Technical versus artistic proficiency (Page 11): Not sure what you're telling me here, Fotoartist. I'm well aware of Guernica's power and status in the history of art. My comment was...

srt101fan

Fotoartist wrote:

I'm linking to a reference about my last post in page 9 which showed the "Guernica" by Picasso, below, since the discussion then was about art. I did it with the hope that, maybe if this panel can agree on what good art is when one sees it, (who would disagree with this piece?) then maybe one can agree on other such matters too. Sometimes you have to pin things down to Black and White.

Not sure what you're telling me here, Fotoartist. I'm well aware of Guernica's power and status in the history of art. My comment was an attempt to add a little levity to the discussion.

If you want my input to the question of what is art, I say Guernica - YES! Thomas Kinkade and "Elvis on Velvet" - NO!

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Fotoartist wrote:

I agree. Now, who would disagree and why?

Sersly, art is in the eye of the beholder. Trite though this is, all art is based on an appeal to a theoretical viewer.

If your art only appeals to a select few, you may just be misunderstood. Or you may just be overly pretentious.

In the end, the only thing that counts is whether YOU believe that your art conveys your vision.

Andy “I don’t know art, but...” H

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

The issue here seems to be can artistic talent be learned or is it inborn. Proof (such as the length of training for artists like Mozart and Picasso) have been put forth here as proof that "talent" follows training and experience.

So far the contingent that claims it is otherwise have offered no proofs at all. (Yeah I am talking to you tdekany and TheDman) Since they have no proof of their positions, they shout about the need for others to provide proof of individual artistic talent in the form of posted photographs even though that is not the topic of the thread.

TheDman Loc: USA

dsmeltz wrote:

The issue here seems to be can artistic talent be ... (show quote)

Still another post with no photos. I cannot believe your laziness.

If "talent" followed training and experience, I would be as good as Roger Federer at tennis. I've certainly put in the training hours. How do you explain that I'm not?

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

TheDman wrote:

Still another post with no photos. I cannot believe your laziness.

If "talent" followed training and experience, I would be as good as Roger Federer at tennis. I've certainly put in the training hours. How do you explain that I'm not?

Because photos are not relevant to this discussion. They would prove nothing. Because you have not put in the level of of practice of Federer only the quantity.

Please post photos here that prove talent is not learned since you seem to believe that the proof should be in the photos! I do not hold that position nor believe it so there is no need for me to post photos. However, you seem to hold these things can be proven by photos so put up or shut up.

Come on.

Do it now.

Post a photo that proves your point.

We are all waiting.

TheDman Loc: USA

dsmeltz wrote:

Because photos are not relevant to this discussion. They would prove nothing.

He made the claim that talent is innate and asked for photos as proof. You then followed with a "claim" that it is not but provided no photos to refute his claim. That is just lazy.

dsmeltz wrote:

Because you have not put in the level of of practice of Federer only the quantity.

What "level" would that be? Roger Federer grew up hitting balls against a wall just like I did. Monica Seles hit balls over a rope that her dad had tied between two car bumpers. Somehow that high level of practice made her #1 in the world. So you're rebuttal is invalid.

dsmeltz wrote:

Please post photos here that prove talent is not learned since you seem to believe that the proof should be in the photos! I do not hold that position nor believe it so there is no need for me to post photos. However, you seem to hold these things can be proven by photos so put up or shut up.

You were initially challenged to post photos. It is up to you to prove you're not lazy.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

TheDman wrote:

He made the claim that talent is innate and asked for photos as proof. You then followed with a "claim" that it is not but provided no photos to refute his claim. That is just lazy.

No photos have been posted to this thread that prove artistic talent is innate. None. Because photos cannot prove that. Why can you not get that simple fact????

TheDman wrote:

What "level" would that be? Roger Federer grew up hitting balls against a wall just like I did. Monica Seles hit balls over a rope that her dad had tied between two car bumpers. Somehow that high level of practice made her #1 in the world. So you're rebuttal is invalid.

You were there watching Federer throughout his development? Really???? I strongly doubt you know what the level of intensity of his training was. However, you deserve the chance to prove your claim in the manner you seem to like. Please post the photos that prove it. I do look forward to the photos you took over the course of his youth and development sitting right next to photos of you doing the same things and facing the same level of challenge. That will prove your point. So go ahead and post them, since you seem to believe all things can be proven by photos.

TheDman wrote:

You were initially challenged to post photos. It is up to you to prove you're not lazy.

The challenge was irrelevant to the issue at hand and was simply additional trolling as practiced by the two of you. The request was an absurdity and should not be honored.

TheDman Loc: USA

dsmeltz wrote:

The challenge was irrelevant to the issue at hand and was simply additional trolling as practiced by the two of you. The request was an absurdity and should not be honored.

Wait, are you saying that asking you for photos when you didn't make a claim that would require them is "trolling"? Are you sure you want to stand by that?

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Photography is a rather unique ART in that there is a great deal of science and technology involved in the process of creating artful and masterful photographic imagery. My own opinion, and many will disagree, is that the consummate photographer is a talented artist AND a skilled technician- the required skill sets, talents and traits go hand in hand.

As a professional photographer, I have trained, taught and mentored many aspiring photographers, yet I do not classify myself as a “teacher” in that I have no pedagogical training or official credentials as a TEACHER- I am no professor! I am however, patient and can easily explain and relate what I know to others, especially in a face to face and one on one live environments. I came to teaching others by default. As a studio employee, I was assigned to “break in” new staff and provide on-the-job training to the rookies. Somehow, I ended up doing quite a bit of that that in the military and later on, in my own business, of course, I needed to train incoming new staff. Working for various masterships and credentials, I had to give service by offering classes and seminars. I did put in some “teaching” hours on a community college level. I have always “taught” photography on a vocational basis- I had to prepare folks to do the work- nuts and bolts! So...I prefer to categorize myself, firstly, as a photographer and by default, an INSTRUCTOR.

What does all this have to do with artistry? You might ask. As an instructor and/or on-the job-trainer I have a comparatively small window of opportunity to assess the trainees potential, recognize talents and skills, give them what they needed to know and evaluate their progress. It's serious business in that you are hiring people, promoting them to positions of more responsibility and monitoring their progress and quality of output. You need to provide creative encouragement and technical discipline at the same time- that is the most difficult part of the job. My observations as to artistry and technical savvy are based on theses experiences. I am not a philosopher so I refrain from quoting the profound words of the iconic photographers and great artists. I am not a psychologist or a neurologist so I can't legitimately opine on mentalities or leanings and could not tell anyone what segment of the brain controls what intellectual or autonomic functions. Nor am I a geneticist so I don't know where specific traits come from. But I can tell y'all that most of artistic talent is indeed inborn. It's a very unscientific and unsophisticated theory on my part, but some folks just have the “eye” and the “heart”! Some do not!

I have seldom had any difficulty in teaching anyone basic and even advanced camera operation, the technicalities of exposure, lighting methodologies and much more. I can even get most folks to ascertain many aspects of more complex composition and lighting as per cretin rules, diagrams, procedures and methodologies. Many can grasp much of this and replicate cretin elements consistently- kinda mechanically! Others, however, will SEE and perform some of theses things naturally.

As an example- I can place a number of items on a table- say a bowl or basket of fruits and ask my trainees to create a still life. Some of them will arrange things in a very effective composition- they have a natural sense of line, placement, space, symmetry and asymmetry and color or tone with no previous instruction. Others may require “diagram” or grid illustrating the rule of thirds or other classical methods. The kids with the “eye” will do their own random setups and amazingly, after the fact, their arrangements usually fit into many of theses classical compositional forms. The highly talented ones oftentimes have a unique vision of their own.

I can train people to PLACE lights but few can SEE light.

I don't want to “write a book” here but then there is the personality side of technique and artistry as well. In areas like portraiture even the most talented artist and precise technician may be abundant or lacking in “people skills”.- sensitivity, communication ability. Add to that perseverance, stick-to-intuitiveness, work ethic- its quite the package.

I always stick to my guns in one theory; I can not “teach” talent or artistry. I can provide the tools and techniques, try to set examples, and hopefully help people develop their intrinsic and innate talents.

Some may beg to differ with my approach and even feel that “commercial” photography in not true art. Others may say, and many do, that professional photography is “going to hell in a hand basket” and everyone is making their own pictures with telephone cameras. Perhaps some of this is true which makes it all the more imperative that commercial and professional photographer offer more than mediocre snapshots in order to sustain a business. I think that the average consumer is more art savvy than many might think. Folks are exposed to great images every day. They watch TV, go to the movies, read top rated magazines and are bombarded with images even as they walk down the aisles of their favorite supermarket. Consumer need to see something they perceive art if the are expected to pay for ti with there hard earned money.

Commercial photography entails creativity and art on demand.

Best regards.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

TheDman wrote:

Wait, are you saying that asking you for photos when you didn't make a claim that would require them is "trolling"? Are you sure you want to stand by that?

Please, stop embarrassing yourself. You clearly missed the sound of the mike being dropped at the end o my last post.

I will no longer try to educate you. Go back to your habit of tweeting at 3:30 am.

Done with you.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Well, my thought was, maybe we can't define art but people still seem to know it when they see it. Just trying to get real.

srt101fan wrote:

Not sure what you're telling me here, Fotoartist. I'm well aware of Guernica's power and status in the history of art. My comment was an attempt to add a little levity to the discussion.

If you want my input to the question of what is art, I say Guernica - YES! Thomas Kinkade and "Elvis on Velvet" - NO!

srt101fan

E.L.. Shapiro wrote:

Photography is a rather unique ART in that there is a great deal of science and technology involved in the process of creating artful and masterful photographic imagery. My own opinion, and many will disagree, is that the consummate photographer is a talented artist AND a skilled technician- the required skill sets, talents and traits go hand in hand.

As a professional photographer, I have trained, taught and mentored many aspiring photographers, yet I do not classify myself as a “teacher” in that I have no pedagogical training or official credentials as a TEACHER- I am no professor! I am however, patient and can easily explain and relate what I know to others, especially in a face to face and one on one live environments. I came to teaching others by default. As a studio employee, I was assigned to “break in” new staff and provide on-the-job training to the rookies. Somehow, I ended up doing quite a bit of that that in the military and later on, in my own business, of course, I needed to train incoming new staff. Working for various masterships and credentials, I had to give service by offering classes and seminars. I did put in some “teaching” hours on a community college level. I have always “taught” photography on a vocational basis- I had to prepare folks to do the work- nuts and bolts! So...I prefer to categorize myself, firstly, as a photographer and by default, an INSTRUCTOR.

What does all this have to do with artistry? You might ask. As an instructor and/or on-the job-trainer I have a comparatively small window of opportunity to assess the trainees potential, recognize talents and skills, give them what they needed to know and evaluate their progress. It's serious business in that you are hiring people, promoting them to positions of more responsibility and monitoring their progress and quality of output. You need to provide creative encouragement and technical discipline at the same time- that is the most difficult part of the job. My observations as to artistry and technical savvy are based on theses experiences. I am not a philosopher so I refrain from quoting the profound words of the iconic photographers and great artists. I am not a psychologist or a neurologist so I can't legitimately opine on mentalities or leanings and could not tell anyone what segment of the brain controls what intellectual or autonomic functions. Nor am I a geneticist so I don't know where specific traits come from. But I can tell y'all that most of artistic talent is indeed inborn. It's a very unscientific and unsophisticated theory on my part, but some folks just have the “eye” and the “heart”! Some do not!

I have seldom had any difficulty in teaching anyone basic and even advanced camera operation, the technicalities of exposure, lighting methodologies and much more. I can even get most folks to ascertain many aspects of more complex composition and lighting as per cretin rules, diagrams, procedures and methodologies. Many can grasp much of this and replicate cretin elements consistently- kinda mechanically! Others, however, will SEE and perform some of theses things naturally.

As an example- I can place a number of items on a table- say a bowl or basket of fruits and ask my trainees to create a still life. Some of them will arrange things in a very effective composition- they have a natural sense of line, placement, space, symmetry and asymmetry and color or tone with no previous instruction. Others may require “diagram” or grid illustrating the rule of thirds or other classical methods. The kids with the “eye” will do their own random setups and amazingly, after the fact, their arrangements usually fit into many of theses classical compositional forms. The highly talented ones oftentimes have a unique vision of their own.

I can train people to PLACE lights but few can SEE light.

I don't want to “write a book” here but then there is the personality side of technique and artistry as well. In areas like portraiture even the most talented artist and precise technician may be abundant or lacking in “people skills”.- sensitivity, communication ability. Add to that perseverance, stick-to-intuitiveness, work ethic- its quite the package.

I always stick to my guns in one theory; I can not “teach” talent or artistry. I can provide the tools and techniques, try to set examples, and hopefully help people develop their intrinsic and innate talents.

Some may beg to differ with my approach and even feel that “commercial” photography in not true art. Others may say, and many do, that professional photography is “going to hell in a hand basket” and everyone is making their own pictures with telephone cameras. Perhaps some of this is true which makes it all the more imperative that commercial and professional photographer offer more than mediocre snapshots in order to sustain a business. I think that the average consumer is more art savvy than many might think. Folks are exposed to great images every day. They watch TV, go to the movies, read top rated magazines and are bombarded with images even as they walk down the aisles of their favorite supermarket. Consumer need to see something they perceive art if the are expected to pay for ti with there hard earned money.

Commercial photography entails creativity and art on demand.

Best regards.

Photography is a rather unique ART in that there i... (show quote)

srt101fan

Fotoartist wrote:

Well, my thought was, maybe we can't define art but people still seem to know it when they see it. Just trying to get real.

Tough issue; like discussing politics and religion!?

TheDman Loc: USA

dsmeltz wrote:

Please, stop embarrassing yourself. You clearly missed the sound of the mike being dropped at the end o my last post.

I will no longer try to educate you. Go back to your habit of tweeting at 3:30 am.

Done with you.

Hehe! Translation: "I see where this is going and it's not good for me, so time to bail".

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

E.L.. Shapiro wrote:

br I have seldom had any difficulty in teaching... (show quote)

Duplicates my experience as a teacher.
One thing about "Art:" A medium, whether drawing or photography, is a skill. It can be used for various things, from primitive self-expression, to "Popular Art" to "Commercial Art" to "Fine Art."