where does technique end and creativity begin ?

[removed account4]

not sure if this makes sense to anyone but me, but
where does technique end and creativity begin ?
when i say technique i mean composition &c
and this is an equal opportunity thread so is someone
wants to talk about gadgets feel free !

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

IMO, they function simultaneously, seamlessly and complimentarily.

 

[BMbikerider]

Each is individual so you cannot set a benchmark. There are some who cannot see beyond getting the finest, most perfect image, technically perfect in every way, Then there are others at the opposite end of the spectrum who could not care less (almost) about technique but get a result that they have imagined what it could be like.

 

[Jim Jones]

I'm with Old-N-Feeble.

 

[grahamp]

I'd have thought that creativity is independent of technical knowledge/skill.

But realizing that creativity is going to benefit from having knowledge and skill with the chosen tools. Which puts creativity in the imaginary, and knowledge/skill in the technique in the concrete.

 

[guangong]

Old-and-feeble has it right. The painter Eugene Delacroix , in a very un- pic way of expression, had the essential idea correct. He noted that there were many great female writers all the way back into antiquity but no great women painters. His explanation: the process of writing is linear with one element following another, but painting required that subject, composition, color, drawing, size, emotion, etc, etc. all be done simultaneously and was just to difficult for women. Overlooking his bias , the general point is quite true. It is the knack of being able to find o all of these things at one time that separates the great artist from the rest. But that is the quest of the artist.

 

[Vaughn]

Creativity is what blends technique and process to make art.

 

[dpurdy]

Creativity is what blends technique and process to make art.

Bingo.

 

[pdeeh]

creativity never starts for me; and my technique's pretty ropy

 

[Gerald C Koch]

If it is any help Ansel Adams said that he would rather see a poorly executed example of a great subject than any example of a poor subject.

 

[Ian Leake]

Creativity is somewhere between a process and a mental state (sort of); technique is skill. Neither are wholly dependent upon each other but I think technique is useful when realising creative ideas, and creativity can be spurred by technique.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Technique is either a help or a hindrance between the idea and the result. It has little to do with creativity itself though. Some use it as a crutch to lean on.

 

[MattKing]

Good technique is a creativity "enabler".
Ever watched an experienced photographer "work" a photographic opportunity. It is like watching an experienced musician take up a new piece of music.
The technique issues just don't get in the way.

 

[Rick A]

Technique is how you push the button. Creativity is why.

 

[blockend]

Modern photography, aka digital photography, is predicated on the notion of continued technical improvement. Most modern amateurs are serial gear swappers, the motive for which is better, which means their existing shots must be progressively worse. The relationship between a great photograph and the technology it is taken on is superficial, if it exists at all. You can learn camera function in a weekend and throw cash at the printing problem, and be at no creative disadvantage. Or buy a point and shoot. It's 99.9% eye.

Any photography that relies largely or exclusively on technique is likely to be boring. Technique is the cherry on the cake, not the cake itself.

 

[Ian Leake]

Good technique is a creativity "enabler".
Exactly.

For example, I have an idea for a project. I’ve tried for a few months (on and off) but so far I lack the technique to realise it. However, this evening I finally got a set of negatives that I think will work, so I will print tomorrow to find out. If they’ve worked then my technique will have improved sufficiently for at least half my project. I’ve still got some things to learn before I can realise the other half. The technique I’m learning for this project will undoubtedly open my eyes to new creative ideas in the future.

 

[faberryman]

Modern photography, aka digital photography, is predicated on the notion of continued technical improvement.

It seems like the trajectory of photography from the very beginning has been on of continued technical improvement.

Most modern amateurs are serial gear swappers, the motive for which is better, which means their existing shots must be progressively worse.

I am not following you argument.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

It seems like the trajectory of photography from the very beginning has been on of continued technical improvement. <snip>

IMO, technical improvement has been the trajectory of every artful endeavor. I wonder how long it took someone to develop the proper mix of colorful minerals to chew and spit on cave walls to make a copy of their hand print. Who developed and modified tools for painting and sculpting? Why are the terms 'arts' and 'sciences' (arts and sciences) so often co-mingled?

 

[blockend]

It seems like the trajectory of photography from the very beginning has been on of continued technical improvement.

It's more about the democratisation of photography than improvement. The box camera arrived after the large format platinum print, and the 35mm camera followed the Brownie. The 110 camera followed both. Aspects of photographic technology improve, like film speed, but it would be hard to argue the aesthetic quality of photography as a whole has improved. It is however in many more peoples' hands.

My point on gear swapping is people think it will make their photography better, which insists their old photography must be getting worse because their standards are based around technical quality, not aesthetic values. I don't believe a photograph taken on a 35mm point and shoot is worse than one taken on a 10 x 8 Sinar, it's just different. Same with digital, a shot on an old MFT camera isn't worse than one taken on a D850, it might be slightly noisier. I don't think grain or noise make a great photo a bad one, so the improvements are not key its quality.

 

[David Brown]

Technique is how you push the button. Creativity is why.

+1

 

[faberryman]

My point on gear swapping is people think it will make their photography better, which insists their old photography must be getting worse because their standards are based around technical quality, not aesthetic values.

A photographers existing images don't get progressively worse. They are what they are and don't change.

 

[blockend]

A photographers existing images don't get progressively worse. They are what they are and don't change.

I don't think people believe that when they sink a grand or two on a new digital camera. They believe the camera will make their photography objectively better. The corollary of that is their old photos are getting worse with each "upgrade". Otherwise they would keep their old kit.

 

[faberryman]

I don't think people believe that when they sink a grand or two on a new digital camera. They believe the camera will make their photography objectively better. The corollary of that is their old photos are getting worse with each "upgrade". Otherwise they would keep their old kit.

I don't think it is a corollary that their old photos are getting worse with each upgrade. Their existing photos remain exactly the same quality. They do not suddenly change because a photographer buys a new camera.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

...unless there's a placebo effect.

 

[blockend]

I don't think it is a corollary that their old photos are getting worse with each upgrade. Their existing photos remain exactly the same quality. They do not suddenly change because a photographer buys a new camera.

If their new photographs are technically superior, and technical superiority is the photographer's principal concern in upgrading, his/her old photos must be getting worse in comparison.