Something to think about

[Josh66]

So I've been reading this book, The 48 Laws of Power... I can't help noticing how a lot of it applies to photography, or the arts in general. The author makes references to artists throughout the book...

The last paragraph of chapter 23 (Concentrate Your Forces), a chapter that I didn't really think would have anything at all to do with art, made me stop and think.

Finally, being too single-minded in purpose can make you an intolerable bore, especially in the arts. The Renaissance painter Paolo Uccello was so obsessed with perspective that his paintings look lifeless and contrived. Whereas Leonardo da Vinci interested himself in everything - architecture, painting, warfare, sculpture, mechanics. Diffusion was the source of his power. But such genius is rare, and the rest of us are better off erring on the side of intensity.

(Links are mine, obviously...)

It made me wonder - is it better to concentrate on one 'style' or discipline of photography, or to dabble in all forms of photography...? The author makes good points for both choices.

Surely, you would be more likely to master something if you put everything into it - but in the long run, could you be doing more harm than good?

Personally, I think you need a mix of both.

(It's a pretty good book, BTW. Half way through it now, and I have to say that almost all of it has everyday applications.)

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I always say, the more you know, the more well rounded your education is, the farther you'll go. I have studied so many forms of art, and it is interesting how little techniques from them find there way into my chosen field of metalsmithing. I have worked with countless jewelers who have only been taught what's needed to repair and set, basic stuff, and they were never able to problem solve. They could never think outside their small box. They were of limited value.

The old adage is very true. "knowledge IS power".


I want to read that book. I think you've posted about it a few times now.

 

[SilverEF88]

It is a really excellent book and not a one-time read either. For me it is something to refer back to and scim often. As far as being well rounded I think it is invaluable. So many of the senior art students at my school put on mediocre senior shows. I believe that it is completely caused by there intensive focus on a limited field of study. So many of these students focus too hard on, lets say, ceramics, that color theory escapes them and when it comes time to glaze they chose unwisely. My knowledge and study of sociology has helped me immensely with my current photography project, plus many of my real life experiences have all come into play while I think about a scene and composition.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I just bought (gotta love eBooks) that, and the "21 irrefutable laws of leadership" AND "self leadership, the one minute manager".

I need to control my customers, and manage my time better

 

[molested_cow]

The quote doesn't sound very appropriate for the statement the author is trying to make. I think the word "purpose" is not suitable here. I think it should be "intent".

First of all, neither Paolo Uccello nor Da Vinci did what they did to show off to any one. It is solely for their own passion and pursuit. So to judge them based on an audience's perspective, and using the word "bore" is childish.

Secondly, Da Vinci's real intention is to find truth in nature, using different forms of tools of exploration and expression. He embraced all variety of possibilities and provided the rest of the world different perspectives of his intent.

Paolo Uccello is obsessed with perspective as the author mentioned, but that doesn't mean it is going to be boring. I have many artist friends and each of them is unique because of the unique things that they are obsessed with. They dive deeper into their particular passion more than any one and that deeper perspective itself is interesting to any one who hasn't been there before. It is only to an unfamiliar and uninterested eye that things appear to be "boring". I don't know about the author's background, but I myself may find Paolo Uccello fascinating having spent much time trying to understand perspective and use it as a tool of expression.

So I don't know how the author's argument contribute to your question because I think they are disconnected. Every one has their niche. Just like in sports, a player who's good at everything probably isn't as valuable as someone who's very good at a few things because of the way coaches strategize their games. An extremely capable off road vehicle, such as a Dakar Rally race car, is much more interesting than say, a Jeep Grand Cherokee. Conversely, a leader needs to be well versed in a variety of things to appeal to the mass to be approachable, and of course, to lead. He doesn't need to be extremely good at any one skill, because it's his job to find the right talents and manage them.

So it depends on who you want to be. I'd say just let your own personality lead you to who you become, not the other way around.

 

[SilverEF88]

Thats right, totally forgot about the ebook app on my phone. Now I can read it anywhere, or at least once a day when I close the door on the world.

 

[Josh66]

I think you're taking it too literally, molested_cow. It's just one paragraph out of one chapter of a 400+ page book...

First of all, neither Paolo Uccello nor Da Vinci did what they did to show off to any one.

Are you sure? How do you get those big contracts if nobody likes your work, or even knows who you are?

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

The way I see it, being well rounded only helps you in your area of concentration. It can tak you farther, faster.

 

[molested_cow]

I think you're taking it too literally, molested_cow. It's just one paragraph out of one chapter of a 400+ page book...

First of all, neither Paolo Uccello nor Da Vinci did what they did to show off to any one.

Are you sure? How do you get those big contracts if nobody likes your work, or even knows who you are?

So I guess everyone responding to your question has to read this 400++ page book? You provided that one paragraph, which is the only reference we have. If you don't think it does justice, then post what you feel is appropriate.

Find me a successful artist or designer who did the things they way they did it for the main purpose of pleasing the crowd.

Most famous artists are well known for their work of pioneer and exploration, not for things that he or she already knows will please the crowd. People are fascinated by the way they present new ideas, most of which are provocative. Do the audiences "like" it? I don't think the word "like" applies here.

As for those rich people who commission large contracts to famous artists... first of all, they made their choice because the artists are either already well known, or that they know that the artist's work convey the kind of message that aligns with what the owner wants. The word "like" is for individual buyers who go to a gallery to shop it like they are in a retail store, not for judging the influence of an artist's work to the industry and the mass public.
In a proper art critic, no one uses personal preferences. It's always objective using the past and present as comparison. No critic will give "rating". In fact, ratings are for people who don't care/don't know how to judge. It's like when I go to Amazon.com to buy something that I am not familiar with, I check the feedbacks and ratings because of my limited knowledge of the item. However, if you inform yourself with enough knowledge about the process of an artist that leads to his work, then it's is only natural that you won't use the word "like" to describe it. You'd have been able to connect with it in a much deeper level, most of the time not able to be described with words.

Pop stars are different because they are all about popularity, so the intent is different from the get-go.

 

[Josh66]

You don't have to read the whole book to be able to read between the lines.

And, I didn't pose it as a question where there is a right or wrong answer. It is just "something to think about".

I think it's a little ironic that first you say that your artist friends are unique because of their obsessions, and then you say that most famous artists are known for their pioneering, exploration, and new ideas...

You don't see the contradiction in that?

 

[camz]

It made me wonder - is it better to concentrate on one 'style' or discipline of photography, or to dabble in all forms of photography...? The author makes good points for both choices.

I think you have those one off special cases llike Da Vinci who can apply themselves in almost everything and be successful. Anything that these talents dabble in becomes a niche resulting to success. But for the rest of humanity finding a niche or being known for just that "one thing" is already a struggle. So I think it all depends based on capacity.

For the talented I think a diversified approach creates leverage for success as anything they touch turns into gold. Otherwise I think it takes almost all resources for the rest to even compete in just one "style". It just how it works, every role has to be played and there are only a few seats for the lead. In general I believe in having a well versed foundation however, as far as one's niche, I believe in putting everything in one basket and to watching it closely.

On a side note another good example is Nikola Tesla, dabbled with almost everything in electricity and to me is indirectly the father of modern technology. The Electrical Engineer equivalent of Da Vinci. Next to us mortals, these guys are like Gods..lol.

 

[Josh66]

On a side note another good example is Nikola Tesla, dabbled with almost everything in electricity and to me is indirectly the father of modern technology.

Another person I have always been very interested in, and have read a lot about. It's a shame that he died penniless in a hotel room...

 

[molested_cow]

I don't see the irony at all. I've lived through such days, with many classmates and colleagues alike. Each has their own obsession and each has their own ways to explore their obsessions. An obsession is only a motive to explore. It is no an absolute.

Here's a more specific example, and just based on my own opinion.
Frank Ghery Vs Eero Saarinen

Frank Ghery became famous because of his unique style of architecture using very organic forms with exotic materials. People are stunned by his early work, like the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain ( This particular success is very contextual, not only based on his design). Then people flocked to him to commission him to do more work. He then kept cranking out pretty much the same things, like the Walt Disney Concert Hall, Experience Music Project in Seattle, MIT student hostel and Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. He pretty much just kept exploiting the same theme over and over again and people start to get annoyed by it. It was not exploration. It was exploitation. In many instances, recorded in film, someone goes to him and ask him for his opinion on how would he design a particular building. He takes a bunch of paper, crumble them up in his hands and toss them onto the table. Then he said "that's it!" That was his "formula" to create things that he thought people liked, but what people were looking for was not just some pretty object, but thought provoking pieces.

Eero Saarinen on the other hand, is a constant break through in his short career. He's active years were only about 10 years before he died of cancer at a pretty young age. Most of his projects weren't even completed before his death. St. Louis Gateway, JF Kennedy airport TWA terminal (Catch me if you can), the Tulip Chair, GM Tech Center, HQ of IBM, CBS and John Deere to list a few. During his years, he was faced with harsh critics from fellow architects because he was breaking the trend of linear architectural styles led by Frank Lloyd Wright, and even his father Eliel Saarinen who were active during the same years. People were still soaking in the glass skinned international style architecture that dominated the skyline of metro cities. Each of his work is different, a progression of exploration if you will. You can see the exploration from the different pieces he produced, yet all based on the same theme. It was only later when people realized how significant the influence he had in shaping the future.
Now if you look at contemporary well known architects such as Hani Rashid or Zaha Hadid, I'd argue that their "futurist" style is a direct derivative of Saarinen's works, yet 50 years behind.

A quick summary of modern art and design history.

- Industrial Revolution was enabled by technology which led to the denial of the Victorian style of extravagant decorative design of utilitarian objects.
- Highly ornate in nature Arts and Crafts movement was a reaction to the absolute utilitarian style influenced by the Industrial Revolution.
- Came the Bauhaus movement that tries to take beauty to its minimalistic and most efficient forms.
- Memphis movement tries to make a statement by designing utilitarian objects(furniture specifically) in ways that serves no useful purpose, but with out of the world visual language.
And of course you have today's world of chaos which is yet to be defined, only by the term "post modernism".

Even pop art was a reaction to the status quo of what defines "art" as one-off pieces that is absolutely dedicated for a specific deliverable. Andy Warhol created repeatable pieces using non-specific visual subjects like soup cans and portraits of celebrities, although not exact copies of each other, as a way to say that art doesn't have to exist as a singular and redefined what it meant by "genuine".

All of these movements were forms of exploration and expression. They are significant not because people "liked" or "disliked" them, but because they are provocative and stimulating. They created polemic reactions and that was the reason why they received the attention they did. Then you have artists who led these movements, the pioneers in their respective obsessed explorations, who are well known for their "weird" work, not eye pleasing popular/mass produced pieces.

Abstract art was an absolute disaster as seen by people and critics back then, but Picasso's pieces fetch millions of dollars now, not because for how people now "like" it, but for its value in its influence in history and of course, how much money rich people can make off turning it around in the next auction.



So I gave your question a thought and I also gave you my answer as a bonus.... I guess.

 

[camz]

On a side note another good example is Nikola Tesla, dabbled with almost everything in electricity and to me is indirectly the father of modern technology.

Another person I have always been very interested in, and have read a lot about. It's a shame that he died penniless in a hotel room...

And wasn't given credit for alot of his inventions for that matter..

 

[altitude604]

The way I see it, being well rounded only helps you in your area of concentration. It can tak you farther, faster.

definitely true!

although i mainly specialize in one field of photography... all the experimenting with different parts of the hobby have helped me evolve and improve quickly.

now i've moved into the analog side of things and it's helping me even more as it's developing my critical thinking about exposure and metering a lot more.