Another article to irritate people

[lilmsmaggie]

I see absolutely nothing offending or irritating about practicing. Makes perfect sense.
I would even go as far as saying that some photographers practice, without actually referring or considering it as "practice."

We recently had a change of management at the executive level at my work. The new chief executive, who wasn't into attending a lot of meetings, addressed his management team with a statement similar to this:

"Research has shown that it takes 10,000 hours of doing something to become an expert at it. Since most of you have undoubtedly attended many, many meetings, you're all experts. So how should we approach meetings in this organization?"

If you query "Expert" in Wikipedia, you'll come across the following statement:

"Many accounts of the development of expertise emphasize that it comes about through long periods of deliberate practice. In many domains of expertise estimates of 10 years experience or 10,000 hours deliberate practice are common ..."

So, let's all go out and burn some film

[Leigh]

Thoughtfully contemplating an artwork that I admire, or even considering the reasons why I do not particularly admire one, may help to make my next photograph better.

I used to present a classroom exercise to the students that proved quote beneficial...

Viewing a particular photo (not a studio shot), I would ask them to describe the surroundings... the time of day, temperature, other people, traffic, noise, birds, whatever they think might define the environment of the photograph.

Then I asked them how they would "see" the photo amidst all of that distraction, i.e. realize that there was something interesting to shoot.

This provoked some very interesting discussions.

- Leigh

[Jack Dahlgren]

Practice is only useful to the point where you stop learning/growing and only when it is in a direction that you want to go.

A writer could practice writing the alphabet or copying sonnets for the proverbial 10K hours, but after a while the value of that practice becomes very low or even retards progress by taking the time away from more effective sorts of practice.

Some of those other forms of practice as pointed out are:
Study of other works - great writers quite often start as great readers.
Imagination - imagination is at the root of a number of discoveries even in what are typically called the "hard sciences"
Play - Play is an exploratory type of practice

While very structured practice is useful when developing skills which are complex, lengthy and detailed (like film processing) many of the other forms of practice are useful for developing creativity and artistic vision. Some of them don't even require touching a camera.

My point is that practice regimens may be completely different across the population of photographers. For example I need no more practice in setting up a tripod or reading a light meter. I already know how and I'm not ready to forget those things yet. My photography will get better if I think more about what makes a good photograph and then trying to put those thoughts into action. Burning film at whatever presents itself will get me nowhere.

-Jack

[Jay DeFehr]

Hello Bruce,

I wonder why my criticism of your writing equates, in your mind, to my claiming artistic superiority? I was simply pointing out where you've offered opinion and anecdote as fact, and made sweeping generalizations and assumptions about photographers without support of any kind. This is just poor writing, and evidence you haven't thoroughly considered your topic. Some of your claims are overly general, others incomplete, and still others simply ludicrous, and my saying so shouldn't imply to any rational person that I think myself superior as a photographer or artist to those you cite.

I too read this and many other forums, speak to other photographers, and even some who consider me knowledgeable, but don't come to the conclusions you have about the expectations of other photographers about the results of every click of their shutter. If your conclusion is to be preferred, or even respected, you should support it somehow. The fact that The blogs you read seldom mention practice in specific terms is hardly evidence that photographers "...expect to make great art every snap of the shutter". Your claim is a convenient attribution for supporting your larger claim that photographers don't practice, but photographers do practice. The musicians and other artists you cite practice by isolating a part of their craft, and experimenting with variations, or by repetition. While photography differs substantially from performing arts, photographers do practice in ways logical for our medium. Like your wife, we test our materials, and experiment with variations, and like musicians, we repeat segments of our process, or our entire process, even when we have no expectation of "art", great or otherwise. Why do we process film and print negatives we know are flawed before we remove them from our holders? Out of curiosity, for the opportunity to learn from our mistakes, or to put it another way- for practice. I don't think any medium has anything on photography for constant testing, experimentation, and practice, but photography is unique in its capacity for capturing a moment in time, which has obvious implications for our practicing. I find your insistence on a separation of practice and "performance" to be antithetical to the unique characteristics of the photographic medium, which might offer a better explanation for the differences in the ways photographers practice relative to artists who work in other media, than your claim that photographers are either ignorant, misguided, or just lazy. Developing skills and maturing as an artist in any medium requires practice appropriate to the medium, a comprehensive study of the medium and its history, and a personal point of view. I don't think this is a revelation, and I don't think your article clarifies the issues or offers a productive methodology as much as it muddies the waters and introduces artificial distinctions where none need exist.

My Dad used to say, "For the man with a hammer, every problem is a nail". Your article seems to say, "For a man who calls himself Teacher, everyone else is a student". Unfortunately, your lesson is ill-conceived and poorly presented. perhaps you would be better served to ask, how photographers practice differently than other artists, and why, rather than to pronounce that photographers don't practice, and further, don't feel we need to, and then accuse me of claiming superiority! Clearly you are well aware that the tone of your article is condescending, and you fully expected to make your readers angry, as evidenced by your disclaimer, but you'll have to write a lot better to make me angry.

[Bruce Barlow]

Wow, Jay, so much backpedaling from you last post, and not a single constructive answer to anything I asked you.

Typical, when I read your history here.

You are not worth my time.

[Jay DeFehr]

Backpedalling? What are you reading? My history here? Do you mean that I occasionally disagree with other members? How is that different from your history here? The only question you asked me was:

if you're not practicing the mechanics or the creativity of image-making, what are you practicing when it comes to photography? It's not clear to me what's left. How do other "serious photographers" practice?

I addressed these questions directly by describing the kinds of things most photographers do, such as testing materials (how many posts do you think there are here on the topics of film and paper testing?), experimenting with various processes and techniques, and practicing the photographic process, in general, and by suggesting some ways in which the photographic medium differs from performing arts, and other media. Too much for you, I suppose. I can't say I'm surprised.

[Bruce Barlow]

Film and paper testing involves mechanical aspects, and evaluating them sometimes requires creative judgement. Still searching for what's beyond those two categories.

Did I say that photographic practice and practice in other art forms were the same? Only in that both should follow some discipline, and in so doing will yield benefit.

But you go from saying that you and all the serious photographers you know don't practice (in the first post), to describing all the practice that you apparently do (in the second post).

Nice to see you so fully come around to my way of thinking. Thank you.

[Bill_1856]

I never did find the "old guys" post.

[Steve Smith]

I am not American... so my language skills are lacking

It's usually the other way round!


Steve.

[Scott Walker]

Nothing wrong with practicing and I don't think that anyone at the top of their game regardless of medium can say they got there without practice. Practice comes in different forms for each of us and for each different medium. From what I get out of your article you seem to make generalizations about photographers that you would likely not be able to back up.


The following quote from your article did manage to make me laugh though.

Ted Orland and David Bayles, in their highly‑recommended book Art and Fear say that creativity and artistic excellence come more from doing art than from native talent. The more you do, the better you get. Better to work hard than be gifted.

Don't know if these are your words or the words of the authors of the book, but wow! What a stupid statement. Without the naturally talented and truly gifted, art would not progress and artists would only ever regurgitate what has already been done.

I got to that paragraph half way through your article and came to a predetermined conclusion that the whole article was trash so I read it again this morning and skipped over that part and found the article to be far more readable.