Technical versus artistic proficiency (Page 3): Normally I would of had to agreed with you on that, but now with all the advanced technology I would have to disagree.

lilac

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?

Normally I would of had to agreed with you on that, but now with all the advanced technology I would have to disagree.

PhotoFem

Agreed.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Steve Perry wrote:

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.

The key is balance. Vision is executed with and through technique. I find it difficult to separate one from the other. We need a certain amount of technical proficiency to combine with our “artistic” sensibility.

Understanding one’s message, purpose, point of view, or vision is a prerequisite for choosing the right medium or media to deliver it, and for shaping the appearance of the presentation itself.

Understanding the basics of using a particular medium is a prerequisite for communicating through that medium.

Art is the greater entirety of what we present. It is what the Germans call a gestalt — more than the sum of its parts.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

folkus wrote:

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

There is a place for luck, but we had a presentation by one of the pros in our camera club about using the Photographer's Ephemeris and weather apps to find the right time and place. I commented to him that it all wasn't just luck then and he smiled wryly in agreement. It's a lot of hard work to combine the technical with artistic vision.

Nikon1201

The technical you get from books and YouTube the artistic comes from the heart . I believe an artist that paints is a better photographer as many do they photograph the scenes they paint.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

Vaun's photography wrote:

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.

I briefly mentored an artist in our club on how to use her very advanced DSLR she had bought to take pictures for use in her paintings. Her and her husband admitted they weren't manual reading people so they wanted a hands on approach. They were surprised when I showed them the little button that popped the LCD screen out. That was Lesson #1 after I had downloaded and read the manual. She had to quit the club but admitted she would have to look at the manual. Never saw her again but I'd love to know if she was able to make that leap.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

gvarner wrote:

The former can be learned, the latter is inherent.<snip>

This is a commonly held misconception. First proficiency is a technical quality so the term "artistic proficiency" is sort of odd. Second, most of those we consider our greatest artists achieved their artistic abilities following extensive practice and training (yes, including Mozart who studied for years under a tyrannical father before becoming a "prodigy") I have yet to hear of an actual "inborn talent". When reviewed carefully, they have all followed extensive practice. The only thing that might be inborn is the willingness to try.

billpan45

It's a tie. The question will never be satisfactorily resolved. I must say I was expecting the usual bitterness over this topic, but everyone above has answered sincerely and with civility. Thanks to all for not injecting
caustic remarks and nasty barbs and personal attacks. In a sense, you are all correct. How refreshing.

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?

This article, relevant to this discussion, might be of interest. If you don't read anything else, take a look at the quote at the end of the article, interesting thought...

https://actinginlondon.co.uk/can-creativity-talent-be-taught/#

TheDman Loc: USA

traderjohn wrote:

The difference is the person, not a machine. The machine(camera) has a greater range than the human. You use the machine to tale who knows how many pictures. You stack some of them or bracket a few and then the machine does the magic.

"greater range"? The human invented the machine. No machines do any magic.

Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal

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?

I am not so sure about the artistic vision part. In order to produce art, one needs more than vision--one also needs to know the craft of turning the vision into art.

I am reminded of Pablo Casals--when he was asked why, at the age of 93 he continued to practice every day. His response? "I think I am making progress."

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

Haven't read everything sine my last response but it is my observation that, for me, artistic competence requires imagination of some aspect - I've noticed it because I have observed that my imagination does not extend to artistic ventures

jwest Loc: South Dakota

“Learn the rules like a pro so you can break them like an artist.” Pablo Picasso

GAS496 Loc: Arizona

Technical proficiency allows for better artistic expression. Just as a painter must know how to use the brush a photographer must know how to use the camera and all that goes with it. Anyone can draw a stick figure but not a Mona Lisa. Anyone can take a snapshot but not Half Dome in Winter.

Stephan G

dsmeltz wrote:

This is a commonly held misconception. First prof... (show quote)

Well. So much for vision and desire. Take two pills in the morning and bring me a piece of art in the afternoon.

You are correct saying there is no "inborn talent." Never was. There is the innate desire to express what one sees and feels. Without this, there is no need for any type of communication. Some learn early in life, others later, and a few that never learn. Human beings have become tool makers, hence tool users. But the kernel that started this trend was an internal desire to understand. In turn, the desire to communicate in some manner to those around them.

Some will even speak of having the need to tell or show. Photography is no different. Photography is just a tool.

As for prodigies, there many of those. I am always in awe of self-taught musicians because I know what it takes to play any instrument. One aspect that seems to be concurrent is that many are multi-lingual. Music is one of their languages. Some prodigies realize that do they need to study their chosen instrument to cover the gap when their innate ability wane.