Technical versus artistic proficiency: The former can be learned, the latter is inherent. Combined, the two can produce award winning and valuable pieces of art. However, artistic...

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

The former can be learned, the latter is inherent. Combined, the two can produce award winning and valuable pieces of art. However, artistic vision by itself can produce a piece of art while technical proficiency cannot. These are my thoughts this morning. I'm sure there are differing opinions out there. Your thoughts?

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

I agree! I'm a little better technically than my wife, but she has the better artistic vision. When we shoot together we each produce our best work.

I do think that you can improve your artistic vision and composition skills - "Seeing" improves with practice, and looking at lots and lots of images by great photographers, as well as not-so-great ones, has helped me notice things and get ideas, as has working with my lovely wife.

Andy

mr spock Loc: Fairfield CT

gvarner wrote:

The former can be learned, the latter is inherent. Combined, the two can produce award winning and valuable pieces of art. However, artistic vision by itself can produce a piece of art while technical proficiency cannot. These are my thoughts this morning. I'm sure there are differing opinions out there. Your thoughts?

Agree completely. IMHO many award winning photos are largely the the result of advanced computer proficiency rather than photographic (visually creative) talent.

Steve Perry Loc: Sylvania, Ohio

I think both can be learned and combined. To say that artistic talent in basically something you're born with and imply that it can't be developed seems like an excuse from someone who doesn't want to spend time developing their artistic side. They have schools for art that literally teach people to be better artists.

Sure, some people have a knack for art - although there are also those who have a knack for technology as well.

srt101fan

gvarner wrote:

The former can be learned, the latter is inherent. Combined, the two can produce award winning and valuable pieces of art. However, artistic vision by itself can produce a piece of art while technical proficiency cannot. These are my thoughts this morning. I'm sure there are differing opinions out there. Your thoughts?

Interesting, thought-provoking topic. I tend to think technical proficiency can be learned, artistic proficiency not so much.

But can you really address this topic without going into the oh-so controversial issue of "what is art"? Is Thomas Kinkade really an artist or a technician?

SonyA580 Loc: FL in the winter & MN in the summer

I have to agree with Steve. It's the old Nature vs. Nurture argument. I happen to fall on the side of Nurture since I don't believe I was born knowing how to operate Photoshop, or properly compose a picture. However, I have learned both.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

AndyH wrote:

I agree! I'm a little better technically than my wife, but she has the better artistic vision. When we shoot together we each produce our best work.

I do think that you can improve your artistic vision and composition skills - "Seeing" improves with practice, and looking at lots and lots of images by great photographers, as well as not-so-great ones, has helped me notice things and get ideas, as has working with my lovely wife.

Andy

Andy, you wrote, "I'm a little better technically than my wife". Your entire response could have come from me.

My DW carefully picked out a pricey, purse sized, point and shoot with great auto settings. She uses amateurish software. My gear is more pricey and I use more advanced software. It kills me how often her framed prints are better than mine.

Truth is if I didn't have fun with the technical stuff and had to judge success creatively, I should quit taking pictures and shooting video.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

bsprague wrote:

Andy, you wrote, "I'm a little better technic... (show quote)

We both have D3200s and overlapping lens arrays. She’s getting more comfortable with manual mode, and now sometimes I even spot an object or compose before she does.

Progress is possible!

Andy

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

Thank you all for your insights. It shows me that many of us struggle with this concept. My personal view places artistic vision ahead of technical proficiency in importance. You can take a picture that is technically correct or you can make a picture that has artistic merit. True, we can train our artistic side, but artistic vision requires a certain level of creativity and imagination to begin with.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

gvarner wrote:

The former can be learned, the latter is inherent. Combined, the two can produce award winning and valuable pieces of art. However, artistic vision by itself can produce a piece of art while technical proficiency cannot. These are my thoughts this morning. I'm sure there are differing opinions out there. Your thoughts?

Totally agree. But, while it's a long and sometimes difficult process, you can develop artistic sense. It will be forced, not coming naturally, and you may never be totally comfortable with it, but it can be done. Truly artistic people have creativity down to their very core, and nearly everything they do is creative. Including sometimes their bookkeeping

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

There is a difference between talent and proficiency,. One can be a proficient photographer, by study, hard work and skill, but talent is a gift. Many athletes have the skills/profiiciency for fielding a baseball. but hitting is a rare talent. One of the greatest basketball talents - Michael Jordan, couldn't hit a major league curveball. I am in awe of talent in any endeavor as I have none I think what you mean by qrtistic profiency is talent.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

gvarner wrote:

The former can be learned, the latter is inherent. Combined, the two can produce award winning and valuable pieces of art. However, artistic vision by itself can produce a piece of art while technical proficiency cannot. These are my thoughts this morning. I'm sure there are differing opinions out there. Your thoughts?

Some have a natural affinity for one or the other, but both can be learned at least to some degree.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

The artistic and conceptual aspects of photography aren't inherent but rather are influenced by every aspect of our lives from the day we are born. While there is some truth in the notion of talent or artistic genius for the most part it is the effort that they put into making their work that makes it successful. This effort is not just the making of the work but rather acquiring the knowledge, artistic, technical and from other areas. Vision and the ability to recognize juxtapositions, synthesize concepts from other areas and communicate successfully through visual media are the most important aspects of "artistic talent/ ability."

folkus

Is there any place for luck and being in the right place at the right time?

Vaun's photography Loc: Bonney Lake, WA

I am inclined to believe that the artistic ability is harder to learn for some people; for others the technical side of photography, (when to use additional lighting, how to edit, what lenses to use and settings to use) comes harder.