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.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
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?
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.... ;-)
"...technical aspects of photography OR on the results..."
Try AND instead.
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.
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?
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.
Bruce Watson
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
eta gosha maaba, aaniish gaa zhiwebiziyin ?
"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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks