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

[Overread35]

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

*tries to say this without any snarkyness at all*
I wonder if now we haven't got the heart of your viewpoint

Art is full of subjectivity - what is great to one is rubbish to another. If you fail to apply the rules and create something different of course those that dislike it will say that (a part) of the reason (might be) that the rules have not been used by way of explanation.

 

[bentcountershaft]

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.

Notes, keys, intervals and chords come from theory whether you like it or not. If you understand keys you understand one of the basic building blocks of music theory. Kind of like the rule of thirds is one of the basic building blocks of compositional theory.

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

There's a difference between thinking outside the box and not knowing the box exists.

 

[oldmacman]

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.

Interesting, Derrel. As an art teacher I am going to say I get to see what you are talking about, first hand. Even when we study, describe, illustrate and give examples, many students still have trouble applying the principles and elements of design. As a semester continues we tend to talk less about the principles and elements, but expect the students to still consider and apply them. You would be surprised how often a student loves a modification to a composition simply because they are reminded to consider a certain principle or element. They are seeing these aspects all the time, but need the experience of instruction, practice and critique to move forward. It's why I enjoy coming here: the instruction and critique side of the cycle.

I had an interesting conversation with a student last week. We were in the end stages of a portrait painting and I had made some suggestions for making the piece better. She asked, 'Why can't it be the way I like?" To be honest, she had done a very good job and I was trying to get her past playing it safe; she didn't want to "wreck" her work. I left the decision to her and after some time she made the modifications and loved the results. I was thinking afterward how interesting it is that she would not have even been at the first stage without a semester's worth of instruction, critique and practice. Yet, still, she didn't think there was more that could be learned. I often think how slow on the uptake I am. Even now, *cough* 25 *cough* years after university I get these little illuminations ... aha, that's the concept my teacher was trying to get across.

 

[Chamelion 6]

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.

Of course you can... That's how the blues was passed down. It wasn't until the 60's that most of it got cataloged and notated. You learned it by imitation. A lick here and a lick there, eventually you just put the pieces together.

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.

I will grant you that most people that pick up a camera have no clue and never will. But I will argue that those same people have no real love for the art form either. Most couldn't name you a famous artist except Ansel Adams and even then they couldn't pick out one of his photos. I'm not talking about them.

I'm talking about people that appreciate the art form. That like looking at pictures, that were attractred to it because of the images they've seen. That's a completely different crowd. People that pick up a camera and think they are gonna be great artists because it's easy aren't gonna be motivated by a bunch of theories. They're gonna get bored as soon as they discover it's not easy and move on.

I'm saying it's possible to learn to see composition without a lot of theory, but you'll never learn it unless you have a love and appreciation of the art form.

As for the technical stuff, yes, that's different, and that's where some kind of formal approach is best.

 

[oldmacman]

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

I think you are confusing realism and abstraction. Just because his famous works are abstract doesn't mean they don't show balanced, with rhythm, textures, form, line, eye flow, space, emotional colour etc...

 

[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.

Of course you can... That's how the blues was passed down. It wasn't until the 60's that most of it got cataloged and notated. You learned it by imitation. A lick here and a lick there, eventually you just put the pieces together.

Um So you're saying if I emulate and copy the great masters works only I will be a better photographer than if I aim to understand the underlying theories behind why many of their works do work and then apply those theories (as needed) to my own work.
Sorry but I don't see how that works - sure if I copy elements of their works I'm bound to end up following the "theories" partly by accident, but then I doing just the same as if I apply the theories direct to my work - ie limiting my creativity by following existing dogma (as you point out).

I however feel that its easier to deviate from the pattern if you understand the theory of the why of the pattern - rather than just try to deviate from a pattern without first understanding it

 

[Chamelion 6]

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.

Notes, keys, intervals and chords come from theory whether you like it or not. If you understand keys you understand one of the basic building blocks of music theory. Kind of like the rule of thirds is one of the basic building blocks of compositional theory.

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

There's a difference between thinking outside the box and not knowing the box exists.

My point is that with regards to theory I can learn to do it but never really learn the theory itself.

As for thinking outside the box, I'll grant you the difference, but the question remains... With regards to the finished product, what difference does it really make? I don't believe Picasso had to be trained to reject what he saw. He simply saw and said, "That sux...."

 

[Chamelion 6]

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.

Of course you can... That's how the blues was passed down. It wasn't until the 60's that most of it got cataloged and notated. You learned it by imitation. A lick here and a lick there, eventually you just put the pieces together.

Um So you're saying if I emulate and copy the great masters works only I will be a better photographer than if I aim to understand the underlying theories behind why many of their works do work and then apply those theories (as needed) to my own work.
Sorry but I don't see how that works - sure if I copy elements of their works I'm bound to end up following the "theories" partly by accident, but then I doing just the same as if I apply the theories direct to my work - ie limiting my creativity by following existing dogma (as you point out).

I however feel that its easier to deviate from the pattern if you understand the theory of the why of the pattern - rather than just try to deviate from a pattern without first understanding it

Not exactly... I'm saying that no matter how much theory you learn, if you don't listen to music, you'll never be a musician. There are plenty of people that "play by ear" with only a rudimentary understanding of theory. But unless you listen to music and have some appreciation for it all the theory in the world is meaning less.

the same is true of photography. Until you begin to train your eye to see it the theory is meaningless. Too many people pick up a camera and start shooting, then get a book on composition and start trying to dance all around the ideas in them. Yet few have spent much time looking at images. They really have no appreciation of what looks good and what doesn't. They've spent very little time stopping to look at a picture and decide why they like it. They may have seen something that caught their attention but never really LOOKED at it.

Anybody can learn composition, theory may make them better.

 

[Chamelion 6]

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

I think you are confusing realism and abstraction. Just because his famous works are abstract doesn't mean they don't show balanced, with rhythm, textures, form, line, eye flow, space, emotional colour etc...

No, I'm asking why it's assumed someone can recognize balance, rhythm, texture, form, line, eye flow, space, emotional colour etc. without being trained?

Again, this stuff isn't brain surgery. Most of the time it's just getting people to stop and see it.

 

[Overread35]

So in short you do not actually oppose the learning and teaching of the theory - just that it is not the only part of the craft that people try to learn. In short that is the same of any field that has multiple talents. It's like saying you oppose teaching of the technical basics of photography in case the photographers only learn them and refuse/ignore learning composition or any other elements.

Of course there will be those that only take their learning so far - we are under no obligation to directly learn any further than we want to - however anyone hoping for a better understanding is of course going to consider all aspects from the technical to the theoretical to the actual.

I would also argue that in learning the rules you HAVE to look at photos as well to understand fully their application. Heck compositional theory books and tutorials nearly always have many photos with them to help demonstrate.

 

[Chamelion 6]

So in short you do not actually oppose the learning and teaching of the theory - just that it is not the only part of the craft that people try to learn. In short that is the same of any field that has multiple talents. It's like saying you oppose teaching of the technical basics of photography in case the photographers only learn them and refuse/ignore learning composition or any other elements.

Of course there will be those that only take their learning so far - we are under no obligation to directly learn any further than we want to - however anyone hoping for a better understanding is of course going to consider all aspects from the technical to the theoretical to the actual.

I would also argue that in learning the rules you HAVE to look at photos as well to understand fully their application. Heck compositional theory books and tutorials nearly always have many photos with them to help demonstrate.

I'm not opposed to theory, per se... I use it often. I don't like how it's taught and how suffocating it can become to beginners. My experience is that too many people can't see beyond the theory. When I see something I really like, I pull out the rules and ask, does it conform, does it not? Often what makes an image interesting is that it deviates in some way from the "accepted," and it's that deviation that makes the statement.

I have problems with the technical stuff too when it gets tossed out with little consideration for what's in the image, but the technical stuff isn't intuitive. No matter how long you stare at an image you are not going to learn to expose one properly. But even here too many people can only see "the focus is soft" and never see that's what makes the image special.

I see the image itself as all important. Does it work or not. Everything else is secondary to that. If the image speaks then then the fact the composition is awkward, the highlights are blown, the focus is soft, and the horizon is not quite level doesn't mean squat. The inverse is true too. I don't care how technically perfect it is, boring is boring.

 

[oldmacman]

No, I'm asking why it's assumed someone can recognize balance, rhythm, texture, form, line, eye flow, space, emotional colour etc. without being trained?

Again, this stuff isn't brain surgery. Most of the time it's just getting people to stop and see it.

My experience is that people can recognize that composition A is good and composition B is poor. What they cannot do is express why or what was done to make A successful. Read some of the comments on this forum. People will write, "I don't know why, but I like it." or "I can't put my finger on it, but something is not working in that pic"

I'd say it's rare for someone to be able to work completely intuitively. After 20+ years of teaching I can say that about 25% of students pick things up pretty quickly. The rest struggle with communicating visually. They need repeated feedback and reminders. This isn't just me being picky. The students can see that a composition is not working, they just have no idea what can be done to make it successful. I have yet to have any student that comes in completely untrained that can intuitively make a good composition. Many students graduating from high school (in my experience) are still pretty green in the understanding and application of good composition. Heck, my own understanding is constantly evolving and it is because I work with and critique work almost daily, participate in forums such as TPF and read. All of them impact each other. It's not just looking.

 

[Chamelion 6]

No, I'm asking why it's assumed someone can recognize balance, rhythm, texture, form, line, eye flow, space, emotional colour etc. without being trained?

Again, this stuff isn't brain surgery. Most of the time it's just getting people to stop and see it.

My experience is that people can recognize that composition A is good and composition B is poor. What they cannot do is express why or what was done to make A successful. Read some of the comments on this forum. People will write, "I don't know why, but I like it." or "I can't put my finger on it, but something is not working in that pic"

I'd say it's rare for someone to be able to work completely intuitively. After 20+ years of teaching I can say that about 25% of students pick things up pretty quickly. The rest struggle with communicating visually. They need repeated feedback and reminders. This isn't just me being picky. The students can see that a composition is not working, they just have no idea what can be done to make it successful. I have yet to have any student that comes in completely untrained that can intuitively make a good composition. Many students graduating from high school (in my experience) are still pretty green in the understanding and application of good composition. Heck, my own understanding is constantly evolving and it is because I work with and critique work almost daily, participate in forums such as TPF and read. All of them impact each other. It's not just looking.

I guess I just believe that if people can recognize good composition they can produce it. To me, it's more a matter of awareness and tearing down the mental blocks. If you can see it on paper you can recognize it through a viewfinder.

In my early days I spent a lot of time looking at old photos, especially those in Time and Life. I spent a lot of time trying to reproduce what I saw. I learned by trial and error, but I wasn't afraid to copy what I admired and set what I did next to it. By doing that I learnd to expose and compose to get exactly what I wanted. I taught myself to not just look at the center of the viewfinder but to be aware of the edges too.

I pretty much compose on the fly now, I don't think about it too much and have a pretty good idea of what I want and how to get it as I approach something. I also taught myself to see through the clutter and pick out what attracts me to something. I don't think I'm special, I learned how to do it and I truely believe anybody can do it. I had several awards before I entered college and it wasn't until then I was confronted by all the "rules" and discovered I was already doing most of them.

For what it's worth, I was always attracted to some of the odd images in the magazines. The ones that were often underexposed, overly contrasty and soft focused. That, in my mind, became a style, though I'm sure the original image was the way it was because of limitations of the film and equipment of the day. But to me they were dramatic, moody, and enigmatic. I still shoot a lot of stuff that way. I love it, but it'd get torn to pieces here.

 

[Overread35]

I love it, but it'd get torn to pieces here.

We'll you'll never know for sure unless you post some and find out :mrgreen:

 

[pgriz]

Chamelion, there are many learning styles. You appear to the the experiental kind (let me do it and I'll figure out the rules as I go). I think I'm pretty similar to you in the way I learn. It's great - you can really get deep into something and others say - "Wow, how did he do that?". But that style of learning (and I am speaking of myself now), leaves lots of holes all over the place - the old "you don't know what you don't know" problem. So, at least in my case, I go to the books and read them cover to cover. Lots of times, it's "oh yeah, I know that." But then there are moments of discovery "oh, so that's why that trick works", where I find out that there is an underlying structure that I just didn't have a clue about.

Coming back to the learning styles. My wife is a visual learner. She has to see it done. Once she sees two or three variations of a basic technique, she initially copies it, then assimilates it and improves on it. However, trying to learn this way bores me to distraction, so we don't often take the same courses.

There are other learning styles. Trying to get another person to learn the way I do is useless unless they have a learning style close to mine. So as a "teacher", one of my tasks is to figure out how my "student" absorbs information, and then organize my transfer of information in the way they are best equipped to absorb it. By the way, teacher and student are in quotation marks because I'm not an official teacher - but I often have to teach my employees, or my clients, and I've had years of frustration until I figured out that different people learn in different ways.