Can good photographic ability be taught, or is it in-born?

In article , Rich A wrote:

There is no argument, some painter and sculptors are gifted

Only if they're autistic. Skill isn't something people are born with, skill is
born from an interest, and that interest means you do it, a lot.

Like Bob Ross said: "Talent is pursued interest. Anything that you're willing to
practice, you can do".

The "born with it" is a myth, probably created by people that hasn't practiced
enough.

--
Sandman

On 18 May 2015 08:01:38 GMT, Sandman wrote:

The "born with it" is a myth, probably created by people that hasn't practiced
enough.

This statement is a myth.

In article , Rich A wrote:

Rich A:
There is no argument, some painter and sculptors are gifted

Sandman:
Only if they're autistic. Skill isn't something people are born
with, skill is born from an interest, and that interest means you
do it, a lot. Like Bob Ross said: "Talent is pursued interest.
Anything that you're willing to practice, you can do". The "born
with it" is a myth, probably created by people that hasn't
practiced enough. -- Sandman

You don't seriously think an Adams, or Steichen or Michaelangelo
could be taught to be as good as they were if they didn't have
in-born talent?

I don't "think", I know. There is no "in-born" photographic talent. It doesn't
exist.

I couldn't carve a "David" if I had 1000 years of
training.

Yes, you could. A more or less accepted idea is that it takes 10,000 hours of
practice to excel at a given task. The problem is having an interest that leads
you to invest 10,000 hours into that.


--
Sandman

In article , Bill W wrote:

Sandman:
The "born with it" is a myth, probably created by people that
hasn't practiced enough.

This statement is a myth.

Incorrect.

--
Sandman

Sandman wrote:
In article , Rich A wrote:

Rich A:
There is no argument, some painter and sculptors are gifted

Sandman:
Only if they're autistic. Skill isn't something people are born
with, skill is born from an interest, and that interest means you
do it, a lot. Like Bob Ross said: "Talent is pursued interest.
Anything that you're willing to practice, you can do". The "born
with it" is a myth, probably created by people that hasn't
practiced enough. -- Sandman

You don't seriously think an Adams, or Steichen or Michaelangelo
could be taught to be as good as they were if they didn't have
in-born talent?

I don't "think", I know. There is no "in-born" photographic talent. It doesn't
exist.

If that were true then anyone could learn enough to be an Ansel Adams.
But that isn't true...

I couldn't carve a "David" if I had 1000 years of
training.

Yes, you could. A more or less accepted idea is that it takes 10,000 hours of
practice to excel at a given task. The problem is having an interest that leads
you to invest 10,000 hours into that.

--
Sandman

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 5/18/2015 5:38 AM, Bill W wrote:
On 18 May 2015 08:01:38 GMT, Sandman wrote:

The "born with it" is a myth, probably created by people that hasn't practiced
enough.

This statement is a myth.


More like a troll.

--
PeterN

On 5/18/2015 11:46 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2015 10:40:46 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/18/2015 5:38 AM, Bill W wrote:
On 18 May 2015 08:01:38 GMT, Sandman wrote:

The "born with it" is a myth, probably created by people that hasn't practiced
enough.

This statement is a myth.


More like a troll.

I'm not sure that I agree that it's a myth or a troll. If you
consider that "born with it" can be taken to mean "when first starting
to use a camera", and not "from the cradle", there is some validity to
the statement.

A great deal of what goes into being a great photographer is the
ability to see a scene and sense that it could be a good photograph.
Some people can do that instinctively, and some can't.

People can be taught to be competent photographers by learning the
basics of the settings (shutter speed, depth of field, ISO) and what
the result is in a photograph. People can be taught to recognize
compositional techniques, lighting techniques, and posing techniques.
People can be taught to use software as aids in post.

What they can't be taught is that instinctive ability to see what can
be a good photograph. Some people know how to take a good photograph
of a barn, but don't see that a small part of that barn can be a
better subject than the barn.

A while back I was having lunch at a waterside restaurant and a group
of dolphins were playing in the water several hundred yards out from
the shore. About a dozen people were photographing the dolphins, and
one guy had his back to the dolphins and photographed a small child
ignoring the dolphins and poking a washed-up dead fish on the shore
with a stick. In the background were the people with cameras trained
on the dolphins.

He showed me the shot on his camera, and it was a better shot than any
of the ones of the dolphins. He had instinct.

In the film days there were frequent debates concerning whether
photography was an art or a craft. Assuming that photography can be
either or both, I think the craft can be taught, the art cannot. How
boring it would be if all images were uniformly sharp, had exact
uniform exposures, realistic light balance, and always followed the rule
of thirds.
In music, violin players can be taught to read music, and reproduce the
music following the Susuki method. That would be the musical equivalant
of a "paint by numbers," image. Similarly, in art photography we have
variations of exposure and sharpness within an image. Where and how much
to vary the items is an individual decision that differentiates an
interesting piece of art, from an ordinary hack image.


--
PeterN

On 18 May 2015 12:16:45 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Rich A wrote:

Rich A:
There is no argument, some painter and sculptors are gifted

Sandman:
Only if they're autistic. Skill isn't something people are born
with, skill is born from an interest, and that interest means you
do it, a lot. Like Bob Ross said: "Talent is pursued interest.
Anything that you're willing to practice, you can do". The "born
with it" is a myth, probably created by people that hasn't
practiced enough. -- Sandman

You don't seriously think an Adams, or Steichen or Michaelangelo
could be taught to be as good as they were if they didn't have
in-born talent?

I don't "think", I know. There is no "in-born" photographic talent. It doesn't
exist.

I couldn't carve a "David" if I had 1000 years of
training.

Yes, you could. A more or less accepted idea is that it takes 10,000 hours of
practice to excel at a given task. The problem is having an interest that leads
you to invest 10,000 hours into that.

I remember that a book came out a few years ago with this claim, but I
also know that the claim has been widely dismissed since then. There
is no question that all that practice would make the average person
pretty good at whatever it is they're practicing, but "excel" can be a
pretty unsettled term when it comes to art. In fact, this whole
discussion invariably leads to the questions of just what art is, and
that one is never going to be answered. As they say, ask 10 art
critics, and you'll get 11 different answers.

Anyway, if the claim were true, I'd be another Artur Rubinstein, but I
assure you, I suck at music, too.

On Mon, 18 May 2015 13:18:29 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

In the film days there were frequent debates concerning whether
photography was an art or a craft. Assuming that photography can be
either or both, I think the craft can be taught, the art cannot. How
boring it would be if all images were uniformly sharp, had exact
uniform exposures, realistic light balance, and always followed the rule
of thirds.
In music, violin players can be taught to read music, and reproduce the
music following the Susuki method. That would be the musical equivalant
of a "paint by numbers," image. Similarly, in art photography we have
variations of exposure and sharpness within an image. Where and how much
to vary the items is an individual decision that differentiates an
interesting piece of art, from an ordinary hack image.

What you wrote is the most reasonable way of looking at the question.
And I do know that plenty of people still think of photography as a
joke, with no connection to art. There will never be agreement on the
subject.

In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Rich A:
There is no argument, some painter and sculptors are
gifted

Sandman:
Only if they're autistic. Skill isn't something
people are born with, skill is born from an interest, and
that interest means you do it, a lot. Like Bob Ross said:
"Talent is pursued interest. Anything that you're willing to
practice, you can do". The "born with it" is a myth, probably
created by people that hasn't practiced enough. -- Sandman

Rich A:
You don't seriously think an Adams, or Steichen or Michaelangelo
could be taught to be as good as they were if they didn't have
in-born talent?

Sandman:
I don't "think", I know. There is no "in-born" photographic
talent. It doesn't exist.

If that were true then anyone could learn enough to be an Ansel
Adams.

Of course.

But that isn't true...

Of course it is. Ansel Adams didn't perform anything no other person could do, he
wasn't a superhuman. He had a camera, he pressed the button. He had a pursued
interest, not "born with it" talent.

Talent is a myth.

--
Sandman