcement of this -- something as simple as not being as good at math as one's classmates in the first grade and being told so and suggested that one is more the 'creative type'. Something that one may not even remember.

But I like the model of the mind that suggests that our subconscience believes everything we tell it. So, as an example, telling oneself that one is bad at math (and doing so for years and/or with emotional impact), one's subconscience believes this and in order to reduce tension, works hard to match the inner world (bad at math) with the outer world. So in this case, if one tries to improve one's math skills, the subconscience will undermind the conscience attempt to improve since that is at odds with the inner world.

But again, this is only a model and while I have seen the process work, the mind can not know the Mind.

Frank: I think it has been established that areas of the brain are specialized -- and that this can be changed...the brain being very adaptable. And it might be more a matter of the number and type of connections between all these areas that have a greater influence on us that the actual areas themselves.

 

[removed account4]

This "right brain - left brain" concept is a myth -- I suppose it is a useful (but limiting) metaphore for tendencies in the thought process, but it has no real ground to stand on.

If one thinks one is bad at math, then one will be bad at math. We are what we think. If one thinks there is a divide between art and science or between the creative and technical sides of photography then there is one. If one thinks there is not, then there is not. I prefer to think that it is all one and to divide things into two reduces the potential and/or strength of the whole creative process.

i understand what you are suggesting vaughn
that and open mind makes all things possible,
but to be honest i love math, have always enjoyed math
but had extreme difficulty with certain aspects geometry and calculus ..
i had difficulty, and "wasn't good at it" but i never caved in and said i was bad at it.
i just came to the realization that it wasn't my cup of tea.
i definately think there are areas of interests that people gravitate to/towards
some may be technical some may be creative or a combination of the two.
i know people personally who are right and left "brained"
that doesn't mean the people who are right brained aren't able to do something creatively
or left brained people aren't able to do things technical but they see and solve the same problems different ways.
maybe it has to do with interests and non interests, maybe it has to do with "training" or "non-training" or maybe it is hard wired ..
not sure, and it really doesn't matter much because whateve the problem might be, its solved by the end ... whether it is
designing something, or carrying out a project ...

 

[frank]

In my career as an educator, I've seen natural abundance of ability and natural lack of ability in specific areas. It's not just a matter of thinking/believing one has/has not got ability in ________.

Dedicated work and practice will always improve an ability, but each of us has our own levels of potential in specific areas/skills.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I completely agree with the above disagreement.

+1

 

[gzinsel]

Hi, I'm back, sorry to be away> back to the issue of the "poll". I was kinda hoping an anonymous click of the button< right or left. I was not hoping to identify or incriminate "those" ( note: the sarcasm) who are different then me. Naively, I just thought". . . . . it would be kinda interesting, say. . . . a sample of 1000 photogs who like to work one way or the other, or at least, Perceive themselves working in that vain. just for clarification.

On a semi-related note: during my brief study of painting at art school- 24 years ago, our class was given a video of "someone" I can't recall the painter, but he worked in egg tempera, anyway, The video was of him painting , A painting from the beginning to the end. when he first started, his style was SOOOOOO lOOOOOSE, it was kinda like throwing paint, but as it progressed he really tightened up his technique, So it was kinda interesting. It started out like a Pollack, and ended like a Wythe?? I had never seen that before! interesting chap, I wish I could remember the artists name.

anyway, when it comes down to it, photography like another art form is a response to a response.

 

[blansky]

Hi, I'm back, sorry to be away> back to the issue of the "poll". I was kinda hoping an anonymous click of the button< right or left. I was not hoping to identify or incriminate "those" ( note: the sarcasm) who are different then me. Naively, I just thought". . . . . it would be kinda interesting, say. . . . a sample of 1000 photogs who like to work one way or the other, or at least, Perceive themselves working in that vain. just for clarification.

On a semi-related note: during my brief study of painting at art school- 24 years ago, our class was given a video of "someone" I can't recall the painter, but he worked in egg tempera, anyway, The video was of him painting , A painting from the beginning to the end. when he first started, his style was SOOOOOO lOOOOOSE, it was kinda like throwing paint, but as it progressed he really tightened up his technique, So it was kinda interesting. It started out like a Pollack, and ended like a Wythe?? I had never seen that before! interesting chap, I wish I could remember the artists name.

anyway, when it comes down to it, photography like another art form is a response to a response.

On the poll thing. We were just messing with you.

It all comes from Monte Python "argument" sketch. Taking the contrary position.

 

[blansky]

The mind can not know the Mind.

First off...it is just what I think -- I am quite willing to accept that others think differently...and what they think is correct for them.

I think it would take deep personal anaylsis to eliminate social and developmental factors from one's actual capabilities in technical and creative endeavors. Someone's "I am bad at math" could come from an early reinforcement of this -- something as simple as not being as good at math as one's classmates in the first grade and being told so and suggested that one is more the 'creative type'. Something that one may not even remember.

But I like the model of the mind that suggests that our subconscience believes everything we tell it. So, as an example, telling oneself that one is bad at math (and doing so for years and/or with emotional impact), one's subconscience believes this and in order to reduce tension, works hard to match the inner world (bad at math) with the outer world. So in this case, if one tries to improve one's math skills, the subconscience will undermind the conscience attempt to improve since that is at odds with the inner world.

But again, this is only a model and while I have seen the process work, the mind can not know the Mind.

Frank: I think it has been established that areas of the brain are specialized -- and that this can be changed...the brain being very adaptable. And it might be more a matter of the number and type of connections between all these areas that have a greater influence on us that the actual areas themselves.

I think this theory, while possible in some areas, is sort of a "we are all the same and our experiences are what change us" or influence us type of thinking. And I guess my argument is that women and men's brains seem to work differently in some areas and the other main thing is the area of sexual identity and orientation. A case for example like Bruce Jenner, a very masculine individual who from all indications was very "one way" and we find out years later he was living a lie. So my opinion is we are not all hardwired the same at birth, and we have many things that are different from person to person.

So I have no reason not to believe that two different people could be different in their approach to different things, although I agree that people can be "programmed" to be one way or the other to some extent, but still I think that deep down, they are more one way or the other.

 

[frank]

Blansky: "It all comes from Monte Python "argument" sketch. Taking the contrary position."


No it doesn't!

(Sorry. Lame.)

 

[rthollenbeck]

Blansky: "It all comes from Monte Python "argument" sketch. Taking the contrary position."


No it doesn't!

(Sorry. Lame.)

Thats not arguing it's simple contradiction!

 

[blansky]

Thats not arguing it's simple contradiction!

YEAH.

And besides this is abuse. Argument is down the hall.

 

[frank]

Got to stop. This bird is dead.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I think this theory, while possible in some areas, is sort of a "we are all the same..."

Because there is natural variability within a species, we are in fact all different. Eye color, shoe size, vertical leap, mental IQ. We and our individual characteristics all exist as points on a random distribution bell curve. Our positions on that curve for any given characteristic are fixed at conception with our genetics. Since we can't control who our parents were, we have no control or input over where we fall on that curve.

Because we can't go back in time, we must all just make the best of wherever fate chose to place us. The measure of a person's success in life is the degree to which they can fulfill their fixed potential for any given characteristic. The definition of success is therefore different for each of us.

Not a novel concept, but an obvious one. And hard for some to accept since many were raised to believe that "all men are created equal." Perhaps they are, or should be, in something abstract like human rights. But definitely not biologically.

I have every bit as much right to be a world-class gymnast as the next guy. Except I was born 6-feet 6-inches and 220 pounds. Try as I might, it ain't gonna' happen. I also once knew a gymnast in high school. She loved basketball. She was 4-foot 11-inches...

Ken

 

[Paul Verizzo]

I have every bit as much right to be a world-class gymnast as the next guy. Except I was born 6-feet 6-inches and 220 pounds.
Ken

Surely you should be in Guiness! Wow, I was only about 10 1/2 pounds. I bow before you.

 

[Vaughn]

Everybody has the right to have a different view from mine, no matter how wrong they are...

 

[removed account4]

i am sure there are people who have improved on "their genetic predisposition"
and excelled on things they were "not supposed to be good at"
and been terrible at things they "were supposed to be good at".
unfortunately data has not been collected for long enough to prove any of this right or wrong ...

and what does this have to do with people being more "into" creativity,
while others are more into "the discipline" ?

it doesn't really ...

there are plenty of science trained people who are creative
and there are plenty of people who are creative and also enjoy "the rigors of discipline"

and there aren't many people who are just one thing or the other ... are there ??

 

[frank]

i am sure there are people who have improved on "their genetic predisposition"
and excelled on things they were "not supposed to be good at"
and been terrible at things they "were supposed to be good at".
unfortunately data has not been collected for long enough to prove any of this right or wrong ...

You're introducing the expectations of others, which is irrelevant.

By definition, it is impossible to exceed your maximum potential.

 

[removed account4]

You're introducing the expectations of others, which is irrelevant.

By definition, it is impossible to exceed your maximum potential.

maximum potential is impossible to quantify, whether it has anything to do with expectations or not.
no human being exists in a vacuum so even the concept of maximum potential is a moot point..

 

[Sirius Glass]

Except I was born 6-feet 6-inches and 220 pounds.

Did you mother ever talk to you about how long she was in labor?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

You're introducing the expectations of others, which is irrelevant.

By definition, it is impossible to exceed your maximum potential.

So true, 'dat...



But it is possible, and far more probable, to fail to reach your maximum potential in some characteristic and never even realize it. This is the greatest philosophical argument in favor of the pursuit of failure. For if one is not seeking and finding failure, one is not testing for the true level of their own personal potential.

Those who are content to achieve something—in art, in science, in anything—then sit back and convince themselves that they have reached their true potential, are often only those who are merely afraid to risk failure by trying to take one more step. But until they try, how will they ever know if they could have???

By its very nature, life exists in a resisting medium.

Ken

 

[Bill Burk]

This "right brain - left brain" concept is a myth.

I believe calling the "right brain - left brain" concept a myth is an Internet myth buster click-bait to sell books.

It's not a myth that is totally mistaken, at least not in the totally wrong sense that really needs busting like the myth that Crane Flies eats Mosquitos.

The different sides of the brain do process things differently, and from what I read on the Popular Psychology site that purports to dispel the myth it's almost like we always knew. It seems their main point is something that I knew all along... there isn't a real schism between brain sides in normal people because they communicate with each other seamlessly. Of course it's not a test you can do yourself. You have to cut a nerve bundle or take some nasty drugs to cause the behavior that demonstrates how the different sides of the brain operate.

So yeah, there's not a practical way to use the fact that different sides of the brain process things differently... but I still believe the concept.

 

[frank]

"maximum potential is impossible to quantify ..."

Agree.

"no human being exists in a vacuum so even the concept of maximum potential is a moot point.."

Don't understand your point.

 

[removed account4]

"maximum potential is impossible to quantify ..."

Agree.

"no human being exists in a vacuum so even the concept of maximum potential is a moot point.."

Don't understand your point.

there are always expectations
humans dont' exist without expectations if they did they would be living within a vacuum
and then even people have expectations they have for themselves ...
so imaginging ones maximum potential without the effect or affect of expectations is a moot point
so what is the point about even bringing up "maximum potential"
it is basically, like Nirvana, a state of enlightnement that can never be attained ...

 

[frank]

there are always expectations
humans dont' exist without expectations if they did they would be living within a vacuum
and then even people have expectations they have for themselves ...
so imaginging ones maximum potential without the effect or affect of expectations is a moot point
so what is the point about even bringing up "maximum potential"
it is basically, like Nirvana, a state of enlightnement that can never be attained ...

No it's not!



But seriously, I think you're arguing beside the point. I guess we just think differently, and that's okay.