|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/18/2005 06:23:13 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by swagman:
you'd have to find an image everyone agrees is 'great'. Until that's done, it's an opinion.
|
I gave you an example. Show me one person that thinks that image is crap. |
I don't think it's crap, but it's not one I'd consider 'great'. Sorry for my honesty.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 06:30:53 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by paganini:
The thing is, in the US, there is all this hype about "oh, if you work hard enough you can get this". It's simply hogwash :) If anyone has sat next to a kid playing the violin in high school in the US because his parents believe he could do it, then you'll know what i mean... better get some ear plugs. |
What I believe this 'hype' to mean is that if you work hard enough at the right thing, not just anything, then you can be successful. I think we are all gifted in specific areas but that they aren't always easy to discover.
T
Message edited by author 2005-01-18 18:31:45.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 06:56:34 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by timj351:
Originally posted by paganini:
The thing is, in the US, there is all this hype about "oh, if you work hard enough you can get this". It's simply hogwash :) If anyone has sat next to a kid playing the violin in high school in the US because his parents believe he could do it, then you'll know what i mean... better get some ear plugs. |
What I believe this 'hype' to mean is that if you work hard enough at the right thing, not just anything, then you can be successful. I think we are all gifted in specific areas but that they aren't always easy to discover.
T |
What paganini means by 'hype', the way I read him, is the misused application of the truth you propose.
|
|
|
|
01/18/2005 07:09:08 PM · #154 |
Exactly.
In the US, there is a predominant belief that if you work really really hard, you can achieve anything you want. Nice thing to say to a child but you have to be realistic here. I have YET to see a violinist who started playing as an ADULT and ends up as a professional. Your chances are far better if you start younger.
It's not just arts, it's athletics. It's no wonder for example that China has the best diving team in the world, because they were selected and trained when the kid is only 4-6 years of old. Try getting a 20 year old person thta has never dived to get the physical form needed -- not possible.
The brain, after all, is a muscle, works on similar principles.
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by timj351:
Originally posted by paganini:
The thing is, in the US, there is all this hype about "oh, if you work hard enough you can get this". It's simply hogwash :) If anyone has sat next to a kid playing the violin in high school in the US because his parents believe he could do it, then you'll know what i mean... better get some ear plugs. |
What I believe this 'hype' to mean is that if you work hard enough at the right thing, not just anything, then you can be successful. I think we are all gifted in specific areas but that they aren't always easy to discover.
T |
What paganini means by 'hype', the way I read him, is the misused application of the truth you propose. |
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 07:06:18 AM · #155 |
As I see it, art isn't about what is created; it's about what the creation creates in another. That is to say, the content of the image will not make it a work of art -- no matter how well composed it is. I view art as the social aspect of creativity. Sure a portrait can be perfectly done by anyone able to operate the equipment, but to create a portrait that allows a stranger to catch a glimpse of the true individual hidden behind the day to day social constraints takes something more. This more, I believe, is what we are referring to as the 'eye'.
Since this thread started, I have been reading and thinking. I took the stance early in the thread that it is indeed possible to teach and learn the 'eye' for photography. But I wanted to be certain of my stance from more than just my personal gut-feeling on the subject. My thinking has proceeded along the following lines.
It is often said the image must stand on its own and convey its impact (emotion, message, story, etc) to the viewer -- and I find this to be true. But for this to be true the photographer must be able to communicate with the viewer on visual level. Kiwiness's signature, as mentioned earlier, says "Photography is my second language" -- and this is exactly what it must become to accomplish this visual communication. The photographer must be able to communicate what is within himself to another by means of an image. At some point the photographers thought (the message, emotion, etc to be communicated) must be translated to an image. I would say the closer the photographer gets to being able to think in images, the easier this becomes. If I am understanding what is being discussed, but never defined, the 'eye' for photographer would be this ability to put thoughts into images. This can certainly be taught and learned.
This didn't seem to be complete, so I thought some more.
The photographer may be able to put thought into images, and may even have reached the point of thinking in images; but without something to say, it is all for naught. But what is it that gives one something to say, while another has nothing? I have obtained and understanding that makes since to me, so now I find out if I can put thought to words and have it make sense to others. :)
The way I see it, what gives one person something to say to another is their own individuality. A certainty of self (which, BTW, would include not telling oneself they can't do something) brings the individual a personal perspective on life. And when coupled with the courage to put their personal perspective on public display, the individual finds they have something to say.
But that is only part; I said earlier I felt the content of the image was not what made it art -- but rather the effect it has on others. The works of art that have made lasting impacts on the world are those that have presented a truly unique perspective on life or some aspect of it. It is this effect, which has helped to shape the society. The desire to create this effect on society, or perhaps only a small portion of it, is I believe what Mike was referring to as the 'heart' of photography.
This is where my thinking lead me. An individual that has mastered each of the skills my thought path touched upon will be a rare, and very unique, individual -- someone that is worthy of the title of master artist. But there is nothing unique about the individual skills and traits; each and every one of them can be learned by an interested student and taught by a devoted instructor.
Anyone could learn to utilize what skills they have and proceed to become better and beter at them; learning new skills as their interest takes hold of them. It would take a lot of dedication to master all of the above, but it is certainly within everyones reach.
Talent was mentioned many times, but that seems to affect the speed of advancement, not the level of the achievement. The danger to those with talent, I think is becoming to dependant upon it. There have been many stories told of people whos talent 'dried up', or who 'reached the top' of what they could do. Coasting uphill on talent is easy, practically no effort required, but eventually anyone will reach the point they have to work at any further advancement.
Well, that is where my thought process took me. Like I said, it makes sense to me -- which is enough for me. The only question remaining is if I was able to express it clearly enough for it to make sense to others. :)
David
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 12:00:51 PM · #156 |
Gordon just passed me this link he found on Google:
//www.nswagtc.org.au/info/definitions/gagnemodel.html
Quoting just one paragraph:
Aptitudes or gifts can be observed more easily and directly in young children because environmental influences and systematic learning have exerted their moderating influence in a limited way only. However, they still show themselves in older children and even in adults through the facility and speed with which individuals acquire new skills in any given field of human activity. The easier or faster the learning process, the greater the natural abilities. It is these natural abilities which some laypersons call "talent" or, more appropriately "natural talent" (Gagné, 1991) - in this model, however, they are designated as "gifts" or "aptitudes".
Message edited by author 2005-01-19 12:01:11.
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 02:33:29 PM · #157 |
I think LOGIC abilities can be tuned even when you're older, but ARTISTIC (right brain) stuff is much harder.
Things like sounds, music, spatial relationship, abstraction, etc. are much harder to learn once passed a certain age.
There was once a story about a kid in England who was badly abused by his parents -- they left the toddler in the backyard with the dog. When the police found him, he was already 3 years old -- and he barks and sound like a dog. Nearly all the speech therapists agreed that his chances of a normal speech is very low because he has missed the critical period when speech/sound is developed.
Now -- seeing might be easier than listening, because everyone have to see to survive (not to get run over by a car, etc.), so at least the eyes are trained for everyone. However, there is still the natural ability of some people to see better than others. No amount of training/learning can give you that.
Originally posted by Kavey:
Gordon just passed me this link he found on Google:
//www.nswagtc.org.au/info/definitions/gagnemodel.html
Quoting just one paragraph:
Aptitudes or gifts can be observed more easily and directly in young children because environmental influences and systematic learning have exerted their moderating influence in a limited way only. However, they still show themselves in older children and even in adults through the facility and speed with which individuals acquire new skills in any given field of human activity. The easier or faster the learning process, the greater the natural abilities. It is these natural abilities which some laypersons call "talent" or, more appropriately "natural talent" (Gagné, 1991) - in this model, however, they are designated as "gifts" or "aptitudes". |
|
|
|
|
01/19/2005 03:04:02 PM · #158 |
How do we know if an artist is successful because of innate or environmental abilities? These variables may be very hard to measure and so this is a very difficult question to answer. Granted that it's much easier to develop talent when the nervous system of a child is undeveloped before much of the neurological connections have been made, but I do not think that vision associated with artistic ability concerns only right brain activity. I think that artistic talent lies in the integration sections of the brain, including the corpus callosum where right/left brain activity is coordinated. No artistic endeavors can be successful without both left and right hemispheres contributing to the vision. The spatial attributes of the right needs to be combined with the precision of the left.
We also need to be more precise as to exactly what we're talking about here. "Seeing" and "vision" have been used in this discussion regarding visual arts talent. These are sensory functions for the brain, but are we also talking about the production of art works as well, because that would entail more of the motor functions?
The argument of nature versus nurture (innate ability versus environmentally influenced ability) has a long history of research and discussion in the scientific community and as yet there is still no concensus. I'm not sure we can yet distinguish what is natural "god-given" talent and what has been developed after birth. |
|
|
|
01/19/2005 03:33:01 PM · #159 |
Just a few points:
I have learned more ways in which to evaluate my work and the work of others by participating in these challenges, by reading and making comments and by attempting to achieve various effects.
I have learned through my efforts to know and have been taught by others efforts to pass on information and their willingness to share their work.
Does that have anything to do with my "eye?"
Certainly. My "eye" has matured in the process. What I once held to be utterly beautiful and a great achievement has been replaced over and over by that which I now consider to be utterly beautiful and a great achievement. The bar for me is being raised through your teachings by comment and shared work.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 08:28:34 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 08:28:34 PM EDT.
|
