Mastery of the Medium?

[Kirk Gittings]

Is mastery of the medium based on your command of the technical aspects of photography or on the results i.e. the success of your prints.

I was going to contribute this to Steve's thread on rocket science, but that thread is getting repetitive as they usually do after 80 posts or so. I will put my ideas on this down this evening when I get back from Santa fe.

[Paul Butzi]

Well, that's sort of begging the question, isn't it?

Is becoming a modern, world class runner in 2005 a matter of an understanding of nutrition, aerobic conditioning, strength training, bio-mechanics, a genetic predisposition to the right body composition and muscle type, or is it a matter of going faster than all the other runners?

Is being a master gardener based on comprehensive knowledge of plants and extensive experience in plant cultivation, or on what your garden looks like?

It's just the wrong way to ask the question - you're asking people to choose between something that is neither neccessary nor sufficient to master a medium, and actual results. In the end, it's always about results, and you're assuming that this says something meaningful about technical mastery when it doesn't say much at all.

A much better question is this: if you're a photographer who lacks command of the technical aspects of photography and you're dissatisfied with your results, is it likely that improving your command of the technical aspects of photography will improve your results?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Is mastery of the medium based on your command of the technical aspects of photography or on the results i.e. the success of your prints.

The success of my prints depends on the success of obtaining a good negative, this in turn depends on my understanding of my materials. I can have the greatest artistic vision, but if I dont know how to "put" what I see in a negative so that I can print it properly, this vision is for nothing.

Yes, you can rely on experience and having shot 10000 negatives to get good results. I rather expose 5 step wedges and see how my printing process responds to them to get the same information I would get if I had relied on the experience of 20 years.

Since Weston is always put as an example, lets remember he shot a lot of his work locally. I can go anywhere within 5 hours of where I live and guess the exposure very accurately since the light is always similar, just by virtue of having done it so many times, but given a choice I rather get consistent results and have full certainty that all the information I need to make a good print is in the negative.

Bottom line I rather work with the negative than fight it.... ;-)

[Ken Lee]

"...technical aspects of photography OR on the results..."



Try AND instead.

[Pat Kearns]

Kirk, this thread should evoke some interesting comments and I look forward to reading them. This may be the proverbial, which came first, the chicken or the egg. That said here I go. I believe the mastery of the medium is based upon the success of your prints. Whether that be monetary or just aesthic value is up to the individual. BUT, one must have some degree of mastery of the technical aspect of photography. Those aspects may be camera movements, shutter speeds, aperture, DOF control, film usage, or just how to see and use light. You can give someone with those abilities a $5 throw away plastic camera and they will produce excellent photographs. Whereas, a person without those abilities can be given a camera that will do everything but make coffee and they will produce poor at best photographs. Also, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and there is a lot of art (photography or other medium) in the market that I enjoy and some I wouldn't give 10 cents for. Just my 2 cents.

[paulr]

I think you need to settle some semantics first. For you does "mastering the medium" include mastering the art form (and all the expressive, personal, cultural, and historical things this might imply) or is it just one part of this--mastering the tools?

[Bruce Watson]

Most of us, I think, develop our craft and our vision more or less at the same time. The thing is, the learning curves aren't equal. Most of us eventually become competent at the craft, and use the craft to support our vision. I for one feel that the learning curve for my vision is going to be never ending. That's part of what I like about photography. And I define "the success of your prints" to mean prints that largely match the artist's vision.

IOW, those who have mastered the craft have the best chance of making prints that fully match their artistic vision.

[Joseph O'Neil]

Both at the same time. I cannot see how you can do one without the other.

I think this is true for any and all art forms. Wood carving, oil painting, quilting, maybe even music too when you think of it.

The real question begs though - what is "success"? After over 20 years in B&W photography, I only feel in the past few years that I have gotten to a point that i am semi-happy with my prints & negatives. Still, Iknow that the prints I personally feel good about are never going to make the pages of a major magazine, or win any camera club competition, or hang in any art gallery. You "market" to yourself or you market to the masses, and I don't think the two come close very often.

joe

[Daniel Grenier]

"Is mastery of the medium based on your command of the technical aspects of photography or on the results i.e. the success of your prints."

It is not uncommon to have total command of technique and yet have no "success" with prints but I don't think the opposite is possible.

[Ralph Barker]

To the question, as asked, I'd respond with a simple, "Yes." ;-)

Similar to what has already been expressed, I'm of the opinion that there is a balance between the technical and the artistic aspects of photography. Few people have equally-developed skills in both areas. Success, however, adds a third complication - a mix of business acumen and marketing devotion. There are many folks here who produce work that succeeds in both the technical sense and the artistic, but who choose not to expend the time or effort at marketing their work.

In the broader (i.e. non-LF-specific) arena, there are lots of folks who produce technically excellent work, and others who produce work that is very moving from an artistic perspective, but poor, technically. My guess is that the majority of folks here lean toward the technical side, and find the artistic aspect of perfecting their "vision" more of a challenge. That, I think, is just the nature of LF. Most of us are attracted to it by the ability to control more of the technical aspects of the images we produce. Giving "soul" to the images we produce usually comes later. In contrast, many people who concentrate on artistic expression and the social documentary aspects of photography are often satisfied with the technical capabilities of smaller formats.

Where to strike a balance is a matter of personal choice, I think, mixed, perhaps, with sprinkles of "gift" and luck.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

This is a good one.

I feel my images are based on my vision, but it takes command of the materials to realize the vision.

I am NOT a technical master, but I know the materials I use and can get them to do what I want in order to realize the image on paper as I intended when I made the negative. What is important is that I am confident in my abilites as a photographer to make the image, and as a printer to realize the image. Confidence comes from understanding the materials I choose to use and lots of practice using them. I am not interested in testing 20 different film and developer combinations, knowing detailed lens designs or having 10 different papers in my darkroom. I am only interested in knowing MY materials well enough that I can forget about them and concentrate making the image.

So my command of the technical aspects of photography is really my command of the particular tools I decide to use in the process, but success as I define it is when the image on paper meets or exceeds the image I had in my head when I made it.

Thanks for the post.

www.ericbiggerstaff.com

[Jonathan Brewer]

Take music, there's the classical composer who took 8 years to compose a master piece, there's Duke Ellington who'd sit in a restaurant, get struck by 'lightning' and who'd immediately sketch out that inspiration on a napkin, there's the entirely different universes transmitted to us by 'Bird', John Coltran, and Mile Davis, ..........all of these folks did great work much of which was done a different way.

Despite what they should/shouldn't know, or whatever the conventions were, they simply rose above it all, and did it. Know who Billy Strayhorn was? When you say Duke Ellington, then you must also talk about his lifelong collaborator Billy Strayhorn, they paired up and added strength to strength, burying their indvidual egos to make their work together even better.

There's plenty of master photographers who had a brilliant vision who couldn't/wouldn't print their own work, they shot what they shot, and had it printed by a friend/collaborator, or they took it to a lab, that doesn't make the work any less, even though many folks say that's not how you make a photograph, EVERY artist has strengths and weaknesses, and with regards to what you don't/can't do well, you have a choice of what to do about it.

Ansel Adams for all his technical expertise, didn't do portraits very well, Weston could and did, because when it came to portraiture, he could see in a way Adams couldn't, I admire Adams anyway for sticking to what he could do well, so most folks can'd do it all, there's nothing wrong with a master photographer who can't print, collaborating with a master printer, or a lab.

Much of what makes a good picture a good picture doens't involve anything technical, framing/composition isn't a science, deciding when the light is right isn't a science(and the zone system isn't everything there is to lighting), nor is DECIDING what you're going to shoot, they're all intangibles, but the bottom line is some folks trying to insist that the 'tail wags the dog', you see something, and your ability to pick out something that would make an interesting photograph is either brilliant or mediocre or clueless, you determine an exposure which might turn out to be perfect BECAUSE you worked it out scientifically, OR you bracketed exposures, and one of negatives comes out right, and you compose the shot in an interesting or uninteresting way, now at this point, if you've got a 'killer', the printing part of it, either makes no difference to the end result, improves the clarity of what you saw, or detracts from your vision, but it comes LAST not FIRST. It a process down the line which is either done well by you, or badly, or sent by you to the lab.

The technique of taking an interesting shot doesn't come from technique, it's inspirational, and I think the whole point of all this is what serves the other, technique clarifies and serves inspiration/creativity and not the other way around, they don't equal each other, one helps the other, and with a nice image you see something else rather than the technique which presents the work.

[John_4185]

Strayhorn?

Tell me if this link works: rtsp://199.17.166.22/music/pc06/ummg-71228.rm
(can't wrap it in a url tag.)

(It won't work for long. It just happens that I'm setting up the routing params for a REAL streaming server.)

[Jonathan Brewer]

Yes Billy Strayhorn,................................Duke Ellington was/is a composer for the ages, many folks don't know that he collaborated with his equally brilliant collaborator and friend Billy Strayhorn who composed 'Take the A train', Duke Ellington composed and played it, but got ideas/and compositions/ideas/inspirations and drew creative sustenance from Billy Strayhorn, and as with any great art, it didn't matter who did what, or who got the credit.

Make no mistake about it, Duke Ellington was the driving force behind his music, but he owed a lot to Billy Strayhorn and was proud of that fact.

[robc]

Nope it doesn't work. The player loads but the rm doesn't stream/download.

[John_4185]

Rob: Try this first r1.winona.edu:8080/music/pc08/joehendersonlushlife.HTML (http://r1.winona.edu:8080/music/pc08/joehendersonlushlife.HTML)

I think the net guy is messing with the router.

[Jonathan Brewer]

Now that's a link,..................................Master Sax player Joe Henderson and 'Lush life-the music of Billy Strayhorn', a fabulous cd.

[John_4185]

Glad you could get a peek at it, Jonathan.
I have to turn on the access rules now, so it won't be available in a few minutes.

(I developed the library online music facility as part of my day job years ago and just updated the server software. Router rules going into effect in a minute.)

[jonathan smith]

I've seen some terrible photos on walls in restaurants and stuff but they were up there whereas mine are still in a box, or on my own walls. A significant portion of "success" is marketing, getting it out there, and waiting until every little thing is mastered just means you will never do it.

There are some terrible bands which are famous, and some great musicians who never leave their garages. Some music acts started marketing themselves before they could even play a song all the way through. I think you have to do something like that to get successful, even if you haven't mastered everything yet.

Some of the most famous photographs were shot by nobodies. Who, outside of this forum, really knows who Ansel Adams was? Or could identify any of his photos? But everyone has seen that photo of the kitten hanging on to a stick, with the caption "Hang on, Friday's Coming".

Of course, if your definition of success is making a perfect photograph every time, the mastery is the success, not so much the individual images.

[John Flavell]

I've always had the "feeling" the technical side and the creative side run together, like two roads that can run side-by-side, then cross over on each other depending on where you are with your career.

I know that when newspapers went to digital cameras, many photographers felt they had to learn to shoot that medium awhile before "mastering" it. After some time, the creativity picked back up. Several photographers made the comment that they were happy to still have their vision after learning digital. Most of the those were older and wiser, so I'm guessing experience is a heavy factor.

In the film days, we told photojournalism students they had to shoot thousands of rolls of film before they 'get it'. The idea, still today, is to learn what that "thing in your hand" will really do TO and WITH your vision.

[Eric Leppanen]

Back in my baseball playing days, a common cliche used to be that pitching was "95% mental." However, it only got that way when you developed the basic physical prerequisites for throwing the ball properly; until you developed command of your pitches (throw the ball where and how you wanted) the mental side really didn't amount to much. No use in setting up the hitter to be surprised by an inside fastball if you can't execute that pitch on command.

In this era of wide exposure latitude films, super-electronic exposure gadgets, Photoshop, and other gizmo's the technical side of photography is increasing forgiving (even with LF). Yes, it takes a lot of hard work but most of us will get there if we apply ourselves. The great differentiator is vision: are we truly able to see the intriguing things in life that resonate with others when captured in a print? That "vision thing" is a constant learning curve throughout a lifetime, and I don't think anyone completely masters it. We evolve and grow over time.

Mastery of technical fundamentals is a helpful precondition for success, but does not constitute success. It is the end result that counts.

[William Mortensen]

(conversation from a typical gallery reception)

Critic: "You're prints look like crap."

Artist: "At last! Someone who comprehends the my captured essence of 'crap' as the metaphor for everyman's existence in the apocryphal neo-Wittgensteinian diatribe we call Post-Modern Art..."

[Robert A. Zeichner]

Success in many endeavors happens when preparedness meets opportunity. I have often looked at many potentially wonderful photographs I made while in college and wondered how much better they would have been if my photographic education encompassed more of the technical issues. Some take the position that piling on lots of technique can stifle creativity. I beleive that to be able to fully explore the creative possibilities, you need to be so comfortable with the mechanics of your craft that you don't even have to think much about it at all. It should be intuitive. In our painting classes, we learned about various mediums, brush strokes, glazing, ground preperation, etc. In color theory we did all kinds of exercises to learn about the human response to color stimuli as well as how to mix pigments in ways to precisely control value and saturation. All of this, pretty nuts and bolts stuff. But, the photography course was pretty deficient in the area of how to properly expose and process a negative, fitting the negative to the proper contrast grade of paper, etc. It was more of "here's the camera, here's how to load it, here's a light meter and this is how you set the....." well you get my drift. I could have gotten all of that from the instruction manual. Any good photographs that resulted were in large part an accident. I eventually learned much of what I needed on my own and through workshops and from other professionals, but I always wonder what if I had gotten some of this early on.

[Graham Patterson]

So, you thow all your skills, technical and artistic into a picture. The result is the quintissential rendition of how you saw the subject. It's the veritable bee's knees. You love it.

You show it to someone else. They love it. So much so that they demand to give you a piece of paper with large numbers on it in exchange. Then they proceed to explain what it is that attracts them, and you realise that they must be looking at a different picture...

"Success' definitely needs to be defined. If you are disciplined enough you can throw away technique, but you can't add it unless you already have it. My uncle told me that he could teach almost anyone to paint, but he couldn't teach anyone to see. If I can see something, I need enough technique to record it as I want to, nothing more. In fact knowing how much of the technical arsenal is necessary makes a big difference.

[Steven Barall]

someone said... "I can have the greatest artistic vision, but if I dont know how to "put" what I see in a negative so that I can print it properly, this vision is for nothing."

This is nonsense. Artistic vision is NEVER for nothing. Artistic vision is the thing you can't really learn from a book. It's the real result of the process of photography. The tech stuff can always be learned and even better, you can just hire someone to do that stuff for you.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

This is nonsense. Artistic vision is NEVER for nothing.

Oh really! well tell me then, if you have a great vision for a sculpture but dont know what end of the hammer to use, how do you propose you are going to do it?

You might not be able to learn artisitic vision, but you sure as hell can develop it. If you dont have the tools to do it, you are just spinning your wheels. But apparently this is too sophisticated a concept for you......

[Kirk Gittings]

My thoughts that generated this thread.

I have known photographers who's whole being was wrapped up in the production of a technically perfect negative. Aesthetics were not even a fleeting concern. Some of this guys prints were breathtaking from a purely technical point of view, but real sleepers aesthetically. I learned allot from this guy. Few people around here would even remember him because his work was not well known in the photo community. He worked in the trucking industry for his whole life.

I have known major photographic artists ( I should really stay away from names here) that at the peak of their international fame could not figure out how to make a proper exposure (I know because I lent him my assistant to help him with one of his most famous bodies of work, before that he relied on students I think), and he did not do his own printing. His work is in major collections all over the world and everyone (at least in academia) knows who he is.

These are the two extremes of my personal experience. In neither case would I call either of these people masters of the medium, because the word master to me implies a broader balance of technique and aesthetic mastery.

A friend of mine the other day remarked that he had finally "mastered" the Zone System. I looked at his prints and it was clear to me that his mastery was very one sided. He asked me what I thought and I said now show me what you can do with it.

I think that technique should liberate vision and not become an end in itself.

[Jonathan Brewer]

'I have known major photographic artists ( I should really stay away from names here) that at the peak of their international fame could not figure out how to make a proper exposure (I know because I lent him my assistant to help him with one of his most famous bodies of work, before that he relied on students I think), and he did not do his own printing. His work is in major collections all over the world and everyone (at least in academia) knows who he is.'...............................if he didn't do his own printing, did he posture as if he did, I haven't done my own printing for years and I could care less about who knows about it, I'll do contact prints with POP nowadays and that's it, and yes one can respect you not wanting to be one to divulge what happens to be the truth, but will it make any difference?

I'll ask you a question though, despite not knowing how to use a light meter, and not doing his own prints, does his work still count?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I think that technique should liberate vision and not become an end in itself.

I thought this was the goal of technique. Who wants to make perfectly printed with a zillion gray tones boring pictures?!? But you have to be able to know how to make the boring pictures with a zillion gray tones to able to move beyond them.....no?

The approach one takes to master the "craft" side is immaterial, but undoubtedly there are easier and more accurate ways than others. I hope this is not your case Kirk, but suggesting to students they need to learn just enough about something so they can get by or fix later just because different ways of control require a little more thinking and effort is a disservice and bad teaching. The idea of an education is to teach people how to think for themselves and innovate, not to repeat the same old and tired techniques, many times flawed, just because they are easier and worked 25 years ago.

[John_4185]

Oh really! well tell me then, if you have a great vision for a sculpture but dont know what end of the hammer to use, how do you propose you are going to do it?

O u t s o u r c e

[darr]

Kirk: These are the two extremes of my personal experience. In neither case would I call either of these people masters of the medium, because the word master to me implies a broader balance of technique and aesthetic mastery. ... and the answer to "would I call either of these people masters of the medium" is ... I love to hear your answer.

My two cents on Mastery of the Medium?: I have always used the technique of seeing first then shooting. I guess I mastered my artistic expression early on, but when the idea of producing art on a consistent and commercial basis was my idea of a career, I looked for guidance and did find a teacher that helped. The technical stuff I never had a problem with (college math major), I just found it took up a lot of my time. From my commercial (paid to produce) and fine art (personal work) production experiences, I see what I want to make first and then I set up the gear necessary and shoot. I love my technical gear because they are the tools to my expression, but I may also sketch out a comp or two prior to commercial shooting as well.

I spend a good deal of time "looking" through life. I can never have enough books (Kirk's book showed up recently) that keep my artistic tentacles stimulated. The two aspects that go hand in hand for me in photography is vision + technique. As others have stated before me, you can have all the wonderful visions for a piece of work, but without the ability to produce the final result, one would simply have a passing thought. Photography has always been for me the marriage of art and science. I have always felt it would take my lifetime of successful participation in it before I could actually say I mastered it.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

sigh.....I was sure someone would post the obvious smart ass answer to "outsource"..... Hard to outsource something you cannot explain.....no?

[Aaron van de Sande]

Was Mapplethorpe a master or accidental?

[William Mortensen]

My own ignorant take on Mapplethorpe was that he had a mastery that may have been limited to the studio. Similarly, Weston and Adams each had a mastery, but whether they could have easily extended it into, say, a commercial studio, shooting medium format color with mono-lights, soft boxes, outsourced processing, etc., I couldn't speculate. Much mastery may be limited to a niche.

I think for some approaches, true "mastery" is not so necessary as a good command. Weegee and W. Gene Smith, for example, had complete command of their technique, and produced (as far as I could say) exactly the prints they wanted, achieving exactly the effect intended. I don't know that I would call either a "master" of technique or technology, though. And a truly "fine" zone-system-style would not suit their work.

Side note: Todd Walker once told me that Weegee smoked a cigar in the darkroom while printing, and used the developing tray as an ashtray just because "he was a slob..." Word of his habits got out, and for years afterwards, New York "fine art" street photographers were collecting cigar ashes to put in their developer so they could get that special "Weegee-look" to their prints...

[Kirk Gittings]

Darr, You missed the first part of the sentence. I said "In neither case would I call either of these people masters of the medium."

Jorge, The most you could ever do in one semester (which is the most that I ever teach per year) is give a basic understanding and try and turn students on to learn more on their own. As to the quality of my teaching, here is an excerpt from an ad that the School of the Art institute of Chicago (the top ranked graduate photo program in the country) runs:

"In addition to our regular and part-time faculty, the department invites talented national and internationally recognized artists to participate in the program. This allows the department to offer more diverse courses for students. Visiting artists in recent years have included Dan Burkholder, Dan Estabrook, Kirk Gittings, Peggy Jones, Aida Laleian, Pradip Malde, Eric Renner, Nancy Spencer, Roger Vail, Sarah Van Keuren, and Jon Winet." I have been invited back 5 times.

[Jonathan Brewer]

Let's take the gentleman who been extremely successfuly getting his work published but doesn't know how to use a light meter, and outsources his printing, .................throw out the light meter issue, particularly since it's kinda strange to me that somebody who's getting that kind of 'play' isn't going to 'hit up somebody somewhere', a friend, a colleage, to at least get him proficient in the rudiments of using one. So he can at least say he knows how to use one/hold one up while he's shooting, go ahead and thow this out.

This gentleman has at least something in his images that quite a few folks find so interesting that they're will to pay some serious money for, forget the issue of 'Monk in Tibet purity for arts sake', if his work isn't as good with him doing his own prints, isn't it crazy NOT TO take an excellent image to a master printer if he can make your work look better than you can, if you're a great image taker, AND a master printer, so much the better, but if your not, is there some commandment somewhere that says CAN'T have someone better at it, take a 'shot' at it.

The end result is that his work has been extensively published, should he have traveled a different road, I don't understand not taking the time to learn how to use a light meter, to me that's crazy, the one thing you should work at until you get some kind of working grasp of its function would be understanding a light meter, even if it's only barely being able to use it, but if shooting what he shot and sending out the work to another printer gets him the results he got, then he was at least good enough doing part of all this and LUCKY enough to be acknowledged artist, whether we consider him a master or not.

Paul Schiliger and Domenico Foschi on this forum, are as good as anybody who's ever shot what they shoot, hopefully someday they'll get what they deserve, maybe they won't, that unfortunately is life and art, that the biggest and the fastest don't always win the race, of course what may give some solace is that whoever did win the race at least on some level deserve it, and I'm very curious what your answer would be Kirk, does the guy you mention, deserve on at least some level, the attention he got?

[Jonathan Brewer]

You take a dynamite shot, you print it yourself, it turns out good, you take the negative to an acknowledged master printer, he makes a better print, and people pay you money for the shot which ends up in several private collections. At that point if it's me, I make that guy my printer, instead of doing my own printing,............................................... it would be crazy to penalize what I can do well, by working on it later and doing something that messes it up.

[Kirk Gittings]

He is a visionary artist of great creativity. I would call him an "important academic artist", but certainly not a master of photograhy. he has almost completely ignored technical aspects and relied on other people to do all of that for him. He doesn't lie about it. he says openly that he is "not very technical".

[Jonathan Brewer]

Forgive me, I wasn't suggesting he was lying, not knowing who he is, I could only go on what you've presented here, and the post before your last one doesn't mention whether he's open about it or not.

My hat's off to him, you might want to add that he also has the 'brains' and 'artistic' savvy to do what he does best, and ask for help in the areas where he needs it.

[Steve J Murray]

I think" mastery of the medium" is when your print looks as good as you had envisioned, or better! Commercial or artistic success of your prints is dependent on fickle forces that may or may not recognize your vision, ever.