After nearly 40 yrs with photography, a question has occurred to me...

[Harlequin565]

A photographer who just churns out studio portraits and wedding pictures... must surely do other stuff to enthuse their interest in the medium... if not they really are just a process... not an artform!

I wouldn't call Annie Leibovitz a process

I think that statement is true only if you remove the words studio & wedding. Anyone who churns out images without thinking is just a machine. Look at all the hip fired street photography out there.

 

[Brazo]

I wouldn't call Annie Leibovitz a process
.

I don’t think he is to be fair. It was more a comment on the churn of studio work like your typical white backdrop family portraits etc

Naturally one can be just as creative in a studio than anywhere else. Ironically one also has to have a higher degree of technical knowhow to work the lighting.

 

[Garry Edwards]

My take on this, at its simplest, is that a lot of photographers align themselves with either the technical or the artistic camp, but wrongly.
If people obsess about the technical then they will inevitably be distracted from the artistic element, but if they have a thorough understanding of the technical then they are much more free to deal with the technical aspects correctly, and on autopilot, leaving themselves free to concentrate on the artistic - a reasonable analogy would be the process of learning to drive a car.
Experienced drivers know what to look out for, where to look, where to position their vehicle, when it's making a strange noise etc - but at the absolute beginner standard they care for none of these things, the struggle at that point is putting the thing in gear and moving away from the kerb without stalling it.. Then there are gearchanges to learn, engine revs, not hitting parked cars, brakes and all of the other technical stuff. It's only when the technical skills have been learned to a reasonable level that the driver can learn to think, read the road, plan ahead etc.

I've lost count of the number of graduate photographers I've interviewed for jobs who, when asked a very basic technical question, have answered along the lines of "Oh, I'm not really interested in that kind of stuff, I'm more of a creative photographer" - cue end of interview, because someone who can (occasionally) produce a very good photo, but who can't replicate it because they don't understand the process, isn't employable

 

[SsSsSsSsSnake]

The technical skill to achieve the artistry is a given... that's the "exposure" part of the curve.

And I do have to say that "technical" can be enough... sharing a scene/animal that someone has never seen before, or a moment in time that may be hard/impossible to perceive in real time, that does have value/meaning. That's probably why I tend towards those types of genres, and because I enjoy technical challenges. There are even some genres where the technical aspects are about the only thing that does matter... high level product photography for example. But it's hard for me to consider them as "art."

Edit: there are guitarist who impress me simply for their technical skill, but it's not something I want to listen to on a frequent basis.

one satisfies the Head and one satisfies the Heart. getting both to work together is called Heaven

 

[sk66]

My take on this, at its simplest, is that a lot of photographers align themselves with either the technical or the artistic camp, but wrongly.

I like the car driving analogy. But I think that goes more towards "artistry" (skill/knowledge) where I am talking about image qualities.

Take for instance two different advertising product shots. The first is intended to showcase the product to greatest advantage (details etc), and the second is intended to convey an association with a mood/lifestyle/etc much more than anything specific about the product. The first is likely to have the product dominating the image with pin sharp focus everywhere, even/flattering lighting, critical white balance, etc, etc... it will be more of a "technical image." With a technical image there are things that could be said to be "right and wrong."
IMO the second is much more likely to be an artistic image (art), and it is much more likely to compromise details through shallow DOF, soft focus, lighting, and it may very well compromise correct white balance and other "technicals" for the sake of the mood/message it provides. With an artistic image there really isn't "right and wrong," it's more simply "does it work?" Although both images may very well require an equal level of skill/knowledge (artistry) to create.

It seems to me that when you favor an artistic type image which conveys mood/feeling/message over a technical image which conveys "facts," it almost necessitates compromising technical aspects (it certainly allows for that)... the things gear junkies and the like get wrapped up about don't really matter much at all.
I'm probably as guilty of focusing on technical qualities as anyone, partly because they are much less subjective...

 

[Garry Edwards]

Yes, a good example of two different approaches to an advertising image, lifestyle and product, but in most cases a well trained photographer with a technical background will be very comfortable with both, although some advertising agencies just don't get that and commission different photographers to do each, or commission a product photographer to do the technically-correct one and go through stock photos to find the lifestyle one. In short, it's very wrong to assume that a technically competent photographer can't also be artistic.

Historically, all trained commercial photographers were pretty expert with large format monorail cameras and, for example, we would produce front-to-back sharpness of closeup subjects such as a plate of food, a beefburgher, pizza etc, but then digital came in, and perhaps partly because of the time and cost savings and the fact that digital photography (and post production) made the technical side so much less demanding, a new generation of photographers, without technical knowledge or training, grabbed their share of the commercial market. But, in the absence of camera movements they developed a 'new' style of photographing this type of subject, using very selective focus, not because they could but because they couldn't do it in the more conventional way, and turned technical faults into what they considered to be a more artistic type of product photograph. In other words, they turned a necessity (caused by lack of knowledge and lack of equipment) into a virtue.

Actually, the joke is that trained photographers with large format cameras have always done that anyway, but better, simply because with the large format cameras it's much easier to get truly selective focus, using Scheimpflug to reduce rather than to extend the plane of sharp focus.

 

[sk66]

In short, it's very wrong to assume that a technically competent photographer can't also be artistic.

I find that when given a brief/concept I can be very good at "seeing the image/creating art"... where I largely fall short is in "seeing the possible image" with a given situation/scene, and coming up with my own concepts/briefs. Basically, I generally have the artistry, but I am not an artist. That said, most all of my very best images had a concept/vision for them *before* I ever picked up a camera... some I have yet to accomplish.

 

[droj]

Photography is very subjective.

Joel Meyerowitz can have large chucks of underexposre in photos and the sun shines out of his backside.

If us mortals do that then we are clumsy amateurs who cant get basic exposure right.

Only if the art is 'right' will technical 'shortcomings' be rendered into subservience. You have to view an image holistically. If the art is lacking, then technical shortcomings are more prominent and more disruptive to the success of the image as a coherent statement. I see this quite a lot.

Interesting thread, Steven, I'm still catching up with it.

 

[droj]

I find that when given a brief/concept I can be very good at "seeing the image/creating art"

This might have been touched on earlier, but I think that we ought to be able to distinguish (and understand the definitions of) art, and craft. To me they have distinct meanings, though they might overlap, but as with all words / statements, you have to define your terms so that there's little room left for misinterpretation.

 

[droj]

One thing I can say with near certainty: If you focus only on the technical it WILL inhibit/detract from the artistic.

I can't agree with that - technique is 'just' a language, not the meaning of anything (well it is to some poor souls). But surely it can't be harmful?

 

[droj]

Art is what you think it is and never forget that other peoples' perceptions are always different from your own.

That sounds a bit like a fools' charter. Sorry Andrew, I'm not trying to be rude. Art is about meaning, and some sort of intuitive exchange. If it's just about the 'look', then it's just craft, entertainment, or even accident. There is a muddled spectrum, though, I grant you ...

 

[sk66]

I can't agree with that - technique is 'just' a language, not the meaning of anything (well it is to some poor souls). But surely it can't be harmful?

What I said was "technical," not "technique" (artistry/skill). As in only/always focusing on the technical qualities of an image... you'll catch up!

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Sorry Andrew, I'm not trying to be rude.

You could have fooled me. Until you learn to be polite in stating your views and accept that the opinions of others are as valid as your own you're not a person worth discussing anything with.

 

[swanseamale47]

I don't think technically perfect and artistic are mutually exclusive. Even after all these years shooting I still get what I call artistic images, yet they are technically fine. Maybe the real question is what is artistic?

 

[Garry Edwards]

I don't think technically perfect and artistic are mutually exclusive. Even after all these years shooting I still get what I call artistic images, yet they are technically fine. Maybe the real question is what is artistic?

Agreed.
For most people, in most situations, most of the time, an 'artistic' image grabs the attention more, and is more visually attractive than a technically correct image that isn't attractive to look at - that's obvious, but there is absolutely no reason why we can't have both. As I said earlier, there seem to be a lot of people who consider themselves to be 'artistic' simply because they haven't bothered to learn the technical aspects, and so try to convince themselves (and others) that technical competence is some kind of pejorative term.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Technical competence is fine and dandy, so long as it isn't seen as the only route to making good pictures. Which is how it often seems to be portrayed by the plethora of 'How to master your camera's settings' articles. As if mastering the technical side of things will automatically make your pictures 'better'.

I think that's arse about face and that people should learn to see pictures first, then learn to master the technical side of things. Making pictures is what photography is about, not using cameras. You only need sufficient technical competence to make the pictures you want to make.

 

[Nostromo]

Ok so I getting a bit confused with this thread.
When talking about being too technical, what level of technical are we taking about?
I'm not that fussed about the whole artist debate, because that's all down to interpretation and personal choice.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

For most people, in most situations, most of the time, an 'artistic' image grabs the attention more...

That's a big claim. How do you define "artistic" in this context and who do you mean by "most people"? Do you mean most of the world's population or most of the British population or most Talk Photography readers and members?

 

[jerry12953]

You could have fooled me. Until you learn to be polite in stating your views and accept that the opinions of others are as valid as your own you're not a person worth discussing anything with.

Pot/kettle........

 

[Garry Edwards]

That's a big claim. How do you define "artistic" in this context and who do you mean by "most people"? Do you mean most of the world's population or most of the British population or most Talk Photography readers and members?

Fair questions.
I suppose that I define 'artistic' as an eye-catching image that makes people think, and which grabs their attention, although of course there will be many other definitions.
"Most people" in my thinking is the target audience, whatever that may be, because whether it's an advertising image directed at potential buyers (as earlier referred to) or any other kind of image, the people who matter are the people it's directed at.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Fair questions.

...and very fair answers.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Pot/kettle........

Sorry. Did I just stand on your toes?

 

[Mr Badger]

Snip:

Fair questions.
I suppose that I define 'artistic' as an eye-catching image that makes people think, and which grabs their attention, although of course there will be many other definitions.

That's an interesting definition, however, I don't think I'd describe something like Eddie Adam's iconic and harrowing photograph from the Vietnam war as 'artistic', although it certainly grabs my attention and makes me think:

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/n...r/news-story/a3b6c7830ea313def03ec0e186e4d849

However, I think it illustrates my point about many of the most iconic photographs in history not being pin-sharp (by today's standards) or perhaps even 'technically perfect' (whatever that is). I sometimes wonder if amateur photographers choose to fret about sharpness, exposure, dynamic range, etc. because these are things that they feel they have some control over, whereas the ability to see a potentially captivating image developing is not an element they can as easily acquire?

 

[Bythesea]

I think that's arse about face and that people should learn to see pictures first, then learn to master the technical side of things. Making pictures is what photography is about, not using cameras. You only need sufficient technical competence to make the pictures you want to make.

Exactly - hence the paraphrased quote from David Hurn in my signature. (Just realised who's post I quoted - didn't recognise the avatar image )

 

[sirch]

The original premise of this thread is, I think, a false dichotomy, i.e. you can be both a skilled technician and produce work that conveys strong emotions. Whilst that may be rare I don’t think that developing technical skill somehow displaces creative/artistic skill, it is more likely down to personality type; people either move more down the technical path or down the artistic path because that is where their main interest lies.

I used to work with a guy who was very into video and was keen to improve his videography but when he went looking for courses and tuition he always complained that they had too much “arty-farty” content and he just wanted a course to tell him how to make better videos.

The thing is you can only get so far with a painting-by-numbers approach, at some point you have to completely cut-loose, reset and head off down that other “artistic” path. How many of us have started to try to repair something with a pocket knife, door key or whatever was handy and struggled on for a while until we just had to go and get the proper tools and do a proper job? I think that is a microcosm for the premise of this thread really, you already have a large and deep range of technical skills, you now need to go back to the start and get those artistic/aesthetic skills, they are simply not further along the road you are on.

But firstly I suppose you really have to decide if that is really what you want, unlike my former videographer colleague who would never accept that immersing himself in the “arty-farty” would give him a whole new set of skills that would improve is videos.

 

[Ed Sutton]

Exactly - hence the paraphrased quote from David Hurn in my signature. (Just realised who's post I quoted - didn't recognise the avatar image )

I thought I'd have a change of pic. Three points to anyone who can name the (famous?) photographer whose feet are in my new avatar.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I sometimes wonder if amateur photographers choose to fret about sharpness, exposure, dynamic range, etc. because these are things that they feel they have some control over, whereas the ability to see a potentially captivating image developing is not an element they can as easily acquire?

And why everything must be 'on the third'. Because you can measure a third. Telling these folk to put something where it looks right in the frame only confuses them, because most people don't have a visual education. We all get taught to read at school, but never how to read pictures. Which, IMO, is sad.

 

[Raymond Lin]

I can teach you how a camera works and its principles and functions in day.

It will take a life time to learn the arts.

 

[sk66]

I don't think technically perfect and artistic are mutually exclusive. Even after all these years shooting I still get what I call artistic images, yet they are technically fine. Maybe the real question is what is artistic?

In this context "technically perfect" is meant to correlate to the technical aspects of an image that *photographers* tend to obsess about... sharpness, noise, exposure, etc. etc... "the facts" of a scene/image. And I think the more artistic an image is, the more those things are compromised. Most photographs have some combination of both, and the technical aspects/qualities then have to be judged w/in the context of the purpose.
Some would say that when an image looses all of those (factual) qualities it ceases to be a photograph, and instead it becomes a piece of art created using the photographic medium, and the quality becomes entirely subjective (which most photographers hate). But it is still also a photograph...

For example, consider a high key image that works very well for you, but it was created by extensive overexposure.
Or an image that was created using intentional blur/camera movement. I don't typically like these types of images but I've seen a few that were very good. I think it would be fair to say that it requires a great deal of skill/technique to create a successful image of this type intentionally, and it would be fair to say that the image is "technically fine." But the technical qualities have been driven into the realm of complete subjectiveness.

The original premise of this thread is, I think, a false dichotomy, i.e. you can be both a skilled technician and produce work that conveys strong emotions.

Then I think you have missed the original premise... it has nothing to do with the skill/knowledge (artistry) required to create the image.
IMO an artistic image conveys mood/feeling/message. And a technical image conveys facts. Both types of images can require an equal level of artistry (skill knowledge) to create. And you can create an image that has some balance of both. But as the intent/purpose moves farther towards conveying mood/feeling/message the more the facts of the scene/situation are compromised, it seems to me that it is almost a requirement (I can't really see an exception).

I think another genre that correlates well is woodworking. Take a woodworker who has a great deal of skill/knowledge... what might commonly be call "artistry." But is the result produced art? Some might say yes, but I think it actually depends on the intent and the inherent characteristics of the result. And almost by definition, the more the product is a piece of art, the less utilitarian (factual) it is.

Say they produce a simple side table with perfect joints, great proportions, excellent finish, etc.... is it a piece of art? I would say no, even though it required a lot of skill/knowledge (artistry) to produce.
Then they produce a piece of woodwork that is intended to be a wallhanging. It's made from extensive joinery/marquetry, also with perfect joints, great proportions, excellent finish, etc.... is it a piece of art? In this case I would be more inclined to say yes. But as a piece of cabinetry, and judged within that context, it is utter rubbish. As a piece of art, it's "quality" is entirely subjective.

And say they produce another side table; this time it has highly tapered/carved legs, it has fine inlays and the top is marquetry... this piece has some of both characteristics. But the artistic characteristics actually detract from the utilitarian (factual) characteristics... the legs are more fragile/less sturdy, the inlays reduce the integrity of the wood, and the top is very easily damaged. Now the quality of the piece has to be judged w/in the context that matters more to you.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Some would say that when an image looses all of those (factual) qualities it ceases to be a photograph, and instead it becomes a piece of art created using the photographic medium, and the quality becomes entirely subjective (which most photographers hate). But it is still also a photograph...

Often when a photograph loses all those factual qualities it's just a bad photograph, though occasionally it have some merit as a picture despite that - sometimes it may even be great, but that's rarely because it lost touch with the factual qualities.

As an aside, I found the Andreas Gursky exhibition in London fascinating in the context of this thread. Gursky creates what the art world consider to be great art using very highly detailed and technically correct photographs - for him there's no contradiction.

 

[droj]

However, I think it illustrates my point about many of the most iconic photographs in history not being pin-sharp (by today's standards) or perhaps even 'technically perfect' (whatever that is). I sometimes wonder if amateur photographers choose to fret about sharpness, exposure, dynamic range, etc. because these are things that they feel they have some control over, whereas the ability to see a potentially captivating image developing is not an element they can as easily acquire?

A good test of a photograph might be to ask what it's meaning is. An advertising photo (and many others) might be extremely skillful technically, but have little actual meaning beyond its advertising function. Other photographs, having personal or artistic functions, can be betrayed (or not) by incompetent technique. In this connection, a personal bugbear of mine (mainly in colour work) is blown highlights. But if the vision is strong enough, it can often override what could be easily thought of as technical defects.

 

[droj]

And say they produce another side table; this time it has highly tapered/carved legs, it has fine inlays and the top is marquetry... this piece has some of both characteristics. But the artistic characteristics actually detract from the utilitarian (factual) characteristics... the legs are more fragile/less sturdy, the inlays reduce the integrity of the wood, and the top is very easily damaged. Now the quality of the piece has to be judged w/in the context that matters more to you.

There is art, Steven, and there is imaginative craft - they are not the same thing. But the tipping point can be mysterious.

 

[droj]

The thing is you can only get so far with a painting-by-numbers approach, at some point you have to completely cut-loose, reset and head off down that other “artistic” path.

Bravo!

 

[sirch]

Then I think you have missed the original premise... it has nothing to do with the skill/knowledge (artistry) required to create the image.

I'm not going to argue, it's your thread

but then again ... I suspect all the examples in your woodworking analogy, including your wall hanging example, are really craft (as Rog points out above and as is so much photography for that matter) and not art. May be the wall hanging could be pleasing or engage our sense of delight but while I have works hung on my wall for exactly that reason I am not sure they are really art. For me, fundamentally, art is about conveying emotion, feelings, meaning. That does not mean it is the same for you and debating "what is art" is likely to be as fruitful as debating the existence of god. I'd don't think we are that far apart in reality, have a good weekend

 

[droj]

I thought I'd have a change of pic. Three points to anyone who can name the (famous?) photographer whose feet are in my new avatar.

Well it looks too modern to be Lartigue, and too wacky to be even Parr, so I'm completely stumped. Zero points!

 

[Ed Sutton]

Well it looks too modern to be Lartigue, and too wacky to be even Parr, so I'm completely stumped. Zero points!

So close!

The sandals and socks aren't a clue?

 

[sk66]

For me, fundamentally, art is about conveying emotion, feelings, meaning. That does not mean it is the same for you and debating "what is art" is likely to be as fruitful as debating the existence of god. I'd don't think we are that far apart in reality, have a good weekend

I said the same elsewhere.

And whether something is a (successful) piece of art to you is entirely dependent on how well it conveys the emotion/feeling/mood/meaning. The less successful it is, the more likely you are to view it as craft... and the more important "the facts" are as a measure of the craftsmanship (artistry).

 

[Stuart Philpott]

Steven ,a very interesting read,much goes over my head,sadly !!

Steve ,for me the technical side................. the skill with the tools needs,somewhat simplistcally to be left behind at shutter press. Then one is free to make the 'erm cough "ART"

I am deeply unsure as to whether, in reality, well executed technicals can harm the artistic vision after shutter press. But conversely, obsessing about them before the hammer goes down can be a bad thing and adversely affect results.

Steven art is about freedom of expression,all but impossible to put into words, we all like different art..............but I'm as sure as I can be that one doesn't need any form of shackle at shutter press.

Steven folks over think, they forget the childhood wonder we all had at simple things in life. We worry on a SS when we should be stunned by the beauty in the viewfinder and hence we don't oft really SEE that beauty in said subject and really don't capture it's spirit...ART??????

Steve the music analogy has been used alot here, but always talking about other musicians rather than a guy that plays muic himself. I play,really a drummer,but do other bits an bods. I 'd practice for ours and hours,but at a gig or when jamming, that practice never enters my head, I'd just play....when it was really good at times we'd say "the drums played me ". One is in this utterly subconcious place where one simply isn't really aware of what one is doing only the other muso's and how one chooses to react to them.

This should be an image maker's head space, reacting from a pure emotional point of view to our chosen subject.

So basically in my simplistic way,no I don't think a well executed technical side can really hurt an image,but conversely I think worrying about techs well honestly... anything really.................. does hamper creativity and hence artistic vision at the actual time said image is made.

does that make sense and did I understand you

Steven we need to cherish the child in us and really use that part of us while making an image It's a weird thing to say but kids are not bound by rules,they see something amazing and are simply amazed,they don't have to analyse why they are amazed,like us adults do

for me that kid is my best chance of finding art.

stu

 

[sirch]

The less successful it is, the more likely you are to view it as craft.

Well, no; at least I wouldn't; I would just view at as either not very good art, or art that I don't "get". From my limited knowledge the difference between art and craft is really that art is created by artists as art and has no other intended purpose. Craft items may be beautiful, decorative, etc. but they have another purpose, the most obvious example being things like pottery.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Steve the music analogy has been used alot here, but always talking about other musicians rather than a guy that plays muic himself. I play,really a drummer,but do other bits an bods. I 'd practice for ours and hours,but at a gig or when jamming, that practice never enters my head, I'd just play....when it was really good at times we'd say "the drums played me ". One is in this utterly subconcious place where one simply isn't really aware of what one is doing only the other muso's and how one chooses to react to them.

I did consider personalising the examples of music, since I'm a gigging guitar player. To make music you need a quite substantial amount of technical background that can either be obtained formally (being taught plus practice) or informally (teaching yourself through practice, listening and research) - guitars and drum kits don't play themselves in the way cameras do, relatively speaking.

But once you've learned to play everything can change. Ginger Baker was onced asked how he practiced drums, and his answer was that he hadn't practiced since he learned how to play. I believe Noel Redding (bass player with Hendrix) said something similar. Personally I practice to get speed and strength up and to learn new parts if covering someone else's song, but virtually never otherwise. Technical ability is an absolutely essential part of the ability to create music - your own music - because it enables you to operate the instrument in a way that works with other musicians and to convey your message. Some musicians never get any further reading music or covering other peoples songs note-for-note, and outside of the classical world, they're generally equivalent to the technical masters who will produce a great landscape if they can find the right set of holes to place their tripod.

The flipside or music - the artistry - is also interesting. Sometimes you come across a self-taught musician who plays by instinct and listening, but without any theory at all. They can be damned hard work because they 'just do their thing', and although they'll paint a picture with their notes instead of copying someone else's, music as an art is collaborative and requires interaction and communication between the players. These people may have a great idea of what they want to communicate, but they can't get the message across because they are inadequate technically.