Competency vs. Creativity [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Mike Chini

20-Aug-2007, 13:35

I agree with Kirk entirely. When creating anything, it is my own struggle to break free of convention and create. In other words, if confronted with a beautiful sunset, I'm always instinctively led to take pictures I've seen in the past, even subconsciously.

I once took music lessons from a famous 60's musician for a year. It was one of the best experiences of my life. The first time I walked into his basement, I was shocked at the total lack of any music in his apartment. I expected there to be a huge collection of records and books etc. There was nothing. There was his instrument, a tape recorder and some sheet music. He told me he basically stopped listening to music a long time ago. He reached a point where he understood music from a very advanced but fundamental place and wanted a clear mind with which to create. It continues to give me a lot to think about. I'm convinced to this day that great artists spend the vast majority of their time creating rather than enjoying others' work.

roteague

20-Aug-2007, 13:59

Just for the sake of a good arguement. It seems to me that there is allot of confusion about "creativity".

To me, seeing beautiful, even great images, in a well established way in a well established genre is not creativity. It is competency. True creativity breaks norms, established traditions and ways of seeing. Adams (as much as I love him) was competent. Weston was truly creative.

I don't agree with you at all. There are natural rhythms and patterns to nature, which manifest themselves in the world around us. Little things like the arrangements of petals in a flower, the patterns on a tree. The trick is trying to see them in a way which is pleasing - that is creativity. I don't see it as a matter of "competency" at all. As for Adams and Weston, I see both as creative, although I really don't care for Weston's work at all.

John Kasaian

20-Aug-2007, 14:05

"Anything worth doing is worth doing poorly."

So what if I haven't nailed the exposure "just right" or some other skill that will come with practice if the photograph I did make has the cojones to stand out as something special? I'd rather hang that on a wall than a perfectly executed boring print. Bradford Washburn's prints were often far from perfect, but he was hanging out of an open door of a monoplane in a freezing oxygen starved enviorment when he took them and then would developed the film in a bathtub---but his subject matter would knock anyone's socks off! Consider Atget and his vignetting lens too. Marvelous! Technique means a lot---I agree---but IMHO a successful photo dosen't rely solely on technique.

Ted Harris

20-Aug-2007, 14:13

This thread is making me smile .... way to go Kirk. While I agree with you that there are vast differences between the two, I also agree that creativity is very subjective. We can accept the norms that the art critque world or the academic aesthetic philosophers tell us we should accept .... and change as their ideas chage .... or we can go with our gut. It is the interpertations that make the world go round and round and round and round. In art, I find both the abstract expressionists and washington color painters wildly creative but there are many that would find one school or the other or both boring, sloppy, inane, etc. I also agree wtih both you and Robert .... with you that Adams is often rather pedesterian bu tperfectly done and with Robert that there are natural rythmns and pattern in nature that some do very very very well.

Eric Biggerstaff

20-Aug-2007, 14:17

Kirk,

I agree with others that what you are calling creativity is, to me, innovation.

I think competency relates to understanding how something works and being able to repeat it. In photography, that means being able to get the image you want correctly onto film and later, if you print, to creat a print from that image that works.

I think creativity is how you CHOOSE to use or not use the toolset you have developed while becoming competent in the craft. I think creativity relates to emotion while comptency relates to mechanics. And, emotion in a photograph can be very difficult to define.

I also think innovation comes in both new visions and in new toolsets, the Zone System was an innovation as was the acceptance of a "straight" vision in artistic photography. Both very important.

I think both Weston and Adams were both very creative and both innovators. One perhaps was more innovative with regards to the emotional aspects of the art while the other may of been more innovative with regards to the mechanical aspects of the art, but both were creative and innovative. Adams gets a bum rap about being all mechanical and no emotion, but I tend to disagree with that. Also, Weston had to be highly competent in the mechanics of photography to make the images he did.

tim atherton

20-Aug-2007, 14:21

You can also look at some of the most obvious examples.

Take Van Gogh - he had no training, he essentially invented his technique as his ideas progressed - which was both innovative and - by the objective measurements of the academies of the day - not at all competent. And what he produced was utterly creative (indeed revolutionary.)

tim atherton

20-Aug-2007, 14:31

BTW, I think innovation - being innovative - is in a way more limited than creativity.

It's about introducing or presenting something new but as part of a logical progression and to my mind often related to a process or technique or a way of doing something.

Creative/creativity also has to to with making something new but is much more "characterized by originality and expressiveness" and imagination. There is a bigger leap involved.

In photography, to take one example that's already been mentioned, the introduction of the Zone system may (be some) be considered innovative - but not a creative leap.

Innovation is a new (presumably better) way of doing something. Creativity is finding a new way of seeing or understanding something.

John T

20-Aug-2007, 14:36

Dick,

Why does an amateur need to pick one or the other? I would think that a goal could be to try to maximize both aspects in their photography. Excellence in technique means that the photographer's creativity won't be hindered by a lack of ability.

Tim,

I think that Van Gogh actually did take formal lessons at the Academy of Antwerp after he discovered that his technique wasn't good enough to communicate what he wanted to say. He was thought to have discovered Japanese perspective and the use of lighter values in his work here.

John

John T

20-Aug-2007, 14:42

Tim,

I agree with your comparison of "innovative" and "creative". I compare the process of creativity with scientific/historical process. It starts with inspiration (hypothesis), which leads to creativity (theory), which in turn leads to innovation (proof).

The more knowledge/ability you have at each step will allow you to more fully investigate and test out your ideas.

John

Bruce Watson

20-Aug-2007, 14:47

To me, seeing beautiful, even great images, in a well established way in a well established genre is not creativity. It is competency. True creativity breaks norms, established traditions and ways of seeing. Adams (as much as I love him) was competent. Weston was truly creative.

That's one definition perhaps, and even by that definition Adams was creative. He was one of the founders of Group 64 was he not? Wasn't he at the forefront of the push to move photography out of the pictorial movement and into the straight photography movement? Was he not a leader in the fight for acceptance of photography as art? Isn't he the guy usually credited with creating the photography department at MOMA? Doesn't at least some of this qualify as breaking norms and traditions?

But creativity can't be defined by whether or not it breaks norms or established traditions. People can be highly creative within existing norms and traditions. I would point out as just one example the many centuries of Japanese haiku. It's the most restrictive form of poetry I know, and yet it apparently leaves endless room for creativity. This leads me to think that part of creativity is exploring the existing norms and traditions and finding new ways to use them.

An alternate way to define creativity is using available materials and tools to bring into physical being the artist's vision. Knowing how to use the tools and materials is competence. Using them competently to bring your vision to life is creativity.

Darryl Baird

20-Aug-2007, 14:53

I don't agree with you at all. There are natural rhythms and patterns to nature, which manifest themselves in the world around us. Little things like the arrangements of petals in a flower, the patterns on a tree. The trick is trying to see them in a way which is pleasing - that is creativity. I don't see it as a matter of "competency" at all. As for Adams and Weston, I see both as creative, although I really don't care for Weston's work at all.

Sorry for a BIG disagreement here, but the notion of copying what is already in nature is a form of honoring beauty of ratifying and reinforcing our sense of it anyway. The creative/innovative person will see and (ultimately) show us something we haven't seen before. The aesthetic rules Adams (mostly) operated under were well established by the late 1700s -- the sublime, the beautiful, and the picturesque. Weston took natural forms as content and expressed a unique idea that mirrored HIS modern vision. (His daybooks are good sources of these ideas) Where Adams gets short shrift is his lack of recognition as an excellent abstract artist, but that is more a problem of the market for his images.

Bruce Watson

20-Aug-2007, 15:02

The creative/innovative person will see and (ultimately) show us something we haven't seen before.

That's an interesting thought, but I don't think it will stand up to much scrutiny. And it's a huge burden to put on the artist. How, for example, can the artist know what anyone else has seen before?

All the artist can do is show us something that the artist hasn't seen before. The artist is constrained by his/her own consciousness. All they can do is show us something that is meaningful to them. Only we can know if it shows us something we haven't seen before.

paulr

20-Aug-2007, 15:10

I agree with Kirk's general premise (it strikes me as almost self-evident, actually).

I'd also agree that Adams wasn't the towering creative force that Weston was, but I think it's going a bit far to say he wasn't creative (or innovative). He seemed less and less creative as time went on, in my opinion, because he lapsed into formula (a commercially successful formula, which I'm sure was no accident), and seemed less interested as time went on in images that might challenge his audience or himself. But I can think of a few things that we owe to him. One is the use of photography for pro-conservation propaganda. The other is the curious fusion of the f64 group's straight technical esthetic with the romanticism of Thomas Moran and other 19th century 'ain't nature grand' landscape painters.

Around the middle of his career (1940s, 1950s) he did a bunch of work of great subtlety and I think also creativity ... I'm thinking of what became the Portfolios. This didn't really rival Weston's innovation (it was a bit too much like what Weston had already done) but I think it had real depth, and was a fine example of the creative spirit.

Maybe a more obvious example would be to contrast Adams with one of the millions of Adams clones ... people who follow all the rules, make stunning, classical compositions and beautiful Adams-esq prints. Thee people are competent, even masterful, but their efforts make me sad because they amount to little more than copying. I see all that skill being squandered on something much less valuable than what it might be used for. My assumption is that everyone has something unique to offer. No two people see things exactly the same way or have the same cares, hopes, and loves, so it doesn't make sense, for example, for my work to look like yours, or like Ansel's.

tim atherton

20-Aug-2007, 15:12

I think that Van Gogh actually did take formal lessons at the Academy of Antwerp after he discovered that his technique wasn't good enough to communicate what he wanted to say. He was thought to have discovered Japanese perspective and the use of lighter values in his work here.

John

I think only for a total time of 1 - 2 months? He spent more time at the studio of Fernand Cormon in Paris, but it was, I recall, a fairly informal arrangement and was again only for a few months

roteague

20-Aug-2007, 15:14

Sorry for a BIG disagreement here, but the notion of copying what is already in nature is a form of honoring beauty of ratifying and reinforcing our sense of it anyway. The creative/innovative person will see and (ultimately) show us something we haven't seen before. The aesthetic rules Adams (mostly) operated under were well established by the late 1700s -- the sublime, the beautiful, and the picturesque. Weston took natural forms as content and expressed a unique idea that mirrored HIS modern vision. (His daybooks are good sources of these ideas) Where Adams gets short shrift is his lack of recognition as an excellent abstract artist, but that is more a problem of the market for his images.

I would suggest that both Adam's and Weston's work followed the "rules" of composition. Each just had different ways of coming to those conclusions.

Jorge Gasteazoro

20-Aug-2007, 15:14

Creativity, making the ordinary look extraordinary....Weston's pepper, Adams Moonrise.
Creativity, "seeing" the picture that is there and making it happen....Caponigro's running deer.

Competency, making the ordinary look ordinary and only deemed good because it is ordinary, printed big, or shown with a special technique.... we all know many examples of them.... ;)

Mark Carney

20-Aug-2007, 15:32

I'm going to put a twist on Jorge's.
"Creativity, making the ordinary look extraordinary....Weston's pepper, Adams Moonrise.
Creativity, "seeing" the picture that is there and making it happen....Caponigro's running deer."

Competency, is being able to take the creative vision, which is what creativity is, and translate it to film or whatever in an effective manner. In other words being able to express yourself in such a way so others can share in your vision.

paulr

20-Aug-2007, 15:39

[QUOTE=Mark Carney;266461Competency, is being able to take the creative vision, which is what creativity is, and translate it to film or whatever in an effective manner. In other words being able to express yourself in such a way so others can share in your vision.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, good to remember it's not an either/or proposition. Creativity without competence can be a problem (not to mention lack of creativity plus lack of competence).

tim atherton

20-Aug-2007, 16:06

Competency, making the ordinary look ordinary and only deemed good because it is ordinary, printed big, or shown with a special technique.... we all know many examples of them.... ;)

yep nothing worse than another mundane picture that supposed to be special because it's a Vandyke or a Carbro Print or Pt/pd or such...

Bill_1856

20-Aug-2007, 16:14

What you are calling "Competency" is simply CRAFT, and "Creativity" is far beyond your ability, or mine, to discuss.

Jorge Gasteazoro

20-Aug-2007, 16:31

yep nothing worse than another mundane picture that supposed to be special because it's a Vandyke or a Carbro Print or Pt/pd or such...

Yeah or pictures of twigs that are supposed to be good because they have an explanation or are a "project"...... ;)

tim atherton

20-Aug-2007, 16:36

there's also a world of difference between creative and novel (as in novelty) although many fail to see the distinction

Eric Rose

20-Aug-2007, 16:57

True creativity breaks norms, established traditions and ways of seeing. Adams (as much as I love him) was competent. Weston was truly creative.

My feeling exactly. It seems many photographers are more interested in the mechanics of the process rather than creating new ways of seeing and expressing themselves. I have several Weston books and the only thing by Adams is his book on the negative.

I have been spending the last 6 months reading books on critical thinking as it pertains to photography, psychology of visual comprehension and art history. After 30+ years doing this thing I feel I have all the technique I can possibly soak in. All I am interested in now is working thru some concepts I have and using the technology I have amassed and techniques I have learned to make it happen. The nuts and bolts side of things now only occupies about 18% of my creative thought process now rather than the 82% it seems many are spending their time on.

Not that there is anything wrong with being a propeller head photograhically speaking as for many that is the essence of their enjoyment.

tim atherton

20-Aug-2007, 17:00

Yeah or pictures of twigs that are supposed to be good because they have an explanation or are a "project"...... ;)

Oh I don't know, I find this is pretty creative

http://www3.telus.net/kairos/images/2.jpeg

Gordon Moat

20-Aug-2007, 17:20

One can be creative and stay within the bounds of style of the day (or of the past). I see competency more relating to consistency, though one can also type-cast themselves. Producing a continual array of similar images, as in a body of work, can be creative and competent, though some may see it as constricted, or even boring.

Innovation is for those willing to take risks to lead the pack, and show something different from established styles. This is the risk taking realm of creativity, and few will take this path. Without regard to sales potential, the door is open to innovation, yet it is also open to criticism.

As an imaging professional, some clients will want competency and consistency, and place those above creativity. Unfortunately, to remain competitive, one needs to take risks, meaning showing more creative ideas. There is also the too often used term cutting edge, since some images need impact, yet on a professional basis of usage many images need staying power. Getting that balance is what can keep one in business.

The conformist might find some consistency in clients, yet growth might be limited by a lack of risk taking. Too much risk taking can seem like lack of emphasis, or lack of a driven focus. What some might find mundane (dead-pan aesthetic, et al), others might find innovative. Matching audience (or clients) to vision can work in both directions. Anyway, just my opinions.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

matthew blais

20-Aug-2007, 17:29

there's also a world of difference between creative and novel (as in novelty) although many fail to see the distinction

Whose world?

A person who creates something novel is..well, creative.
I think they are intertwined and yet not the same.

A person who is creative can be competent, at other times, not.
A competent person can be creative at times, perhaps novel, perhaps just competent.

Seeing a well composed, balanced image in the landscape or urbanscape or still life can be attributed to one's competency in that arena. In that sense he is creating within his competency level. Likely not very novel or creative, as that is rare.

I get what you are saying Kirk, or what you implied, but also the subjective factor reels in, as many will think Adams was creative vs. just competent, as he definitely was. Adams was at least novel (again-arguable) with his Zone system as well as creative (thought/concept/writings). Weston did some creative, although by my opinion, boring nude work. It may have been novel, but novel isn't always creative or competent or good.

So, I guess I believe sometimes competency is better than creative or novel and sometimes being novel is creative but not necessarily creatively competent while at other times being competent could be creative in how one applies one's competency.

:)

Make pictures, not love

Jorge Gasteazoro

20-Aug-2007, 17:42

Oh I don't know, I find this is pretty creative

http://www3.telus.net/kairos/images/2.jpeg

You would....a boring, talentless shot that requires and explanation....for those of us who "don't get it"...it figures.. ;)

roteague

20-Aug-2007, 18:24

there's also a world of difference between creative and novel (as in novelty) although many fail to see the distinction

I think I see what you mean. Could you elaborate what you were thinking?

Brian K

20-Aug-2007, 18:25

I think the biggest area of creativity is the creativity in the long winded explanations, and justifications of poorly composed, mundane, moodless, and downright lazy work that I see so often in galleries and museums today. There really is an Emperor's new clothes going on.

I struggle with trying to find special moments, and for the 35,000 miles I drive a year I only come across a few a year. Now maybe I'm simply not that good a photographer, or maybe special moments are rare. I see so many images in galleries that could have been taken on anyday, at anytime, anywhere and are produced with little thought to composition, light, even expressiveness and yet this genre has become the darling of the museums and galleries. All i can do is do what I do and be content with producing work that I'm happy with. But I can really understand when people unfamiliar with the art world go to a gallery or museum look at the photography and say,"What's the big deal, I could have done that?".

Henry Ambrose

20-Aug-2007, 18:25

Dang it Jorge!!

Can't you see what's going on in that picture?

They had this guy stand there and shot arrows at him until he was covered up like a pin cushion.

Damned edgy if I must say so.

Mike Chini

20-Aug-2007, 18:30

I struggle with trying to find special moments, and for the 35,000 miles I drive a year I only come across a few a year.

When Paul Strand wanted to photograph an Italian village, he spent lots of time trying to figure out which one would work best (in terms of light, aesthetics etc.). After the project was done, he'd realized that great work can be produced anywhere. This thinking eventually led him to photograph in his garden in France.

I sympathize with you but I keep telling myself, it's not the world that's the problem, it's me!

Brian K

20-Aug-2007, 18:36

Mike, it's true that great work can be produced anywhere, and the advantage of working locally is that when the conditions are great you can just run outside and shoot. But the work that I am talking about is not work in which something interesting or special or intriguing is happening. It's not work where a composition or play of light make it noteworthy, it is the celebration of the mundane, captured mundanely.

If they at least turned something mundane into something of interest that would be something, but they don't. Where is the value, where is the art in capturing a mudane thing mundanely? Couldn't anyone do that? Couldn't a machine or a chimpanzee do that?

Jorge Gasteazoro

20-Aug-2007, 18:36

Dang it Jorge!!

Can't you see what's going on in that picture?

They had this guy stand there and shot arrows at him until he was covered up like a pin cushion.

Damned edgy if I must say so.

Shit, this is what I get for not reading the "explanation".....You are right , pretty edgy... :)

tim atherton

20-Aug-2007, 18:41

I think I see what you mean. Could you elaborate what you were thinking?

I see creativity as a more sustained sort of thing.

To mind mind novelty tends to be a bit of a one off/one liner. Sometimes a good idea, sometimes interesting, but once it's done it's done. The biggest problem being that someone who comes up with something novel then keeps trying to repeat it again and again. (Sherry Levine's ? rephotographing Walker Evans work - a fun, interesting idea the first time. But she flogged that horse until it was past dead and buried)

But then I guess there are those who actually sustain a constant level of producing something novel again and again - but each time it's a fresh idea a fresh concept a fresh vision - and entirely different from what they did before .... I guess that's a different sort of creativity - In some ways I think Sugimoto is like this - there's a rigour and depth to his creativity (along with some strong underlying themes) - but his dioramas are very different from his seascapes which are very different from his architecture etc though one has often fed into another. Very few artists seem able to sustain that kind of changing - yet remaining fresh - output - especially in photography

Kirk Gittings

20-Aug-2007, 18:43

the curious fusion of the f64 group's straight technical esthetic with the romanticism of Thomas Moran and other 19th century 'ain't nature grand' landscape painters.Paul

In different words, but the point of my master's thesis.

Kirk Gittings

20-Aug-2007, 18:53

paulr

20-Aug-2007, 19:20

on creativity vs. novelty, i think they often come from different motivations. people achieve novelty by desperately trying to do something new for its own sake. but truly creative people often see something that's gone unnoticed, and feel an honest compulsion to share it with the world.

kirk ... maybe a topic for another thread, but i'd like to hear what your thesis was about in more detail.

paulr

20-Aug-2007, 19:25

[QUOTE=Jorge Gasteazoro;....a boring, talentless shot that requires and explanation....for those of us who "don't get it"...it figures.. ;)[/QUOTE]

that boring, talentless friedlander ... always forced to explain his work to everyone with piles of artspeak ...

PViapiano

20-Aug-2007, 21:25

roteague

20-Aug-2007, 22:30

I see creativity as a more sustained sort of thing.

To mind mind novelty tends to be a bit of a one off/one liner. Sometimes a good idea, sometimes interesting, but once it's done it's done. The biggest problem being that someone who comes up with something novel then keeps trying to repeat it again and again.

Interesting idea, I see what you mean. I think that I would agree with you using that definition.

roteague

20-Aug-2007, 22:35

Hmmm...interesting thread and responses.

I like this related quote from Joel Meyerowitz from his book, Cape Light:

These photographs are often the least beautiful: spare, sometimes empty of qualities that are more easily celebrated. One makes the other photographs on the way to these rare, irresistible images that claim your deepest attention. The trick is not to be seduced by the beautiful but to struggle against accomplishment and push toward something more personal. Shared beauty is not enough. One wants to go beyond those limits, not for the sake of invention, but for knowing.

Sorry, but I find that quote pure nonsense. It is as if he is apologizing for creating, what IMO, is a mediocre body of art. I see absolutely nothing wrong with striving for the best, for what is pure, for what is beautiful. The world has always held up the beauty over the mundane; it is part of our natural world, part of our natural being.

riooso

20-Aug-2007, 22:36

Thanks for the thread Mr. Gittings. Excuse me for this but I have seen quite a few of Ansel's images and they are only..... OK! Is that boorish and immature? I have seen some of the work that many in this forum do and it is genius not for the innovation, but for something that is intangible. Something that keeps the image imprinted in the viewer's mind.

Richard Adams

clay harmon

21-Aug-2007, 04:17

Wow Kirk, you know how to start a thread.

May I propose another non-controversial question to pose:

Ansel Adams : Calendar Hack or Artist?

Discuss amongst yourselves.

Now that'll get the cage fight we are all looking for. :^)

Jorge Gasteazoro

21-Aug-2007, 04:28

that boring, talentless friedlander ... always forced to explain his work to everyone with piles of artspeak ...

LOL..... You are comparing Friedander's shots to what atherton posted?.... I would have thought such a high brow photographer like you would know better!...LOL.....

Brian K

21-Aug-2007, 05:07

Jorge Gasteazoro

21-Aug-2007, 05:22

Witkin, "novel or creative"? I go back and forth on him. In the early days I thought him merely novel or clever, but it may have been professional jealousy on my part since we started about the same time in the same town etc. and he became an art star. As Tim says, a novel artist does not have the long career that he has.

Creative, twisted, but creative. Novelty is what gives rise to a fad, the filed negative holder border, ther slective focused photograph, etc. None here would have thought of doing what he does, and do it as well. I may not like what he does and how he does it, but you gotta give the guy his due, he "makes" a photograph and even without all the bullshit explanations his work stands on its own.....

paulr

21-Aug-2007, 05:54

LOL..... You are comparing Friedander's shots to what atherton posted?

have you seen this body of work?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/1881616754/sr=8-1/qid=1187700720/ref=dp_image_text_0/105-6168022-9670027?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books&qid=1187700720&sr=8-1

paulr

21-Aug-2007, 05:58

i saw witkin give a talk a couple of years ago. the guy is pretty scary! but for the same reasons i think he's genuine. he believes so strongly in what he's doing it's like he's possessed. he has no trouble getting people to pose for him (or lend him things, or let him in places) because he's so absolutely convinced that what he's doing is vital.

whatver anyone thinks of his work, that kind of energy and conviction is pretty inspiring, and leaves no doubt in my mind that he's a real creative force.

paulr

21-Aug-2007, 06:01

Kirk, my landlady went to school with you and witkin ... she might have overlapped with you.

i have a gigantic wooden table in my loft right now that belongs to her; i have dinner parties sitting around it, and she tells me that it was used for nude models to pose on at UNM.

i'm wondering if witkin ever used it ... and i'm hoping all the models were living.

j.e.simmons

21-Aug-2007, 06:03

I compare it to music - competency is playing in tune and on time - knowing your scales and chords. Creativity is using this base to make something musical.

As for Adams, I didn't fully appreciate him until I saw a show at the University of Florida a few years ago. It was a private collection that had never been on public display before, and the collector had mostly vintage prints. In it are some of Adams famous negatives, but instead of being printed 16x20 and on Grade 4 paper, many of these were printed 8x10 or smaller on a normal contrast grade. The difference in artistic interpretation from what we are used to seeing was striking. I believe Adams began with a much more subtle and unusual artistic vision - but later in his career he discovered the Wagnerian way of printing that we have become used to seeing.
juan

Henry Ambrose

21-Aug-2007, 06:18

It seems that a great many people don't understand the significance of Ansel's contribution. At the time Ansel and the f64 group were very innovative, and nearly radical in their view that photographs should stand on the merits of photography and not be executed like paintings. With that they rejected the pictorialist movement, which was the predominant photographic one at the time, a movement in which photographs were created to look painterly, and decided to produce work that was unique to the photographic process. That is sharply detailed and defined images. While many of those images may seem cliche now, they were not at the time.

In addition many of the scenes depicted in Ansel's work were locations that were inaccessible to most people, they didn't have tour buses stopping at tunnel view back then, and showed people across the US some of the most beautiful places in this country.

Many of us here in no small way owe a debt of gratitude to Ansel, not that he may have inspired all of us photographically, although I'm sure many have been so inspired, but because he, perhaps more than anyone, made photography a valued art form.

The historical perspective is so often overlooked. When Adams and crew were doing what they did it was groundbreaking. Now it seems cliched to some who may not realize that the cliche is in the mind of the beholder and placed there by a lack of appreciation of or an ignorance of history.

A century ago people might have run out of their homes to see an automobile drive by. Nowdays we've seen just about every manifestation of car imaginable to the point that they are a huge bother to many. Cars are ubiquitous, who'd want to see another car?

And compare the utter crudeness of a 1907 automobile to a 2007 model. What were they thinking? Where was the air conditioner? And where is the electric starter? To a naive person it could seem that the early car makers weren't very sharp. Certainly not as competent as today's. No where near as capable or smart or innovative..........

Its important to remember that we build on the shoulders of those who came before us. And while we may have cars with built in GPS and smart locks that read our fingerprints the original incarnations of the car were a hell of a leap and the innovators/designers/makers/creators of those first vehicles deserve being remembered and perhaps memorialized for their contributions. And so it goes for photography.

Jorge Gasteazoro

21-Aug-2007, 06:33

have you seen this body of work?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/1881616754/sr=8-1/qid=1187700720/ref=dp_image_text_0/105-6168022-9670027?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books&qid=1187700720&sr=8-1

Nope, and if the pic atherton posted is another take of the same shot then it just goes to show that even the best don't always hit a home run.... This is not the work he is best known for, and it is obvious why... of course, to a curator or a high brow photographer I am sure it is wornderful....... ;)

Brian K

21-Aug-2007, 06:39

Paul, I've never been a big fan of Friedlander, I think his early work had merit but I just don't get the new stuff, it seems pointless. I think if you took his name off the work and sent it to museums and galleries it never would have been noticed and would have been blown off.

JE as for Ansel's prints getting contrastier, well as we age our eyes lose contrast and over time we tend to print with greater and greater contrast. If you look at prints of the smae AA image, but done many years apart you'll see AA got contrastier.

Henry, I agree with you. Today's innovator is tomorrow's cliche.

Ted Harris

21-Aug-2007, 06:50

In addition many of the scenes depicted in Ansel's work were locations that were inaccessible to most people, they didn't have tour buses stopping at tunnel view back then, and showed people across the US some of the most beautiful places in this country.

Many of us here in no small way owe a debt of gratitude to Ansel, not that he may have inspired all of us photographically, although I'm sure many have been so inspired, but because he, perhaps more than anyone, made photography a valued art form.

All you say also is true for Carleton Watkins and a few others of his his generation who captured the same and in some instances even more breathtaking images. Did it on 11x14 glass plates and did it much of it 35-40 years before Adams was born Watkins first Yosemite photographs date to 1861).

Without taking away from the f64 group, it is more appropriate to note that they rediscovered what those that came several generations before them had discovered. Watkins and a few others, working only a few decades after the dawn of the discovery of photography made some images that are truely amazing and awe inspiring. Watkins, and his work that was shown to Congress by John Muir, was an important part of the creation of the National Park system.

Mike Lopez

21-Aug-2007, 06:59

LOL..... You are comparing Friedander's shots to what atherton posted?.... I would have thought such a high brow photographer like you would know better!...LOL.....

Jorge, look again at what Atherton posted. Do you see Friedlander looking you right in the eyes?

Bruce Watson

21-Aug-2007, 07:04

Sorry, but I find that quote pure nonsense. It is as if he is apologizing for creating, what IMO, is a mediocre body of art. I see absolutely nothing wrong with striving for the best, for what is pure, for what is beautiful. The world has always held up the beauty over the mundane; it is part of our natural world, part of our natural being.

Agreed. There is nothing wrong with beauty. To say that beauty is not enough is to disown huge amounts of art, from Mozart to Moran.

kmgibbs

21-Aug-2007, 07:08

I do not claim to be an expert nor do I play one on T.V. but it seems to me that when we first learn a craft, it is definitely more about competency than creativity. At some point (hopefully) the transition is made where it's less about the tools and techniques and more about what we wish to create. (I realize this is large format blasphemy)

The making of a photograph is based on science and technique. When the science and technique get out of the way (ie. are well enough known), then there is room for more creativity. This not to say that there is not a going back and worth because the science and technique can give rise to creativity.

In my opinion, when 'it' becomes more about the image than about how the image was produced, then creativity will rise. I believe the questions that must always be asked are "What if?" and "Why?" Until those questions are asked and answered, it's still about technique.

Even the whole concept of 'pre-visualization' can be a hindrance to creativity because once the 'visualization' is made, it simply becomes an attempt to methodically execute the 'visualization'.

I have little use for any of Westons' work and while Adams' is stunning it it's execution, I find Timothy O'Sullivans', William Henry Jacksons' and Jack Hillers' work much more interesting.

In all, a very interesting discussion.

Jorge Gasteazoro

21-Aug-2007, 07:09

Jorge, look again at what Atherton posted. Do you see Friedlander looking you right in the eyes?

NO I did not until Henry pointed it out. Hell, I did not even know it was a Friedlander shot, all I know of his work is what he did for ATlantic records and this was eons ago, I always thought of him as a portrait photographer, certainly not a landscape (which he is clearly not succesfull at) photographer.

This is a typical example of work that is enhaced by BS. What is so good about the pic atherton posted or Paul is so proud about? In my eyes nothing, but then what do I know, I am not a curator... ;)

paulr

21-Aug-2007, 07:30

Agreed. There is nothing wrong with beauty. To say that beauty is not enough is to disown huge amounts of art, from Mozart to Moran.

Mozart and Moran had distinctive, unmistakeable visions that resulted in work unlike anything that came before it (especially Mozart). Their work was beautiful, but it was more than beautiful ... it established ways of seeing/hearing for whole generations. If Mozart had done work that was a carbon copy of Bach's, it still would have been beautiful ... but it would be utterly insignificant.

paulr

21-Aug-2007, 07:33

IEven the whole concept of 'pre-visualization' can be a hindrance to creativity because once the 'visualization' is made, it simply becomes an attempt to methodically execute the 'visualization'.

Adams pretty much admitted that later in his life! He said he almost never really worked that way.

paulr

21-Aug-2007, 07:38

... of course, to a curator or a high brow photographer I am sure it is wornderful....... ;)

But who cares what someone who's dedicated their life to studying a medium (like a highbrow curator) thinks about anything. Why not just glance at someone's work and make a pronouncement?

Even if that approach doesn't get you the respect of the art community, it might get you elected to high office in the U.S.--it seems quite popular up here.

Then you'll be able to take over the N.E.A. and really have fun.

Bruce Watson

21-Aug-2007, 07:38

If Mozart had done work that was a carbon copy of Bach's, it still would have been beautiful ... but it would be utterly insignificant.

Plagiarism would be bad, yes. But if his music had just been in the style of J. S. Bach, I would have to disagree. With Mozart's talent and vision (and according to his letters his vision was mostly just to create beautiful music) it would have been just as significant.

After all, Mozart didn't invent the Sonata Form. It had been used for generations with good effect before he came along. Mozart's work was often in the same style as Antonio Salieri, but few would argue that Mozart's works were insignificant just because he composed in a style that was already well known.

tim atherton

21-Aug-2007, 07:41

LOL..... You are comparing Friedander's shots to what atherton posted?

It was Friedlander - now I'm sure you're going to say - "Oh but it's bad Friedlander"... predictable if nothing else

tim atherton

21-Aug-2007, 07:42

Paul, I've never been a big fan of Friedlander, I think his early work had merit but I just don't get the new stuff, it seems pointless. I think if you took his name off the work and sent it to museums and galleries it never would have been noticed and would have been blown off.
.

Have to disagree - his more recent stuff has some of his best work in it - he has consistently explored new ground successfully rather than resting on his laurels

paulr

21-Aug-2007, 07:43

But if his music had just been in the style of J. S. Bach, I would have to disagree.

If Mozart wrote work in barroque counterpoint, he would have been completely ignored no matter how pleasing the music ... just as people who are Ansel and Weston clones are ignored today.

With respect to what was said earlier, the work of innovators does not become cliche ... it's the work of people who copy them. Something becomes a cliche not because it's no longer true, but because it's no longer an original observation.

Jorge Gasteazoro

21-Aug-2007, 07:47

But who cares what someone who's dedicated their life to studying a medium (like a highbrow curator) thinks about anything. Why not just glance at someone's work and make a pronouncement?

Even if that approach doesn't get you the respect of the art community, it might get you elected to high office in the U.S.--it seems quite popular up here.

Then you'll be able to take over the N.E.A. and really have fun.

Yeah well, I am not impressed by BS no matter how long they have been at it and the "respect" of the community is the last of my worries....apparently you are and it worries you, to each his or her own.

This is why I have no need to make a project, use 10 pages to explain why I took a picture of a fence in a run down neighboorhood. I am perfectly happy with my mundane photography and oddly enough, some people like it.. ;)

Bruce Watson

21-Aug-2007, 08:14

If Mozart wrote work in barroque counterpoint, he would have been completely ignored no matter how pleasing the music...

There's no reason to think that. Mozart wrote in a style (sonata form) that he didn't invent, that had been well used and fully explored long before he made the scene and he was not then nor has he since been ignored. Why do you think you'd get a different outcome with a different style?

tim atherton

21-Aug-2007, 08:25

Agreed. There is nothing wrong with beauty. To say that beauty is not enough is to disown huge amounts of art, from Mozart to Moran.

In which case, however, you would also disown huge chunks of the best Turner - for example.

For Turner, who could do beauty probably better than anyone else, it simply wasn't enough

jetcode

21-Aug-2007, 08:32

paulr

21-Aug-2007, 09:53

There's no reason to think that. Mozart wrote in a style (sonata form) that he didn't invent, that had been well used and fully explored long before he made the scene and he was not then nor has he since been ignored. Why do you think you'd get a different outcome with a different style?

because the perception at the time was that the baroque compositional style was completely played out ... that all the major discoveries afforded by the form had been made (Bach himself had made the bulk of them). And more subjectively, it felt to people like old news. Then and now, you're not going to get credit as a revolutionary or as the Big Thing of your era by producing what people see as Olde Fashioned Songs and Pictures.

yeah, mozart worked in an existing form (as did bach, shakespeare, hemingway, and picasso) but it was a living and growing form at the time he used it, and like these other artists he used it in ways that felt contemporary and that were unmistakeably his.

paulr

21-Aug-2007, 10:26

i should add ... case in point is bach himself. for whatever reasons, his innovations were too subtle for the majority of his contemporaries to pick up on. he was seen as an old fashioned, and therefore uncreative and unimportant composer in his own day. his sons were thought to be more significant at the time (while today we see them as minor figures compared with their father).

bach was famous in his day as an organist, not as a composer! the radical genius of his composition wasn't discovered til decades later ... by composers including mozart, in fact.

Brian Ellis

21-Aug-2007, 10:41

All you say also is true for Carleton Watkins and a few others of his his generation who captured the same and in some instances even more breathtaking images. Did it on 11x14 glass plates and did it much of it 35-40 years before Adams was born Watkins first Yosemite photographs date to 1861).

Without taking away from the f64 group, it is more appropriate to note that they rediscovered what those that came several generations before them had discovered. Watkins and a few others, working only a few decades after the dawn of the discovery of photography made some images that are truely amazing and awe inspiring. Watkins, and his work that was shown to Congress by John Muir, was an important part of the creation of the National Park system.

The history of photography doesn't lend itself to neat categorizations or step-by-step delineations of exactly who came up with what idea on what date and who first began doing what when. But while Watkins and others made nice pictures of the American west, Adams and Group f64 did much more than rediscover those photographs. According to Naomi Rosenblum in "A World History of Photography," the ideas adopted and promoted by Adams and others (which basically were a rejection of pictorialism and a belief in a new way of seeing that relied on "straight" photography) originated in Europe and Japan and found their way to America by way of Johan Hagemeyer (a close friend of Weston's) after a trip to Japan. In other words, while Watkins, Jackson, et al made nice photographs of the American west, they had relatively little to do with what Adams and Group f64 were about.

By pointing out that Adams' and Group f64 didn't originate their ideas about pictorialism and straight photography I don't mean to minimize Adams or his contributions to American photography. On the contrary, Adams did far more with those ideas and with far more significant results than anyone else in America ever did. I mention all of this just because I think it's misleading to say that he and Group f64 simply rediscovered the work of Carlton Watkins et al. What he along with many others really did was adopt (and, in Adams' case especially, popularize) an entire new way of thinking about photography and its place in the American arts, a monumental achievement.

To suggest that Adams wasn't "creative" is IMHO such a ludicrous idea that there's no point in arguing about it. It's a little like Louis Armstrong's famous saying about jazz, if you really think there's nothing to Adams besides some pretty landscape pictures then you just don't get it.

paulr

21-Aug-2007, 11:03

Darryl Baird

21-Aug-2007, 11:35

All you say also is true for Carleton Watkins and a few others of his his generation who captured the same and in some instances even more breathtaking images....snip...

Without taking away from the f64 group, it is more appropriate to note that they rediscovered what those that came several generations before them had discovered. Watkins and a few others, working only a few decades after the dawn of the discovery of photography made some images that are truely amazing and awe inspiring. Watkins, and his work that was shown to Congress by John Muir, was an important part of the creation of the National Park system.

We're talking in circles, but the original question was about competence vs. creativity. We're now talking about the development of an artform and who done what and when. Photography has (until this last few decades) fought to be considered a fine art, alongside painting and the rest of the visual arts, and the earliest promoters of this cause are from the mid 1800s (Rejlander, Robinson, Cameron, etc), followed by the (early, middle, and late) Pictorialists and the Photo-Secession and finally the f64 folks. Each added a new layer... often destroying or rejecting the previous. That's about the norm for any art movement.

The f/64 group were an alternate vision to what Stieglitz, Paul Strand, Karl Struss, Steichen amd Coburn were discovering independently back East. Weston did not get the slap on the back he was expecting from Stieglitz when he travelled to NYC to visit the master. In terms of cementing photography as an artform in the USA, Stieglitz owns that crown... not by just by his images or words, but his strong and unbending ideas.

sorry to be such an academic prick, but that's what's on my business card:cool:

... a note on Friedlander -- he is as prolific a photographer as maybe Winogrand and his work has aged well as has his mind. A lot of the "new" work dates back many years and represents what somebody here described as a constant creative force. Yes, he has his ruts, but he has so many:D it's hard not to be impressed by his energy and drive.

Gordon Moat

21-Aug-2007, 11:46

When something is recognized as an art movement, then it is no longer innovative. I think the more recent establishment of photography in the art world has more to do with several wealthy collectors and some very recent high prices. Photography as an art form has been around for a very long time.

It might be easier in hindsight to look at works by Adams, Weston, et al, than to find out and figure out what is happening now. Too much emphasis on the past can miss some quite interesting recent works.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio (http://www.allgstudio.com)

Mark Sampson

21-Aug-2007, 11:46

Ansel, for sure, was aware of the 19th-century landscape photographers. Check his autobiography; I'm reasonably sure he talks about finding/seeing/owning an original portfolio of Watkins' work when he was young. ....Certainly Adams' work has become so popular, and copied, that his artistic achievement can be hard to see. But it's there all right.

paulr

21-Aug-2007, 12:00

Weston did not get the slap on the back he was expecting from Stieglitz when he travelled to NYC to visit the master...

unfortunately for the photographic pilgrims of the time, how much stieglitz liked your work seemed to have as much to do with how his bowels were feeling as with anything else. i think weston caught him on a bad day. if i remember right, walker evans had a horrible appointment with stieglitz, at least the first time they met.

ansel had better luck ... he and stieglitz hit it off when they met in 1933, and stieglitz gave him a show at his american place gallery.

Brian Ellis

21-Aug-2007, 12:05

Brian, do you know when the f64 guys first discovered the the 19th century survey work? I was under the impression that they found it after they'd already been doing their thing, and that it came as bit of a shock. But I haven't seen anything written about it.

No, I don't know but I'd be a little surprised if that was the case. In "Examples" Adams talks about making his White House Ruin photograph in 1941 and later realizing that it was almost a duplicate of one made by Timothy O'Sullivan that was included in a collection of original prints that he (Adams) used to own. Adams doesn't say when he owned the O'Sullivan print but clearly by 1941 he knew of the work of the 19th century photographers. Group f64 was founded in 1932 so assuming they all knew whatever Adams knew, there was a pretty short time frame within which to become aware of the 19th century work if they learned of it after forming Group f64 (and of course Group f64 was dissolved in 1933 or thereabouts).

Bruce Watson

21-Aug-2007, 12:17

because the perception at the time was that the baroque compositional style was completely played out ... that all the major discoveries afforded by the form had been made (Bach himself had made the bulk of them). And more subjectively, it felt to people like old news. Then and now, you're not going to get credit as a revolutionary or as the Big Thing of your era by producing what people see as Olde Fashioned Songs and Pictures.

Case in point. Bach himself was not given credit as a revolutionary or as the Big Thing is his era. That credit came later, long after he himself was dead. The question of what forms are "played out" is best answered by the artist, and not the people or the critics. Thank goodness Bach decided that the counterpoint styles were alive and working for his vision, even if his contemporaries thought otherwise.

yeah, Mozart worked in an existing form (as did Bach, Shakespeare, Hemingway, and Picasso) but it was a living and growing form at the time he used it, and like these other artists he used it in ways that felt contemporary and that were unmistakeably his.

It was a living and growing form because he was using it, not because he was living in a time when other people used it. See Bach above.

That's the crux of this thread I think: who gets to say what form or style is "used up" or "played out" and when does that occur? You seem to be saying it's the audience (and critics) who get to make that determination. I say it's up to the artists to use the forms and styles that best fit their vision, regardless what anyone else thinks.

Clearly we aren't going to convince each other, so the last word is yours if you want it :)

Ken Lee

21-Aug-2007, 15:00

Competency vs. Creativity

Replace vs. with and

One cannot exist without the other. They define one another, in relative terms.

paulr

21-Aug-2007, 15:04

That's the crux of this thread I think: who gets to say what form or style is "used up" or "played out" and when does that occur? You seem to be saying it's the audience (and critics) who get to make that determination. I say it's up to the artists to use the forms and styles that best fit their vision, regardless what anyone else thinks.

Bruce, i'd only say that a form or a style is played out when those who work within it find themselves unable to do anything but repeat what's essentially been done before. it's not a judgement to be handed to someone else. if a 400 year old form is perfectly suited to someone's original vision about the world they live in, then power to them. it may not the most likely case, but i'd never say it's impossible.

for what it's worth, i just looked up some histories on mozart, and found that he DID imitate bach for a period after he discovered bach's compositions. not surprisingly, though, those derivative pieces are not the one's he's known for. and they're apparently not the ones he was most happy with either; he quickly evolved the style into his own voice, using it as a jumping-off point rather than an end in itself.

you can see the same kind of evolution with picasso. his early work looked like a catalog of masterful imitations. but that work has been largely forgotten by the world, because it's only important in terms of picasso's development. it was a stepping stone to his finding his own vision.

tim atherton

21-Aug-2007, 15:08

Bruce, i'd only say that a form or a style is played out when those who work within it find themselves unable to do anything but repeat what's essentially been done before. it's not a judgement to be handed to someone else. if a 400 year old form is perfectly suited to someone's original vision about the world they live in, then power to them. it may not the most likely case, but i'd never say it's impossible.

I think a good example in "photography" would be Chuck Close's Daguerreotypes (but I think it unlikely that's all he's going to do from hereon in though)

for what it's worth, i just looked up some histories on mozart, and found that he DID imitate bach for a period after he discovered bach's compositions. not surprisingly, though, those derivative pieces are not the one's he's known for. and they're apparently not the ones he was most happy with either; he quickly evolved the style into his own voice, using it as a jumping-off point rather than an end in itself.

And although he did it in rapid succession, Van Gogh in Paris whipped through copying - very competently - all the popular styles of the day before abandoning them (he sort of did it, absorbed it, tossed it aside and moved onto the next)

Ed K.

21-Aug-2007, 16:43

By the first post definition, this thread might be competent, especially with the additional posts. It's probably not a very creative thread. Photographers have thrashed this one since the first few photographs, no?

On the other hand, it takes guts to post the question and start it again, considering all the purists and experts around here. Could it be that the "guts requirement" is related to creativity?

Is the post a search for the truth, an affirmation, or ? A truly creative artist doesn't need to ask anyone for advice or reassurances - in many cases, artists don't care what anyone else has to say; they have no time or energy to spare for such things.

Ah the poor photographer, whose technical expertise yearns to have recognition from the art world. A few nods come from the critics, yes, yet then how it seems to come down to comparisons to the great painters.

At least breathing "creates" carbon monoxide! If one is the creative, then whatever the creator believes is enough when money or recognition are no object. The reverse is when, for example, money is in the range of values - then a paying audience in many ways becomes at least part of the creative force.

Ooops - I know nuth-zing...beter quit while ahead. Good on ya KG and others for caring about such things instead of only the latest lenses...

Robert Hughes

21-Aug-2007, 16:51

i have a gigantic wooden table in my loft ...it was used for nude models to pose on at UNM.

i'm wondering if witkin ever used it ... and i'm hoping all the models were living.

LOL! At the photo center I go to, the print darkroom has a long table that holds all the chemicals in one tub. Last week or so, I learned its original function - autopsy table!

Kirk Gittings

21-Aug-2007, 20:43

I remember the wooden table (or a wooden table) that was around in one of the studios from 68-73. As I remember it though, Witkin always worked in his own private studio. He was a mature student when he came liked to work in private.

Struan Gray

22-Aug-2007, 01:14

My feeling is that most people are too timid to be creative, even the flamboyant ones. They have too much invested in the reward systems of the status quo, and are too concerned with joining the crowd, or having the crowd join them.

Even in physics, where innovation is enshrined in the founding myth, it takes a thorough beating with a hard, knobbly mental stick to get students to stop trusting written sources and to start following their own ideas. In fact, I now regard giving such beatings as the single most important part of my teaching.

There are examples of a creativity of the commons. "Emergence" is a favourite buzzword, although it often gives an false aura of planned inevitability to whatever happened to turn up. But in the arts, and for an individual artist, my personal take is that creativity is largely a question of daring to be yourself. It's surprisingly hard.

paulr

22-Aug-2007, 05:43

...my personal take is that creativity is largely a question of daring to be yourself. It's surprisingly hard.

brilliantly put.

i think most people who confront that challenge find it incredibly hard. some lucky ones aren't challenged by it at all ... they don't know any other way than being themselves. they're the crazy artist marching to their own beat (matthew barney, etc.) and they probably aren't arguing about ideas like this on the internet!

interestingly, the people who have pushed this challenge in front of my nose have been members of the establishment, ones who according to conventional wisdom would push conformity. Maria Hambourg, former curator at the met, and a grand dame of the photo world, came out to talk to me years ago after i'd dropped off a portfolio. she was friendly and complimentary, and at the end said, 'my only misgiving is that i sense you're making pictures that you know how to make. that you're working in a style that isn't encouraging your individual expressiveness. one of these days i'd like to see some work from you that you didn't know how to make."

and she was right. and that was years ago, and i've only made baby steps in that direction. when i thought about it, it seemed strange that i was working within an old and rigid tradition, because as a person i don't fit into any rigid categories (the hippie! the skater! the jock!). i'm too weird for that, so why are my pictures so normal?

that begs the question, how do you do the work that you don't (yet) know how to do? and i think a big part of it is giving yourself permission to fail. if you're exploring, you're going to get lost. if you're not getting lost, you're probably using a map, or not straying far from the yard. consistency in art might not be something to be proud of. certainly not early in a body of work.

for my next project i'm giving myself permission to fail, and to fail spectacularly. this is scary to me, because it goes against a lot of what i used to care about (competency??). which might explain why i've been procrastinating. i need to be careful to share the work in progress only with people who get what i'm up to, who will be willing to help me stay lost for a while if that's what i need. getting lost is ultimately the means to finding yourself someplace you didn't know about.

Brian K

22-Aug-2007, 06:11

Why is there even a consideration for doing work that OTHERS consider creative? I thought that art was supposed to be self expression? I think you need to do the work you want to do, you do the work you're self compelled to do. If others like it great, you have a career, if others don't, you may need to make a living some way else but at least you've been true to yourself.

If you keep an open mind your work will grow and evolve.

Paul as for giving yourself permission to fail, not wanting to sound critical of you, but that sounds like over intellectualizing. The hell with succeed or fail, do the work that turns you on, the hell with what other people think. And just who will determine if you failed or succeeded, you or someone else? Bottom line is that there is no failure, taking the wrong turn is not a failure, you now know that that road doesn't take you where you want. Time to try the next road. Life itself is a never ending work in progress.

Michael Alpert

22-Aug-2007, 07:13

Kirk,

Thank you for your provocation.

I think it is important to consider an artist's basic mind-set before one comes to any conclusion about that artist's work. Previous contributors to this thread have suggested that Adams was interested in music, which is true; but they have then suggested that Adams thought of himself specifically as a composer, which I think is questionable. Rather, if you see Adams as a performing artist, a pianist with a camera, then, from his point of view, Nature is the creative force (and composer) while the photographer is the interpretive enactor of Nature's composition. Creativity thought of in this way becomes a matter of correct recitation, not a matter of formal invention.

I am personally not too comfortable with this sort of thinking (it assumes either too much or too little about human possibility), but I can accept that Adams could function this way as a worthwhile artist without creating anything especially New. Stated another way, the New would be a denial of Adams's basic interpretive premise.

A Modernist like Weston was another kettle of fish. Weston really wanted to be Bach with a camera. Formal innovation was fundamental to his way of working. His genius partly consisted in letting the world remain itself as he ordered it into artistic composition. Weston's photographs are less modest, more inventive, more severe, and perhaps not as easily appealing.

Bruce Watson

22-Aug-2007, 07:22

Michael Alpert

22-Aug-2007, 07:31

I thought that art was supposed to be self expression?

No, your question articulates alienation, but it does not define art. Art is a social, philosophical, and historical force in culture in which individuals participate. Self-expression by itself has no standards and has no meaning.

Kirk Gittings

22-Aug-2007, 07:34

A Modernist like Weston was another kettle of fish. Weston really wanted to be Bach with a camera. Formal innovation was fundamental to his way of working. His genius partly consisted in letting the world remain itself as he ordered it into artistic composition. Weston's photographs are less modest, more inventive, more severe, and perhaps not as easily appealing.

This is fundamentally how I see it. Oversimplified, while I love Adams' work, I respect Weston's vision.

paulr

22-Aug-2007, 07:47

Paul as for giving yourself permission to fail, not wanting to sound critical of you, but that sounds like over intellectualizing. The hell with succeed or fail, do the work that turns you on, the hell with what other people think. And just who will determine if you failed or succeeded, you or someone else? Bottom line is that there is no failure, taking the wrong turn is not a failure, you now know that that road doesn't take you where you want. Time to try the next road. Life itself is a never ending work in progress.

Brian, you're responding to the exact opposite of what i'm saying.

these ideas we carry around of success or failure, what makes a good picture or good body of work, etc, are almost always other people's ideas. and we're not aware of it, so we find ourselves striving to meet someone else's expectations, to succeed or fail based on someone else's standards, without even knowing it.

9 out of 10 people i hear say 'i just do my own work, i don't care what anyone thinks' are doing the most derivative, unimaginative, paint-by-numbers work imaginable. they haven't even questioned why they point their camera where they do. if they thought about it for a minute they'd realize they're just aping other pictures they've seen ... probably ones so old and familiar that they just assume 'this is what good pictures must look like.'

i think to some degree i'm guilty of this. not of copying another person's style outright, but by unconsciously adopting other people's rules and standards. saying you're not going to be afraid to fail is an attempt to cut yourself loose from this--to specifically say 'i don't care what other people think.' or more significantly, 'i don't care what the critical voices in the back of my head, which really aren't mine, have to say about this.'

it's not such an intellectual idea. makes sense to me that if you're going to go some place unfamiliar, without a map, you'd better embrace the idea of stumbling around for a while.

Darryl Baird

22-Aug-2007, 08:12

Somewhere I've read (and repeated) that Ansel thought "the negative was the equivalent of a (musical) composition, and the print was the performance." This tends to beg the question, is the creative act more in the original expression/negative or in the interpretation/print? Musicians certainly use this idea to rephrase and alter the emotional expression of a composition. No?

Kirk Gittings

22-Aug-2007, 12:30

Which is why any musician who is still playing his music exactly the same 20 years later has all the creativity left of a record player.

Darryl Baird

22-Aug-2007, 13:10

Which is why any musician who is still playing his music exactly the same 20 years later has all the creativity left of a record player.

good one, immediate LOL

yet music fans tend to be cranky when a performance doesn't sound like the record, ...damned of you do, damned if you don't

poco

22-Aug-2007, 13:18

for my next project i'm giving myself permission to fail, and to fail spectacularly. this is scary to me, because it goes against a lot of what i used to care about (competency??). which might explain why i've been procrastinating.

You may also be procrastinating because consequences of failure over an entire project could be pretty devastating. I don't think I'd like to deal with that, so what I do instead is save one sheet of film every outing to try something totally different. It's a very conscious thing for me and I literally say to myself, "okay, now crawl out of your skin and try something else." And even with only one exposure it's a very difficult thing to do because it entails risk not only in the taking of the shot, but also in the editing process later.

paulr

22-Aug-2007, 13:26

Joni Mitchell struggled most of her career with fans who didn't support her creative process. not just ones who wanted her to play the song like the version of the record, but ones who liked joni circa 1973 and wanted her to stay that way forever.

but she wouldn't ... she had a solid folk music career in the '70s, but chose to follow her passions even if it meant abandoning her loyal fans.

she went through several incarnations of jazz, rock, and experimental songwriting, picking up and losing fans along the way. she did a lot of experiments, and had some dramatic failures--not just commercial, but artistic as well. i admire her for being so genuinely dedicated to her vision, to the point where losing an audience or even making an embarrassing record were risks she was willing to take.

and ... you could say most of the same things about miles davis.

Darryl Baird

22-Aug-2007, 14:35

Struan Gray

23-Aug-2007, 00:29

these ideas we carry around of success or failure, what makes a good picture or good body of work, etc, are almost always other people's ideas. and we're not aware of it, so we find ourselves striving to meet someone else's expectations, to succeed or fail based on someone else's standards, without even knowing it.

9 out of 10 people i hear say 'i just do my own work, i don't care what anyone thinks' are doing the most derivative, unimaginative, paint-by-numbers work imaginable. they haven't even questioned why they point their camera where they do. if they thought about it for a minute they'd realize they're just aping other pictures they've seen ... probably ones so old and familiar that they just assume 'this is what good pictures must look like.'

I used to complain that I could never find good photographs of the things that interested me and, simultaneously, worry that my own photographs were stuck in other people's ruts. The answer was simple enough, but it took an effort of will to see it.

I am still puzzling over the fact that those contemporary photographers I have since discovered with whom I feel the strongest affinity are almost all, like me, expatriate Brits. I suspect that subconscious culture goes much deeper than I care to admit, and although the rationalist in me revolts at the idea, my childhood is still exerting a large influence over my adult tastes. That may be fodder for a new project.

I disagree though with the too-close linking of innovation and creativity. Just as good composition explicitly considers the frame, creativity can flourish within tight bounds. There are many good examples of creativity within a tradition. The C20th century re-discovery of baroque forms - thought too restrictive by the romantics - led to the writing of a lot of my favourite music, and as a sucker for triple time I can listen to almost any walz with pleasure, whether it comes from a linden grove or a cypress swamp. A photographic equivalent would be some of the re-photographic surveys, or much scientific and technical photography, where the goals and definitions of success are not purely artistic, or rather, not purely driven by the romantic notion of self expression.

I have been editing a project I did three-to-four years ago. It has been surprising to see so many of my images with a relatively cold eye: the influences are much clearer, but it is also heartening to watch myself making decisions that I am now sure were right. Of course, I bask in the twin luxuries of amateurism and inconsequence: a pro would starve at such a slow work rate. But that may be why so many innovations come from the margins.

paulr

23-Aug-2007, 06:04

I disagree though with the too-close linking of innovation and creativity. Just as good composition explicitly considers the frame, creativity can flourish within tight bounds. There are many good examples of creativity within a tradition

I think we probably agree on this. I don't think something needs to pretend to be new in every way to be a creative work. Shakespeare's poetry was remarkably creative (and you could make a case that it was so in an innovative way) even though he only worked within the sonnet, which was already an old form. Weston used available materials and worked within an 8x10 frame for most of his career ... etc. etc.

Some people find traditional forms that are perfectly suited to their vision, even if that vision is unique. Others don't, and have to invent new forms to accomodate them.

There are wonderful things about working within tight constraints. They can challenge you to find innovative ways to work within them. The strict rules of a sonnet might force you to find a phrase that's much more vivid and surprising than the one that first popped into your head. And a familiar form can free up your imagination--if you know you're going to be making 8x10 contact prints on black and white paper, you've crossed a lot of things off your list and can focus more on what you want to explore.

There are also drawbacks to tradition. Familiarity with the work that's been done in a tradition can cloud your own vision. The limits of what others have done within it can seem to you like the limits of what's possible.

paulr

23-Aug-2007, 08:32

something that occurred to me ... a trick people sometimes use to help inspire creativity is to work with a medium that they're NOT competent in. for years ornette coleman has performed pieces on violin, an instrument he doesn't know how to play. i don't much care for these performances (and haven't heard from too many who do) but they seem to work for ornette. he's been doing it for so long without encouragement that i can only assume it helps his creative process.

i tried a much less bold version of this while ago when i started working with color for the first time, using an unfamiliar camera and format and shooting style. it was a great experience, and i ended up liking a lot of the work that came out of it.

Robert Hughes

23-Aug-2007, 09:53

...Which is why any musician who is still playing his music exactly the same 20 years later has all the creativity left of a record player...good one, immediate LOL

yet music fans tend to be cranky when a performance doesn't sound like the record, ...damned of you do, damned if you don't
Interesting side thread. One of the critiques of classical music of the past century is that conductors and performers learned their technique from recordings rather than live performance, listening to "best of breed" virtuosos. As a result, the tempo of much orchestral music has accelerated dramatically, and the "pulse", or inner tempo of the piece is lost. Listen to a 1940's Furtwangler recording of, say, Beethoven's 5th Symphony, and compare it to a modern recording such as found in Fantasia 2000. The notes are the same, but the music is entirely different; faster, sharper, more "in your face". Appropriate for hip-hop, but symphonic work?

tim atherton

23-Aug-2007, 10:14

Interesting side thread. One of the critiques of classical music of the past century is that conductors and performers learned their technique from recordings rather than live performance, listening to "best of breed" virtuosos. As a result, the tempo of much orchestral music has accelerated dramatically, and the "pulse", or inner tempo of the piece is lost. Listen to a 1940's Furtwangler recording of, say, Beethoven's 5th Symphony, and compare it to a modern recording such as found in Fantasia 2000. The notes are the same, but the music is entirely different; faster, sharper, more "in your face". Appropriate for hip-hop, but symphonic work?

culture and society and innovation always effect such things in one way or another.

I was read a fascinating essay on bow technique in strings, especially violins.

In former times gravity held a much greater sway in how the violin was played with a greater emphasis on the downstroke.

It wasn't until man began to break the bounds of gravity with flight - especially balloons as they became all the craze across Europe that "coincidentally" (?) bowing technique became much freer and less ensnared by gravity - it was essentially a mental thing

I don't remember where I read it, but it was a very convincing argument (this was just one example - flight introduced a paradigm shift of consciousness in society which effected all sorts of things that had nothing directly to do with it)

paulr

23-Aug-2007, 12:10

also, with continuing emphasis on technical perfection, improvisation got dropped from the classical tradition. classical musicians used to know how to jam! and keyboard players used to improvise during cadenzas. but now most classical musicians look like they'll have a heart attach if you ask them to make something up. they've become specialists at playing written notes perfectly.

Struan Gray

23-Aug-2007, 12:48

The musicians I know love to improvise, there's just not much of an outlet for it in the regular concert circuit. One of the attractions of the period instrument world is that musicians have more freedom from conductors, and more opportunity to interpret, even if it's only with the odd ornament.

One thing that frustrates me greatly about the photography world is its insularity. At my most cynical I think it's a sign of there being too many professional photographers: just as I think governments work better if they are not full of career politicians. Take a look at Gavin Bryars' motivation for writing a piece called "On photography":

http://www.gavinbryars.com/Pages/on_photography_album_fr.html

(Paragraph four, if you like to speed-read.) By comparison, photography seems very narrow and determinist in its choice of motivations.

Mark Sawyer

24-Aug-2007, 17:28

I do suppose that too many photographers want their work to look just like Ansel Adams', just as too many guitar-players want to sound just like Carlos Santana...

Maybe we need to differentiate between photographers and artists, and between instrument-players and musicians...

(I do think that Adams' work has lost much of its original power today due to a generation of imitators, just as would happen to any musical artist who was so soundly and surgically copied by thousands, and for decades...)

Creativity, or innovation, if you prefer, can also be seen as just one more tool in the tool box. Beyond a certain flash-value in the galleries, what does it offer? It suggests nothing towards quality or content, vision or integrity. To set innovative style as a goal of its own seems little different than to set the mastering craft or capturing a beautiful image as the goal in itself...

paulr

24-Aug-2007, 20:38

I do suppose that too many photographers want their work to look just like Ansel Adams', just as too many guitar-players want to sound just like Carlos Santana...

definitely. the same conversation is probably going on over at the guitar hero message boards.

To set innovative style as a goal of its own seems little different than to set the mastering craft or capturing a beautiful image as the goal in itself...

sure, but i think a genuinely creative person is doing neither. an innovative style isn't really the goal; it's the side effect of trying to say what you uniquely have to say.

ageorge

24-Aug-2007, 21:26

Agreed. There is nothing wrong with beauty. To say that beauty is not enough is to disown huge amounts of art, from Mozart to Moran.

Fair enough...

But beauty is a pretty tired horse. There must be more to photography than beauty, no? Don't you find beauty intellectually vacant? Is it the only duty of "art" to make me "feel" good?

And yes roteague, I am poking at you to:)

domenico Foschi

24-Aug-2007, 22:41

Stephen Willard

25-Aug-2007, 11:20

For those of you who believe they can define creativity, innovation, and competency, I say you are fools. For those of you who dare mix politics with their images then you manufacture nothing more then propaganda. For those of you who claim to be fine-art photographers, I say you are merely a wall decorator like myself.

About the only thing one can really define is there are wall decorators who have patrons and then there are those who do not. Should some one purchase your work then the patron finds your work worthy for the price and nothing more.

If you have not sold any photographs then you need to stop complaining and get better. If you grow tired of someone's else work such as Adams or even beauty then shut up and go do something different.

Other then that, this is an interesting string.

tim atherton

25-Aug-2007, 11:32

For those of you who believe they can define creativity, innovation, and competency, I say you are fools. For those of you who dare mix politics with their images then you manufacture nothing more then propaganda. For those of you who claim to be fine-art photographers, I say you are merely a wall decorator like myself.
.

Yep that Picasso guy - never did make any good art. Just a propagandist through and through. As for Goya - what a hack.

Of course, we wouldn't want to actually make at about life would we? (and you can't get much more political at times than ideas of "beauty")

If you grow tired of someone's else work such as Adams or even beauty then shut up and go do something different.

I'm guessing you've never heard of the sublime (or Turner or Cozens or Stravinsky or Blake or Rembrandt or - oh the list goes on...)

Mark Sawyer

25-Aug-2007, 12:08

sure, but i think a genuinely creative person is doing neither. an innovative style isn't really the goal; it's the side effect of trying to say what you uniquely have to say.

I suppose it comes down to semantics and the concept of art. Does being creative/innovative in how one sees the world make one an artist? Or is it something else? Could be argued very well either way...

The odd thing about what each of us so uniquely has to say is that whatever we say, it's never what anyone else so uniquely sees in our work. I wonder how many photographers we put down as "Adams/Weston/whoever imitators" really see something uniquely different in their own work...

(Personally, I think everybody else is unique, and I'm the only one that's the same...)

Struan Gray

25-Aug-2007, 12:54

If you have not sold any photographs then you need to stop complaining and get better.

Art as grocery.

domenico Foschi

25-Aug-2007, 14:17

Stephen Willard

25-Aug-2007, 14:25

Art as grocery.

Exactly, us wall decorators simply sell our wears to put food on the table. What is wrong with that. Pollock did it. Adams did it. Picasso did it. And the list goes on...

tim atherton

25-Aug-2007, 14:30

Exactly, us wall decorators simply sell our wears to put food on the table. What is wrong with that. Pollock did it. Adams did it. Picasso did it. And the list goes on...

"simply sell our wears to put food on the table"

a simple viewpoint but simply wrong - that's not "simply" what Pollock or Picasso did.

anyone who fails to see that would be a simple at best

(btw, I don't think either of them made clothes?)

Stephen Willard

25-Aug-2007, 14:45

People should only speak for themselves without dragging others in their negativity.

Exactly. There are many people who highly respect Adams work such as myself. So when someone comes along and implies his work is marginally competent and hollow (rather negative wouldn't you say) then I decided to remind these high minded individuals that we really are nothing more than wall decorators myself included.

Wall paper, prints, photographs, paintings, stenciling, mirrors, and plastic flowers all compete for real-estate on some patrons wall.

ageorge

26-Aug-2007, 10:15

Fair enough...

But beauty is a pretty tired horse. There must be more to photography than beauty, no? Don't you find beauty intellectually vacant? Is it the only duty of "art" to make me "feel" good?

And yes roteague, I am poking at you to:)

It all depends what is your concept of beauty.
It should actually be written Beauty.
Beauty has a Univrsal value that encompasses the trends and time, it is the equivalent of timeless Art.

What does intellect have to do with Art?
Intellect is the enemy of Art.
Oscar Wilde said: There are two ways to dislike Art: One is by disliking it, the other is by liking it with the intellect.
The artist duty is to show the world that beauty is everywhere even in the worst of things.
It is a spiritual view of the world that tells us to look beyond the conventional and discover that something that can be experienced only with the heart.

There.

I would hate to think that I must leave my brain at home when visiting an art gallery, museum or just going out in the world with my camera for that matter. There is no incompatibility between art and intellect, quite the contrary, at least in my way of thinking and thankfully I am not alone. The world is not all warm and fuzzy. Why should art only reflect the beauty of the world? There is more to photography than just pretty pictures. I feel art has a larger responsibility than just to make me/us feel good.

I suppose we will have the agree to disagree.

There? Where?

paulr

26-Aug-2007, 19:14

It's a very strange and artificial dichotomy ... to think that if something engages your eyes/heart/soul/whatever that it can't also engage your intellect. or vice versa. most great art works on many levels.

For what its worth, many of the heroes of people in this forum (weston, adams strand, etc.) wanted people to think about their work, and just admire its prettiness. look at the many writings by any of these people ... they discuss a lot more than just esthetics.

nelsonfotodotcom

27-Aug-2007, 18:14

Late to this thread.

As there is simply no accounting for taste, there is no use to be concerned with it. No matter what is produced, a fan - somewhere - can be located for same; no matter how widely popular a thing might be, there will surely exist scores who are opposed to it.

Be curious. Play. Question. Risk. Please thyself.

Those are the rules in my book.

David_Senesac

27-Aug-2007, 20:48

Kirk I immediately positively embraced your premise. The many strong though diverse responses reflect well on the membership of this forum.

Indeed considering your statement, I use my visual sense like a fine tuned bloodhound's nose. Something that through long years of being open to the positive aesthetic within, I have evolved to be able to sense with my right brain skills. I wondered about my own work and suspected very little of my body of marketed landscape images required much creativity beyond the composition process of positioning scene elements because I've been capturing landscapes so long that I've seen and experienced the many ways I can approach subjects. In fact none of several dozen on my gallery index images required much creativity except for an old 35mm image, http://www.davidsenesac.com/images/print_95b_24-20.html. One can read the story on that webpage if amused.

Thus the frequent observation that I can reach subjects and very quickly and efficiently size up very good positions to plunk my tripod down at. That phase completed, the rest of the capture process proceeds rather mechanically. However I expected a few of my Coolpix closeup images might have creativity involved because they more often presented novel visual situations that I then had to explore in new ways using all my skills. Indeed just a few of those closeup images involved at least some small creative leap. Not enough that I would categorize the creativity strongly versus what one might see in other artforms, but nonetheless creatitivity. Thus some examples below of this subtle process when a sense of creativity is involved in even nature and landscapes where one would not expect much. Note I won't be around the next while. ...David

The following is my "Coolpix Closeup Slideshow Page" link http://www.davidsenesac.com/slideshows/closeup_slideshows.html. On that page are six slideshows that I have links below to individual images within.

For this image in slideshow 6, I noticed this banana slug on a steep slope and knowing they have a rather comical head, thought I might be able to get my tiny Coolpix 7900 right at ground level in order to capture it head on:
http://www.davidsenesac.com/slideshows/misc_cu/banana_slug_face.jpg

For this image in slideshow 5, I noticed how surf foam bubbles acted like a magnifying glass. That gave me the idea of capturing a situation where they would magnify tiny pebbles on a stony shore:
http://www.davidsenesac.com/slideshows/seashore_cu/bubbles_pebbles.jpg

For this image in slideshow 2, I noticed how fringepod backlit by the sun glowed. Thus decided to find a situtation where I could get extra close in macro to emphasize the tiny holes in the seed pods isolated against a distant enough background for them to stand out strongly: http://www.davidsenesac.com/slideshows/wflwr_sierra/fringepod_sun.jpg

For this image in slideshow 1, I noticed how the disk elements of the central part of this mule ears species flower tended to whorl out novely when opening up from a bud. Thinking the ray flowers might provide an interesting composition of spokes around such whorls, I experimented capturing various closeups until I found what I wanted: http://www.davidsenesac.com/slideshows/wflwr_coast/gmule_ears_cen.jpg