Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: dreed on April 28, 2013, 10:59:28 am
-
Is it just me or is part two of the vision series 95% a rambling old man and 5% vision? Mind you, none of the section on vision is instructive, rather just a commentary on the author's own work.
Well I suppose when something is free, what does one expect but rambling old men like we have throughout the forums?
-
... Well I suppose when something is free, what does one expect but rambling old men like we have throughout the forums?
Feel free to provide your own, young and fresh, rambling at any time ;)
On second thought, you just did. Except it is neither young, nor fresh... just plain mean.
-
I suppose that when one is a KNOW-IT-All young man then nothing is instructive.
Cheers from another old man :o
-
Is it just me or is part two of the vision series 95% a rambling old man and 5% vision?
The introduction tells us -- "we are going to look at what it takes to create fine art photographs".
So far, I haven't been able to extract much that's useful to me from this laundry list. I keep getting distracted when the assertions don't fit with other information I've come across.
- "Painting, sculpture, drawing, dance, architecture, music, etc. are all mediums that are traditionally considered to be appropriate for the creation of art."
The Visual Language of Drawing (http://books.google.com/books?id=lo0ZywAACAAJ&dq=the+visual+language+of+drawing) "reassesses the art of drawing not as a technique, but as the essential grammar of all visual thinking".
- Mastery is achieved through continuous study and practice and takes a long time to acquire. 10,000 hours is often considered minimal. This is 5 years at 40 hours a week and longer if you can only work part time on photography.
The 10,000 hours figure applies to "domains where performance consistently increases" and that isn't obviously true of photography.
Being a landscape photographer doesn't seem to be about in the moment performance to anywhere near the same degree as being a concert pianist. (For example, "Vision Example #2: White Sands Sunrise" demonstrates after-the-performance leisurely consideration and selection and working of materials.)
"Most individuals who start as active professionals or as beginners in a domain change their behavior and increase their performance for a limited time (http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/ericsson.exp.perf.html) until they reach an acceptable level. Beyond this point, however, further improvements appear to be unpredictable and the number of years of work and leisure experience in a domain is a poor predictor of attained performance. Hence, continued improvements (changes) in achievement are not automatic consequences of more experience and in those domains where performance consistently increases aspiring experts seek out particular kinds of experience, that is deliberate practice -- activities designed, typically by a teacher, for the sole purpose of effectively improving specific aspects of an individual's performance. ... the critical difference between expert musicians differing in the level of attained solo performance concerned the amounts of time they had spent in solitary practice during their music development, which totaled around 10,000 hours by age 20 for the best experts, around 5,000 hours for the least accomplished expert musicians and only 2,000 hours for serious amateur pianists."
- Picasso was a cubist all his life...
"Science and Charity (http://www.bcn.cat/museupicasso/en/collection/mpb110-046.html) falls within the realm of social realism..."
- Cartier Bresson did only street photography...
Ballykisteen stud farm. (http://mediastore.magnumphotos.com/CoreXDoc/MAG/Media/TR2/2/3/3/4/PAR103728.jpg) Brie. (http://mediastore3.magnumphotos.com/CoreXDoc/MAG/Media/TR2/a/7/9/a/PAR19082.jpg) Paris. (http://mediastore2.magnumphotos.com/CoreXDoc/MAG/Media/TR2/4/2/8/e/PAR19209.jpg) etc
Mind you, none of the section on vision is instructive, rather just a commentary on the author's own work.
My preference would be for more of that commentary on the vision behind the author's own work, something about which he has undeniable expertise.
-
Is it just me or is part two of the vision series 95% a rambling old man and 5% vision? Mind you, none of the section on vision is instructive, rather just a commentary on the author's own work.
Well I suppose when something is free, what does one expect but rambling old men like we have throughout the forums?
There is an old saying: "So soon old, so late smart" consider how it applies to you.
Not every article we read resonates with us....for many reasons. That does not give just cause to express it as trash. I often find that it is valuable to attend a seminar or read a book/article if it just imparts one thing new to me.
As an analogy, we do not get along with all the people we meet. The people of the South have a nice way of dealing with this. If asked about someone they have had problems with, the response will be along the lines of, "I don't know them that well"
John
-
My preference would be for more of that commentary on the vision behind the author's own work, something about which he has undeniable expertise.
I think you will find that in his many books....quite worth reading....
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=briot
-
There is criticism and there is sarcasm.
The soul of good criticism is wit: the natural possession of understanding and intelligence. By it we engage and all grow in our abilities, so I suppose that is a sign of love for what we do. At its worst, to paraphrase Swift, it becomes "a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody’s face but their own".
And there is sarcasm, the deliberate intention to wound and ridicule. Most of us fall into using it at some time, but our displays of contempt generally come back and bite us.
I have enjoyed reading some of Alain Briot's articles, and some haven't resonated with me at all. Mostly I enjoy the discussion that arises out of constructive criticism of published material on LuLa.
On that score this thread opened with an epic fail.
Cheers from another rambling old man (and proud of it!)
-
The introduction tells us -- "we are going to look at what it takes to create fine art photographs".
So far, I haven't been able to extract much that's useful to me from this laundry list. I keep getting distracted when the assertions don't fit with other information I've come across.
<snip>
[/li]
[li]Mastery is achieved through continuous study and practice and takes a long time to acquire. 10,000 hours is often considered minimal. This is 5 years at 40 hours a week and longer if you can only work part time on photography.
The 10,000 hours figure applies to "domains where performance consistently increases" and that isn't obviously true of photography.
My preference would be for more of that commentary on the vision behind the author's own work, something about which he has undeniable expertise.
The list is pretty much useless. Everything on it might be more or less true, but having somebody give you a list is much different than doing the work that allows you make a list like this...or recognize it as generally true. You really have to do the work.
I generally disagree with Isaac about the 10,000 hours; I think that's generally correct, although I might not express the idea in something as specific as hours. Since I became aware of the concept, sometime back in the 90s, I think, I've considered performance in a wide variety of professions (not just the arts) and generally, four or five years of fulltime professional experience seems about right. It's not just practice we're talking about here, it's the time needed to test practical experience against theory, and time to think about and contemplate the results of the tests. You just need the *time,* both to do the practice, to test it, and to think about it. If you were learning to paint, and you wanted to paint exactly like Rembrandt, you could probably learn the techniques in a year or so, and make a pretty credible copy of a Rembrandt painting, but that wouldn't make you Rembrandt, just as all the Ansel Adams imitations in the world don't make you Ansel Adams. I was a newspaper reporter for quite a while, and worked closely with news photographers, and it was apparent that it takes a few years to get really good at either thing. Guys coming out of college with B.A. degrees in either practice would only really hit their working stride in their late 20s (assuming they graduated at about 22.) A lawyer once told me that people coming out of law school were "helpless," and really only achieved serious competency after five years of fulltime experience...and that was if you were talented. Same thing with judges; and politicians; and artists, I think.
I was going to stop at that last paragraph, but I started thinking about photojournalists that I knew, and there's an aspect to the job that almost can't be explained, and that's the way that a good shooter will usually recognize when something is about to happen, and will be standing in exactly the right place when something happens, and will be ready to shoot and will get the shot. That's a learned thing which functions almost at the level of instinct...the idea of, I think I'll walk over here and climb up on that tree root...Something that comes through experience. It can't be told to you.
-
I generally disagree with Isaac about the 10,000 hours; I think that's generally correct, although I might not express the idea in something as specific as hours.
You aren't disagreeing with me about this; you're disagreeing with the researcher about his own research.
Whatever your opinion about "four or five years of full time professional experience" that is simply not what the 10,000 hours factoid was about.
Anders Ericsson tells us "the number of years of work and leisure experience in a domain is a poor predictor of attained performance" and what he's actually talking about is deliberate practice -- "the accumulated amount of deliberate practice is closely related to the attained level of performance of many types of experts".
-
You aren't disagreeing with me about this; you're disagreeing with the researcher about his own research.
Whatever your opinion about "four or five years of full time professional experience" that is simply not what the 10,000 hours factoid was about.
Anders Ericsson tells us "the number of years of work and leisure experience in a domain is a poor predictor of attained performance" and what he's actually talking about is deliberate practice -- "the accumulated amount of deliberate practice is closely related to the attained level of performance of many types of experts".
I know what the Ericsson work is about; I've read his work, and a couple more books based on his work. What I am arguing is, in many professions four or five years of work (under certain conditions) may constitute "deliberate practice," if you bother to understand what "deliberate practice" means. A reporter, for example, who is regularly pushed by a city desk into newer, harder reporting fields and writing assignments, and who regularly has those assignments critiqued,is experiencing what amounts to deliberate practice, and at one time, this was a standard way of giving a talented reporter advanced training. On the other hand, some (perhaps most) don't get this kind of attention, and they don't improve.
You said that "the 10,000 hours applies to 'domains where performance consistently increases' and that isn't obviously true of photography," and that was the statement I was disagreeing with -- the "not obviously true" part. I think it may very well apply to photography, so I was disagreeing with you, not with Ericsson.
When Ericsson said that the number of years of work was a poor predictor, he's talking about large averages. If you look at 10,000 musicians, the number of years they've been playing is not a good predictor of performance because the harsh fact of the matter is, most musicians are not that good. But the 10,000 hours of "deliberate practice" is a good predictor of peak performers. I'm saying that the same is true of talented lawyers, reporters, TV commentators, artists, preachers, politicians, etc. They seek out the equivalent of "deliberate practice" and that's what distinguishes them from others in their fields. The other thing to understand about Ericsson's theory is that it's the result of observation, rather than deliberate experiment. So they did not have a bunch of talented violinists divided into two equal groups, one of which was allowed to practice 23 hours a week, and the other of which was only allowed to practice ten. These were self-selected groups, and so the outcomes were derived by exactly what I'm talking about -- observation of the fact that people become peak performers through "deliberate practice," but that's mostly of their own devising, and often, from work.
Also, the 10,000 hours is not a "factoid." A factoid is an assumption or idea of story or myth that is repeated so often that it's assumed to be true, where there is no evidence that it really is. The 10,000 hours idea is the result of a serious study. (The word "factoid" was invented by Normal Mailer in his book about Marilyn Monroe, in which he discussed stories about Marilyn that everybody assumed to be true, but had no basis in fact -- so these things were fact-like, and people treated them as if they were facts, but weren't facts.)
-
Also, the 10,000 hours is not a "factoid."
I'm experiencing a flashback...didn't we do the whole 10K hrs thing a couple of years ago? Oh, wait, we did in this thread (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=62647.0)...
This is kinda like Déjà vu all over again...or like an acid flashback (been there, done that, have the Tee shirt–it was at a Jimi Hendrix concert no less).
So, can we learn anything useful from the previous thread or are we doomed to replay history again? Just askin'
:~)
-
There is an old saying: "So soon old, so late smart" consider how it applies to you.
Not every article we read resonates with us....for many reasons. That does not give just cause to express it as trash. I often find that it is valuable to attend a seminar or read a book/article if it just imparts one thing new to me.
Maybe I've been reading LL for just too long now, so everything new is already old but that for others who haven't read the archives or the website for as long, repeated or rambling material is new.
It's not so much that I consider what was presented as trash, rather I just don't see the link between what was presented and the supposed topic for the series. Had it of been presented otherwise, I doubt I'd have been as harsh, but this is supposed to be about vision. It might be a good essay but it doesn't appear to me to be "on topic." The kind of essay you might hand in to your teacher about a different book than you were supposed to write about and you get an "F", not because the essay was bad but because it doesn't discuss the book that you were supposed to write about.
Is the writer expecting the "artistic" reader to just "get it" and understand how what was presented relates to "vision"? Or did it go on for so long that the writer stopped for fear of making it too long?
I suppose that when one is a KNOW-IT-All young man then nothing is instructive.
Well the "series" is titled vision, so I suppose I look for there for be a clearly defined link with the article and the title. I tried to consider that the story was about art and in teaching about art, it was trying to impart something of how to find vision by working on some of the goals but then that gets lost when mention is made of things like using art's vocabulary.
So I'm not trying to be a know it all, rather what I am/was looking for is something that explains (and perhaps teaches?) vision.
Cheers from another old man :o
Well one day I'll be an old man and quite possibly a rambling one too :)
But right now, I'm just impatient for brain food on the topic of vision.
I suppose the other question to ask is did anyone actually find the essay instructive on the topic of "Vision" for photography and if so, how?
-
When in a hole, stop digging.
-
I find that this is usually the case when LL moves off what it does well and is rooted in which is gear (‘hyper-reality’ excepted…), in particular educated real wold use of it and it’s future direction.
This really doesn’t mix with philosophical artistic discussion and so I have learned to skip these and much like most sites, blogs (and magazines) you take what you want and leave the rest. I will say that as the number of contributors has grown I find myself skipping more content.
-
So, can we learn anything useful from the previous thread or are we doomed to replay history again? Just askin'
No need to ask -- we are obviously doomed to replay history again ;-)
-
What I am arguing is, in many professions four or five years of work (under certain conditions) may constitute "deliberate practice," ...
The interested reader should look through the very short "Expert Performance and Deliberate Practice" (http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/ericsson.exp.perf.html) summary for themselves.
You said that "the 10,000 hours applies to 'domains where performance consistently increases' and that isn't obviously true of photography," and that was the statement I was disagreeing with -- the "not obviously true" part.
Please point us towards a body of work that you think demonstrates consistent improvement in a photographer's performance, beyond Ericsson's "an acceptable level". (More to the point, a consistent improvement in the artistic merit of the photographer's work.)
Also, the 10,000 hours is not a "factoid."
Words can have more than one meaning, and meanings change and grow -- Merriam-Webster Factoid "2: a briefly stated and usually trivial fact" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/factoid).
-
The interested reader should look through the very short "Expert Performance and Deliberate Practice" (http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/ericsson.exp.perf.html) summary for themselves.
I would agree, since it makes my point. Or you could read Malcolm Gladwell's version of the work, in Outliers, which is much easier reading. Ericsson, like many academics, is clear but dense.
Please point us towards a body of work that you think demonstrates consistent improvement in a photographer's performance, beyond Ericsson's "an acceptable level". (More to the point, a consistent improvement in the artistic merit of the photographer's work.)
Well...almost anybody. Great photographers' careers usually follow an arc -- they attract some attention with early work, get better and better, go through a period of mastery, and then toward the end of their careers, they tend to tail off. Ansel Adams sold his first portfolio in the 20s, but made his most famous photos in the late 30s and 40s. That's absolutely typical.
Words can have more than one meaning, and meanings change and grow -- Merriam-Webster Factoid "2: a briefly stated and usually trivial fact" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/factoid).
But wait -- you're saying that you used the word properly because the 10,000 hours issue is a "briefly stated and...trivial fact?"
As far as I know Isaac, you've never admitted to even the slightest error or misstatement in the entire time you've been posting on this forum; most other people will concede that one one occasion or another, they've had their heads deeply up their asses, and I am among those people. It can be embarrassing, but that attitude also allows you to learn something on occasion. What you've learned is, the meaning of "factoid."
-
Well...almost anybody. Great photographers' careers usually follow an arc -- they attract some attention with early work, get better and better, go through a period of mastery, and then toward the end of their careers, they tend to tail off. Ansel Adams sold his first portfolio in the 20s, but made his most famous photos in the late 30s and 40s. That's absolutely typical.
You don't seem interested in thinking about what I asked, and that's fine.
But wait -- you're saying that you used the word properly because the 10,000 hours issue is a "briefly stated and...trivial fact?"
I'm saying that in Alain Briot's essay "10,000 hours" is a just factoid ripped from specific context which gave it meaning.
-
I suppose the other question to ask is did anyone actually find the essay instructive on the topic of "Vision" for photography and if so, how?
A fair question, despite the silliness of the opening post. If there is anything wrong with the essay it has nothing to do with the author's age. I certainly cringed when I got as far as the credibility-deflating material identified by Isaac. Anyone who thinks that Picasso was a cubist all his life should stay well away from observations about "the heritage of art that was created in the past". However, along the way I also found a number of shrewd observations (eg Finding your best work is your responsibility, not the responsibility of your audience), and, taking the essay a whole, an interesting and moving sense of a lifetime's experience as a practitioner. Mr Briot is a fine photographer and has thought about his experience. However, when it comes to style I also found more than one example of banality, excessive repetition and the bleeding obvious. If you didn't see any of this we are a long way apart in our perceptions. As a literary stylist, Mr Briot could perhaps pay more attention to his own observation that "editing is fundamentally ruthless".
-
A fair question, despite the silliness of the opening post. If there is anything wrong with the essay it has nothing to do with the author's age. I certainly cringed when I got as far as the credibility-deflating material identified by Isaac. Anyone who thinks that Picasso was a cubist all his life should stay well away from observations about "the heritage of art that was created in the past". However, along the way I also found a number of shrewd observations (eg Finding your best work is your responsibility, not the responsibility of your audience), and, taking the essay a whole, an interesting and moving sense of a lifetime's experience as a practitioner. Mr Briot is a fine photographer and has thought about his experience. However, when it comes to style I also found more than one example of banality, excessive repetition and the bleeding obvious. If you didn't see any of this we are a long way apart in our perceptions. As a literary stylist, Mr Briot could perhaps pay more attention to his own observation that "editing is fundamentally ruthless".
All this angst would be avoided, and much time saved, if folks would simply accept the truth: you have it or you haven't.
There are innumerable things in life that I wish I could do but can't - singing and playing guitar or piano would be a fine start. Even separately!
It was ever thus and will remain so.
Rob C
-
All this angst would be avoided, and much time saved, if folks would simply accept the truth: you have it or you haven't.
There are innumerable things in life that I wish I could do but can't - singing and playing guitar or piano would be a fine start. Even separately!
It was ever thus and will remain so.
Rob C
That would be fine if we are trying to find the next Mozart or Picasso. But I think the article is not aimed at people of this sort. If only the most talented had a voice the world would be a poorer place, and there is nothing wrong with the many readers on this site picking out a few nuggets of information which might encourage them to think about their photography. The article has many interesting and valuable insights. The suggestions of basing work around projects might be a really good idea for a lot of people. We have to remember that not everyone here has a lot of experience, though I know some of you have enough experience for a whole classroom of students! ;D If I had a criticism, it would be that I disliked the way it was listed out in a long column of numbered points, almost like a painting by numbers guide to fine art photography. Why not just write an essay encompassing the points - some of us do have the attention span.
In fact my main problem is probably the phrase Fine Art Photography. But then I'm not a Fine Art Photographer - too busy taking more mundane pictures to scratch a living!
Jim
-
As a literary stylist, Mr Briot could perhaps pay more attention to his own observation that "editing is fundamentally ruthless".
:-D
It is interesting that in this installment, it is more verbose when it could have been briefer but in the first, it was the exact opposite (IMHO) - terse when it should have been fuller.
All this angst would be avoided, and much time saved, if folks would simply accept the truth: you have it or you haven't.
There are innumerable things in life that I wish I could do but can't - singing and playing guitar or piano would be a fine start. Even separately!
It was ever thus and will remain so.
Are you saying that you either "have vision" or you don't and that if you don't, you never will?
If that's so, then are you saying the "vision" series of Alain's serves no purpose?
-
There are innumerable things in life that I wish I could do but can't - singing and playing guitar or piano would be a fine start.
My guess is that you intend "singing and playing guitar or piano" as examples of "you have it or you haven't" but without knowing more they only seem to be examples of you try to learn it or you don't try to learn it.
-
My guess is that you intend "singing and playing guitar or piano" as examples of "you have it or you haven't" but without knowing more they only seem to be examples of you try to learn it or you don't try to learn it.
You've lost me.
I mean that I would love to have the natual talent to sing and/or play at least one instrument, but I can't. I had a guitar at the age of twelve and sold it at around the age of nineteen... In that period I learned which strings were E,A,D,G,B and E. I couldn't even tune the mother. As for singing: I shall never forget as a kid of about five, (singing!) in a Christmas situation, that one of the adults casually remarked that someone was singing flat. Of course, I did the natural thing and denied it could be myself. Oddly, I have no problem spotting when someone else hits a flat note! I suppose that means I could always be a music critic. You now, just like a curator, but different...
;-)
Rob C
-
:-D
It is interesting that in this installment, it is more verbose when it could have been briefer but in the first, it was the exact opposite (IMHO) - terse when it should have been fuller.
1. Are you saying that you either "have vision" or you don't and that if you don't, you never will?
2. If that's so, then are you saying the "vision" series of Alain's serves no purpose?
1. Pretty much. It's been my experience of people.
2. It serves a purpose even if it simply entertains, fills in time otherwise empty (much as mine is, unfortunately), but in my view, it's all wishful thinking on the part of anyone hoping they can learn to be an artist of any sort if they don't have the innate ability or aptitude for the 'art' in hand... I am totally convinced these sorts of qualities are there from the start and are also self-starting: they show their presence at a pretty early stage in life. Of course, I am separating the two functions of competent camera-handling and creating beautiful images.
Rob C
-
I had a guitar at the age of twelve and sold it at around the age of nineteen...
Did you take lessons with a guitar teacher? Did you have guitar lessons at school?
As for singing: I shall never forget as a kid of about five, (singing!) in a Christmas situation, that one of the adults casually remarked that someone was singing flat.
Let's hope that making a small child feel bad about themselves made their day.
Back to the here and now -- Beginner Singing Lessons (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE23BB376CB009186) and BBC Learn to Sing: Step-by-Step Guides (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sing/learning/).
-
I think, it's much easier for an accomplished singer to excel in photography, rather than the other way around.
Bryan Adams comes to mind, he took it to royal heights.
Failing that, if you still want to get published as a photographer, you could marry a singer. Someone like Paul McCartney.
-
Failing that, if you still want to get published as a photographer, you could marry a singer. Someone like Paul McCartney.
Or take a camera to a Rollling Stones party (http://www.lindamccartney.com/) --
"Linda got her first big break as a photographer while working as a receptionist at Town and Country Magazine. She used an unwanted invitation to a Rolling Stones promotional party on the SS Sea Panther on the Hudson River in New York to document the event and photograph the band.
Linda became a professional photographer in the mid-sixties. Her pictures during this period chronicled the musical revolution of the decade.
Whilst working as the house photographer at the Fillmore East in New York City she photographed many iconic musicians including; The Rolling Stones, Otis Redding, B.B. King, The Doors, The Grateful Dead, Frank Zappa, The Beach Boys, The Who, Cream, The Kinks, Traffic, The Byrds, Jimi Hendrix and, ultimately, The Beatles."
-
Did you take lessons with a guitar teacher? Did you have guitar lessons at school?Let's hope that making a small child feel bad about themselves made their day.
Back to the here and now -- Beginner Singing Lessons (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE23BB376CB009186) and BBC Learn to Sing: Step-by-Step Guides (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sing/learning/).
Had lessons for a while when I was given the guitar; the teacher suggested that I take up a fixed-pitch(?) instrument like the squeeze-box instead. Didn't feel any attraction towards the Tyrol... the guitar (black) was going to accompany me on my horse (also black) when I became a cowboy. Instead, I became a photographer; some say there's not a lot of difference.
That Gene Autrey and Roy Rogers have a lot for which to answer.
Rob C
-
OK I'm persuaded that the guitar is not for you :-)
However, you can still find your singing voice without too much concern for disturbing the neighbours.
-
Consider the "vision" essay to be a reiteration of things we all know but don't always consciously remember. There's nothing wrong with a little prod now and then. ;)
-
"Linda got her first big break as a photographer while working as a receptionist at Town and Country Magazine. She used an unwanted invitation to a Rolling Stones promotional party on the SS Sea Panther on the Hudson River in New York to document the event and photograph the band.
Linda became a professional photographer in the mid-sixties. Her pictures during this period chronicled the musical revolution of the decade.
Whilst working as the house photographer at the Fillmore East in New York City she photographed many iconic musicians including; The Rolling Stones, Otis Redding, B.B. King, The Doors, The Grateful Dead, Frank Zappa, The Beach Boys, The Who, Cream, The Kinks, Traffic, The Byrds, Jimi Hendrix and, ultimately, The Beatles."
Are these factoids?
BTW, we had here an old man photographing celebrities, too. Karsh was his name, and his portraits were quite good.
I liked Linda, especially her cookbook. And she didn't drag Paul onto the ice floes hunting for seal pups. Just to stay on topic, you needed a good vision for that.
-
Consider the "vision" essay to be a reiteration of things we all know but don't always consciously remember. There's nothing wrong with a little prod now and then. ;)
You hit the nail on the head. One of the problems about learning something is that you forget you have learnt it and an article like the one on the main site acts like a memory jog......and then you forget again till the next article. :) One of the problems of growing old.
-
You hit the nail on the head. One of the problems about learning something is that you forget you have learnt it and an article like the one on the main site acts like a memory jog......and then you forget again till the next article. :) One of the problems of growing old.
Even for a child, reading something once is not the way to remember it.
If you expect this of yourself, then you're building bad expectations of yourself.
There are specific time intervals for ensuring something goes into long term memory but I cannot say exactly what they are.
-
Dreed I didn't expect anything. Did you see the smiley? Anyways why do you think you are entitled to lecture anyone? :o
-
There are plenty of times when one forgets to do something that is known "by heart". We all try to be 100% conscious at all times, but we all make mistakes too. Briot's article is a reminder of basic principles. I am at the bottom of a steep learning curve in technique and art, and do need a kick in the butt occasionally, in order to shift from the "how" to the "why" of a photograph (and back again to the "how"). The "10,000 hours" value of just getting out there and shooting is that operation of the equipment, dealing with a variety of field conditions, and post-processing can become "second nature" (habit), and high quality photos can be produced from every shoot. Art results from exercising curiosity and reflection during those "10,000 hours" - some people do so, some don't.
-
There are plenty of times when one forgets to do something that is known "by heart". We all try to be 100% conscious at all times, but we all make mistakes too. Briot's article is a reminder of basic principles. I am at the bottom of a steep learning curve in technique and art, and do need a kick in the butt occasionally, in order to shift from the "how" to the "why" of a photograph (and back again to the "how"). The "10,000 hours" value of just getting out there and shooting is that operation of the equipment, dealing with a variety of field conditions, and post-processing can become "second nature" (habit), and high quality photos can be produced from every shoot. Art results from exercising curiosity and reflection during those "10,000 hours" - some people do so, some don't.
I hate to tell you, Nancy, but it doesn't work like that.
At the very best, great and immaculate technique can pull a person through a bad shoot, but when the vitality is missing, as happens with wrong casting, wrong people present (can easily be a client), the shoot fails even though the rest of the world doesn't know it right away.
For what you desire, you are in denial of the presence of the magic, without which nothing happens worth happening. It's the old mojo number again and believe me, he's real. Just ask anyone who's got anywhere in this business, and if they are honest enough not to want to pretend it was all their own wonderful talent, you'll hear the same story.
Rob C
-
The "10,000 hours" value of just getting out there and shooting is that operation of the equipment, dealing with a variety of field conditions, and post-processing can become "second nature" (habit), and high quality photos can be produced from every shoot.
Sanity check -- Did it take you 10,000 hours for driving a car to become "second nature"?
"Most individuals who start as active professionals or as beginners in a domain change their behavior and increase their performance for a limited time until they reach an acceptable level."
Please, read the thousand words the researcher used to summarize his understanding of "Expert Performance and Deliberate Practice" (http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/ericsson.exp.perf.html).
-
Jesus, Isaac, just drop it!
Nobody here buys your interpretation of the "10,000 hours," or the original intention of its author, for that matter.
We have our own understanding of it, however misguided and wrong, and love it dearly.
-
Jesus, Isaac, just drop it!
I fully support your freedom to express your own understanding, however misguided and wrong.
-
Dreed I didn't expect anything. Did you see the smiley? Anyways why do you think you are entitled to lecture anyone? :o
Sorry, I didn't mean to lecture, I was trying to help by saying that if you want to commit things to memory, there are techniques that can be used that will assist/work.
-
No problem. I accept that there are ways to learn. Personally I look at something I decide if it is interesting and decide if there is a practical benefit to it. If so I learn a little and put it into practise and then learn some more and then more practise. I find that I cannot follow the technique of cramming. Probably an age thing. Everybody has their different ways of doing things and unfortunately there are competing interests such as eating, sleeping and household chores. ;) :)
-
No problem. I accept that there are ways to learn. Personally I look at something I decide if it is interesting and decide if there is a practical benefit to it. If so I learn a little and put it into practise and then learn some more and then more practise. I find that I cannot follow the technique of cramming. Probably an age thing. Everybody has their different ways of doing things and unfortunately there are competing interests such as eating, sleeping and household chores. ;) :)
Have you found that too?
Add in getting up - which takes more than a little time and courage when it's cold; take time out for a shower and then it's time to go eat lunch. I feel we are getting short-changed in the hours deal. Worst of all is when I have to do a washing: if I don't get it hung out to dry before I depart to eat, it dries crinkled, and I absolutely hate the iron. Or it doesn't dry at all and has to be brought indoors overnight... it's so ugly.
Thirty years ago we learned not to leave stuff out at night: we had a knicker-knocker who used to take adult pants and replace them with those of a child... he did the same with swimsuits. Our next-door neighbour heard him on her terrace one night, peeped through the curtains just in time to see him lay her swimsuit out on the tiles and start to lie on top of it. She banged the glass and, apparently, he shot away like a hare.
But he or a close friend didn't stop visiting for some years. We knew better, but tourists used to ignore the warnings and lose lots of stuff. The thing is, our Alsabrador didn't bark, so I wonder if it was someone we actually knew.
Rob C
-
This is kinda like Déjà vu all over again...or like an acid flashback
Jeez...it...it sorta is, isn't it?
But, to wrench this thread back on the original topic, which was Rob's inability to either sing or play the guitar...no wait, that wasn't it.
To wrench this thread back to the original topic, I find that the reason I don't look long at most photographs or paintings, is simply that they lack thought. Technique isn't a problem. Technique can pretty much be had in a year or so of serious study, but once they have it, many would-be fine art photographers don't know what to do with it, because they don't have any ideas that would be expressed as art. When they think about photography, they think about technique or mechanics -- and when they go out and shoot, they get their ideas from somebody else (on this forum, mostly from Ansel Adams.) What Alan tries to do from time to time, is to get people to consider that "thought" aspect of photography, but what he winds up doing is providing a list of *his* thoughts, which are taken from the point of view of a very specific kind of working life. That's fine, if you want a working life like his, but it'd be much better if you invented these thoughts, and that list, on your own, because then the list would be different and it would be yours.
I would suggest that Alan is more a commercial artist than a fine art photographer. That is, he's running a business focused on sales, in which the product is a photograph done in a specific genre made to be pleasing to a specific kind of customer. Nothing wrong with that, in my opinion -- I make my living doing something analogous to that. A serious fine art photographer, though, is more focused on a vision of the world based in a personal philosophy without regard to sales, because a focus on sales is automatically distorting. That is, you start to cater to something besides your own vision. That's why a lot of fine artists wind up poor, or dependent on part-time teaching gigs or grants. It's true that some of them -- a vanishing small number of them -- wind up doing very well with sales, but that's almost despite themselves, rather than as part of a plan.
I think photography appeals to techies because it seems to be an "art form" that is accessible to them, and that can be acquired though the study of the kinds of things that techies like to study anyway: sensor responses, db's (whatever those are), color depth, blah blah blah blah...But they're wrong. All they're acquiring is technique, and maybe a really, really good camera, maybe even (for the next ten minutes) the "best camera." But they're not learning about art. They should be looking at Jeff Wall, but instead, they study that test site, whatever it is, the one with the company with initials for a name.
I essentially have no problem with what anybody wants to do with their spare time, as long as it doesn't involve blowing people up. If folks enjoy buying and testing cameras, or replicating Ansel Adams photos, that's fine with me, but I think it would be best if a person tried not be be confused about what he/she is doing. And buying the "best" camera is not going to buy you art, and studying technique won't make you a fine artist, and operating out of somebody else's laundry list of art approaches won't do it, either.
-
You see, John? It really was about my inablity to sing or play musical instruments.
I projected myself as but a musical metaphor for the failures of so many to be talented in a chosen wish-world.
It will always be thus: you can or you can't; the way out of it is to realise early what you have going for yourself and what you have not.
Rob C
-
A thoughtful reply John. To what I'm not sure as I've lost track of the thread. To add to what you have said, many photographers I know who do interesting images have an idea and just go out to see if they can make it happen. As far as the tech side goes, they just want it to work. With all the acquired technique and gear, most will at some time have to say "stuff that" and find a work-around that goes against "orthodoxy" but gives them what they see in the mind's eye.
For my part, the gear and tech is fun but fully engaging the imagination, problem solving with what I have and getting out and doing it is better. Who knows if it's art. On the other hand who cares?
-
No, Rob, I disagree. I really do think a person can teach himself to be a great artist, if he has the will. Look at Cezanne. Here's a guy who had no obvious early talent, no obvious midlife talent, and yet, by the end of his life he was being considered by many (including me) to be an absolutely pivotal artist in the whole history of art. Even Degas, who was an early bloomer and a genius with a pencil, considered Cezanne to be something far beyond the ordinary -- yet even at the end, after fifty years of hard work, Cezanne couldn't draw. What he did was stay with painting, day after day, to keep his brain alive, and eventually, found what he was doing.
I think what you consider to be talent is simply a wide band of learning effects which, in the case of the talented, often are gotten early in life. That is, a child, because he is told to do it, draws inside the lines, and somebody tells him or her, when she's three, gee, you're talented. That approval pushes the kid, who then gets better, and that results in a further push, and special attention, and the kid excels in drawing. It's a way of seeking status and approval. The interesting question is, can this be done when you're old? Some old artists (Rembrandt and Cezanne, among others) experienced a final blossoming in old age, in which their art moved to new levels. So, I think it's possible, but I'm not sure. I would agree that some basic physical requirements have to be met for top talents: for a photographer, you need good vision, intelligence, access to equipment, and so on. But I don't really think there there are great photographers wandering around, undiscovered, because they don't have access to the equipment. Access to the equipment is a prerequisite, in a way, to becoming talented. I've been told by a number of artists that if you can write with a pencil, you can learn to draw very, very well. Because of its use as a message carrier, drawing was once taught at West Point, and all the graduating students were expected to be at least capable (That's where Whistler got early instruction, before he was dismissed after failing chemistry, which generated a great later quote -- "If silicon were a gas, I'd be a general now.")
By the way, even you can learn to sing. I was once asked to leave the eighth grade choir because of my honking, but now I can sing certain kinds of songs reasonably well. What you need is music you like, sung in a range you can imitate, and then just try to match what the other voice is doing -- sing in harmony with it. Some people do this naturally. Other people have to do it as an intellectual thing, but it can be done.
-
By the way, even you can learn to sing. I was once asked to leave the eighth grade choir because of my honking, but now I can sing certain kinds of songs reasonably well. What you need is music you like, sung in a range you can imitate, and then just try to match what the other voice is doing -- sing in harmony with it. Some people do this naturally. Other people have to do it as an intellectual thing, but it can be done.
As a lifelong honker one of whose children blames my genetic inheritance for the strange sounds she also makes when she "sings", I am encouraged by this. Do you have any references?
As for Rob's views on having it or not having it, I am puzzled by their latest expression. In relation to photography, he has always seemed to claim that hardly anyone has it, but in relation to music, being able to hold a tune or strum a chord seems to qualify. I conclude that his views are at least partly based on some deep-seated need to divide humanity into sheep and goats rather than on observation of the incidence and source of skills - and to locate himself on one or the other side of the divide. On the other hand, the opposite view - that everything can be taught/learned - might also have a source other than observation. It could be considered politically objectionable to accept gross inequality in the distribution of talent. As usual, I find myself somewhere in the confused middle on this one. Something is inherited and thus innate, but a lot can be learned.
-
As a lifelong honker one of whose children blames my genetic inheritance for the strange sounds she also makes when she "sings", I am encouraged by this. Do you have any references?
As for Rob's views on having it or not having it, I am puzzled by their latest expression. In relation to photography, he has always seemed to claim that hardly anyone has it, but in relation to music, being able to hold a tune or strum a chord seems to qualify. I conclude that his views are at least partly based on some deep-seated need to divide humanity into sheep and goats rather than on observation of the incidence and source of skills - and to locate himself on one or the other side of the divide. On the other hand, the opposite view - that everything can be taught/learned - might also have a source other than observation. It could be considered politically objectionable to accept gross inequality in the distribution of talent. As usual, I find myself somewhere in the confused middle on this one. Something is inherited and thus innate, but a lot can be learned.
My experience is that most things can be taught or learned if you have the patience. That doesn't mean you will be in the top 100 in your field, or that critics will like your interpretation, but that is another matter.
I was one of those children who "honked" and was excluded from singing. Now as a professional music teacher, I know for me it is firstly a matter of knowing the range of my voice. Then getting the starting pitch. That's usually enough. If I wanted to take it further I would go to a singing teacher or begin by learning to sing intervals: thirds fifths etc. If you are having fun and haven't been taught to be stressed about what you are doing, and haven't been taught that you have to do it "right", it will often come out well enough.
-
To wrench this thread back to the original topic, I find that the reason I don't look long at most photographs or paintings, is simply that they lack thought.
OK (for me), but only on a special definition of "thought". One might equally say "simply that they lack emotion" or "simply that they lack originality" or "simply that they lack beauty" or maybe even "simply that they lack soul". If art is technique plus something, then the something is not just about an idea. When Renoir "painted with his prick" (the relevant quotation seems not to be apocryphal (http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/05/28/renoir-paint/)) is wasn't an idea that he was adding to technique. And the photographer who tries to recreate Ansel Adams is very much operating with an idea - the idea that Ansel's way was the true way.
-
Something is inherited and thus innate, but a lot can be learned.
This sums it up nicely, IMHO.
-
By the way, even you can learn to sing. I was once asked to leave the eighth grade choir because...
Is this the same John Camp who found the previous digression into "Rob's inability to either sing or play the guitar" worth mocking? :-)
-
As a lifelong honker one of whose children blames my genetic inheritance for the strange sounds she also makes when she "sings", I am encouraged by this. Do you have any references?
You know, I don't. And I find the comment from David Sutton to be quite encouraging. What I did was, after years of listening to rock music, I started listening to country, which is much less dependent on instrumentals, and requires less extreme voices, and tends more to "story telling." Although the lyrics can be just as stupid as rock, especially with pop hits in either genre, some of the lyrics are really good. And as David mentions, I found that my voice tends to fit in about the same range as a lot of male country singers, so that took out one problem. I mean, I suspect as hard as I tried, I was never going to sing like Prince. So I found some guys who I like, almost all from Texas, like Ray Wylie Hubbard, Guy Clark, Willie Nelson and a few others, and began singing along. At first I was pretty terrible at it, but as David says, if you actually try (and this is a testing, intellectual process for me, rather than instinctive) you can match the starting pitch, and then just go with it, trying to stay in tune with the model. It's a struggle at first, best done in your car when you're alone, but eventually, you find you can sing whole songs without losing too much. (I can even remember the first song I could sing all the way through, without losing it: "Dublin Blues," by Guy Clark.) Then the final test is to sing the song acapella, in your house (showers are good) without losing the thread. The thing is, if you enjoy singing a bit, you can manage to get it; it's just a struggle for those of us without the instinct. By the way, I find that people who can't sing well often have another related talent -- they can often speak well, as in making formal speeches. It's as though when growing up, they emphasized a different form of sound-making. But that may be bullshit. :-)
By the way, I also find that if I'm singing and there's somebody else around, and I see them paying attention to me, I start to lose it badly, and then just let it go, being "funny," as a defense against being judged simply "bad." You've got to resist that, and try to stay with it, even when others are listening. But I'd bet your daughter has that problem, too.
Ken, about Renoir, when I talk about painting or photographing with an idea, I'm also talking about painting with an emotion because painting anything well goes far beyond just slapping down the paint. You experience a strong emotion and then you go about figuring out how to express it in your art form, which means you have to get down to the very tiny specifics of your art form, while at the same time, keeping the overall idea in mind. "I'm going to paint a hot chick because she turns my crank" is, in my mind, a very specific idea. "I'm going to paint this chick because Renoir painted chicks and they came out hot" is an imitation. Renoir was right up against the concept; the imitator is two steps away from it.
-
what part of"
10 - Talking about art means using the vocabulary of art
All professions use a specific vocabulary. Artists use the vocabulary of art to communicate with each other and with their audience. Without it we cannot talk knowledgeably about art. Unfortunately, most photographers only use the vocabulary of photographic technique. While this is an important vocabulary, using it exclusively will not result in the creation of art.
11 - Creating art means using fundamental artistic concepts
This means we have to learn what these fundamental concepts are, how to use them and why. These concepts include visual metaphors, color palette, hue, saturation, luminosity, movement, facture, composition, light, exposure, format, style, color, harmonies, coherence, hyperbole, symbolism, exaggeration, simplification, negative space, minimalism and more.
appears rambling???
I found the article to cover "things" concisely and rather exhaustively
perhaps the terms in the second of the 2 paragraphs I quoted escaped the readers.."attention"
Another Rambling Old Man who wistfully remembers when language was far more ELEGANT..and far less fragmented and polluted
Photographs are a Language arent all arent they,
-
Ken, about Renoir, when I talk about painting or photographing with an idea, I'm also talking about painting with an emotion ..."I'm going to paint a hot chick because she turns my crank" is, in my mind, a very specific idea. "I'm going to paint this chick because Renoir painted chicks and they came out hot" is an imitation. Renoir was right up against the concept; the imitator is two steps away from it.
I think we mostly agree. My quibble is really only that "idea" suggests a distinction between mind and emotion, and maybe also mind and body, that I consider misconcieved. Also maybe that Renoir didn't think "I am going to paint because...." but rather felt as he painted (and painted as he felt).
-
Why not look at it in this way:
- What you can do for yourself
- What you can do for others
I fully agree with John Camp that an artist can be made. If one uses oneself as a benchmark, and strive to get better every day (by defining 'better' as he/she see fit), one will attain mastery over whatever it is one wanted to excel in. You can excel in singing, art, photography and solving third-degree differential equations.
I've always believed an artist must know when he or she has created a work of art that satisfies the artist. It's a single-element feedback system that builds upon itself.
Isn't this totally different from an artist who looks to please others and creates art that tries to 'resonate' with a target audience or market segment or customers, etc.? In my eyes this isn't very different from building commodities like the iMac, a Ferrari, a perfume like Chanel No.5, a Versace suit, or a Leica camera. These require artistry, but of several different kinds. The feedback loop is no longer based on one element, but requires the input and blessings of the target audience at every level.
Looking at it in this context, the 10,000 hours rule (which I simply interpret has having to spend many thousands of hours of one's waking life, not distracted and unhindered, on an activity or pursuit or skill) could have two meanings:
For yourself: Nothing, except that you have to keep going until you please yourself, and then you do it all over again.
For others: Nothing, because nobody cares about the effort. It's only the commodity that matters.
Regarding practicing a skill, it depends on what the skill is. If it's simple, like advanced mathematics, all you need is pen and paper. But if it's nuclear physics, you'll need a lot of extra support.
Similarly, for me, being a filmmaker, I can't make the simplest of videos without the help of at least one other person, while a photographer can walk out and shoot all by himself/herself. Who defines talent and authority and mastery? I do, in my case. Most of my teachers were wrong about who I am or what I was capable of. I no longer listen to anyone who tells me something can't be done. I know I cannot pass on this 'state of mind' to another, so it is intrinsically my own.
As an aside, I wrote this article a few months ago: Film Directors and the Number 8 (http://wolfcrow.com/blog/film-directors-and-the-number-8/). It's not scientific (like the 10,000 rule) but it is based on something that caught by eye over the years - the 'fact' that it takes about 8 movies for a great director to produce his or her 'public masterpiece'. In the end, I reference the 10,000 rule as well.
-
This is turning out to be a very informative thread, especially Rob's story of the knicker - knocker. I never thought that a story like that would appear in a thread about photographic art. :) It is one of the few threads on here that actually makes you think about what is being stated and I await more posts that is thought provoking.
-
You see, stamper, as one ages the more one realises that everything is connected.
Around thirty years ago I heard a horse's mouth tale concerning a neighbour of ours; today, having lunch, the restaurateur whispered to me that the group at a nearby table was connected to another party that he knows that I know from way back when. Turned out the fellow diner was the estranged brother to the neighbour; on my way bout I wandered over to say hell. I wonder what his thoughts were... did I know the tale, did I not? Did he care?
I remember when I was a kid in India that, along with the US car culture, there were also lots of Marvel comics etc. and in one of those things was a wonderful line: commit a crime and the world is made of glass. I was about twelve? Never forgot that, but remember few of the biblical quotations that were foist upon us in the day. No crime, of course, on the part of the neighbour, but one sonofabitch act.
It's a spinning circle. And we all eventually get pulled into the whirl.
Rob C
-
That is, a child, because he is told to do it, draws inside the lines, and somebody tells him or her, when she's three, gee, you're talented. That approval pushes the kid...
fwiw Babies whose efforts are praised become more motivated kids, say Stanford researchers (http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/february/talking-to-baby-021213.html)
-
I found the article to cover "things" concisely and rather exhaustively
How many of those "most important aspects of fine art photography" do you find mentioned in "Vision Example #2: White Sands Sunrise"?
How many are not mentioned?
-
No, Rob, I disagree. I really do think a person can teach himself to be a great artist, if he has the will.
By the way, even you can learn to sing. I was once asked to leave the eighth grade choir because of my honking, but now I can sing certain kinds of songs reasonably well. What you need is music you like, sung in a range you can imitate, and then just try to match what the other voice is doing -- sing in harmony with it. Some people do this naturally. Other people have to do it as an intellectual thing, but it can be done.
John, I've been trying to learn the words to this, never mind the tune, since I discovered it many months ago; each time it starts to play I get hopelessly wrapped up in the lady's charms and forget all about words, tune and even why I'm watching.
It's an uneven battle fought on a slippery slope to perdition.
http://youtu.be/EXSmAcJqsGI
Rob C
-
John, I've been trying to learn the words to this, never mind the tune, since I discovered it many months ago; each time it starts to play I get hopelessly wrapped up in the lady's charms and forget all about words, tune and even why I'm watching.
It's an uneven battle fought on a slippery slope to perdition.
http://youtu.be/EXSmAcJqsGI
Rob C
That's a great piece; thanks for posting it. It may also be the most complicated version of Tulsa Time ever made.
Try singing with this, instead:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQGjkBuMGAU
-
now who's yankin who's chain?
That sheryl just rocks.
No I mean that,
so it really was big of her to overlook lances uh you know,
problem,
and now she laughs to it all -never did give him up...
In my book a real human being.
Anyway back to tulsa time,
yeah when you hear that little intro on the studio recording,
um well there's the art of something,
is this damn thing running? (hahah)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZX8RAaRNIk
-
Never thinking about how you'll sound is a trick not easily learnt.
Just do what you do and there you did it.
Too bad you can't subject your kids/grandkids to a bracing dose early in the morning.
"I want to build a nest in your hair!"....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv9dmmUPvAw
-
Never thinking about how you'll sound is a trick not easily learnt.
Just do what you do and there you did it.
Too bad you can't subject your kids/grandkids to a bracing dose early in the morning.
"I want to build a nest in your hair!"....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zv9dmmUPvAw
You just met a virgin
All these years, and I never listened to him - not once. I don't know - just never in the stars. Shows what I've been missing.
But little sis I heard - often.
Rob C
http://youtu.be/Y6Mwm5BCR2k
-
Aw, guys...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zsAKJYBHyE
-
Aw, guys...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zsAKJYBHyE
Nine minutes past nine in the a.m. and a smile lingers on the face.
Thanks, John!
I never heard that before other than as a blue barroom dirge groaner. You know: litle old men alone at a table, waiting for the last request before going to the free wusky in the sky etc...
Oh well, the rest of the day awaits, so I'll probably waste the morning washing kitchen units that I'm later going to varnish; the afternoon will also probably go down the drain waiting for the insurance-sent painters to come look at a bathroom ceiling that they didn't come view on Friday afternoon. That drain gets deeper and wider at the neck every day.
;-)
Rob C
http://youtu.be/2EdgsWU56XA
-
This one haunts for life.
http://youtu.be/Bd78aT7-RXU
Seminal movie, and where I discovered the random nature of total empathy with something. I think it's when I grew up.
Rob C