Largobob

I agree, Steve. I was born without one artistic gene in my body....while having an abundance of mechanical/technical/problem-solving abilities. In art classes, I learned about perspective, colors, light/shading, textures, etc. I will never be an artist....can't even draw a stick figure. But over the years, I have been able to produce some very appealing photographic images. I believe that if you admit that something can't be learned, it never will be.

Logan1949

Absolutely. The guy walking through the scene in my thumbnail (above) was pure luck. The reflection of the lamp in the puddle, in the picture below was pure luck (But would have been looked for by a more experienced photographer).
Post Edit: The vignetting is from using a crop-sensor sized 20mm lens on the full frame A7ii camera.

(Download)

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

I agree- I also think that artistic talent is more inherent that not.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Like any other skill, "artistic ability" can be learned. I have no skill at drawing, but after watching some tutorials, I learned techniques that let me draw things I couldn't draw before. The same goes for music and dancing. Lessons won't make you a Louis Armstrong or Fred Astaire, but they can make you very good. The same applies to photography. The rule of thirds is a good example, and there are many online and in-book lessons about photographic composition. No one should give up on "art" because he thinks he doesn't have a natural aptitude for it.

BebuLamar

Only sometimes? I thought accounting is an art an not a science.

Bison Bud

Being an engineering type, the technical aspects of photography have always come easier than the artistic part for me. However, with work I have improved considerably, but will probably never be the photographic artist I'd like to be. I really do think it's mostly a God given talent and if you have it you have it, but that doesn't mean that there aren't workarounds. It just means those of us less fortunate in that area need to try a whole lot harder. Frankly, the engineering/technical ability is also a God given talent. That was my gift from the start and I recognized this early on and have made lifelong good use of it too. I would also add that I think it's rare for someone to be gifted in both these areas at the same time, but it does happen and the results are generally exceptional when they do!

Stephan G

There is the "other" side in the overall equation. And that is the viewer.

Artistic capability, I think, is the better term when working to differentiate the innate from the learned. The path to the work of Art requires a combination of three parts. The inner vision, so to speak, the competence in using the communicative tools, and the interpretation by the viewer. I think that to try to place levels of difficulty separately on the three segments takes away from the creation of the Art. It also diminishes the fact that the difficulty levels fluctuate over the entire path.

And often, the artistic capability is stunted by the environs one is born into. This is the realm of Early Life Psychology that has tomes upon tomes written and argued for ages. The be-sure-you-draw-between-the-lines syndrome is very strong in the early years. It does stay with many throughout the rest of their lives. Then we have the limitations in the equipment we have to use to show what we see. And the level of comprehension of the viewer comes in on the back end.

Looking and reading across UHH shows how difficult it is the define "Art", which actually is a process for communication.

We need to include the education of Art Appreciation of the viewer to the two mentioned in the quote to finish the path.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

Well, if you think it's art. How can anything that is captured with an electronic tool then manipulated with a variety of other software programs be art?

Nikonman44

Interesting to say the least.

Amazing how many folk respond to an inquiry and each response has a wonderful piece of sage advise.

In my very humble opinion I do believe that the best fotos come from within. You see and you capture a fleeting moment that is there and then gone for good.

I for one do believe that art is in the eye of the beholder and there are those of us who just seem to see things others miss.

The greatest shots that I was able to capture came through the lens that my mind envisioned.

Good luck and keep shooting what you see and believe is a wonderful moment.

TSHDGTL

If making money is the goal with photography, I think Peter Lik has proven that marketing is the most important aspect.

Ballangrud Loc: Vermont

The technical part of photography can be learned and some of the basic composition/lighting/exposure and post production techniques are also to be learned. However, it's the "eye" for seeing what others don't see (the beauty, drama, visual pun, irony, etc.) and the perspective one has for the creative image that is the gift.

aquadiver Loc: Planet Earth

Great topic, and one I actually think about a lot. And it applies not just to photography but to any creative activity, from painting and sculpture to music and even cooking.

I came across a quote from Carl Jung a couple years ago that helped explain it to me. One of the foundations of Jungian psychology was the concept of the conscious vs. the unconscious mind. He explained that the difference is that the conscious mind can be trained, implying that the unconscious mind cannot. That explained why photography is therapy for me. The technical aspects of photography can be learned or trained. The artistic side is more inherent, not trainable, but certainly capable of being developed through practice and critique. It also tends to come easier once the technical side is mastered.

The therapeutic side for me is that when I'm shooting, my conscious and unconscious minds can and must work together, harmoniously. The rest of the time they are fighting like middle schoolers, and all my neuroses manifest. So photography for me is mental health. Some of the results are pretty artistic, too, but that's really more for others to judge.

In my opinion, the more you can manage the technical side without thinking about it too much, the creative side comes more easily. But it's also possible to stay totally on the technical side, and I know some very creative people who produce "interesting" work that is so technically flawed that it remains, well, interesting.

Anyway, thanks for the topic. It is fundamental to our endeavor.

gc

Largobob

If you believe that "making money is the goal with photography," then what keeps the rest of us hobbyists going? I began my journey into the world of photography at the ripe old age of 12....and have never made a dime from it. I'm beginning to think that "spending money" is closer to reality when discussing photography. <big grin>

TheDman Loc: USA

The same way anything that can be captured with manual tools and a variety of pigment substances can be art.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

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.