"Technical" vs. "Artistic": Should One Trump The Other?

[TATTRAT]

Ladies and gents can't we settle this over a pint(5-8 for me)?

I like the sound of this. Pints galore!

 

[manaheim]

Some people HAVE to be able to quantify things, measure things and point out what is wrong or right. Artistic expression takes this ability away from those people. To say something is an ineffective artistic expression because the technical aspects are missing is ridiculous.

Wow man, that is what I was going to say, verbatim.

I'm fairly new to photography as well, but I've been big into music for 20 years, and it's the exact same story in that medium. You get these self-righteous blowhards who go on and on about how band A puts band B to shame, simply because band A plays songs in odd time signatures with 8 minute tap-style guitar solos, while band B constructs songs out of 4 chords and has no solos at all. To be completely honest, I sometimes find myself feeling sorry for people like that; people whose brains simply cannot acknowledge beauty in things that fail to achieve some minimum score on a set of technical metrics.

Don't get me wrong, it's not that I'm "anti-technical-prowess" in photography, far from it; I'm simply saying that some people fail to see a picture simply because the pixels are in the way.

To take an extreme example, however... what if the composition is awesome, the message is riveting, the subject is enticing... but it's so out of focus that you literally can't see any of it? Like it's all a big blur. That would be an exceptional example of where technical abilities would make the artistic rendering useless.

Now is this usually the case? No. It's usually a bit under-exposed or out of focus, or whatever... but the point is that technical elements CAN be a detriment to the final product and the artistic elements, so saying they are unimportant is incorrect.

It also helps to think of painting rather than photography. Most anyone can get a camera to at least SORT of work and get a picture out of it... but not that many people can come anywhere NEAR as close to their artistic vision with paint... without having a technical skill in how to do it.

Technical issues matter quite a bit.

 

[manaheim]

By the way, I think the poll is (essentially) too binary.

It basically says:

a> technical
b> artistic
c> depends on situation

C is sorta silly, I think, but regardless... the answer really is a AND b.

 

[Derrel]

SNIP>>>>>>>>>Technical issues matter quite a bit.

Except when they hardly matter one bit...

The Execution of A Vietcong Guerilla | Iconic Photos

Here is a photo seen around the world, and which has become truly iconic...and which has weak technical values for its time and for the imaging system used to make it...out of literally MILLIONS of frames exposed during the Vietnam War, this one,single image has become one of the two most-recognized images of the entire war...

 

[TATTRAT]

Wow man, that is what I was going to say, verbatim.

I'm fairly new to photography as well, but I've been big into music for 20 years, and it's the exact same story in that medium. You get these self-righteous blowhards who go on and on about how band A puts band B to shame, simply because band A plays songs in odd time signatures with 8 minute tap-style guitar solos, while band B constructs songs out of 4 chords and has no solos at all. To be completely honest, I sometimes find myself feeling sorry for people like that; people whose brains simply cannot acknowledge beauty in things that fail to achieve some minimum score on a set of technical metrics.

Exactly. Some will say the whole "photography is subjective" is hogwash, but, photography, like music, is art and is open to all sorts of interpretation. There are technical musicians, there are jam bands. .. hell, there are even technical jam bands with a million and six genres in between. Same with photography.

The top 40 pop billboards are FULL of this "Art" that is so "loved", for a few weeks at a time, then there are "The CLASSICS", that pass the test of time. Coming from someone with a musical background, the top 40 is hogwash (a majority of it). Fact is, it IS subjective. Everyone's personal experience/knowledge/know how/background reflects in what they consider to be "Art". . .either to the eyes or the ears.

 

[TimothyJinx]

Wow man, that is what I was going to say, verbatim.

I'm fairly new to photography as well, but I've been big into music for 20 years, and it's the exact same story in that medium. You get these self-righteous blowhards who go on and on about how band A puts band B to shame, simply because band A plays songs in odd time signatures with 8 minute tap-style guitar solos, while band B constructs songs out of 4 chords and has no solos at all. To be completely honest, I sometimes find myself feeling sorry for people like that; people whose brains simply cannot acknowledge beauty in things that fail to achieve some minimum score on a set of technical metrics.

Don't get me wrong, it's not that I'm "anti-technical-prowess" in photography, far from it; I'm simply saying that some people fail to see a picture simply because the pixels are in the way.

cynicaster, I know exactly what you mean. I've played in bands since I was 15 years old and I'm 52 now. I can't tell you how many times I've been ridiculed for enjoying certain types of music. Either because it's considered "corporate rock" or because the musicians are not technically proficient or whatever. Personally, I just like a song or I don't. But I agree - I think we should strive to produce the best photographs we can. But we can never let the technical aspects become more important than what we are actually trying to convey.

 

[manaheim]

SNIP>>>>>>>>>Technical issues matter quite a bit.

Except when they hardly matter one bit...

The Execution of A Vietcong Guerilla | Iconic Photos

Here is a photo seen around the world, and which has become truly iconic...and which has weak technical values for its time and for the imaging system used to make it...out of literally MILLIONS of frames exposed during the Vietnam War, this one,single image has become one of the two most-recognized images of the entire war...

yeah you've got me there... but that is an OVERWHELMINGLY powerful message and the photo is clear enough to convey it and the technical issues are minor enough to not matter by comparison.

I suppose another way to think about it is a balance of sorts... or perhaps a total quantitative value of some kind. X points in technical + Y points in message = Z good photo.

I know that massively cheapens it, but you know what I mean.

 

[runnah]

I like to call it the Uma Thurman effect. From every technical aspect she is weird, feet big enough to ski on and hands the size of tennis racquets. But still she is hot. She has that X factor that makes her appealing.

Now apply that to photos.

 

[mishele]

Don't you people sleep? Lol

 

[runnah]

Don't you people sleep? Lol

Not when there are well trod debates such as these!

 

[manaheim]

Not when there are well trod debates such as these!

So... Never then?

 

[cynicaster]

Some people HAVE to be able to quantify things, measure things and point out what is wrong or right. Artistic expression takes this ability away from those people. To say something is an ineffective artistic expression because the technical aspects are missing is ridiculous.

Wow man, that is what I was going to say, verbatim.

I'm fairly new to photography as well, but I've been big into music for 20 years, and it's the exact same story in that medium. You get these self-righteous blowhards who go on and on about how band A puts band B to shame, simply because band A plays songs in odd time signatures with 8 minute tap-style guitar solos, while band B constructs songs out of 4 chords and has no solos at all. To be completely honest, I sometimes find myself feeling sorry for people like that; people whose brains simply cannot acknowledge beauty in things that fail to achieve some minimum score on a set of technical metrics.

Don't get me wrong, it's not that I'm "anti-technical-prowess" in photography, far from it; I'm simply saying that some people fail to see a picture simply because the pixels are in the way.

To take an extreme example, however... what if the composition is awesome, the message is riveting, the subject is enticing... but it's so out of focus that you literally can't see any of it? Like it's all a big blur. That would be an exceptional example of where technical abilities would make the artistic rendering useless.

Now is this usually the case? No. It's usually a bit under-exposed or out of focus, or whatever... but the point is that technical elements CAN be a detriment to the final product and the artistic elements, so saying they are unimportant is incorrect.

It also helps to think of painting rather than photography. Most anyone can get a camera to at least SORT of work and get a picture out of it... but not that many people can come anywhere NEAR as close to their artistic vision with paint... without having a technical skill in how to do it.

Technical issues matter quite a bit.

Your example about how even a generally “good” photo could be made better by closer adherence to textbook tenets is, in my opinion, built upon a very questionable premise; namely, that enhancement of one or two technical aspects of a photo will likely lead to a commensurate enhancement in the overall impact of the photo. If a particular combination of subject, composition, lighting pattern, exposure, white balance, noise level, DoF, etc. comes together in a harmonious whole that just works, then, well, tinker with that at your own peril. As far as I’m concerned, at that point, the only thing a rigorous technical analysis achieves is to suck the life and human touch out of a pleasant creation.

Besides, nobody is saying the technical side doesn’t matter; of course it does. The suggestion isn’t that any old ham-fisted technique will do, it’s that the moment a photo “moves” its viewer is the moment it has achieved a measure of success, completely regardless of the unacceptable acutance that is manifested in the lower right cobblestone foreground when viewed at 200% zoom. You know as well as I do that there are people out there with strong enough techno-OCD to let something that silly “ruin” a photograph for them. That’s their prerogative—and, if you ask me, their loss.

 

[The_Traveler]

SNIP>>>>>>>>>Technical issues matter quite a bit.

Except when they hardly matter one bit...

The Execution of A Vietcong Guerilla | Iconic Photos

Here is a photo seen around the world, and which has become truly iconic...and which has weak technical values for its time and for the imaging system used to make it...out of literally MILLIONS of frames exposed during the Vietnam War, this one,single image has become one of the two most-recognized images of the entire war...

yeah you've got me there... but that is an OVERWHELMINGLY powerful message and the photo is clear enough to convey it and the technical issues are minor enough to not matter by comparison.

I suppose another way to think about it is a balance of sorts... or perhaps a total quantitative value of some kind. X points in technical + Y points in message = Z good photo.

I know that massively cheapens it, but you know what I mean.

I thinks it is a different equation.

Y points in message - Z points in bad technicals = Result.

Because technicals can't 'make' a picture with no impact - except for techno-anals - but bad technicals can hurt a picture

 

[amolitor]

The thing is "technical goodness" isn't even a meaningful phrase. Any technical element can be used powerfully in either direction.

Technical elements of photography are just effects that can be applied. Put the focus here, put it there, you get different images. Warm colors, cool colors, you get different images. Sharper or softer, different images. These images all feel different to the viewer and they either work or not. The effect either supports the image and the ideas in it, detracts from them, or is neutral.

The only real difference is whether you can do it in post. Sharper is better up front not because sharper is better, but because you can't add sharpness in post. Youcan add the opposite of sharpness.

As technology advances, the list of technical stuff you can change in post gets longer, though. See Lytro cameras, light-field tech, for a contemporary example.

 

[manaheim]

Your example about how even a generally “good” photo could be made better by closer adherence to textbook tenets is, in my opinion, built upon a very questionable premise; namely, that enhancement of one or two technical aspects of a photo will likely lead to a commensurate enhancement in the overall impact of the photo. If a particular combination of subject, composition, lighting pattern, exposure, white balance, noise level, DoF, etc. comes together in a harmonious whole that just works, then, well, tinker with that at your own peril. As far as I’m concerned, at that point, the only thing a rigorous technical analysis achieves is to suck the life and human touch out of a pleasant creation.

Besides, nobody is saying the technical side doesn’t matter; of course it does. The suggestion isn’t that any old ham-fisted technique will do, it’s that the moment a photo “moves” its viewer is the moment it has achieved a measure of success, completely regardless of the unacceptable acutance that is manifested in the lower right cobblestone foreground when viewed at 200% zoom. You know as well as I do that there are people out there with strong enough techno-OCD to let something that silly “ruin” a photograph for them. That’s their prerogative—and, if you ask me, their loss.

That's not what I said.

Traveller phrased it perfectly so I won't rehash it... But basically good art minus sufficient points for technical issues can make a bad photo. I would NEVER suggest that bad art + technical points = good photo.