Technical...artistic...of both, which are you?

[Overread35]

That's why I keep harping on learning to see art and composition. Learning to write involves learning to read... Learning to play music involves learning to listen to it... Simply learn to appreciate photography without having to break it down and your artistic side will start to bubble up. I promise...

Appreciation of something is not the same as learning to understand that appreciation. I can appreciate good music, but I don't always understand what it is that I am directly appreciating within that music as compared to poorer quality music. This means that whilst I can prefer a great artist over a poorer one I cannot put into thought all the nessessary reasons for this.

That is where one has to learn to understand what one is seeing/hearing - and a great part of that is understanding the "rules". Understanding where they are applied and how - and then also understanding where they are broken and why a "broken" rule in a certain situation works rather than following the rule.


You argue that the use of rules and rules alone is bad - and yes that is true. But you also preach that one should never learn of the rules and that only enjoyment of the viewing of photography is needed. That is equally a poor view - the truth is that is needs both aspects in order to give the (in this case) photographer the proper learning.
Now I'm in agreement that a mentor or teacher can teach a student to "see" the rules in photography without putting those words into direct wording - to guide rather than direct. However that is not a medium that someone learning alone can adopt - and outside of a strict mentorship relationship through the net, its also something that a forum cannot provide. Thus they have to learn themselves the rules - learn when and where they are applied and also trust that their own creativity and research will show then where not to use them.

 

[bentcountershaft]

Bent, I don't call them rules. I call them theories, and that is an important distinction.

I agree although I refer to them as guidelines myself. I'm certain we're on the same page though. I was just lazy and said rules. Don't beat me, I've heard you're a bully.

 

[Overread35]

Bent, I don't call them rules. I call them theories, and that is an important distinction.

I agree although I refer to them as guidelines myself. I'm certain we're on the same page though.

Similar camp here - though for me its more a case that I just call them by their name for simplicities sake and the fact that they are well known by those names. I honestly think that the "worry" some have that people see the "rules" as "THE RULES" is often overrated by the fact that many newer photographers will often say "this shot doesn't conform to the rules" over photos when giving their opinion. Photographic maturity takes a little time for some

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

:lmao:

Yup. We're on the same page.

 

[Chamelion 6]

The theories of composition are a foundation to be built upon by the individual. The talented individual can learn them in the beginning and build upon them. The less talented will never move beyond them.

You can give a person the tools needed to succeed, or you can let them figure it out for themselves. Which way will take far longer?

In the future, every time you tell some one to put the books away, I will simply respond with "that is the slowest way to learn, speed up the process by reading the books."

It's not letting them figure it out for themselves. It's empowering them to see for themselves, and to judge for themselves. When you simply hammer on rules you leave the impression that somehow they are a magical elixer to compositional nirvana. We differ in that I don't believe they are all they are made out to be.

When a beginner says, "I like this," and get's hammered by a bunch of rules they begin to think they failed somehow. And far too often that happens without any discussion about what the beginner was trying to say or why they made the choices they made, so they start simply following the rules and trying to cookie cutter their images. When they later get asked why they made a decision the answer is simply an explanation of some rule and not an explanation of what the imagry is about.

That is just simply backwards. Too many people spend far too much time worring about rules and far too little time worring about the image itself. Too many people begin to feel they have no talent simply because what they see doesn't fit neatly into the standard. It's like beating up a kid for coloring his trees purple. Is it wrong or does he see something you missed?

Picasso became a genious by turning the rules upside down. So much for art school...

 

[bentcountershaft]

Picasso became a genious by turning the rules upside down. So much for art school...

Picasso knew every rule he broke though. He was classically trained.

 

[Chamelion 6]

That's why I keep harping on learning to see art and composition. Learning to write involves learning to read... Learning to play music involves learning to listen to it... Simply learn to appreciate photography without having to break it down and your artistic side will start to bubble up. I promise...

Appreciation of something is not the same as learning to understand that appreciation. I can appreciate good music, but I don't always understand what it is that I am directly appreciating within that music as compared to poorer quality music. This means that whilst I can prefer a great artist over a poorer one I cannot put into thought all the nessessary reasons for this.

That is where one has to learn to understand what one is seeing/hearing - and a great part of that is understanding the "rules". Understanding where they are applied and how - and then also understanding where they are broken and why a "broken" rule in a certain situation works rather than following the rule.


You argue that the use of rules and rules alone is bad - and yes that is true. But you also preach that one should never learn of the rules and that only enjoyment of the viewing of photography is needed. That is equally a poor view - the truth is that is needs both aspects in order to give the (in this case) photographer the proper learning.
Now I'm in agreement that a mentor or teacher can teach a student to "see" the rules in photography without putting those words into direct wording - to guide rather than direct. However that is not a medium that someone learning alone can adopt - and outside of a strict mentorship relationship through the net, its also something that a forum cannot provide. Thus they have to learn themselves the rules - learn when and where they are applied and also trust that their own creativity and research will show then where not to use them.

Because you are not a musician, does that invalidate your opinion of what you listen to?

No...

Can you be a great musician without ever learning theory? Absolutely. Stevie Ray Vaughn and Jimmy Page never learned "theory" and neither learned to read music. Both learned by listening. Whether you like either or not, they turned music upside down and brought something new to the table.

I'm not so much against the rules, or theories, if you prefer, as I am the cookie cutter manner they get preached. Too many people get tangled up in them and never get free.

"Why did you put that tree there?"
"Cause I like the way it looks there..."
"It belongs over here in this imaginary line."
"But that's kinda boring..."
"Don't be an idiot, it belongs on the line." :blushing:

 

[Derrel]

The theories of composition are a foundation to be built upon by the individual. The talented individual can learn them in the beginning and build upon them. The less talented will never move beyond them.

You can give a person the tools needed to succeed, or you can let them figure it out for themselves. Which way will take far longer?

In the future, every time you tell some one to put the books away, I will simply respond with "that is the slowest way to learn, speed up the process by reading the books."



To "color outside the lines" you must first know the lines exist.

Wow...there's one person in this *cough,cough* discussion, who's making some sense. Bitter Jeweler.

Just "looking at pictures" will not teach one the elements and principles of design. One could go to every museum in American and not learn the elements and principles of design. A one-term, college-level course in art history would be a faster path to learning about composition than five years spent looking at pictures. Especially the crap that is being churned out these days and posted by unstudied, talentless hacks on Flickr and Photobucket.

Good Lord...learning about composition and design, well, it's like humankind's understanding of the universe prior to the telescope...we were pretty sure the Earth was flat, and if one went to far out in to the oceans, There Be Dragons Here...

Speaking of giving people the tools to understand things via education as opposed to people learning through the process of osmosis, let's look at a shocking example of how incredibly inefficient untutored, unguided observation is as far as learning about art: It took HUNDREDS of YEARS (millenia, actually) for 'artists' of all abilities to learn how to draw three-dimensional shapes without resorting to a black OUTLINE around all the objects! Europe's finest painters and artists were stuck,hopelessly, with black-outline drawing, for centuries, until art education was invented. Seriously. No exaggeration; the world's foremost, best painters did not even have a clue as to how to paint without using a black border around figures! They also had no clue as to how to draw a vanishing point. So...if one things one will learn composition by just "looking", well, one is desperately wrong. You'll be dead before you learn as much as a second-year art student.

 

[Chamelion 6]

Picasso became a genious by turning the rules upside down. So much for art school...

Picasso knew every rule he broke though. He was classically trained.

So if he didn't know he was breaking the rules and produced the same exact artwork, would would it be diminished in some way?

He didn't just break them, he rebelled against them and the mindset that created them. His genious was a total disregard for the status quo.

 

[bentcountershaft]

Can you be a great musician without ever learning theory? Absolutely. Stevie Ray Vaughn and Jimmy Page never learned "theory" and neither learned to read music. Both learned by listening. Whether you like either or not, they turned music upside down and brought something new to the table.

Reading music and learning theory are two entirely different things. If you think Stevie Ray Vaughn did not know what an E minor triad was or that Jimmy Page doesn't know what a C# Minor 7 flat five arpeggio is you are fooling yourself.

 

[bentcountershaft]

He didn't just break them, he rebelled against them and the mindset that created them. His genious was a total disregard for the status quo.

That's the point. He had to know them to rebel against them.

 

[Derrel]

Grandma Moses began painting in her seventies, and she did not even understand basic perspective....she became a famous "artist" (for a short while) in the so-called primitive style; there's no way in Hades an untrained painter like her, could have had the widespread, terrific influence that Picasso had, over many decades and across the world. Why? She had no training. She lacked the "chops" that come with being classically trained. Picasso was a profound force because he knew the basics, the intermediate, and the advanced techniques, theories, and methods of his chosen profession. Grandma Moses was the equivalent of a MWAC. Today, we see people who call themselves photographers, and yet they do not even know the first THING about 90% of the technical fundamentals that underly the art and craft of photography. Horrible exposures, laughable compositional non-decisions (just shoot *everything* horizontal!), horrible lighting use, etc,etc.

Like Picasso, the photographers who have really made their mark have had high levels of technical proficiency; there's a baseline level of competency and technical solidity that is required before one can actually advance the art, or advance one's self as an artist. The people who cannot even figure out the relationship between aperture and depth of field are not going to be impressing anybody for years to come, if ever.

Again, look into Grandma Moses and her influence, and then look into Pablo Picasso,and his influence.

 

[Chamelion 6]

The theories of composition are a foundation to be built upon by the individual. The talented individual can learn them in the beginning and build upon them. The less talented will never move beyond them.

You can give a person the tools needed to succeed, or you can let them figure it out for themselves. Which way will take far longer?

In the future, every time you tell some one to put the books away, I will simply respond with "that is the slowest way to learn, speed up the process by reading the books."



To "color outside the lines" you must first know the lines exist.

Wow...there's one person in this *cough,cough* discussion, who's making some sense. Bitter Jeweler.

Just "looking at pictures" will not teach one the elements and principles of design. One could go to every museum in American and not learn the elements and principles of design. A one-term, college-level course in art history would be a faster path to learning about composition than five years spent looking at pictures. Especially the crap that is being churned out these days and posted by unstudied, talentless hacks on Flickr and Photobucket.

Good Lord...learning about composition and design, well, it's like humankind's understanding of the universe prior to the telescope...we were pretty sure the Earth was flat, and if one went to far out in to the oceans, There Be Dragons Here...

Speaking of giving people the tools to understand things via education as opposed to people learning through the process of osmosis, let's look at a shocking example of how incredibly inefficient untutored, unguided observation is as far as learning about art: It took HUNDREDS of YEARS (millenia, actually) for 'artists' of all abilities to learn how to draw three-dimensional shapes without resorting to a black OUTLINE around all the objects! Europe's finest painters and artists were stuck,hopelessly, with black-outline drawing, for centuries, until art education was invented. Seriously. No exaggeration; the world's foremost, best painters did not even have a clue as to how to paint without using a black border around figures! They also had no clue as to how to draw a vanishing point. So...if one things one will learn composition by just "looking", well, one is desperately wrong. You'll be dead before you learn as much as a second-year art student.

Dude... This isn't brain surgery. It's making pictures. So if you needed school to learn how do draw a vanishing point, who taught the teacher? My kids seemed to do pretty well without much formal education on the topic. Ummm... and I never used a black ouitline to paint. So I guess I got it right. Is using a black outline wrong?

How hard do you guys really think this stuff is????? You don't need to go to school to learn this stuff. Most of it is intuitive, the rules are based on what looks appealing!!! People need thousands of years of osmosis to figure out what they like to look at?

Beginners make composition mistakes because they arent thinking about the composition, they're distracted by rules, knobs, buttons, theories, focusing, little blinking lights and the sinking feeling they're not doing it right. Get them focused on the composition as a whole and it usually comes pretty naturally.

After all, that's what the rules say, isn't it?

 

[Overread35]

Because you are not a musician, does that invalidate your opinion of what you listen to?

I never said that at all - What I said was that if you don't understand the theories underlying why the music is great then you can't hope to emulate it - nor adapt those underlying principles to your own end. Copying/mixing them or even (as Picasso did) rebelling against them.

 

[Chamelion 6]

Can you be a great musician without ever learning theory? Absolutely. Stevie Ray Vaughn and Jimmy Page never learned "theory" and neither learned to read music. Both learned by listening. Whether you like either or not, they turned music upside down and brought something new to the table.

Reading music and learning theory are two entirely different things. If you think Stevie Ray Vaughn did not know what an E minor triad was or that Jimmy Page doesn't know what a C# Minor 7 flat five arpeggio is you are fooling yourself.

Really? They understood keys and relationships. That's how I learned to play. Like them and most blues players that learn by ear, I can show you how to do it but have no clue what it is.

He didn't just break them, he rebelled against them and the mindset that created them. His genious was a total disregard for the status quo.

That's the point. He had to know them to rebel against them.

Why? My kids broke most of the same rules and and their teacher failed to see the genious.