What's your best VISUAL teacher?

[Heroique]

I’m thunder-struck by the replies to an ongoing thread about art books.

The poster says, “I know nothing about art,” and appeals to us for help.

He asks for “something to read.” Next comes an avalanche of replies (w/ the occasional exception) directing the curious poster to texts – not images. That is, it seems the great majority of people, in their wish to be helpful, took the poster at his word!

But does this raise any eyebrows?

The unstated assumption behind all the text-happy recommendations is that actual paintings, actual photographs are secondary to what acknowledged masters & clever critics have to say about them – go first to their words!

Perhaps the best example:

Any suggestions? I know nothing about ART, hopefully it can help me with my photo-taking.

Another book which I consider the most important literary work of last century is Proust's "In Search of Lost Time". The book itself is an incredible work of art and it also contains many discussions of art.

Granted, the OP’s request is a bit unclear, and will naturally inspire a diversity of replies, all of which mean to be supportive. But I’m going to make a bold assumption: I’m going to interpret his “nothing” to mean “nothing.” If this is so, shouldn’t one’s investigation about art begin with the visual? And if so, shouldn’t Step 1 be a careful and inquisitive look at real subjects in front of one’s very own eyes? Shouldn’t this investigation, only then, continue with paintings & photos by others, the good and the bad?

Why this immediate and overwhelming emphasis to start w/ words, words, words?

It leaves me very curious – what helps you become a better photographer?

An ongoing examination of your personal visual experience? Looking at the work of others in museums, exhibits, or reproductions? Their explanations & descriptions in books? Perhaps a dynamic mix that changes over time? Something else entirely?

[Kirk Gittings]

It does not raise my eyebrows at all. People look at hundreds of photographic images a day but that does not by itself raise anyone's critical thinking or knowledge base about imagery (I'm not talking about technique here). I'm sure that he has looked at tens of thousands of images in his lifetime and still he feels like that was not informative enough. Its oftentimes not enough to simply look at more and more and more images, one may need to step back and think about the history, social context and critical thinking about image making and books can help in this as can art history classes etc.

Before university, art education is absolutely abysmal in this country and anyone who wants to increase their knowledge by doing some reading gets my support.

[Vaughn]

He specifically asked for "Art Books to Read" in the title of his post -- how is that unclear?

Images are everywhere...I assume if he wanted a list of artists for to look at their work, he would have said so. It hard to curl up with a photograph or painting on a cold winter's night.

Vaughn

[rdenney]

I learned art first by studying the art made by others. Art history in college comprised looking at the art produced throughout time. The art courses I took had very few words. They had lots of gesture drawings, line quality studies, composition studies, and so forth, all working from real subjects and the work comprising actual art.

This didn't teach me all that much about how to discuss art, but it taught me a little (within the scope of my own vision and talent) about expression.

When I studied architecture, we spent a lot of time looking at buildings. We built things (mostly models) and we experienced spaces. We spent very little time talking about buildings, other than their purely mechanical aspects.

What skill I have with writing came from reading.

Studying music can be quite technical, but the only reason I study the technical parts is because of the sounds in my head and my need to express them, and those came from listening to music.

In all cases, the basic learning process for me as a practitioner was to fill my head with good examples, and then try to first emulate those examples until I gained an understanding of them sufficient to find my own modes of expression (if indeed I ever have). If one wants to be a practitioner, I think that's as good an approach as any and maybe the only approach that can work for those who lack genius.

But that is poor training for someone who will want to discuss art, or architecture, or literature, or music. To discuss those things, they need to be able to describe those expressions, and that's the reason such work ends up being categorized and dated. I can hear Mozart in my head, and I can hear Beethoven, and I can hear Wagner. I can hear that they are different, and I can even hear how Beethoven drew from Mozart and how Wagner drew from Beethoven. But I would have to read a book to know that Mozart was classical, that Beethoven was the turning point from classical to romantic, and that Wagner was fully romantic.

Likewise, I can see Rembrandt in my head, and I can see, say, Van Gogh. I can see how the former leads to the latter. But it takes reading to categorize them.

And so on. I would have a hard time discussing those categorizations with literature, just because I have not studied it in that way, though I have read a lot.

I suspect much of what people study when they study art in college is what they need to know to describe and discuss art more than what they need to know to express themselves artistically. There is a connection between the two, but that connection is the experience of art, not the description of it, or so it seems to me.

That said, I think it takes more than looking around. Many are marvelous observers, but lack the discipline to turn their three-dimensional observation into two-dimensional art. They may also lack the willingness to explore their own responses to that three-dimensional observation as a means of determining what they really want to express in their art. That has always been the stumbling block for me, and it is not, I don't believe, related in any way to what I have or have not read about photography or art.

I do, however, remember my first good art teacher yelling at me, "Rick! You are being lazy. Show me what you SEE." He was demanding that discipline.

Rick "who now has to read that other thread" Denney

[Doremus Scudder]

Heroique,

While I share some of your sentiment, I too feel that, in the end analysis, art is about ideas, and that learning about art, and how to interpret and understand images, music, literature, etc. requires some knowledge about context, intent, philosophy, and so on.

Usually, the best method for acquiring an overview of the myriad of different approaches and purposes for art is verbal; usually written. It would be assumed, of course, that books about visual art would contain many images in addition to the text. These images, which often require a substantial amount of foreknowledge on the part of the observer in order to appreciate fully, would be explained and contextualized for the uninitiated. I do not find this a bad thing. Once one becomes conversant with the milieu, impetus and techniques in a particular medium at a particular time, one can then make one's own assessments.

However, until that conversance is reached, one is insufficiently equipped to appreciate. Books, by presenting the concepts and critical thinking involved in understanding an art form, can really help in bringing one to a level where one can both understand the art work being viewed and make their own judgments as to its effectiveness.

I don't think one could learn to be an art critic or appreciate the great majority of art (including music, literature, etc.), much less become a viable artist herself, by simply being exposed to the art works themselves without any kind of initiation or introduction. Finding ways to get this kind of orientation, I believe, is what the original poster was requesting. Books, classes, docent tours, lectures, and the like are just the ticket for acquiring this kind of knowledge. Only after one has enough to bring to an artwork can one fully understand and appreciate it. I don't think it works the other way around very often.

As for your question, a huge influence on my development as a photographer was the art history courses I took in university and the many exhibits of art I have attended in galleries. Usually, the works that affected me the most were not photographic in nature. These experiences, however, were never just limited to images; there was always an element of explanation (especially in the classes!) to both contextualize and give insight into the artists' motivations. For me, there was a memorable exhibition of Whistler at the Tate Gallery, a dismal exhibition of Dadaism at the Guggenheim in Venice (knowing what you don't like is important as well...), pre-Rahpaelites in Portland, and a host of others. Each had elements that I could embrace as well as those I rejected. The ongoing process shapes my ideas, clarifies my vision and nurtures my growth.

And for me, the strictly VISUAL is not necessarily the most important. I am hugely influenced and inspired by the non-visual arts; I often feel my photography is more influenced by Mahler and Whitman, Verdi and Shakespeare, Feynman, Wolff, Mozart, Freud and Jung than by visual influences...

So, while not answering your question directly, I would like to gently contest your underlying assumption that the VISUAL is the source for creating visually. I really don't believe that. For me, a painting can move the same way as a poem, or a symphony. After all, the goal is often the same; only the paths are divergent.

Best,

Doremus Scudder

[Merg Ross]

My suggestion, although the title might give a different impression, was a book of images linked by the thoughtful words of the author: Language of Vision by Gyorgy Kepes. A journey through the book will provide one with images of works by: L. Moholy Nagy, Klee, Duchamp, Matisse, Man Ray, Rembrandt, Mondrian, Seurat, Braque, as well as Spanish cave drawings, calligraphy, photomontage, photograms, and a long list of visual effects that relate to photography. There is very little work of photographers presented.

Looking at his work, I wonder if Andrew is as naive about art as his query implies. His images display an intuitive mastery of composition.

[Richard M. Coda]

It leaves me very curious – what helps you become a better photographer?

An ongoing examination of your personal visual experience? Looking at the work of others in museums, exhibits, or reproductions? Their explanations & descriptions in books? Perhaps a dynamic mix that changes over time? Something else entirely?

Looking at photographs and other artforms helps me. Also, just getting out there and "seeing". Granted, there's a lot of bad art/photography out there now (yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder).

Talking... seems over-rated. Those that can, do. Those that can't, talk [read what you want into that]. Another favorite movie quote (again from "On Golden Pond") "Well, I don't know why everybody has to talk about everything all the time."

If an image needs an inordinate amount of text to attempt to convey what the image maker intended, then the image has failed. A friend of mine recently commented on my blog... "When explanation is required it takes away from the photo and in 50 years when the culture has changed and the explanation is lost, the image will be meaningless."

[rdenney]

However, until that conversance is reached, one is insufficiently equipped to appreciate. Books, by presenting the concepts and critical thinking involved in understanding an art form, can really help in bringing one to a level where one can both understand the art work being viewed and make their own judgments as to its effectiveness.

I don't think one could learn to be an art critic or appreciate the great majority of art (including music, literature, etc.), much less become a viable artist herself, by simply being exposed to the art works themselves without any kind of initiation or introduction.

I agree with your conclusion that art in its many forms influences art in its other forms, and my musical and architectural training absolutely affect my photography and vice versa.

But I must disagree with the statements above.

I once wrote a lengthy article on the Vaughan Williams Concerto for Bass Tuba, in itself not a particularly significant work but for tuba players like me just about all there is from a great composer. I have a number of recordings, and my article went into a lot of detail and analysis of the different approaches over time. Having done that, I am now unable to hear that work simply for what it is. I find myself comparing it to this influence or that, and the simple experience of listening to it has been lost for me.

I don't mind intellectual pursuits, of course, but I wish I'd left well enough alone, and left the analysis to someone who knows a lot about music but who doesn't particularly like it much.

Most really good artists I know are reluctant to delve too deeply into their thought processes. I think one reason is that they don't really need to know what those processes are, as long as they work. Another reason might be that they are afraid they might destroy what works by taking it apart.

John Bunyan wrote, of writing, "As I pulled, it came." That seems to me both wise and profound, though not necessarily intellectual.

There is absolutely a difference between learning to be a practitioner and learning to be a critic. I can see the value to a practitioner in experiencing the whole history of art--one cannot shine a light into darkness until the limits of what is already lit have been explored--but I'm not sure all practitioners need to sit around trying to unravel what can and perhaps should be a mysterious process.

Rick "for whom the great challenge of art is getting the analytical mind out of the way" Denney

[jnantz]

It leaves me very curious – what helps you become a better photographer?

An ongoing examination of your personal visual experience? Looking at the work of others in museums, exhibits, or reproductions? Their explanations & descriptions in books? Perhaps a dynamic mix that changes over time? Something else entirely?

there are many things that help me

cooking
observing and listening
being with ( and not being with ) people
watching clouds
remembering my dreams
not being stingy with film / paper + shooting as much as i can
not being afraid to experiment

[Brian Ellis]

I’m thunder-struck by the replies to an ongoing thread about art books.

The poster says, “I know nothing about art,” and appeals to us for help.

Actually he didn't make a generic request for help. He asked for suggestions for books to READ

He asks for “something to read.” Next comes an avalanche of replies (w/ the occasional exception) directing the curious poster to texts – not images. That is, it seems the great majority of people, in their wish to be helpful, took the poster at his word!

Yes, we tried to be helpful and assumed that when he asked about books to READ he meant he wanted suggestions for books to READ

But does this raise any eyebrows?

Didn't raise my eyebrows at all. But your response certainly does.

The unstated assumption behind all the text-happy recommendations is that actual paintings, actual photographs are secondary to what acknowledged masters & clever critics have to say about them – go first to their words!

Not at all. He didn't ask for ways to become better informed about art or ways to improve his art education. Had he asked that I'm sure he would have received responses very different from those given to him. But that isn't what he asked for. He asked for suggested books to READ

Granted, the OP’s request is a bit unclear [It didn't seem at all unclear to me. When someone asks about books to READ I'm pretty sure I know what they mean. You really find that unclear?, and will naturally inspire a diversity of replies, all of which mean to be supportive. But I’m going to make a bold assumption: I’m going to interpret his “nothing” to mean “nothing.” If this is so, shouldn’t one’s investigation about art begin with the visual? Not necessarily. My formal art education began with courses that combined the visual with text. But that's irrelevant because he didn't ask about the best way to improve his knowledge of art. He's already decided that he'd like to READ about art. So he was given information about books to READ And if so, shouldn’t Step 1 be a careful and inquisitive look at real subjects in front of one’s very own eyes? No. Shouldn’t this investigation, only then, continue with paintings & photos by others, the good and the bad? Not necessarily

Why this immediate and overwhelming emphasis to start w/ words, words, words?
[B]Because the OP asked about books to READ and READING means words, words, words. /B]
It leaves me very curious – what helps you become a better photographer?
Lots of things, all of which are way beyond the OP's request

An ongoing examination of your personal visual experience? Looking at the work of others in museums, exhibits, or reproductions? Their explanations & descriptions in books? Perhaps a dynamic mix that changes over time? Something else entirely?
Sounds like a good topic for a thread you might want to start. But it has nothing to do with what the OP asked for