where does technique end and creativity begin ?

[faberryman]

I think otherwise.

If one has defined what they want and figured out how to get it, IMO the creative process is mostly over. Once you reach that point the task becomes a technical exercise.

And if you are unable to perform the technical exercise?

 

[markbarendt]

That's true to a degree, Mark, but a painter or sculptor must have control of his/her tools to fully realize their visions. The true 'hurt' for we 'non-artists' is... cameras are far easier to use (as tools) than hammers/chisels or paints/brushes. So, truly artistic images are made by folks using auto-everything 'capture devices'. Those people are not techies but they can 'see'. Often times those with great technical skills can't 'see'. Others are variably adept at both.

If one has defined what they want and figured out how to get it, ...

We are expressing the same ideas ONF.

HCB, for example, might have made better (more easily printed) exposures with an F100 set to full auto or A, the craft (technical bits) of photography was of little interest to him.

 

[markbarendt]

And if you are unable to perform the technical exercise?

The technical bits can all be written down as a set of instructions/rules.

Adams for example wrote a set of books to explain to others the way he did things, he gave us the ‘blueprint’ needed to get the same results he did.

The questions are: do we want to do work that mimics Adams and; can we follow those instructions. Many do and have successfully.

 

[blockend]

The question is can a photographer be creative without an encyclopaedic knowledge of the medium? The answer is of course. If you're a professional who's asked to shoot everything from portraits to food shots to sports, you'd better know your way round the contents of a studio and have gear for every occasion. On the other hand there are highly esteemed, gallery hung photographers whose output is shot entirely on a point and shoot camera (eg, Bertien van Manen). They know the limitations and possibilities of that choice and are content to work within them, in the same way that a competent all round artist might decide that charcoal drawing is the medium that best expresses their ideas, even though they're excellent with oil paint.

Some artists need a working knowledge of the photographic medium to produce their work, but consider themselves artists, not photographers. Effie Paleologou takes extreme close ups of discarded chewing gum with a large format camera and macro lens. My first job was to be highly competent with an ultra large format camera, but because it was all copy work it was the most boring photography imaginable! The application of size and complexity has no direct relationship with the quality of the output.

 

[faberryman]

The technical bits can all be written down as a set of instructions/rules.

DaVinci may have imagined the Mona Lisa but if he couldn't paint we wouldn't have it. Michelangelo may have imagined the David but if he couldn't sculpt we wouldn't have it. It was their masterful technique that rendered possible what their creativity imagined.

 

[Valerie]

+1

++1

 

[faberryman]

The question is can a photographer be creative without an encyclopaedic knowledge of the medium?

No one has suggested that an artist's knowledge of the medium has to be enclycopedic. That's a straw man.

The application of size and complexity has no direct relationship with the quality of the output.

No one has suggested that. Another straw man.

 

[MattKing]

It occurs to me that the very different outlooks on this question may very well reflect the differences between us - some of us find creativity integrating with technique in different ways than others do.
In my case I tend to get my best creative ideas when I'm immersed in the process of making photographs.

 

[blockend]

No one has suggested that an artist's knowledge of the medium has to be enclycopedic. That's a straw man.

No one has suggested that. Another straw man.

People conflate technical knowledge and sophistication with aesthetic quality all the time. Of course it isn't a straw man to point that out. Modern photography forums exist on the principle that mystical juju and large sums of money are required to create good photographs.

 

[faberryman]

People conflate technical knowledge and sophistication with aesthetic quality all the time. Of course it isn't a straw man to point that out. Modern photography forums exist on the principle that mystical juju and large sums of money are required to create good photographs.

What silly hyperbole. I certainly don't find that to be true here at Photrio or at the other forums I frequent.

 

[blockend]

DaVinci may have imagined the Mona Lisa but if he couldn't paint we wouldn't have it. Michelangelo may have imagined the David but if he couldn't sculpt we wouldn't have it. It was their masterful technique that rendered possible what their creativity imagined.

The Renaissance masters, like modern fine artists generally got other people to do the heavy work. In some cases all of it bar the concept.

What silly hyperbole. I certainly don't find that to be true here at Photrio or at the other forums I frequent.

I didn't say it was typical of this forum, but this is very much the exception being concerned with a historical process that comprises a tiny part of the photographic market. Step outside and tell me I'm wrong. You'd think 50mp, a studio lighting rig and intimate familiarity Photoshop were a starting point to read most of them. Democratic photography has been available since George Eastmen sold his little boxes. The fact buffs want to overcomplicate their hobby doesn't mean the general public can't make superb photographs.

 

[markbarendt]

DaVinci may have imagined the Mona Lisa but if he couldn't paint we wouldn't have it. Michelangelo may have imagined the David but if he couldn't sculpt we wouldn't have it. It was their masterful technique that rendered possible what their creativity imagined.

That’s a reasonable statement,

What I’m saying is that learning the craft (technical bits) is simply a matter of applying ones self to the task long enough to master it. There are people today that can paint to a standard that the Mona Lisa could be copied by hand, that’s the technical bit. DaVinci‘s Mona Lisa though is from original thought.

 

[NJH]

I think otherwise.

If one has defined what they want and figured out how to get it, IMO the creative process is mostly over. Once you reach that point the task becomes a technical exercise.

HCB for example knew exactly what he was after, ‘the decisive moment’. He knew what he wanted in terms of composition and timing and subject matter. HCB’s work is so formulaic that it defined a photgraphic genre. Designing his ‘formula’ was a very creative exercise. Applying his formula was (is) a technical exercise.

This idea is typical of professional work (photographic or otherwise).

Precisely, yet on this thread we are still hung up on the idea that photographic technique is all about knowing how to press buttons and twiddle dials.

Expanding on your point about HCB I would like to ask everyone this simple question. Has there ever been a highly regarded photographer whose body of work didn't involve well developed formulas they applied? Its obvious isn't it that this is a not a question but a statement of fact, without a formula or method there is no style or themes to ones work, just random individual happenstance that would be unrecognisable as originating from the same person.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It seems to be a little disingenuous to separate creativity and technique. A painter who can't paint? A sculptor who can't sculpt? A photographer who can't operate a camera? I dare say most artists are masters of their craft.

 

[blockend]

Precisely, yet on this thread we are still hung up on the idea that photographic technique is all about knowing how to press buttons and twiddle dials.

Expanding on your point about HCB I would like to ask everyone this simple question. Has there ever been a highly regarded photographer whose body of work didn't involve well developed formulas they applied? Its obvious isn't it that this is a not a question but a statement of fact, without a formula or method there is no style or themes to ones work, just random individual happenstance that would be unrecognisable as originating from the same person.

It depends what you mean by formula. Daido Moriyama is one of the most famous Japanese photographers ever, and he photographs whatever interests him on a simple point and shoot camera. His formula is in the curation of those images into discrete bodies of work. The mechanics of image making are left entirely to autofocus and auto-exposure. He's also an excellent printer, so it's possible to have zero interest in technique, huge interest in subject matter and be highly skilled in the darkroom.

By contrast Bernd and Hilla Becher spent decades photographing industrial structures on a large format camera in a completely deadpan way. They were pure records, deprived of subjectivity and built into topographic themes and exhibited as groupings. Bertien van Manen left a career in fashion photography to travel with a simple automated camera, embedding herself with families like a war journalist with troops. She celebrates the way point and shoot cameras lack control of focus and flash, combining technical accidents with an intimate portrayal of humanity. She is visually sophisticated, technically unconcerned and strongly curatorial.

Sophisticated aesthetics shouldn't be confused with technical virtuosity.

 

[eddie]

I don't think there's a solid line dividing technique and creativity. In my case, I can say that improved technique leads to more creativity. Likewise, the desire to be more creative leads to advances in technique. They snowball together, growing larger as they go down the hill...

 

[MattKing]

I don't think there's a solid line dividing technique and creativity. In my case, I can say that improved technique leads to more creativity. Likewise, the desire to be more creative leads to advances in technique. They snowball together, growing larger as they go down the hill...

+++++1

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I guess technique ends (even though it's always there) when you're not conscientiously thinking about it.

 

[blockend]

I guess technique ends (even though it's always there) when you're not conscientiously thinking about it.

I agree. My camera is generally set to f8 at 1/250 with a 35mm lens. I know what that looks like visually, I understand how much light is required to expose those settings properly, when to change them, and what film and developer to use for consistency. That's a sophisticated set of technical parameters, but I never give them a second conscious thought. Technique shouldn't be an obstacle course you strain to overcome, it should be second nature. It's why a box camera is as intelligent as any other camera choice. So long as you know how a box camera exposes the image and you choose film and subject matter appropriately, and realise how a simple meniscus lens views the world, a Brownie is made of the same visual stuff as a Leica or a Sinar.

A photographer essentially has two choices, to build a body of work that portrays his/her particular view of the world relating to subject matter and appearance, or to let the world around them decide that view. The first can be achieved on almost any camera you like using and know your way around. The second requires equipment for every occasion constantly at hand. I think more photographers err to the latter, to the detriment of their photography as a whole. If they enjoy collecting gear and solving technical puzzles, that's entirely their business, but it's rarely the personal view of the world photography is best known for.

 

[faberryman]

He's also an excellent printer, so it's possible to have zero interest in technique, huge interest in subject matter and be highly skilled in the darkroom.

Is there no technique involved in being "highly skilled" in the darkroom. If not, what does "highly skilled" mean?

 

[blockend]

Is there no technique involved in being "highly skilled" in the darkroom. If not, what does "highly skilled" mean?

Isn't it self evident? Technique as a concept in many people's minds suggests a deliberate choice of camera, lens, film, developer and print over which they have control at each stage. You can deliberately remove any number of those and still be totally formulaic about the images you curate. You could even collect other people's negatives from a lab floor and still produce a work of consistent technical vision.

The OPs question was where does technique end and creativity begin, and the answer is anywhere, so long as the individual is himself creative.

 

[faberryman]

You can dance around it all you want, but you can't be "highly skilled" in the darkroom without technique. It is what "highly skilled" means.

 

[markbarendt]

I guess technique ends (even though it's always there) when you're not conscientiously thinking about it.

I’d suggest that when you're not consciously thinking about it anymore (when you are no longer figuring out ‘how to get a certain type of shot’) that the technique at hand has been mastered and that creativity ends.

At that point you know exactly what you want and you go into production.

 

[blockend]

You can dance around it all you want, but you can't be "highly skilled" in the darkroom without technique. It is what "highly skilled" means.

You're being deliberately perverse, or you completely lack creativity and thinks it's a technique. Stephen Gill brought out a book consisting entirely of wedding kisses by an unknown photographer. The curation of it is still his work. He discovered the negatives, printed them, decided on a layout and intelligently produced and marketed the book. Conceptually, it's entirely his. It's a "highly skilled" curatorial enterprise, just as going back through old negatives, seeing what you were trying to envisage, and producing a book or an exhibition that reflects them to best advantage. Only bores care what lens you chose or whether the negative was stand developed or shaken like a cocktail when they look at a photograph. The end result is all that matters to anyone except the photographer.

 

[faberryman]

Your response is a non sequitur.