Can an "eye" for photography be learned?

[M. Valdemar]

I've seen some people totally untrained or experienced in photogrpahy pick up the cheapest camera available and start to turn out beautiful, startling photographs.

They "get" it. Their perspectives, angles, colors, choice of details to hone in on are 100% each and every time. Second nature.

Then you have people who study photography, buy tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment, debate characteristics of lenses, cameras, ad infinitum, and they never take anything more than pedestrian, uninspired images, totally without any interest to anyone else.

It's the same with music. Some people can pick up a guitar or a clarinet, and start making divine sounds once they master the basics. Others can practice a lifetime and never make any progress.

I think an "eye" and a talent cannot be learned. Those without talent can sometimes take an accidental great image, but those who "have it" can create the fascinating images and the looks with any camera, any lens, almost any medium.

You can practice the technical side of the craft forever, and improve the final image, but you can't teach perception.

What do you think? I think a great artist is born, not taught.

[CameraQuest]

I think photogs of any talent can always learn more and so better their "photographic eye."

However I think real talent is a gift, something which can not be learned, or taught even in the very best photo schools.

I've seen many gifted photogs turn out great shots who could barely tell the difference between an F/stop and a bus stop.

Stephen

[gns]

I think people who do great work can probably come to it differently. There are those who just pick it up and start doing interesting things from the get-go. Yet others who "Learn" or acquire an ability or style through years of working at it.

Whether it can be taught? I kind of doubt it. Maybe the right person can help you along to some extent, but I think you learn the important stuff on your own.

Check out Robert Adam's essays in his books, "Beauty in Photography" and "Why People Photograph" for some interesting thoughts on this.

Cheers,
Gary

[mhv]

It's the same with music. Some people can pick up a guitar or a clarinet, and start making divine sounds once they master the basics. Others can practice a lifetime and never make any progress.

I think an "eye" and a talent cannot be learned. Those without talent can sometimes take an accidental great image, but those who "have it" can create the fascinating images and the looks with any camera, any lens, almost any medium.

You can practice the technical side of the craft forever, and improve the final image, but you can't teach perception.

What do you think? I think a great artist is born, not taught.

Oh yes you can teach perception! Pictorial composition is not a transcendental truth that needs only to be remembered by the gifted. It's a very dense network of social conventions, cognitive abilities, historic circumstances, taste, and so forth. Just by paying proper attention to previous artwork is a huge step in understanding how it works, and ditching the mystery away.

Musical composition used to be a similar mystery: how the hell do people put notes together and make them sing? Then a musician friend of mine explained to me the basic mechanisms behind a song: key, scale, rhythm, etc. The mystery went away, but I actually have a newfound respect for musicians simply because I understand better how much hard work you need to put into your art before making something marginally good. It's not just talent.

We think that learning is hearing something explicitly and then applying it. Our selves do a lot of background processing without us knowing it. The "gifted" individual is often a weird mixture of special cognitive abilities and exposure to art.

There are plenty of talented folks who never developed their potential before exposure to other artists, practice, and encouragement.

I don't think you can take Joe Ordinary and be sure you will turn him into Mozart, but on the other hand, there are no reasons to believe that the person you believe to be Joe Ordinary is not in fact a Mozart to be.

Likewise, everybody CAN succeed at school, but not everybody does. And it's not just a question of intelligence or inborn talent. You need to take everything in consideration, the cognitive, the social, and the accidents of history.

[SolaresLarrave]

Good question to ponder, M Valdemar. :)

I'm a teacher because I believe in the power of education and learning. That's why I believe that people can learn and develop a gift. Not all skills and dexterities are innate, and if it were, we'd be in dire streets if we had to trust on those who are "born with a gift" to do things. Imagine if only those people "gifted" to learn languages studied French, German or Chinese? What about those who need it? We all can learn because we have highly adaptable and intelligent minds.

In sum, yes, the skills can be learned and developed into a talent.

[Nh3]

Photography is a general term and in fact no one is a great photographer, there are great landscape photographers, documentary photographer, fashion photographers etc...

So, in end the everyone who takes photos has talent for one of the many subject matters that can be photographed, the real genius lies in the act of deciding on one subject and running with it.

[kuzano]

Art courses and particularly Art History.

OK.. photography courses insofar as mastering the technical aspects of gear and film.

[Dektol Dan]

The mystical magical savants you describes do not exist. They are a myth. You might describe me as one of those, but in fact I'm an old time 'child prodigy'. I come from a family of musicians and artists. I was playing clarinet in the 4th grade, that's nothing special but that's young. My parents made it happen. I now play music 'by ear'.

My father took me on sketching expeditions at the same age, and we sat in the front pew in church and sketched portraits of choir members and the preacher of the sermon. Playing ball came second. It wasn't valued the same.

Learning the arts is like learning a foreign language. The earlier one begins the easier it is to master.

Those who have talent are those that are immune to failure, that is, they see their mistakes soon, don't moan about them and try something new, even if takes a hundred tries. They don't give up even though they may be prone to the errors of everyone who is self taught. I was lucky, in my family I had a good support group.

Grandma Moses could only progress so far, yet she is considered to be a kind of savant. However, she never overcame 'speaking' painting with a heavy accent.

[williams473]

I think I can take away a bit from what everyone has said thus far to form my opinion; that what makes up one's "eye"- the perception and mastery of composition, light, balance - basic geometry - this all can be learned. Exposure to the work of master photographers and leaders in the various genres of photogrpahy is a great education, as is having a mentor. The goal is to get to where technical issues aren't in the way of doing what you want to do - expression - with the camera.

What can't be learned - and in my opinion is what is most important in developing as an artist - is how one lives one's life. Our rich and sometimes tragic experiences are what form the Art that comes out of us, whether we are using a camera or not to make the Art.

[ChrisN]

This is the best thread I've seen on RFF for months. Thanks especially to MHV, Francisco and Dektol Dan for your encourgaing replies. There is hope!

[mhv]

Why, thank you! :)

[crawdiddy]

Oh yes you can teach perception! Pictorial composition is not a transcendental truth that needs only to be remembered by the gifted. It's a very dense network of social conventions, cognitive abilities, historic circumstances, taste, and so forth. Just by paying proper attention to previous artwork is a huge step in understanding how it works, and ditching the mystery away.

Thanks, mhv, for your response. I believe your take on it is a lot closer to reality than the O.P. Humans learn stuff. It's what we do. There are many lessons to be learned about composition, color, perception, etc., by anyone interested in paying attention to what others have done. Even the so-called untrained genius is more likely a gifted and perceptive observer, whom in reality "taught" himself.

[wintoid]

You can practice the technical side of the craft forever, and improve the final image, but you can't teach perception.

I'm a natural musician but I struggle as a photographer.

There were some great records by Stefan Grapelli and Yehudi Menuhin... violin duets in a jazz style. Grapelli played with his soul, and his sheer musicality shone through. Menuhin learned the notes and played them well, and he got better over the years, but he never approached what Grapelli had. Perhaps a little unfair as jazz was Grapelli's thing, and Menuhin was a classical violinist.

Perception though.... I think you can teach perception, but it's not the same as natural ability. Perhaps it's my fantasy, but a natural aims the camera and gets a good picture, whereas someone like me gets *some* good pictures, which are found at the editing stage. I'm getting better at editing, and I've learned more about what works. I'm not sure I've learned any more about what to take in the first place.

If I didn't think I was improving (even if I'm crap) I wouldn't continue with this strange hobby,

[Chris101]

Call me egalitarian, but I think anyone can be an artist. It's art after all, and just because it isn't 'gotten' doesn't make it bad, it's just not at the right time. I see stuff that looks like crap and it gets critical acclaim. So there's no accounting for taste. So the stuff done by 'non-artistic' types could well be the next big thing.

I strive to always be on the outside though.

[Bill58]

As we say in TX, "all my taste is in my mouth". I have zero artistic (or musical) ability and doubt if I can learn, so I just shoot interesting-looking people/ places/ things--kinda' like a one frame at a time reality TV show. I know my limitations.

[williams473]

"Perhaps it's my fantasy, but a natural aims the camera and gets a good picture, whereas someone like me gets *some* good pictures, which are found at the editing stage. I'm getting better at editing, and I've learned more about what works. I'm not sure I've learned any more about what to take in the first place."

The fact that you're editing doesn't mean you're any less of a photographer - everybody edits - there are no photographers out there who get what they want even close to all the time. Photography is a reductive process. We start with everything anyone could photograph in the whole world, and every possible way of photogrpahing it, and boil it down to one, specific piece of paper. Editing is part of the process, so don't feel bad about having to sift through the garbage - the fact that you have garbage to look at and are willing to face failures it is staying on the right track - it's all part of growing.

[williams473]

"The highly successful British fashion photographer, David Baily, thought he was lucky if he got one usable shot from a 36 roll."

Indeed - I mean, if we're honest. We shoot a lot of passable work, but our absolute best images are few and far between.

[georgef]

As much as I agree in principle with the notion that humans learn perception, you can only learn so much.

I have come across certain people who, by nature, have this "ability" to see things in ways others do not. This is not limited to art by the way. I have met engineers, Accountants, athletes, business men /women, lawyers, musicians, even farmers who have astounded me by their ability to process information differently, better that the rest of us.
Those abilities are genetic, they belong to that person. One may learn the basics of any art, but they will only go up to the level they are able to; they may progress further ahead with more teachng, but still, up to a certain point.

Probably the greatest architecture proffesor I have ever had once said: "we dont teach students to learn art, we teach them to learn "their" art".

I dont believe that you either are or are not talented, Everyone is talented in their own levels. The world is all about the greys.

[pfoto]

HCB also shot a lot of junk so there is certainly hope for us all. However I do think you have to have a good eye to begin with.

[shadowfox]

1. Everyone has some talent. The question is how much?

2. Abundant born talent, even at the genius level, without motivation and significant sacrifices won't become greatness.

3. Talent, is dynamic, it can be cultivated by tireless observation and synthesis. How far? it depends on the effort... mental efforts, not physical, that will follow naturally.

4. Not all greatness are recognized either by the world or by the artist him/herself.

Combine these four, and all of us suddenly have an equal chance of being recognized and become greatness.

Go for it.

[tritiated]

Since my brother started taking pictures (~8 months ago) - in my opinion he has taken much better pictures than I have, with the fairly simple film camera set up that I gave him.

If I start explaining technical things to him, he groans and says 'I just like playing with the settings', so I leave him to it! He is an autodidact who simply experiments, whereas I tend to read about (technical, gear) things on forums and stuff too, as well as surf flickr too much.

He has a general grasp of - bigger f number = bigger depth of field, and then just goes with it. And he just really likes taking pictures, and picks out and shoots things he finds interesting - and doesn't obsess over it! I'm not sure if he has an intrinsic 'eye', but he has a laid back attitude that tends to free up his vision, lets say.

He does make mistakes, but doesn't get annoyed and tends to learn from them, and usually gets a number of great shots per roll.

I have been shooting for an extra year ish, and have learnt a few more technical things and spent more money - but perhaps things were better when I just worked around the very basic controls. Perhaps I could unlearn what I have learned! And learn from my wee brother! The weekend should be fun!

[Chris101]

I like that analysis Will. The only area of difference I might have with it, is your conclusion. I am fortunate enough to have a 'day job' that I both enjoy, and that allows me sufficient free time to pursue my artistic endeavors. Thus I don't feel the need to achieve recognition or greatness.

And I think that is essential for art - that the activity of doing it, is the payoff. I think that having success as the goal leads to the number one cause of art-death: copying (one's own) successful formula.

[Piteux]

So true, Chris. So true!

[imajypsee]

In the present day, a person who isn't informed visually is rare; we're surrounded by pictures. A person need only open their eyes to be trained in the culture of visual language, and photography informs that culture and interprets that culture. So, the "new" photographer starts out at a better advantage than someone who isn't, or wasn't, hooked into the media (TV, internet, print). There's a rich stock of information to rely on, to draw on, to emulate.
In the present day, a digital camera/DSLR will make revising a photo immediate and the learning process is greatly improved and enhanced.
In the present day, what "eye" are you talking about? Photographic styles and their corresponding "eye" are wide and the way photos are received and interpreted has a big, wide continuum.

[aizan]

a person's aesthetic sense is learned just like anything else.

[M. Valdemar]

I don't agree with most of the comments about "learning" how to be creative. I think it's an inherent trait.

It might be politically correct to feel that everyone has something to contribute, but I don't agree with this egalitarian concept.

Everybody doesn't have an equal amount of talent or refined perceptions. Visual brilliance can't be learned by rote.

I think there are "naturals" and there are the others. One can painstakingly practice to emulate the look of a master, but one can't learn to be the master.



a person's aesthetic sense is learned just like anything else.

[Gabriel M.A.]

This is the age old question, asked by every art instructor.

And, some of them, like, whoah, fight against the machine, man. Fight it. Like, just do it, man.

Or others are short of wearing a Hugh Heffner robe and get on their high horse and declare anybody who doesn't think like them utterly hopeless. Or brain-challenged, depending on their choice of words (if they have such choice) :)

[M. Valdemar]

I don't believe I said any such thing or made any judgements. And it's "Hefner".

But for people like me, it's "Hef".

And, some of them, like, whoah, fight against the machine, man. Fight it. Like, just do it, man.

Or others are short of wearing a Hugh Heffner robe and get on their high horse and declare anybody who doesn't think like them utterly hopeless. Or brain-challenged, depending on their choice of words (if they have such choice) :)

[aizan]

assuming that genes only go so far, the rest is developmental. learning isn't confined to the classroom; i was using it in a general sense.

[crawdiddy]

Whether people have the ability to learn about visual arts, perception, composition, etc., has nothing to do with egalitarianism or political correctness, unless you arbitrarily frame the discussion that way. The fact is that people do learn those skills. Saying we're either born with it or not is absurd. It's like saying you're either born with language skills or not. If you grew up with no one around you using written or spoken language, how would your language skills be?

[Gabriel M.A.]

I don't believe I said any such thing or made any judgements. And it's "Hefner".

But for people like me, it's "Hef".

Others would argue that it should be "Haeffner". Misspellings of an immigrant officer's misspelling are a bit sticky.

No pun intended.

For other people, it's "Hugh".

[Gabriel M.A.]

If you grew up with no one around you using written or spoken language, how would your language skills be?

As the Internets have shown us, written language is overrated. What with possessives and plurals exchanged abhorrently in the "its it's their they're there" arena can show :rolleyes:

[ferider]

Then you have people who study photography, buy tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment, debate characteristics of lenses, cameras, ad infinitum, and they never take anything more than pedestrian, uninspired images, totally without any interest to anyone else.

Could it be that those are the same people that buy the stuff that artists with an "eye" create ?

Truly, if you don't think creativity (whatever that means) can be "learned" you are either:

- lazy or
- too full of yourself or
- heavily depressed.

Roland.

[raid]

There is genius and there is proficiency.
The first is nearly impossible to learn without having the seeds already, whereas the second can be learned.

[M. Valdemar]

Exactly.

You can drum language into a person, but when he grows up he won't write Jabberwocky.

There is genius and there is proficiency.
The first is nearly impossible to learn without having the seeds already, whereas the second can be learned.

[raid]

MV liked my answer! Yippeeeeee! This has made my day. I am so happy.

[aizan]

there are any number of ways to drastically reduce the likelihood of "being a genius", a misleading phrase to begin with. that only applies after the fact.

i should probably add that there are many things that are out of your control, which is probably what the "you either have it or you don't" folks are zoning in on.

[sjw617]

Some things can be learned - how to use a camera or 'rules' of composition. Sometimes teachers can bring out ability. But you can not learn the 'photographic eye'. You have it or not.

Roland, I do not believe that creativity can be learned. And that does not mean you are lazy, egotistical or depressed (I am a bit surprised you even wrote that).

Steve

[Haigh]

A fine question. I did not start photography intending to be a great photographer and just as well but I did try and do better at something I loved. The meaning for me was in the effort, which I enjoy, even with its frustrations. Am I better? Ask others, not me.

I imagine few musicians start out out determined to be Mozart but they can be taught to be better at what they love doing.

Regards to all,

Gary Haigh

[laughingbuddha]

I tend to disagree with the notion that creativity is something that is not inherent in everyone. I believe the problem lies in what one is taught to value about themselves and the world around them. If spontaneity and curiosity are nurtured then one will grow up with the ability to imagine and think abstractly intact and functioning then the creative potential will be there. The only question left is to what use the creative urge will lend itself.

People who are struggling to uncover their creativity are doing just that and that alone and the progress they make is determined by how much they value the recovery of their birthright and are willing to work for it.

[crawdiddy]

The real problem with this question is it begs for a binary solution, when reality is analog, and lies somewhere between the two extremes.

Like many interesting problems in the real world, it's messy and complicated. It's not black or white, although some want to simplify it to that degree.

[aizan]

they do say that 80% of an athlete's performance is psychological, and only 20% physical.

[peterm1]

Personally I think that much of it can be. The basics such as an understanding of composition - rule of thirds etc and an understanding of technical issues such as exposure will help tremendously. After that I would recommend (a) studying the giants of photography and try to emulate some of their shots - I have done this and it works greatly to understand how to compose a good shot. (b) PRACTICE!. This is one of the great benefits of digital photography if you ask me. It allows you to take thousands of photos at no real expense AND you get the immediate feedback that comes from being able to view your images immediately. So you learn. These things may not make you another Cartier Bresson but they will turn someone who otherwise is just a happy snapper into a good photographer. I almost always have a camera with me but I also find that I mainly get good photos on days when I go out on my own to take photos rather than on days when I am with someone else and just have the camera in the hope o something turning up. I think you can (maybe must) put yourself in an artistic frame of mind and be willing to experiment. The latter - which can take 5-10 minutes per shot when being serious is hard to achieve when you have awife clamoring for your attention.

[Chris101]

... When I was a teen I wanted to be a bicycle racer. I had coaches who had sent a number of riders to the Olympics, I trained all the time. I had the best equipment, and boy was I motivated. I tried out for the 64 Olympics, never even came close.But aren't the ones who DO make it the ones who try out for the '64, then the '68, then the '72, and finally get in for the '76?

Ever tried getting something published? Expect 12 rejections per acceptance. Same for getting artwork placed.

[Gid]

A very good question. The short answer is no. The longer answer is more complex.

Let's start with innate ability. I believe we are all born with differing levels of ability for just about anything you can think of - from running to intellectual capacity - this may just be down to genetics. It is not unusual to see the son/daughter of a "great" end up doing very well in the same field - sometimes better, sometimes not quite so good. This may well be down to gene degradation (other parent's genes dilute) or in the opposite case, gene enhancement. Let's now give some arbitrary measure to ability - score it on a scale of one to ten, one being low. Let's also assume that you can develop innate ability though nurture, training, encouragement etc. and improve your ability score. Where you end up depends upon how much we believe is innate and how much can be brought on. However, if we accept this argument, then, if you start off at one on the scale I doubt you'll ever get to ten, but if you start at seven .................

The above is very simplistic, but we are all different - just look around you or consider your own experiences. I used to play in a casual jazz band - a group of guys who liked music would meet up for a jam once a fortnight. The host loved to play the saxophone and put a lot of effort into mastering his instrument. However, he could not improvize. He had the technical ability (learned) but he just didn't hear it (innate?).

As I said at the start, the long answer is more complex and there are many other factors which or may not result in an innate ability being discovered. Which begs an interesting follow up question - how many of us have innate abilities that we have not yet tapped into :eek:

[ebolton]

We've all seen pictures that violate the rule of thirds, or were taken with 'nonstandard' exposure, yet are great works of art.

Could it be innate that some artists understand why such rules work, and when they are better off bent or broken, while lesser folks just learn and follow them?


Personally I think that much of it can be. The basics such as an understanding of composition - rule of thirds etc and an understanding of technical issues such as exposure will help tremendously.

[tomasis]

Shoot and shoot. it is a zen. if you think how come to better or you're not good or talking such BS, it is not a Zen.

[M. Valdemar]

I'm a competent photographer who is never going to be a great photographer. Once in a while, I'll get a nice shot, once in a very great while, I'll get something pretty good.

This is not comparable to a visual genius, who, without study or emulation of other photographers, can get a stunning look with no effort.

Again, you can learn to make something craftsmanlike with a lot of effort and determination, but you don't ever get the "eye" with practice.

One sign of having intelligence and perception is having the ability to recognize your own limitations.

One of my skills is recognizing genius and talent in others, which is why I was a successful editor and publisher for 20 years.

The ability to self-edit and to have a clear perception of what one's own ability level is, is a valuable skill that most people lack.

A very true comment is that the internet lacks "editors". The internet encourages homogenization so that everything becomes one big Burger King Whopper.

But aren't the ones who DO make it the ones who try out for the '64, then the '68, then the '72, and finally get in for the '76?

Ever tried getting something published? Expect 12 rejections per acceptance. Same for getting artwork placed.

[M. Valdemar]

PS: In another thread, I was asked to evaluate some photographs by some other people here.

I gave a couple of very neutral, non-malicious opinions about the photographs that they had posted. (mind you, they ASKED me to do it)

When my opinion turned out not to be what one person wanted to hear (ie, that he was a genius), he got bitter, upset, and demanded that I not post anymore in any of his threads.

He then mentioned what I said numerous times in other posts of his, very offended and unhappy that he had not heard what he wanted to hear.

Which is a good lesson which has been learned by almost everybody who wishes to be "harmonious"; "Never tell the truth about someone who has no talent."

[M. Valdemar]

PPS: I'll use my father as an example.

He used to own a camera store. He was an avid photographer in the 1950's and 1960's. He was very knowledgeable about cameras.

He could NEVER learn to frame a shot.

EVERY ONE of his pictures would have the tiny person's head smack in the middle of the print. The same angle, the same shot, thousands of times.

If you explained to him to "move in for a close-up", or "don't put the head right in the middle of the photo", or "change the angle", he was incapable of doing it or learning it.

He just couldn't "see" any other way to take a picture.

He took tens of thousands of photos of my mother, all EXACTLY THE SAME SHOT. She would be looking rigidly at the camera, in the middle of the frame, the same distance from the camera.

If they were in Europe, she would stand in front of a building, staring at him rigidly, head exactly in the middle of the frame. At the beach, same shot, exactly the same distance from the camera, head in the middle of the frame.

All his photos looked alike. I would physically move him and his camera to try to make him take a close-up with the head in a place other than smack in the middle of the frame......he would then move the head back to the middle and snap the photo.

Maybe that's an extreme, but it's a good analogy.

(A photo of me taken by my father, where, miraculously, he moved in a little closer)

http://img103.imageshack.us/img103/5712/mekr9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[M. Valdemar]

Well, gosh, thanks. You're going to give me a swelled head.

My guess is, after seeing a few of your photos, is that a good editor could put together an pretty amazing group of photos from your work.

At least from a social point of view it would probably be rather great.

However this Winogrand method of working/editing does not usually float my boat, I like much more narrowly directed work, like Jeff Wall. But that is me.

My guess however remains I could probably mount a gallery show from your odd work. Probably more likely than almost anyone on the RFF.

Your work totally lacks that awful "I am trying to make real art with this special lens, paper, camera, technique" aspect.

[ferider]

Roland, I do not believe that creativity can be learned. And that does not mean you are lazy, egotistical or depressed (I am a bit surprised you even wrote that).

Steve

Hi Steve,

what can I say, I'm an optimist, and believe that people can change.

In this thread, we first spoke about arts and music, and a good "eye". Now we speak about creativity and genius; generalizing the original question and taking it to extremes.

Of course there is talent, and there is genius, but even for a genius, hard work is involved to be successful in her/his lifetime. Photography is primarily a language, and without being "heard", a photographer won't be successful. Which means "selling" is involved. The true genius works on both sides, the creation and the communication. On the other hand, whoever buys the artist's output, must like it, must have an "eye", too. There must be resonance.

There are no home-runs.

IMO, being creative with pictures or with music is not so different from creativity in math or science. Not a surprise that most genius mathematicians were good musicians, too, or vice versa.

Saying that its only nature and no nurture is involved must depress because you give up on learning.

I like Raid's answer. Like everything else in life it's not black and white ....

Roland.

[M. Valdemar]

No home runs?

I don't think so.

Hi Steve,

what can I say, I'm an optimist, and believe that people can change.

In this thread, we first spoke about arts and music, and a good "eye". Now we speak about creativity and genius; generalizing the original question and taking it to extremes.

Of course there is talent, and there is genius, but even for a genius, hard work is involved to be successful in her/his lifetime. Photography is primarily a language, and without being "heard", a photographer won't be successful. Which means "selling" is involved. The true genius works on both sides, the creation and the communication. On the other hand, whoever buys the artist's output, must like it, must have an "eye", too. There must be resonance.

There are no home-runs.

IMO, being creative with pictures or with music is not so different from creativity in math or science. Not a surprise that most genius mathematicians were good musicians, too, or vice versa.

Saying that its only nature and no nurture is involved must depress because you give up on learning.

I like Raid's answer. Like everything else in life it's not black and white ....

Roland.

[2XLX2]

what a depressing thread!

ugghh oblivion...:o...:bang:

:p

[laughingbuddha]

I have to agree that this is a pretty depressing thread that hasn't produced much insightful thought regarding photography or anything else for that matter. So many converging elements play immensely important roles in what one chooses to photograph and why that to be so sure about any of this is sort of silly. If one has not taken the time to explore why they take photographs or what the aim is of what they do then it is easy enough to figure out they will be shooting a lot of material that does point towards any specific goal. And this is not a criticism of that way of working as a means of determining why one is making photographs. Cameras are tools. Wrapping a box around something and thereby declaring that moment to be special is the right of everyone who owns a camera but if you cannot help me or anyone else to understand why the content of the frame is important to you and maybe to me then it shows that a little self exploration may be ion order if you want to communicate something.

To wrap this up I am opposed to the idea that anyone knows what is good and what is not .... life is much too long and holds too many surprises to be so sure about what has value and what does not......

[crawdiddy]

That is a somewhat romanic position, and yes it does work that way often in the publishing world, for your first book. Hopefully after the first publication, the torture ends.

Not sure I notice many athletes who get a lot better as they age, over 15 years, perhaps not a good example I chose? I did choose it however, because the things that makes a good track racer are lack of fear, a huge cardio system, and no injuries (once you have failed these three you are kind of out of the running no matter how many Olympic trials are in your future) Persistence pays off, but you need the basics, by the way what do you think the chance of a 60 year old guy making the next trials are? :D

You do sometimes have to know when to move on, a tricky question for everyone, how much rejection can you take.

I do actually know a few serious artists who have been rejected at every turn, all their lives, and keep working. It is amazing, I admit, to see them persist in the face of 30 or more years of rejection. Especially since so much rejection makes them unhappy.

To return to your cycling comparison, Lance Armstrong is a good example of the value of persistence, learning, practice, mental focus. How many times did he race the Tour de France BEFORE he had testicular cancer? I don't know, but it was several times, with disappointing results. Only after chemotherapy, brain, lung and testicle surgery did he achieve his remarkable 7 consecutive Tour victories.

"Either you've got it, or you don't."

How do you explain his success? You don't explain it with the original poster's Nature-Only theory. Armstrong was a decent cyclist before cancer, not a great one. What he learned from adversity gave him the mental focus to achieve greatness. Call it romantic if you wish.

[crawdiddy]

Well not quite just "decent," in 1993, at 22 Armstrong won the World Championships in bicycle road racing!

He won a stage in the Tour in 93 and again in 95, before winning overall in 1999. He had that little setback in '96.

But in the 6 years between '93 and 99 there was no question that Armstrong applied a mental inspiration to training that has almost no match in the history of sport.

That's exactly my point. He wanted nothing more than to win a Tour de France and he tried like hell. And yet he couldn't achieve it until after a battle with cancer that lots of men wouldn't even survive. Mental focus is not innate. It's not genius. It's not something you're born with. It's something achieved in this life.

[M. Valdemar]

Why is it depressing?

Is reality depressing?

[mknawabi]

Of course it can be learned...if someone can step their foot in a certain rhythm, so can another, it just takes practice.

[2XLX2]

Why is it depressing?

Is reality depressing?


what’s the cure for disillusionment, charley brown? :bang:

okay, when i grow up, i'll be a free-will-nazi :p

[3js]

To return to your cycling comparison, Lance Armstrong is a good example of the value of persistence, learning, practice, mental focus. How many times did he race the Tour de France BEFORE he had testicular cancer? I don't know, but it was several times, with disappointing results. Only after chemotherapy, brain, lung and testicle surgery did he achieve his remarkable 7 consecutive Tour victories.

"Either you've got it, or you don't."

How do you explain his success? You don't explain it with the original poster's Nature-Only theory. Armstrong was a decent cyclist before cancer, not a great one. What he learned from adversity gave him the mental focus to achieve greatness. Call it romantic if you wish.
I don´t call you romantic but very naive. As a former atlete I know that the quoted 80% don´t come from the atletes mind but from doping. And I believe Armstrong has his own issues in this field to settle. Mental my ass, it comes from pills and ampulls. Wake up idiots.

[M. Valdemar]

I don´t call you romantic but very naive. As a former atlete I know that the quoted 80% don´t come from the atletes mind but from doping. Mental my ass, it comes from pills and ampulls. Wake up idiots.

So does a lot of modern "creativity". I think it also influences the urge to get tattooed.

Anyone remember Frank Zappa's song "Cocaine Decisions?"


Chop a line now. . .
Cocaine decisions . . .
You are a person with a snow-job
You got a fancy gotta go job
Where the cocaine decision that you make today
Will mean that millions somewhere else
Will do it your way
Cocaine decisions . . .
You are a person who is high class
You are a person not in my class
And the cocaine decision that you make today
Will mean nothing later on
When you get nose decay
I don't wanna know
'Bout the things that you pull
Outta your nose
Or where they goes
But if you are wasted
From the stuff you're stickin' in it
I get madder every day
'Cause what you do 'n' what you say
Affects my life in such a way
I learn to hate it every minute!
Cocaine decisions . . .
You are a doctor or a lawyer
You got an office with a foyer
And the cocaine decisions that you make today
Will not be discovered till it's over 'n' done
By the customers you hold at bay
Cocaine decisions . . .
You are a movie business guy
You got accountants who supply
The necessary figures
To determine when you fly
To Acapulco
Where all your friends go
Cocaine decisions . . .
We must watch the stuff you make
You have let us eat the cake
While your accountants tell you Yes Yes Yes
You make EXPENSIVE UGLINESS
(How do you do it? - let me guess . . .)
Cocaine decisions . . .
Cocaine decisions . . .
Cocaine decisions . . .

[3js]

One thing for sure, you "atletes" won't be winning at the Scripps. :D

Yeah you are right, english is not my mother tongue. :D Have no faintest idea what is the Scripps, but I believe you won´t do any better with my language.:)

[3js]

If you are calling people idiots, best to use a spell checker. You made 5 spelling and grammar mistakes (not counting punctuation) in two sentences, OK, only if you are not including the idiot remark. :p

Scripps National Spelling Bee, you missed the movie "Akeelah and the Bee?" You really are from out of town. :p

Well, actually out of your continent. Ok, let´s check out your spelling: Just spell it right:D

[crawdiddy]

I don´t call you romantic but very naive. As a former atlete I know that the quoted 80% don´t come from the atletes mind but from doping. And I believe Armstrong has his own issues in this field to settle. Mental my ass, it comes from pills and ampulls. Wake up idiots.

Actually, 3js, I was using competitive cycling as a metaphor for photography. If you assert Armstrong's success was due to doping, then what are you implying about photographers? There may be performance enhancing drugs for visual artists. Many painters and photographers have used recreational drugs of various types. Our culture discourages drug use on moral grounds, but I've not heard the argument that drug use by an artist illegitimizes his work.

[3js]

idiootteja is the issue...

Mmm, sorry it´s wrong, it´s idiootit. So only one word and you got it wrong?:D

[jwhitley]

Likewise, everybody CAN succeed at school, but not everybody does. And it's not just a question of intelligence or inborn talent. You need to take everything in consideration, the cognitive, the social, and the accidents of history.

mhv, your response resonates with me. During my life, I've been both student and teacher in varied disciplines, academic, athletic, and artistic. The biggest lesson learned from myself and from my students is that the old saw of "X cannot be learned, it must be an inborn gift" is false. I feel that it leads people away from exporing their potential, finding good mentors, and discovering the joy of learning.

That said, I agree that talent exists and can be profound. Some of the talented even become famous. Far more of them are left behind in a tortoise-vs-hare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tortoise_and_the_Hare) fashion by the people who strive endlessly to improve their work.

[3js]

Actually, 3js, I was using competitive cycling as a metaphor for photography. If you assert Armstrong's success was due to doping, then what are you implying about photographers?.
No, it´s not only Armstrong, but the whole top level sports i´m so bored of.

There may be performance enhancing drugs for visual artists. Many painters and photographers have used recreational drugs of various types. Our culture discourages drug use on moral grounds, but I've not heard the argument that drug use by an artist illegitimizes his work.

Now that´s a very interesting question. Should an artist gain of illegal drug use? I don´t know.

[hiorgos]

Everyone has an "eye". The point is how good is that eye, and thats relative. It would be more related with arts and composition, and how others see your personal work. Maybe you don't have the talent, but if you word hard and keep with the practice you can educate your eye, and learn to see things with photograhper's eye, as you learn composition for painting or scales with the guitar. You may even open up your hidden creativity, and explore it.

Talent is something you born with. You born with the talent, and then you learn. Paco de Lucia -best flamenco guitar ever- was born with the talent, he didn't learn to read music until he was in his 40's! But he played lots of hours everyday since he was a kid, and that made him master his gift.

Personally, i know i don't have HCB's talent, but I would be very happy to able to "play jazz" with the camera someday..

[waileong]

Everyone can improve. But there's a difference between the geniuses and us that we may never be able to bridge, no matter how hard we try.

[mknawabi]

what the hell is wrong with you guys for picking on someone who cant spell because he hasnt mastered the language?

grow up people, seriously!