Educated in art or not......

[Trever1t]

:hug:: it's all good

 

[c.cloudwalker]

:hug:: it's all good

Sure but it still makes a huge difference. The original Naïve art form was exactly that. Naïve. Artists with no art education. Artists like that are still around although more rarely seen in galleries and still create wonderful works. Even though they have no idea there are "rules."

 

[tododelsur]

I'm late to this, but that's normal.

I never took a photography class, so everything I learned about the technical side of it was through the internet over the course of a month or two. I don't really have the patience for studying or tests. Over analyzing things does seem to suck the fun out of things for me. I know a little about how a photo can be composed, and why it's attractive to people, but in the end I just try to make what looks good to me. I mostly photograph people, so the content is often the more important thing to me. I'm trying to catch part of a persons personality, or whatever it is that made me want to photograph them in the first place.

 

[ahcigar1]

I never studied art nor do I want to. There is no way to define art. Because everyone views and defines what it is so differently. That is one of the great things about it. What I view as not art someone else will and vice versa. Art is through the eye of the beholder.

 

[mishele]

I never studied art nor do I want to. There is no way to define art. Because everyone views and defines what it is so differently. That is one of the great things about it. What I view as not art someone else will and vice versa. Art is through the eye of the beholder.

Wouldn't you want to know why a picture of yours looks good?
Wouldn't you like a higher percentage of your shots to be keepers?
Knowng a thing or two about art might help you have pictures that YOU like more often.

 

[ahcigar1]

I never studied art nor do I want to. There is no way to define art. Because everyone views and defines what it is so differently. That is one of the great things about it. What I view as not art someone else will and vice versa. Art is through the eye of the beholder.

Wouldn't you want to know why a picture of yours looks good?
Wouldn't you like a higher percentage of your shots to be keepers?
Knowng a thing or two about art might help you have pictures that YOU like more often.

I guess I worded it incorrectly what I was trying to say is that what I see as something I love and think looks good may not be for another person. And the issue with studying art is that someone always tries to tell you what is wrong and what is right and tries to curve your opinion and mold you into what THEY think art should be.

Perfect example for me is abstract images. I am someone who just doesn't see it as something wonderful, but I can still appreciate the art of it and know that there are others who love it. But it isn't for me. I much prefer lanscapes and scenery and put a horse in there and you have a winner. That is my opinion what I see as art. And if I has someone who as teaching me about art and they thought that abastract was art and the only way to go was with abstract then it would most likely begin to curve my judgment away from my personal thoughts and views. Does that make sense? Very difficult to portray idea over message board, much easier to speak this kind of idea.

 

[Overread]

As one who isn't much into abstract work myself I can certainly understand what you mean ahcigar1, however I think you've made a mistake in your interpretation of understanding artistic theory.

You're looking at the subject, the abstract against the landscape, rather than at the theories which underlay both, which are the same. Compositional/artistic theory isn't about subjects so much as placement and elements within them - understanding that is the same for whatever field you enter into

 

[ahcigar1]

Yes. But aren't we as photographers and essentially a form of artists always talking about finding something different? And not forming to the mold? Because if all of us formed to the mold and followed all the 'rules' then everything would essentially be the same just different subject.

 

[Overread]

True only to a point - but then again how can you break a "rule" if you don't yet know what it is yet?
People get hung up on the rules idea, in truth its not rules, its a series of theories which can be used alone or in combinations with each other in order to get the final photo. Furthermore once you learn the rules (or rather start learning as there are many) you can then come to understand why they work - once you understand the why you can understand when they are best to use, and also when specific ones are best not to use - as well as how and why and when to "break" them.

 

[ahcigar1]

I get your point.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I guess I worded it incorrectly what I was trying to say is that what I see as something I love and think looks good may not be for another person.

That is more correctly described as 'Taste'.

And the issue with studying art is that someone always tries to tell you what is wrong and what is right and tries to curve your opinion and mold you into what THEY think art should be.

Hmmm...that's not really how art education works at all. Well, at least at a good university. Like anything, the quality of education varies, and you get what you pay for.

Perfect example for me is abstract images. I am someone who just doesn't see it as something wonderful, but I can still appreciate the art of it and know that there are others who love it. But it isn't for me.

Perhaps this is because you don't understand it, and don't have the vocabulary to put into words why you like it or not.
You don't have the knowledge to truly appreciate abstract work, so it's easy to dismiss it.

I much prefer lanscapes and scenery and put a horse in there and you have a winner.

Because you have to identify with a subject. If there is no straight forward subject, you are lost.

That is my opinion what I see as art.

It is an uneducated opinion. Call it what it is.

And if I has someone who as teaching me about art and they thought that abastract was art and the only way to go was with abstract then it would most likely begin to curve my judgment away from my personal thoughts and views.

A teacher is a guide, and should never force your creativity one direction or another. Well, a good teacher, that is. Teaching art is teaching a student to see, to question, to express themselves, to think, to challenge, and how to get all that out in an effective manner.

Does that make sense? Very difficult to portray idea over message board, much easier to speak this kind of idea.

It's difficult to portray, because it's difficult to agrue any subject from a point of ignorance and lack of knowledge on the subject. Text or verbal argument would end in frustration for both parties, when it is unedumacated vs. edumacated on any given subject.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

because

Knowledge is Power!​

 

[jake337]

Education that clouds one's judgement? What?

Education that impairs critical thinking? Huh?

Happens everyday.


Just look at all those doctors pushing dangerous drugs on my parents and others. Just because their education told them so....

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

That's because we are a drug oriented culture. Don't blame that on education.

 

[The_Traveler]

The 'rules' are poor explanations of how people see.
People get cues and hints from pictures that have nothing to do with the content.
If you can make the content work with the cues and the hints then a picture is more likely to be liked by people just because teh cues/hints are congruent with the content.