Photography: Artist vs technician

Hi,

I had a small discussion with some members of my photography club on
post-processing. Some thoroughly enjoy PP and come out with superb
results. Then there are the likes of me who hate to sit on a computer
and work on Photoshop. Everytime I open a photo editor, there is a deep
rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too
much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and
architecture more.

So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in
IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can
at the most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography because
I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid
portriats.

- Siddhartha

I agreed that photography have different sides that that attracts people
with different leanings. It all depends how you define photography as an
ART. I saw some very creative people use PS to edit several pictures and
come out the final which doesn't look like a photo. I prefer the
traditional way - play with light and get the atmosphere you want to present
etc.

"Siddhartha Jain"
.com...
Hi,

I had a small discussion with some members of my photography club on
post-processing. Some thoroughly enjoy PP and come out with superb
results. Then there are the likes of me who hate to sit on a computer
and work on Photoshop. Everytime I open a photo editor, there is a deep
rooted disinterest in doing all the complicated PP. I am also not too
much into portraits and *artistic* photography. Prefer lanscapes and
architecture more.

So here's what I am wondering. Does photography have different sides
that attracts people with different leanings? I, for example, work in
IT Security. I enjoy machines (all sorts), coding, and hacking. I can
at the most identify 5-6 colours. I am attracted to photography because
I enjoy producing nice looking photographs and less often some candid
portriats.

- Siddhartha

Cameras wrote:
I agreed that photography have different sides that that attracts people
with different leanings. It all depends how you define photography as an
ART. I saw some very creative people use PS to edit several pictures and
come out the final which doesn't look like a photo. I prefer the
traditional way - play with light and get the atmosphere you want to present
etc.

Photography arguably straddles the boundary between art and science.
Undeniably it is an art, in that you need the artistic "ability" to
recognise and compose a good shot. But there is a technical side to it
that can determine whether you are able to capture that vision.

I guess some people are attracted to photography as a creative medium,
and view fiddling with the dials and software as a means to an end. At
the extreme end of that scale are those who take stunning pictures with
a pin hole camera, or the Cartier-Bressons who just point and shoot.

Equally, I'm sure plenty of people get a kick out of tweaking an image
in Photoshop and making a presentable image from a previously
uninspiring picture; improving, or rescuing a shot. They are probably
also interested (and can quote) the various characteristics of
different filmstock, lenses and camera settings. They view the camera
as a technical piece of equipment and as much a joy to use, as it is to
actually view the pictures afterwards. These are the photographers who
will take a meter reading, set the camera manually, bracket and ensure
they used the right film for the conditions - or have already switched
to digital.

I suggest that there is a sliding scale and most of us are somewhere in
the middle, attracted by both "painting with light" and the "gadget
bag" to different degrees.

On 8 Jun 2005 04:03:24 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "Chadwick"
in
.com wrote:



Cameras wrote:
I agreed that photography have different sides that that attracts people
with different leanings. It all depends how you define photography as an
ART. I saw some very creative people use PS to edit several pictures and
come out the final which doesn't look like a photo. I prefer the
traditional way - play with light and get the atmosphere you want to present
etc.

Photography arguably straddles the boundary between art and science.
Undeniably it is an art, in that you need the artistic "ability" to
recognise and compose a good shot. But there is a technical side to it
that can determine whether you are able to capture that vision.

How does that differ from, say, painting or sculpture or weaving?

[snip]


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.

Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 8 Jun 2005 04:03:24 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "Chadwick"
in
.com wrote:



Cameras wrote:
I agreed that photography have different sides that that attracts people
with different leanings. It all depends how you define photography as an
ART. I saw some very creative people use PS to edit several pictures and
come out the final which doesn't look like a photo. I prefer the
traditional way - play with light and get the atmosphere you want to present
etc.

Photography arguably straddles the boundary between art and science.
Undeniably it is an art, in that you need the artistic "ability" to
recognise and compose a good shot. But there is a technical side to it
that can determine whether you are able to capture that vision.

How does that differ from, say, painting or sculpture or weaving?

Dunno. Why don't you go ask the same question on a painting, sculpture
or weaving newsgroup, in a thread without the word "photography" in the
heading. That way you might be on topic.

On 9 Jun 2005 01:27:43 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "Chadwick"
in
.com wrote:



Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 8 Jun 2005 04:03:24 -0700, in rec.photo.digital , "Chadwick"
in
.com wrote:



Cameras wrote:
I agreed that photography have different sides that that attracts people
with different leanings. It all depends how you define photography as an
ART. I saw some very creative people use PS to edit several pictures and
come out the final which doesn't look like a photo. I prefer the
traditional way - play with light and get the atmosphere you want to present
etc.

Photography arguably straddles the boundary between art and science.
Undeniably it is an art, in that you need the artistic "ability" to
recognise and compose a good shot. But there is a technical side to it
that can determine whether you are able to capture that vision.

How does that differ from, say, painting or sculpture or weaving?

Dunno. Why don't you go ask the same question on a painting, sculpture
or weaving newsgroup, in a thread without the word "photography" in the
heading. That way you might be on topic.

I guess by your notion I should find a "photography compared to
painting and sculpture" group. You made an assertion about
photography, I was trying to suggest that it was not particularly
about photography, but about most arts. Except for the verbal arts
(poetry, fiction, but not theater), all art has a technical side.
Photography does not straddle that boundary since all of the arts have
science on their "side". A photographer (still and movie) has to
understand the camera and the film, a sculpture has to understand
clay/bronze/marble and the kiln and so on. A painter has to understand
paint and canvas and brushes. Etc.


--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.

"Chadwick" wrote in message
oups.com...

How does that differ from, say, painting or sculpture or weaving?



Dunno. Why don't you go ask the same question on a painting, sculpture
or weaving newsgroup, in a thread without the word "photography" in the
heading. That way you might be on topic.

Arrogant arsehole! Photography Artist vs technician. Precisely on topic.

"Matt Silberstein" wrote in
message
Photography arguably straddles the boundary between art and science.
Undeniably it is an art, in that you need the artistic "ability" to
recognise and compose a good shot. But there is a technical side to it
that can determine whether you are able to capture that vision.

How does that differ from, say, painting or sculpture or weaving?

[snip]


--
Matt Silberstein


It doesn't differ at all.

A wonderful technician who lacks vision gives displays of mere virtuosity,
these may be interesting but never grab you. An astounding visionary who
cannot control his (brush, camera, violin, chisel,..........) cannot
communicate, you come out of the gallery shaking your head thinking there
may be something in there somewhere - but where.

The great artists are those who have both the vision and the ability to
capture it in their chosen medium.

David

"David Hare-Scott" wrote:

It doesn't differ at all.

A wonderful technician who lacks vision gives displays of mere virtuosity,
these may be interesting but never grab you. An astounding visionary who
cannot control his (brush, camera, violin, chisel,..........) cannot
communicate, you come out of the gallery shaking your head thinking there
may be something in there somewhere - but where.

The great artists are those who have both the vision and the ability to
capture it in their chosen medium.


Agree 100%.

Of course there is a wide range of visionary abilities, just as there
is a wide range of technical abilities. Not every great artist is
both a great visionary *and* a great technician.

I suspect that a good many great artists have (had) great vision but
only moderate technical ability. I also suspect that few, if any
great artists have (had) only moderate vision but great technical
ability.

To summarise, I believe that no degree of technical ability can ever
compensate for a lack of vision.

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 08:37:44 GMT, in rec.photo.digital , "David
Hare-Scott" in
wrote:


"Matt Silberstein" wrote in
message
Photography arguably straddles the boundary between art and science.
Undeniably it is an art, in that you need the artistic "ability" to
recognise and compose a good shot. But there is a technical side to it
that can determine whether you are able to capture that vision.

How does that differ from, say, painting or sculpture or weaving?

[snip]

It doesn't differ at all.

A wonderful technician who lacks vision gives displays of mere virtuosity,
these may be interesting but never grab you. An astounding visionary who
cannot control his (brush, camera, violin, chisel,..........) cannot
communicate, you come out of the gallery shaking your head thinking there
may be something in there somewhere - but where.

The great artists are those who have both the vision and the ability to
capture it in their chosen medium.

And some of us have a vision of vision, but lack both the vision and
the technical ability. I love photography, I like taking pictures and
the more I take, the more I like looking at the great ones (there was
a great pre-War exhibit of German photography that just closed). But I
just am not any good. Oh well. Maybe in 20,000 picture or so I will
learn.



--
Matt Silberstein

All in all, if I could be any animal, I would want to be
a duck or a goose. They can fly, walk, and swim. Plus,
there there is a certain satisfaction knowing that at the
end of your life you will taste good with an orange sauce
or, in the case of a goose, a chestnut stuffing.