where does technique end and creativity begin ?

[MattKing]

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

Creativity is nice, but by itself gives you nothing.
Creativity plus technique gives you creative and inspiring results.
Creativity inspires improvements in technique.
Good technique enables creativity.

 

[Craig75]

thanks craig75 !
im glad it made sense to someone besides my fingers, who expelled it onto my screen

Surely the issue is - ok youve dumped the finder and the shutter but at this point all you have a negative. Its what happens next where it all kicks off.

In fact a "perfectly exposed and developed" negative (or a totally bland and predictable one) is exactly what you do want at this stage as its giving you the most information to exploit, jettison, or warp

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Creatively, I knew my vehicle's engine wouldn't start.

Logically, I deciphered that it was the ignition module.

Now, the vehicle gets me where I need to go.

AND... the vehicle is no prettier than it was before this event.

 

[Rick A]

Creativity is nice, but by itself gives you nothing.
Creativity plus technique gives you creative and inspiring results.
Creativity inspires improvements in technique.
Good technique enables creativity.

Technique, in and of itself, is nothing more than a means to an end. Devoid of creativity, is still useful and is capable of churning out a product. Creativity is the impetus, that when injected into technique, is capable of attaining anything the imagination can envision. However, if you only have learned one technique, you are limited to what that is able to produce. When many techniques are learned, you have different paths to the end. Creativity allows the simultaneous use of an assortment of techniques to produce astonishing results.

 

[MattKing]

Creativity is nice, but by itself gives you nothing.
Creativity plus technique gives you creative and inspiring results.
Creativity inspires improvements in technique.
Good technique enables creativity.

Technique, in and of itself, is nothing more than a means to an end. Devoid of creativity, is still useful and is capable of churning out a product. Creativity is the impetus, that when injected into technique, is capable of attaining anything the imagination can envision. However, if you only have learned one technique, you are limited to what that is able to produce. When many techniques are learned, you have different paths to the end. Creativity allows the simultaneous use of an assortment of techniques to produce astonishing results.

Isn't it great that photography accepts so many different outlooks and approaches and mindsets?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Some interesting observations. Thanks for posting, everyone!

 

[Craig75]

i took street photographs for about a year in boston with my camera on auto timer set to to a different shuter speed and fstop dangled around my neck on a strap
all developed in a tank that was processed at some random time in order to remove my self from the process of taking the photographs, and in the end
it was the same exact thing that would have happened had i been with the camera to my face expertly exposing the film, or in a yashica t4 with perfect exposures every time...

You could flip it round though and say... i take my rules of thirds or other classically composed photo, i shoot it at lenses optimum aperture and shutter speed for maximum sharpness, i develop it to a precise CI so it prints at grade 2 or 3. Was i myself ever there or had i done nothing more than the equivalent of programme my video recorder.

If i do anything to subvert that process then i am more in the process even if that process is to try and remove myself from it.

If the negatives turned out the same either way then thats no big deal as you can just accept fact all it is data capture and keep trying to remove yourself from process further down chain. Random enlarger height, put easel on lazy susan and spin it to random framing, random filter grade, random time etc but ironically the more random you make it the more thought and more involved you become in process; perhaps more involved than if you had metered shadows for zone 3, framed according to rule of 3rds and developed to a specific CI

 

[removed account4]

hi craig75
yeah i know the more you remove yourself ( creatively ) the more you
are adding yourself into the recipe. i guess there always has to be human touch
because the robot on the phone poll was made by a human to expose and be predictable too..
btw the negatives i got from my street photo days came out as i thought they would - maybe about 10% success rate
in exposure. i trained myself to be able to print anything so that wasn't a problem ... ( printing street trash and terribly exposed film
is a great lesson plan )

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Technique comes from the brain and intellect. Creativity from the heart and spirit.

 

[Craig75]

hi craig75
yeah i know the more you remove yourself ( creatively ) the more you
are adding yourself into the recipe. i guess there always has to be human touch
because the robot on the phone poll was made by a human to expose and be predictable too..
btw the negatives i got from my street photo days came out as i thought they would - maybe about 10% success rate
in exposure. i trained myself to be able to print anything so that wasn't a problem ... ( printing street trash and terribly exposed film
is a great lesson plan )

maybe robot is most creative because its most removed?

yes i can see that. I will try this to up my game. good stufff

 

[Rick A]

Isn't it great that photography accepts so many different outlooks and approaches and mindsets?

Creativity is unique to the individual employing any technique.

 

[removed account4]

maybe robot is most creative because its most removed?

yes i can see that. I will try this to up my game. good stufff

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Techniques are abstracts from pure human behavior which exists without definition. I doubt very much if the great painters consciously follow a technique to their masterpieces. They paint, someone else analyzes, someone else uses that to "teach" as a technique. Most of that stuff starts to disappear over time and we just shoot.

I have pet-peeve with "Rembrandt Lighting". For cryin' out loud, it was the light he had in his studio; high window light was common in the architecture of the day in Amsterdam. Or the "6 Portrait Lighting Styles Every Photographer Should Know." The differences are really small in some cases, and each can be destroyed by the subject moving a few degrees. It is a continuum.

 

[removed account4]

hi berkeley mike

i agree and don't agree with you about technique. i agree with you because it seems like it
isn't there but it like the autonomic nervous system going on in the background.
there's a point like you say where it's invisible. its just a way of doing something.
can't really say much about rembrandt lighting. i worked with someone
who, like karsh, was a master of it ... while it might have been the window light in his
( and other dutch ) studio at the time, its still a technique ( way ) .. the lady i worked for
back in the day had mastered the technique to a point that she could probably do it in her sleep...
and she had ways of boosting it, like putting petroleum jelly on ares she wanted extreme highlights
( & al. ) i'm guessing mr harmenszoon van rijn probably didn't have to do that ..
maybe he used animal fat or vegtable oils instead ?

 

[slackercrurster]

OP...sounds like you are an overthinker.

Within all arts there is technical skill or art and creative skill or art. They can be mixed or matched as the artist likes or as the artist is capable.

Some artists have more creative skill and are poor technicians. Others are great technicians with poor creativity. The ones with talent in both areas are the ones to be jealous of.

And if you are one of the people that think photography is not an art then you must think one photo is as good as the next. For when decisions have to be made and the outcome is uncertain...there is most definitely art in the process.

 

[removed account4]

slackercrurster
im not an over thinker at all.
i won't go over my pedigree cause that isn't important
unless i am schmoozing a gallery owner or commerical client.
( and i don't think you are either, unless you are ... )
im not someone to think that photography isn't an art but i think
that 99% of photography isn't even close. i haven't drunk the koolaide ...
and it is always interesting to read or have a conversation with someone
about creativity or art or architecture or personal expression or technical "stuff"
because well, some of the technical proficient people on the planet make beautiful
academic creations ... i wouldn't call them "art" because there is none of them in it
but then again it might all be them and it might be more artistic / creative than the most
avante guarde over the top improvised creation made by picasso or dali...seeing they have
to find their way through the scaffolding.

as usual, YURMMV

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Creativity is the ability to imagine what to do. Technique is the capability to know how to do it.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

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 !

Creativity is always technique etc.
Would it be lomography technique or HCB technique.

 

[Jim Jones]

Creativity is the ability to imagine what to do. Technique is the capability to know how to do it.

Finally someone condensed this to a motto many of us need to post in our workspace.

 

[jtk]

Creativity is independent from technique.

If a person is creative, s/he conducts that creativity in all sorts of ways.

Picasso cooked, seduced, entertained, photographed in new ways. Stieglitz marketed, seduced, organized, published. Adams entertained, hiked, taught, published, marketed. Dali was theatric, a liar, a money maker.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Finally someone condensed this to a motto many of us need to post in our workspace.

Thanks Jim, but I take no credit for it. It's what my first art teacher taught us.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Creativity is the ability to imagine what to do. Technique is the capability to know how to do it.

Was about to say "knowing technique allows you to be creative, since poor technical knowledge will make it impossible for you to realize on paper the image you created in your head."

Basically a long-winded version of what you said

 

[ReginaldSMith]

@chriscrawfordphoto Every now and then I can be pithy.

 

[removed account4]

Creativity is the ability to imagine what to do. Technique is the capability to know how to do it.

what if you are not sitting around imagining what to do and just taking photographs ?
im guessing people who do street work like winograd didn't wonder what to do
they just did it ... does that mean they werne't creative ? or technical ? or robotic ? o r?

 

[ReginaldSMith]

As best I know, very few actions of humans are purely random acts. That is to say, without first an intention. "I'm going out to take random photographs," is still an intention. The intention to create an artifact.