A Natural Eye?

[Andysnap]

Getting back to "Natural Eye", surely in part it is about having a natural empathy that is widely shared by others. There are lots of people trying to make it big by writing songs, only a few of them succeed, presumably those that do are those that can write a song with which a lot of people empathise. The successful ones must have had the right mix of musical talent and life experiences that means that they can create songs which a lot of people relate to.

This must be the same with photography. I know that a lot of things I like to photograph are not particularly photogenic and are of esoteric interest so not matter how good I get at photographing them they will never be great photographs, on the other hand some people love to photograph things which other people love to look at. I could learn what is popular and go and take those pictures myself but I know the work would just be imitation, lacking originality.

Excellent points.

 

[skysh4rk]

There is some evidence that even thinking about doing exercise whilst sitting still has about 30% the effectiveness of actual doing the exercise. So the reverse of the quote could also be true, in my case I often think about doing some exercise, which is why I am only 66% lazy.

I would also like to add that this is one of the most enjoyable, enlightening and logical threads I've ever been involved with. Can you imagine the fighting that would have take place anywhere else....

Andy

Yes, there is evidence that mentally visualising a physical activity actually results in some physical benefits, because of a possible strengthening in the neural pathways between the brain and the associated muscles. Unfortunately, however, no one is likely to transform their figure just by thinking.

Getting back to "Natural Eye", surely in part it is about having a natural empathy that is widely shared by others. There are lots of people trying to make it big by writing songs, only a few of them succeed, presumably those that do are those that can write a song with which a lot of people empathise. The successful ones must have had the right mix of musical talent and life experiences that means that they can create songs which a lot of people relate to.

This must be the same with photography. I know that a lot of things I like to photograph are not particularly photogenic and are of esoteric interest so not matter how good I get at photographing them they will never be great photographs, on the other hand some people love to photograph things which other people love to look at. I could learn what is popular and go and take those pictures myself but I know the work would just be imitation, lacking originality.

You're just using 'talent' and 'natural' as a catch word for things that you can't explain though? It is possible that there could be some inherent personality traits that might make someone predisposed to being more empathetic, but you'll still need the appropriate experiences/environment for that to be realised. Even still, being empathetic doesn't equal star musician, which again will take practice and experience to achieve.

According to the research, the most accomplished musicians are the ones that are also working the hardest by far. Check out the article I linked to above that mentions Mozart, as there is a lot of research in this very area that indicates that musicians are not naturally gifted.

I know that a lot of things I like to photograph are not particularly photogenic and are of esoteric interest so not matter how good I get at photographing them they will never be great photographs, on the other hand some people love to photograph things which other people love to look at. I could learn what is popular and go and take those pictures myself but I know the work would just be imitation, lacking originality.

If you don't believe that you are capable of great, creative photographs for whatever reason, well, the research suggests that you're seriously impairing your ability to take great photographs.

 

[Andysnap]

Yes, there is evidence that mentally visualising a physical activity actually results in some physical benefits, because of a possible strengthening in the neural pathways between the brain and the associated muscles. Unfortunately, however, no one is likely to transform their figure just by thinking.



According to the research, the most accomplished musicians are the ones that are also working the hardest by far. Check out the article I linked to above that mentions Mozart, as there is a lot of research in this very area that indicates that musicians are not naturally gifted.


If you don't believe that you are capable of great, creative photographs for whatever reason, well, the research suggests that you're seriously impairing your ability to take great photographs.

I believe I can disprove one of your statements. I often think I need another pie or a biscuit and I have completely transformed my figure.
The golfer Gary Player once said 'the more I practice the luckier I get"

 

[sirch]

According to the research, the most accomplished musicians are the ones that are also working the hardest by far. Check out the article I linked to above that mentions Mozart, as there is a lot of research in this very area that indicates that musicians are not naturally gifted.

On of the difficulties the internet presents us with is that everyone becomes an expert in everything and there is such a volume of "research" available that one can always select something to support any particular argument, particularly when the nature of the research is not understood in depth. The media are particularly good at this, someone once did some research on the tabloid reporting of food science research and over the period of the study found at least one newspaper reporting directly conflicting advice.

If you don't believe that you are capable of great, creative photographs for whatever reason, well, the research suggests that you're seriously impairing your ability to take great photographs.

Not what I said or meant. I believe it is possible to take great photographs of solution features in limestone but the subject itself is in most cases visually dull and so far outside most peoples' sphere of interest that they are extremely unlikely to be considered "great" in the Ansel Adams sense.

 

[Sam Tip]

For quite some time now I've been of the opinion there are instinctive photographers who can 'see' and people with cameras who can't. It makes my head hurt, but the inspirational essence of some things can't be taught, like composition.

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter much if we enjoy what we do and the results we get without agonising over the opinions and contrived standards of others.

 

[skysh4rk]

On of the difficulties the internet presents us with is that everyone becomes an expert in everything and there is such a volume of "research" available that one can always select something to support any particular argument, particularly when the nature of the research is not understood in depth. The media are particularly good at this, someone once did some research on the tabloid reporting of food science research and over the period of the study found at least one newspaper reporting directly conflicting advice.

You are just as welcome to present some evidence to support what you are saying and, in fact, I encourage such.

No one should take what anyone says for granted—whether it's the media, the scientific research, me, etc. Everything should be examined with a critical eye. I don't present the research only as proof of what I am saying, but as an opportunity for you to read through it to form your own conclusions.

Not what I said or meant. I believe it is possible to take great photographs of solution features in limestone but the subject itself is in most cases visually dull and so far outside most peoples' sphere of interest that they are extremely unlikely to be considered "great" in the Ansel Adams sense.

A discussion regarding what represents 'great' photography might be an interesting, albeit separate, topic from what we're discussing in this thread, I think.

For quite some time now I've been of the opinion there are instinctive photographers who can 'see' and people with cameras who can't. It makes my head hurt, but the inspirational essence of some things can't be taught, like composition.

You think this based on...?

 

[StephenM]

Not what I said or meant. I believe it is possible to take great photographs of solution features in limestone but the subject itself is in most cases visually dull and so far outside most peoples' sphere of interest that they are extremely unlikely to be considered "great" in the Ansel Adams sense.

I wonder what sense you're using the word "great" in in your second sentence? A "great" record photograph - which will be as objective as possible and show the subject as clearly as possible with no regard to aesthetics (except by accident) because accuracy trumps everything else? A "great" photograph that may not be very good in terms of scientific accuracy for recording purposes but excites someone with an interest because of the subject alone? Or something else entirely? There are many different forms of photography with widely different goals and methods, and something can be "great" in one sphere and completely fail in another.

I'll accept that a great record photograph may only be of interest to those interested in the subject, but not that the subject itself makes a "great" photograph in other senses impossible. I've yet to be convinced that there is any subject that can't make a "great" photograph aesthetically if the photographer carefully thinks about the subject, their reaction to it, and what they want to say about it. A photograph isn't the subject, but a representation of it. I suspect everyone has an interest in photographs, so it comes down to what the photograph looks like (those last two words were deliberately chosen).

 

[sirch]

@StephenM - I very much agree with what you saidl. In the context of this discussion about "natural eye" the point I was originally attempting to make was that someone who is regarded as having a natural eye may well be thought of as such in part because they are naturally inclined to take photographs that are accessible by a majority of people. On the other hand if your penchant is for photographing beige emulsioned walls, then your talents might not be recognized* however good a photographer you are


*but may be you would get a Turner Prize (ducks and runs)

 

[StephenM]

I actually wouldn't agree with that. At least not on what I would understand people to mean by a natural eye, because I see no necessary connection between artistic merit and popular appreciation (which seems to me to be at least very close to "accessible by a majority of people". The history of art is littered with examples of artists who later became accessible to a majority of people (in terms of being popular and appreciated) who at the time were at the very opposite end of the scale.

I find myself seriously considering whether a beige emulsioned wall could make a stunning photograph, and to be frank I'm not sure that it couldn't. But I'm looking beyond the subject itself into how it can be made to appear in a photograph - translating from a three dimensional subject into a two dimensional photograph, where I can choose the angles and the lighting to significantly change the appearance. (If you query "three dimensional" as a description of a surface, I think it's highly unlikely to not have some texture or irregularity in it.)

 

[Bythesea]

I find myself seriously considering whether a beige emulsioned wall could make a stunning photograph, and to be frank I'm not sure that it couldn't. But I'm looking beyond the subject itself into how it can be made to appear in a photograph - translating from a three dimensional subject into a two dimensional photograph, where I can choose the angles and the lighting to significantly change the appearance. (If you query "three dimensional" as a description of a surface, I think it's highly unlikely to not have some texture or irregularity in it.)

Having recently discovered the Rothko/Sugimoto exhibition I would agree with this. The book of the exhibition has been added to my wishlist.

 

[TheGreatSoprendo]

A problem I have with taking a purely scientific approach to understanding everything is that science requires an experiment to be measurable and repeatable. But the quality of art is not objectively measurable, nor are our emotions.

Another thought that I can't escape here, and without wanting to turn this into a discussion around the existence of a higher being, this discussion does also touch on the spiritual too. Is there something else going on here, beyond just flesh and bones, chemical reactions and physical attributes? Obviously many would categorically say no, but then they haven't been able to prove that through science either.

 

[sirch]

@Bythesea beat me to it, I was going to say a beige wall probably would work in a Rothko-esque way and my Turner prize quip wasn't wholly in jest but it would be interesting to see the crit of such a shot on here

 

[StephenM]

@Bythesea beat me to it, I was going to say a beige wall probably would work in a Rothko-esque way and my Turner prize quip wasn't wholly in jest but it would be interesting to see the crit of such a shot on here

.
That would depend entirely on the presuppositions of the person giving the critique - as I hope I showed in my recent tutorial.

 

[skysh4rk]

A problem I have with taking a purely scientific approach to understanding everything is that science requires an experiment to be measurable and repeatable. But the quality of art is not objectively measurable, nor are our emotions.

Why are our feelings, perceptions, emotions, skills, etc. not able to be understood or measured? We aren't mystical beings with supernatural powers; we are biological entities formed of matter. Do you assume that we can't understand the nature and behaviour of other animals as well or only humans?

Another thought that I can't escape here, and without wanting to turn this into a discussion around the existence of a higher being, this discussion does also touch on the spiritual too. Is there something else going on here, beyond just flesh and bones, chemical reactions and physical attributes? Obviously many would categorically say no, but then they haven't been able to prove that through science either.

What else would we be besides flesh, bone, and chemical processes?

 

[TheBigYin]

Well - after reading all the debate so far, I'll be honest, I'm holding out for the theory that it's not innate talent that's the key it's learned ability and hard work, effort and time spent in practice, research and thought on the subject that marks the difference between a poor photographer and a good one.

Why?

It's quite simple. For the first 25 or more years I spent using a camera, I considered myself to be a truly dreadful photographer, and, while I kept shooting, I cannot honestly look at any image I took and find a shred of artistic merit contained therein. This includes periods of time where I actually earned a crust (or at least put the jam on the bread and butter) with a camera. Eventually I walked away from shooting altogether, apart from holiday snapshots - purely record shots of "I was here, so was......, it looked like this" ones. But sometime in late 2008 I felt the urge to start shooting again - which coincided with having a few bob that I could spend on a Digital SLR. Not knowing how to go on with the new fangled Digital thing, I found somewhere where I could ask lots of stupid questions... you may have heard of this place, it's a little Forum called Talk Photography...

From there I set myself a challenge - try and make as good a photograph as I could EVERY DAY for the entire year... Yep, straight in on a 365. A fair selection of them were truly, truly awful - some were record shots, some were visual diary shots, some were just simple "I'm desperate and need to get SOMETHING in the last 10 minutes before midnight" BUT, the discipline of carrying a camera with you every day, wherever you went, and having to think about photo's all day started to do something for me... I began to see things slightly differently - I was looking for patterns and textures, not just big things... Plus, the "closed feedback loop" with digital (seeing the results immediately, and all the settings being embedded in the picture so I could look back and work out WHY some images worked better than others) improved my technical approach and understanding of not only how it worked in theory, but how I could take the "picture in my head" and set my camera to make the image in front of the lens look like that mental picture.

As I spent longer and longer properly studying and working at my "craft" (I don't view it as art really, as very little of anything I do even now is truly innovative, it's mostly more inspired by something else) the technical side slipped into being something very secondary, and the whole "pre-visualisation" of the shot became my focus - this is probably why I got rather seriously into still-life stuff, because it was something that I had complete and utter control over the layout and look of the image in front of the lens... which allowed me to move into my current phase of learning in this whole journey... understanding the light, and making the light do what I want.


One thing I do think though, is that if you're told often enough, early in life that you're no good at something, or that you're just not capable of a particular way of thinking (be it artistic, or scientific, or technical) then you're going to struggle to break that early mental programming and start to develop. I spent pretty much all my years at school being told that I was brilliant at maths and the sciences, but rubbish at artistic stuff other than music. Even when I was a member of the school photographic club, I think I was happier in the darkroom than actually out there using the camera - because I was told that as one of the better Chemistry A-Level students at the Grammar School at the time, that was what was expected of me...

It's a struggle I'm still having over 30 years on from this, but it's a struggle I'm prepared to have, and to keep having until I actually start producing work that I finally LIKE!

(but if it IS all down to innate ability, well - frankly, I've wasted over 30 years of my life struggling to be something that i'll never be, and if that's the case, I really don't think I could take that...)

 

[skysh4rk]

One thing I do think though, is that if you're told often enough, early in life that you're no good at something, or that you're just not capable of a particular way of thinking (be it artistic, or scientific, or technical) then you're going to struggle to break that early mental programming and start to develop. I spent pretty much all my years at school being told that I was brilliant at maths and the sciences, but rubbish at artistic stuff other than music. Even when I was a member of the school photographic club, I think I was happier in the darkroom than actually out there using the camera - because I was told that as one of the better Chemistry A-Level students at the Grammar School at the time, that was what was expected of me...

BINGO!

 

[Andysnap]

We aren't mystical beings with supernatural powers

I am.... In fact I don't actually exist, you have all imagined me.... or have I imagined you?

 

[sirch]

Why does anyone bother to run in a 100m race in which Usane Bolt is running? The thing is that just because someone has a greater natural advantage than you does not mean you should give up, quite the opposite, it is because there are people pushing that boundaries that it pulls us along to try harder and be better.

skysh4rk's argument seems to be that anyone can learn achieve anything at the highest possible standard, i.e. we all could be Mozart but that is clearly not true*. Even if we were all Mozart clones with exactly the same life experiences etc. there would still be some who were slightly better than others.

Just consider eyesight, I guess even skysh4k may agree even without citations of scientific research, that some people are colour blind and some are tetrachromic, i.e. there are physical variations in our eyes which cannot be overcome by training. That does not mean you should give up, of course you can go on to learn and develop and even over come those disadvantages.

For me it is question of trajectory.The earlier in life and you start and the faster you climb the curve, the further you will go.


*much as I am NOT a telegraph reader - here is a citation http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...cant-all-be-Mozart-but-we-can-still-play.html

 

[RaglanSurf]

So if we accept (and I'm not saying I do) that we have been taken in by the truthiness and there is no such thing as innate or natural talent in the field of photography or the ability to 'see' an image is it possible though that some people are simply quicker at 'learning' those skills than others?

 

[skysh4rk]

skysh4rk's argument seems to be that anyone can learn achieve anything at the highest possible standard, i.e. we all could be Mozart but that is clearly not true*. Even if we were all Mozart clones with exactly the same life experiences etc. there would still be some who were slightly better than others.

No, that is not my argument at all! Arghhh! :banghead:

 

[TheBigYin]

So if we accept (and I'm not saying I do) that we have been taken in by the truthiness and there is no such thing as innate or natural talent in the field of photography or the ability to 'see' an image is it possible though that some people are simply quicker at 'learning' those skills than others?

I think that's a distinct possibility... and if they pick up on it quickly, and they get encouragement from external sources, they become convinced they're good at it - but if they don't pick up quickly, and encounter negativity from whoever's showing them how, they also convince themselves that they're no good at it, or somehow inept.

(then before you know it, they've become someone that's been taking photographs for 35 years and still hasn't done one that they're happy with!)

 

[TheGreatSoprendo]

Why are our feelings, perceptions, emotions, skills, etc. not able to be understood or measured? We aren't mystical beings with supernatural powers; we are biological entities formed of matter. Do you assume that we can't understand the nature and behaviour of other animals as well or only humans?



What else would we be besides flesh, bone, and chemical processes?

I think there are some pretty fundamental differences between how we see the world! No matter, would be boring otherwise! Don't get me wrong, I love science but for me it doesn't suffice for everything.

How would you measure emotions? Artistic merit?

 

[skysh4rk]

So if we accept (and I'm not saying I do) that we have been taken in by the truthiness and there is no such thing as innate or natural talent in the field of photography or the ability to 'see' an image is it possible though that some people are simply quicker at 'learning' those skills than others?

That's an interesting question, but I want to stress that I am not saying that there aren't innate differences between people. There likely are.

It is very possible that some folks have one or several characteristic that makes them better suited for learning photography (e.g., spatial perception, pattern recognition, etc.), but they won't have an innate talent for doing photography. This is a very important distinction! These individual characteristics, which may or may not be innate, could account for differences in the rate of learning.

That said, I think the biggest reason for perceived differences in the rate of learning (I don't necessarily think the rates are actually different), is that there is skill transfer from a related task. For instance, those folks who paint or draw before taking up photography could have a head start (I'm not saying they necessarily do, I'm hypothesising, although skill transfer is a real thing).

How would you measure emotions? Artistic merit?

It's outside my realm of expertise, but you can use fMRI techniques, for instance, to examine activity in the brain while people view various stimuli, such as art, or perform certain tasks. I'm sure that these techniques will only become more sophisticated as time goes on.

Humans have been answering many questions once deemed unanswerable to those who came before, so I don't see why we wouldn't be able to continue to do so.

 

[RaglanSurf]

How would you measure emotions? Artistic merit?

 

[skysh4rk]

I think that's a distinct possibility... and if they pick up on it quickly, and they get encouragement from external sources, they become convinced they're good at it - but if they don't pick up quickly, and encounter negativity from whoever's showing them how, they also convince themselves that they're no good at it, or somehow inept.

(then before you know it, they've become someone that's been taking photographs for 35 years and still hasn't done one that they're happy with!)

The research largely supports what you're saying about the effects of encouragement and its potential impact, both positive and negative. I mean, why would anyone continue to do something if they've been told that they're naturally incapable?

People should never be told that they have no talent in any task, as there is little, if any, evidence to support that position and, most importantly, it has undeniably negative implications for performance in that task for the individual.

 

[Andysnap]

I want to fly, I can't fly, however hard I practice, however much I learn about how birds fly I will never be able to fly.

However none of that will stop me from
t
r
y
i
n
g :arghh:

 

[simon ess]

People should never be told that they have no talent in any task, as there is little, if any, evidence to support that position and, most importantly, it has undeniably negative implications for performance in that task for the individual.

A little story relating to this:

Having worked in education for a good many years, and having studied childhood development, I know this to be true.
One day I was discussing creativity with a colleague. She was telling me that her husband is convinced he doesn't have a creative cell in his body and would actively avoid anything that might have a creative element to it. Indeed he would avoid or dismiss any discussion on the subject.
My colleague decided she would try to get to the bottom of it.
It took her several months but eventually she discovered what was probably at the root of it.
When he was 5 years old Mrs. Jones said his drawing of a caterpillar wasn't very good.

 

[TheGreatSoprendo]

It's outside my realm of expertise, but you can use fMRI techniques, for instance, to examine activity in the brain while people view various stimuli, such as art, or perform certain tasks. I'm sure that these techniques will only become more sophisticated as time goes on.

Humans have been answering many questions once deemed unanswerable to those who came before, so I don't see why we wouldn't be able to continue to do so.

I'm aware of that final point obviously, and agree with it (just that IMO there will be questions we probably will never answer).

If artistic merit and emotions could be whittled down to a measurable brain activity, does art (or loving someone) become pretty pointless? We might as well just develop and refine the drugs to achieve the same sensations.

I realise I'm just exposing myself as a luddite in this area (but all us residents of F&C are, to some degree ). I certainly think I'm better off without that kind of science, happy to continue enjoying the wonder of a painting, poem, or photograph (or indeed the natural world) on its own, and believing that my enjoyment of it (or creation of it) somehow transcends what can be explained by numbers or chemical processes.

 

[skysh4rk]

I'm aware of that final point obviously, and agree with it (just that IMO there will be questions we probably will never answer).

If artistic merit and emotions could be whittled down to a measurable brain activity, does art (or loving someone) become pretty pointless? We might as well just develop and refine the drugs to achieve the same sensations.

I realise I'm just exposing myself as a luddite in this area (but all us residents of F&C are, to some degree ). I certainly think I'm better off without that kind of science, happy to continue enjoying the wonder of a painting, poem, or photograph (or indeed the natural world) on its own, and believing that my enjoyment of it (or creation of it) somehow transcends what can be explained by numbers or chemical processes.

Surely one of the things that makes humanity unique is that we have the reasoning and intellectually capacity to handle complex thought and undertake this kind of science? Should we stop just because we won't like the answers?

 

[TheGreatSoprendo]

Surely one of the things that makes humanity unique is that we have the reasoning and intellectually capacity to handle complex thought and undertake this kind of science? Should we stop just because we won't like the answers?

Agree that we should pursue scientific discovery, of course, though there is some evidence that other animals can manage complex thoughts and undertake scientific learning too, just to a much lesser degree (and if it's just a matter of degrees, then that's true for humans too, arguably). I would probably argue that some scientific activity has a less than noble purpose, however, and that in some cases, we probably shouldn't pursue it (I don't necessarily put this in that category by the way, was thinking more of research related to warmongering and the like, even if there have been peripheral benefits).

Some would say that art, in transcending scientific explanation or base survival purposes, is one of the things that make us truly unique.

 

[Lemaildetom]

I see it a bit picky to say that there is no such thing as a natural talent if on another hand it is clear that there is some people with better predisposition. Aren't predisposition the same thing as an uncultivated natural talent? Of course without the hard work, practice, perseverance and trust in yourself, nobody will became good at anything. So if we move away from the expression "natural eye" but talk of a "good eye for photography" is this better?

PS: I used to ride unicycles for years. Obviously balance is an essential skills to have but in the same way as photography balance can be learn by anyone. I have seen people which have never done any gymnastic, skateboarding, surfing,... pick up a unicycle and ride it after a couple of days, other will spend a month to achieve the same results. These people are usually called "naturals" and have a much faster learning curve.

PS2: My nephews are twins and so have a very similar education, environment and even genetic but i can tell you that their personality is very different. They really have different predisposition and interest. Hard to explain why one likes wildlife and drawing and the other enjoy more the football.

 

[skysh4rk]

Some would say that art, in transcending scientific explanation or base survival purposes, is one of the things that make us truly unique.

On what basis are you saying that art transcends scientific explanation? You might choose to ignore that science, but that doesn't mean that the science isn't there to explain it. We are just biological beings, so there's no reason why these things couldn't be understood.

I see it a bit picky to say that there is no such thing as a natural talent if on another hand it is clear that there is some people with better predisposition. Aren't predisposition the same thing as an uncultivated natural talent? Of course without the hard work, practice, perseverance and trust in yourself, nobody will became good at anything. So if we move away from the expression "natural eye" but talk of a "good eye for photography" is this better.

A bit picky? Things are never so black and white. It's one thing to have a physical or mental characteristic that's advantageous for a particular activity, but it's completely different to say that it's preordained from birth that you will be a good basketball player, plumber, or accountant. There is simply no one that will be an expert at photography, basketball, football without significant practice.

So if we move away from the expression "natural eye" but talk of a "good eye for photography" is this better.

No, it's not better. What would even constitute a good eye for photography? Why would someone have a good eye for photography? In evolutionary terms it wouldn't make any sense.

 

[RedRobin]

For what purpose would any of us have a 'natural' ability to take a photograph? Modern humans have been around for 150,000 years or so and photography has been around .000000001% of that time, so I can't see how this would be any kind of genetically-bestowed gift.

With regard to sport, why would someone come out of a womb better able to shoot a basketball? They don't.

Folks might have physical characteristics that make them better suited to certain sports, but they still have to develop the skills to exploit those advantages.

....Oh dear!

You seem to be saying that there is no such thing as anyone having a natural talent (having 'the eye") and composition and use of colour, visual balance, etc has to be learnt by applying 'rules'. It has nothing to do with formality or anything scientific but is fundamentally emotional and expressive, as every artist with "the eye" knows.

Yes, you are born with it - Perhaps most of us are - It's brought out of you by your environment and circumstances as you grow up and develops more and more into a totally natural unconscious and, importantly, not intellectual skill. Some people just never get it and have to rely on rules which in turn usually result in works which look formulaic.

Some people just aren't artistic just as some are tone deaf and don't appreciate music. Others don't have a sense of humour. These are all things which each of us are born with, or without.

But I agree with you that talents have to be developed to realise their full potential. Natural talent is already there, but skills are just a talent which is well practiced and developed.

All in my not so humble opinion

 

[TheGreatSoprendo]

On what basis are you saying that art transcends scientific explanation? You might choose to ignore that science, but that doesn't mean that the science isn't there to explain it. We are just biological beings, so there's no reason why these things couldn't be understood.

At the moment art does transcend scientific explanation, unless I'm much mistaken.

As for "we are just biological beings", there are many billions of people (about 80% of the world's population) who disagree with you, despite being armed with the same scientific evidence as everyone else. They might be wrong, of course, but you can't prove it .

 

[skysh4rk]

....Oh dear!

You seem to be saying that there is no such thing as anyone having a natural talent (having 'the eye") and composition and use of colour, visual balance, etc has to be learnt by applying 'rules'. It has nothing to do with formality or anything scientific but is fundamentally emotional and expressive, as every artist with "the eye" knows.

Yes, you are born with it - Perhaps most of us are - It's brought out of you by your environment and circumstances as you grow up and develops more and more into a totally natural unconscious and, importantly, not intellectual skill. Some people just never get it and have to rely on rules which in turn usually result in works which look formulaic.

Some people just aren't artistic just as some are tone deaf and don't appreciate music. Others don't have a sense of humour. These are all things which each of us are born with, or without.

But I agree with you that talents have to be developed to realise their full potential. Natural talent is already there, but skills are just a talent which is well practiced and developed.

All in my not so humble opinion

Oh dear. :banghead:

I'm not only banging my head against the wall now, I'm apparently talking to one as well. Where have I talked about applying 'rules'. I think that you are missing the nuances of what I'm saying.

At any rate, although I don't think there's any evidence in a 'natural talent' for photography, my current concern isn't that people believe in it, my concern is that people believe in it based on nothing other than intuition.

 

[skysh4rk]

At the moment art does transcend scientific explanation, unless I'm much mistaken.

As for "we are just biological beings", there are many billions of people (about 80% of the world's population) who disagree with you, despite being armed with the same scientific evidence as everyone else. They might be wrong, of course, but you can't prove it .

If we aren't biological, what are we?

 

[StephenM]

A question.

There have been several people posting on the side of "it's a natural talent that you either have or haven't got". How many of those consider that they have "the eye"?

 

[abdoujaparov]

I believe there's a scientific answer to the question, but that we're mostly having a theological debate. Just like there's a perfectly good scientific model for the beginning of this universe that many people reject as spiritually unsatisfying, so people reject the idea that genius is 99% perspiration as a little soul-less.

What RJ says makes intuitive sense to me. People have different natural capacities for learning photography (and everything else) but nobody is born with the natural ability to see a photo - or to do much more than breathe and suckle a breast.

 

[TheGreatSoprendo]

If we aren't biological, what are we?

I don't know, but as I implied, 80% of the world's population believes in some kind of supernatural power/spirituality/God, even though there is no evidence to prove its existence. By implication they also believe we are more than just atoms. You can convince yourself that they are plain wrong, but you can only use science to say there is no evidence, not that they are definitively wrong.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that God is the answer here and science is bunkum, far from it. Apart from anything else, it is possible to believe in science as well as 'something else' (and there are many eminent and brilliant scientists who are also religious, in amongst that 80%).

 

[skysh4rk]

I don't know, but as I implied, 80% of the world's population believes in some kind of supernatural power/spirituality/God, even though there is no evidence to prove its existence. By implication they also believe we are more than just atoms. You can convince yourself that they are plain wrong, but you can only use science to say there is no evidence, not that they are definitively wrong.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that God is the answer here and science is bunkum, far from it. Apart from anything else, it is possible to believe in science as well as 'something else' (and there are many eminent and brilliant scientists who are also religious, in amongst that 80%).

Well, I've never been one for believing something simply because that's what everyone else believes.

At any rate, I'm just forming opinions based on the evidence in front of me. At the moment, I don't see any empirical, verifiable evidence that suggests that we are any more than biological beings. I'd be surprised if we found out otherwise, but I'd revise my position if there were evidence to the contrary.

A question.

There have been several people posting on the side of "it's a natural talent that you either have or haven't got". How many of those consider that they have "the eye"?

This would be interesting to know.