| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/17/2005 03:51:25 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
But what if I don't have the eye...it's all for naught!
;0) |
I'm pretty sure you have the eye. Or you do a good job of faking it.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 03:58:02 PM · #52 |
cloud
No it's not. Even if you only become a good 'technical' photographer, there's pride and need for them.
Not that you have to worry. I've looked hard at your work. Still, are you content where you're at? Would studying 'art/composition' hurt or help you? I think it could not hurt anyone, and help most. |
|
|
|
01/17/2005 04:01:23 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
I firmly believe self teaching is better and more productive than being taught by another person. And not just for photography, but for the majority of skills one desires to have. |
I used to agree with that point. Now, I am of the opinion, and both are opinions, that you can only truly teach yourself just so much. There comes a point where self-teaching is simply spinning wheels in mud, there might be the power and there might be the intent, but you may end up going nowhere. There are rare exceptions and those are rare exceptions.
In taking the route of self-teaching, a person can easily overlook aspects of a subject that may never come up or seem/feel like they are nothing but a complete waste of time. However, those aspects can greatly expand a person's understanding of a topic or enhance an ability to approach a topic through a certain beneficial point of view. |
|
|
|
01/17/2005 04:01:50 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by swagman:
cloud
No it's not. Even if you only become a good 'technical' photographer, there's pride and need for them.
Not that you have to worry. I've looked hard at your work. Still, are you content where you're at? Would studying 'art/composition' hurt or help you? I think it could not hurt anyone, and help most. |
No, not at all. I look forward to studying it much much much much more. And that's because I have no worry about whether I have this mystical "eye" or not.
I remember starting a thread a few months ago, asking whether I had "the eye" or not. I showed a crappy picture and asked what people thought. If I were to go back in time I would have told me: "No, you don't have the eye...that photo has no redemptive qualities."
Now, I'm not worried about the eye...I have the heart and I can feel the eye that's in me being taught and developed, despite what some others here would say about the eye's ability to learn. Or maybe they would say that the "eye" was always there.
I still think it's the heart that they're referring to, not the eye.
Message edited by author 2005-01-17 16:03:22.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 04:05:23 PM · #55 |
The original question was DO YOU THINK 'HAVING AN EYE' FOR PHOTOGRAPHY/ART IS INBORN OR CAN IT BE TAUGHT/LEARNED?
This is not a simple question, for e must first ascertain what the questions means and what is photography.
I will not philosophise on what is photography as this will take all day and only scratch the surface.
However there are a number of activities which are undertaken in taking a photograph. And therefore a number of questions which need to be asked to decide about the photograph.
1. Can I visualise what the outcome will look like?
2. Do I fully understand how to use my camera, and how different setups change the outcome of my photograph?
3. Do I have sufficient capability and knowledge to manipulate the outcome from the camera, using digital software?
4. Do I understand how to publish the outcome, and the media it is being published on?
All of these are important parts to the photographic process.
The question I have is which bit is the photographic eye, and where is the accumulated knowledge and wisdom of understanding the process of producing a photograph.
There is both Art and Science in producing the end result.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 04:14:37 PM · #56 |
definitely born with it. I dont think you can teach someone to have an eye for thinks. It's like everything in this world, each person has different skills that are unique to them, that you could not teach to someone else.
A math major probably doesnt do so well in English because they "hate it", even though you teach them. Same for the reverse.
Of course there's probably exceptions, but I mean in about 96% of the cases, it's probably true.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 04:17:01 PM · #57 |
Taught.
As Kiwiness says in his sig "Photography is my second language." I think that's just perfectly right. I think you learn photography like language. You learn it bit by bit and it doesn't all make sense but then over time you really don't just get what the words mean, but you UNDERSTAND language. I think that's what happened with ClubJuggle and it's DEFINITELY what happened with me. Look at my first shot! HORRID. I got the technical down, but I got the idea down now too. It's a heck of a lot different than 2 or 3 years ago - I see things differently. I "learned" to speak it.
M
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 04:17:50 PM · #58 |
This is not a facetious question:
Can you teach a blind man to see? Can you teach a deaf man to sing?
The answer is "no".
Some people simply don't have the "eye", they're not wired that way. If the "eye" we're referring to is Ansel Adams's eye, or Joel Meyerowitz's eye, no that can't be taught. You have to be born with it.
Can we teach people to "see" better? Most of the time, yes, if they want to learn to see. And the art of seeing is the beginning of art. Avedon said that. When I taught "photography", I was really teaching "seeing".
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 04:24:44 PM · #59 |
I was at school with a guy who was always in the second or third set in maths.
Then in our final year he was elevated to the top set, passed top of the class and is now a PhD in mathematics and lives eats and dreams the subject.
I believe he always had the latent talent within him, but it took a lot of teaching, and lot of time for this talent to be finally released.
Message edited by author 2005-01-17 16:25:25. |
|
|
|
01/17/2005 04:28:02 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Can you teach a blind man to see? Can you teach a deaf man to sing? |
If someone can teach another human English when the person is both blind and deaf, then yes, almost anything can be taught.
M
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 04:30:46 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
This is not a facetious question:
Can you teach a blind man to see? Can you teach a deaf man to sing?
The answer is "no".
Some people simply don't have the "eye", they're not wired that way. If the "eye" we're referring to is Ansel Adams's eye, or Joel Meyerowitz's eye, no that can't be taught. You have to be born with it.
Can we teach people to "see" better? Most of the time, yes, if they want to learn to see. And the art of seeing is the beginning of art. Avedon said that. When I taught "photography", I was really teaching "seeing".
Robt. |
I was at the Closing Ceremony the other day of the Deaflympics and they had a deaf choir so you can teach deaf people to sing.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 04:32:54 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Some people simply don't have the "eye", they're not wired that way. If the "eye" we're referring to is Ansel Adams's eye, or Joel Meyerowitz's eye, no that can't be taught. You have to be born with it. |
Side Note:
Joel Meyerowitz is coming here Friday for a presentation and the opening of his 9/11 Aftermath exhibit at my local art museum. I, along with several other local photographers, have been invited to display with him... His work is excellent.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 04:33:35 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by loz1:
I was at the Closing Ceremony the other day of the Deaflympics and they had a deaf choir so you can teach deaf people to sing. |
I'm sorry if this sounds politically incorrect, but that had to hurt.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 04:36:22 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by jmlelii:
definitely born with it. I dont think you can teach someone to have an eye for thinks. It's like everything in this world, each person has different skills that are unique to them, that you could not teach to someone else.
A math major probably doesnt do so well in English because they "hate it", even though you teach them. Same for the reverse.
Of course there's probably exceptions, but I mean in about 96% of the cases, it's probably true. |
But you would never say that someone has a tongue for English. They may have tendancies to do well in that vein of thinking/expressing but there is no 'magical' yes/no dividing line.
If Ansel Adams had been born before the invention of the photograph, would his "eye" have been wasted?
Maybe it's simply because I don't understand "the eye", but my framework is different. I understand art as requiring a heart for seeing. For noticing. For living. For loving.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 04:38:15 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by loz1:
I was at the Closing Ceremony the other day of the Deaflympics and they had a deaf choir so you can teach deaf people to sing. |
I'm sorry if this sounds politically incorrect, but that had to hurt. |
Nah they actually signed the words ;) It was interesting to watch though, and they kept up with the fast pace music lol
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 04:38:23 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Forget the eye, I'd like to know whether one can be taught to have "a heart" for photography/art...this discussion seems to be mixing up the two into a big eye/heart stew. |
mmmmmmmm....eye-heart stew. |
|
|
|
01/17/2005 04:44:20 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
No I do not belive it can be taught. |
It may not be able to be taught, but I believe it can be learned. I think it takes a certain attitude and stance toward your potential subject that you can learn (if you don't have that "inborn eye"...). It requires an open mind and a commitment in order to become proficient, both of which are (IMHO) choices.
Finding subject matter with which you can identify is critical to becoming a successful artist in this medium.
[edited for typo]
Message edited by author 2005-01-17 16:44:51. |
|
|
|
01/17/2005 04:48:06 PM · #68 |
I don't believe it can be learned :) but i think it can be taught. The problem is that if you dont' see it, you won't understand what the instructor is talking about.
However, i believe most people can be made/learned into a professional photographer, such as wedding photographer. But very very few can make it to the level of Galen Rowell, etc. (By the way, a lot of the top end photographers are self-taught or have no formal photography training. If that doesn't scream that you can't teach somehting that someone can't see it, i don know what does). Rowell, for example, was a renown rock climber before he starts to photograph his trips. Franz Lanting, a well known wildlife photographer, is also self-taught.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 04:55:06 PM · #69 |
I think it can be taught to most people who are willing to put in the effort.
But I think it's much easier to teach to people who can SEE what constitutes a good image and what doesn't.
Of course, that idea of "good" varies from person to person but I think it's fair to say that many images fall into a category which is considered to be good by most viewers.
Viewing and analysing other peoples' images is an excellent way to develop the skill of SEEING the strengths and weaknesses in an image and makes it easier to translate the strengths and avoid the weaknesses in one's own work.
Of course, I'm still learning so... maybe I'm talking bollox.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 05:09:01 PM · #70 |
I think mavrik's comparison to language is probably the best.
You CAN be taught; some people will have a natural talent for it, some will have a really hard time and never get fluent (guess which category I fall into!)
And the only real way to become better is to use the skill as much as possible.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 07:34:34 PM · #71 |
Wow. I was surprised when I returned to see how this thread took off. It was really interesting reading everyone's posts. They are all thought provoking.
I think most people's eyes can be developed but I also think there's a small group of people that will never get it no matter how much self-teaching/mentoring they receive.
Great comments and thanks for participating!
Jen
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 08:01:57 PM · #72 |
nsbca7
You mentioned your father, a draftsman. Drafting is technical. I can draft a blueprint. I can't draw. One is math, the other is art. I think you're trying to compare apples and oranges. Did he ever study the composition of art; or just the technicalities of drafting?
Bear
Can yo teach a blind man to see?
No. You can't teach to take photos, either. We're discussing a physical handicap that can't be overcome.
[i] Can you teach a deaf man to sing?
Don't know. Know one who's good with accentual/syllabic poetry, though.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 08:05:37 PM · #73 |
Karvey
How can a person 'see' what constitutes a good image if they've never been taught what a good image is?
Supposing a child was raised to adulthood with nothing but abstracts as an example of what good art is? How do you think he'd crit our realistic photos?
One way or another, we are taught everything we know, like and believe.
Anyone ready for a discussion on behavorial psychology? *grin*
Message edited by author 2005-01-17 20:06:58. |
|
|
|
01/17/2005 08:16:25 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by swagman:
Karvey
How can a person 'see' what constitutes a good image if they've never been taught what a good image is?
Supposing a child was raised to adulthood with nothing but abstracts as an example of what good art is? How do you think he'd crit our realistic photos?
One way or another, we are taught everything we know, like and believe.
Anyone ready for a discussion on behavorial psychology? *grin* |
All the tabla rasa BS is just that. I did a paper on it years ago. How does a beaver build a dam? Is it taught? How do twins that were separated at birth often think alike and have seemingly identical tastes. Was it taught? Innate knowledge, knowledge one is born with, is rarely identifiable at birth and so the argument goes that it does not exist. But I have seen too many things in my life that would strongly suggest otherwise.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2005 08:41:29 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
[quote=swagman] Karvey
How can a person 'see' what constitutes a good image if they've never been taught what a good image is? |
Who taught the first person what a good image is? How did they "know" it was good? It all had to start somewhere. Yes, it is helpful and easier to learn it from someone else with experience, but anything can be learned on one's own if the motivation is there.
And defining a "good image" is so full of subjective thought that "teaching" others what "good" is can hardly be more than passing one's opinion along in an authoritative manner. |
|
