Photography: Artist vs technician

On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 00:16:41 -0700, Siddhartha Jain wrote:

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've seen some truly wonderful photographs made by other people, and I
have also seem some truly magnificent paintings made by other people too.

I would never hang somebody else's photographs in my house, but I would
hang a nice piece of art by somebody else in it.

Am I weird?

--
email: drop rods and insert surfaces

Roxy d'Urban wrote:
I would never hang somebody else's photographs in my house, but I would
hang a nice piece of art by somebody else in it.


Sounds more like jealosuy to me ;-)

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.

"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.

In rec.photo.digital Tony Polson wrote:

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

And here may be the telling word.. Vision. Some of us compose the image
in the camera lens and thus the "vision" is applied at the time of image
capture. Others of us capture the image and then rely on their techical
ability (and technical ability of the image manipulation software
producers) to be creative durring post production. Of course there are
many of us who are somewhere inbetween the two extremes with some element
of image capture "vision" and some element of post production "vision".
Either form of vision is valid and useful. As always in an art form where
some of the "worth" of the finished product is based on the response of
the viewer, how the result is viewed will be variable.

While I do believe in the "I know what I like" viewpoint, I try not to
belittle some other image that may not be to my taste, as there will
likely be someone who will like it. If nobody else, the person who
produced it.

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL

RichA wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 21:02:31 GMT, "Tony" wrote:


Art is art. Everyone has thier own definition. What I am talking about is
an almost anti-art attitude by many photographers. They see a picture by
Cartier-Bresson and immediatly start talking about the subject not being in
the sharpest focus possible. I've heard people discuss the unrealistic
colours of an Eggleston and the lack of enough greys in brassai or too many
greys and not enough blacks and/or whites in Doisneau - who spent years
photographing in the grey streets of winter Paris.


Personally, I've always thought photography was best as a literal
interpretation of whatever the camera saw. Everything else added that
doesn't enhance the realism is the "art" part and subject to
interpretaiton. I don't like garishly colour landscapes or abstracts.
They seem to be interesting for about 10 seconds. I'll never remember
them. But I will remember a well-done photo of something interesting.
-Rich

To me, the 'art' part is not in manipulation of the image after taking
the picture, but in selection of camera angle, composition, lighting,
and other factors. 99% of my pictures simple record a piece of reality,
as nearly as possible. That is not to say I don't try to make sure that
the image recorded is showing what I felt was the reason for taking the
picture.


--
Ron Hunter

Roxy d'Urban wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 00:16:41 -0700, Siddhartha Jain wrote:


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've seen some truly wonderful photographs made by other people, and I
have also seem some truly magnificent paintings made by other people too.

I would never hang somebody else's photographs in my house, but I would
hang a nice piece of art by somebody else in it.

Am I weird?

Yes.
I have numerous photographs made by others in my home. Else I wouldn't
have records of the family and friends as they grow up... I value those
records.


--
Ron Hunter

Tony Polson wrote:
"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.


You describe the difference between 'art' and 'craft'. One can
certainly learn 'craft', but 'art' comes from some other part of the brain.


--
Ron Hunter

wrote:
Mike Henley wrote:

[...]

Say ... from which context-free grammar generator did you obtain that
output?

This output: "[...]"?

I don't recall obtaining that output. :-p

Would you like to point out precisely what you're talking about?