“Art is an end in itself. Technique a means to that end: one can be taught the other cannot, for it is the quality which we bring into the world with us, and lacking it as an integral part, no amount of study will enable one to acquire it.”
EDWARD WESTON
Clark is a friend who is patient with lighting experiments. He is also in possession of a great sense of humor and a real curiosity about the world in general. Before you ask yes he got that hat from where it says it is from. I had to add the photo below because he is normally smiling.
I have been struggling with several ideas about photos and the fine arts lately. A recent post about talent brought a lot of this to mind and triggered some thoughts. I believe that the ability to make a good technical photos is well within the reach of most people with enough effort and study, however to truly make a photo that reaches beyond that technical expertise takes a lot more. It takes vision, imagination and a sense of art that can’t be taught. These things can be shown and if the spark is there it will light something that changes forever the way you see the world. To develop into something that is worth sharing after the spark is lit requires constant hard work and continuous learning.
I have read in some of the forums about photos ‘so many well done technical photos, so few story’s’. I am sure I paraphrased that so please go with the sentiment. I see a lot of well done photos that I seem to just glance over because they have no ‘story’ or nothing to make we want to look again after the first time. One of my mentors in sculpture told me along time ago “in real art you should see something new each time you look”.
The article that set this off was about the Myth of talent at http://www.tmelive.com/index.php/articles/view/28/24.html. I agree with some of what is said and really don’t with a lot of it. (By the way I have a much more compelling sob story that I won’t bore anyone with.) The response that Steve Korn wrote on one of the flickr forums I believe says it all about talent and what it takes to make art of any kind. Steve is an accomplished Jazz musician and the links below with his response are worth checking out. Steve if you see this I hope to hear you play live sometime, Jazz like Hockey should be seen live to get the real experience.
Steve says this much better than I could:
Steve Korn
I always tell my students that there are four kinds of students.
1) tons of talent, no discipline.
2) less talent, tons of discipline
3) tons of talent, tons of discipline
4) little talent, little discipline
#1 will do what he can but will be limited in development
#2 will go far, unlikely to become a world class player, but very good
#3 will do whatever they want. With the right connections, which aren’t hard to make when you’re really good, you can write your own ticket.
#4 is most of the population and they will have fun doing what they do but will never be good.
There is a myth in jazz that is similar to what the author is talking about. Audiences love the idea of the young, poor, musician who picks up an instrument one day and can play like Charlie Parker. This myth is perpetuated by the media and marketers. Of course the reality is that the kid has been working his ass off, but even kids without much talent but a lot of discipline will get some attention because the audience can’t hear the difference and they like the idea of the myth.
I think the author is saying, don’t buy into the myth. Don’t look at someone who is successful and simply believe they have some magical skill you will never possess. With hard work, there is much than can be achieved. You might never become great but I believe you can at least become good.
Thomas Edison is credited with the saying that “Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration”.
There are no guarantees and I don’t think the author is suggesting that if you work hard, you will succeed. Some people just don’t have an eye for photography and never will. But I think the basic ideas he outlined are accurate and useful in helping people achieve the highest level they are capable of achieving.
The danger in photography is that compared to other art forms, it requires less natural talent. It requires as much artistry as any other art to do it well, but, technically and physically, it is not difficult to master and does not require that someone be physically predisposed to do it well. The challenge lies in concept.
Any other art form not only requires conceptual vision but years of technical training, like 10+, just to achieve a basic level of competence. And, if you don’t have some natural ability in conceptualization and technical ability, you will be very limited. Photographers aren’t really effected by a deficit in fine motor skills or a less than ideally shaped embouchure or body type.
The reason I suggest this is a problem is that there is a tendency to equate technical quality with artistic excellence. When someone can shoot for two years and make really nice looking pictures, their knowledge of technique can be confused for real vision and conceptual ability. It’s important as audience members and consumers of art that we be discerning. Competence does not equate artistry.
I shot this for my friend Marv and a bunch more that are also usable for his shop. One thing learned on this shoot was that sometimes more than one light is to many. This works for him and highlights the subject the way that he wanted. However when I look at these photos I have to ask myself is this what I wanted to make.
The thoughts about what I wanted to make brought up the whole difference for me about commercial shoots and making the kinds of photos I want to make. From all that I can gather unless you are at the top of the game the choices are pretty limited on what you get to shoot. Add to this the requirements for the client and you end up even more restricted.
Is it recording or creating or some of both.
There is no such thing as a mail buoy in the Bering Sea
mtk
You can’t fly a helicopter one handed.
mtc
rlketcham.com