Can good photographic ability be taught, or is it in-born?

In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

Andreas Skitsnack:
Some of the efforts by these untrained children show that there
is an innate talent involved.

Sandman:
Nope.

Yep, Mozart, I hope you've heard of him.

Thousand and thousands of hours of training. Yup, I've heard of him.

--
Sandman

| Which, again, is why I haven't talked about "art".
|
| But you've failed to see that photography is an art.
|
| Incorrect.
|

That seems to be the kernel of this debate. You
don't actually acknowledge art and don't seem to
have any concept of it. For you, art is merely a
fuzzy digression into irrelevant issues.

Maybe you've picked the wrong hobby. Even news
photographers are aware of communicating the feel
of an event or object, rather than just objective
fact. There is no purely objective fact. If there
were -- if the world you see were nothing more than
technical details void of interpretation -- then what
would be the point of photography? Just so people
can see images of unusual things? So what? With no
art there's no meaning. Seen one pixel, seen them all.

On 5/21/2015 9:08 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| Which, again, is why I haven't talked about "art".
|
| But you've failed to see that photography is an art.
|
| Incorrect.
|

That seems to be the kernel of this debate. You
don't actually acknowledge art and don't seem to
have any concept of it. For you, art is merely a
fuzzy digression into irrelevant issues.

Maybe you've picked the wrong hobby. Even news
photographers are aware of communicating the feel
of an event or object, rather than just objective
fact. There is no purely objective fact. If there
were -- if the world you see were nothing more than
technical details void of interpretation -- then what
would be the point of photography? Just so people
can see images of unusual things? So what? With no
art there's no meaning. Seen one pixel, seen them all.


He's trolling for attention.


--
PeterN

On 5/20/15 PDT 11:41 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2015 10:07:15 -0700, Bill W
wrote:

On Wed, 20 May 2015 12:30:09 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

Unless one of them starts a conversation about psycholinguistics or
the proto-Indo-European dispersal hypothesis,

Oh geez, not the proto-Indo-European dispersal hypothesis *again*?
Aren't we all tired of this subject by now?

Readers of this group are now formulating their opinions about the
validity of the hypothesis.

Floyd will compose a lengthy treatise on the subject, nospam will
respond with "nonsense" to several statements in it, Sandman will
interleave some "Incorrect" comments and ask for "Substantiation",
Whiskey-Dave will contribute some misspellings, PeterN will tell us
about having lunch with an Indo-European, and SavageDuck will submit
17 HDR images of a prototype Indo-European sports car at a race at
Laguna Seca.

And tony will chime in with sundry accusations of "Liar!" Gosh, I do
feel left out!



--
Man tends to increase at a greater rate than his means of subsistence;
consequently he is occasionally subjected to a severe struggle for
existence, and natural selection will have effected whatever lies within
its scope.
~ Charles Darwin: The Descent of Man, 1871

On 5/20/2015 6:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:

snip


I get home from having my eyeball polished and I find stereotyping has struck
Orlando. I suppose you are off to shoot your grandsons playing against an
Indo-European Little League team.


Howe did the operation go?



--
PeterN

On 5/21/15 PDT 4:54 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

Andreas Skitsnack:
Some of the efforts by these untrained children show that there
is an innate talent involved.

Sandman:
Nope.

Yep, Mozart, I hope you've heard of him.

Thousand and thousands of hours of training. Yup, I've heard of him.

I believe that some have innate talents that other do not have. I also
believe that with the proper high level of interest and intense
practicing, high levels of accomplishment are possible.

So, Andreas has a point, but it's not the whole story. Geniuses and
dolts prove that.

On May 21, 2015, PeterN wrote
(in ):

On 5/20/2015 6:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:

snip

I get home from having my eyeball polished and I find stereotyping has
struck
Orlando. I suppose you are off to shoot your grandsons playing against an
Indo-European Little League team.

Howe did the operation go?

All is well.

Good luck for tomorrow. Relax, endure the irritation it will be worth it for
you in the long run.

You might even find it will change some of what you do to your images in
post. ;-)

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 5/21/2015 10:41 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On 21 May 2015 07:40:24 GMT, Sandman wrote:

Sandman:
This is not part of the same quote. Wikiquotes doesn't even list
it. Having said that, it resonates with other verified quotes
from Einstein that talked a lot about intuition and how it has
been a key part for his work.

Einstein was no linguist, however.

What does that have to do with it?

Look it up.

Typical. Avoiding admission of making a completely nonsensical
statement using a word that doesn't apply, and then snipping the part
of the post that shows why it doesn't reply.


Isn't that behaviour equal to lying? Or, is it worse.

--
PeterN

On 5/21/2015 11:05 AM, John McWilliams wrote:
On 5/21/15 PDT 4:54 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave
wrote:

Andreas Skitsnack:
Some of the efforts by these untrained children show that there
is an innate talent involved.

Sandman:
Nope.

Yep, Mozart, I hope you've heard of him.

Thousand and thousands of hours of training. Yup, I've heard of him.

I believe that some have innate talents that other do not have. I also
believe that with the proper high level of interest and intense
practicing, high levels of accomplishment are possible.

One may learn the craft with intense training, but I don't see that
creativity can be taught. Sometimes the creativity is surpressed because
of an an individual's psychological quirks. That hidden talent may be
brought out through proper encouragement. Such encouragement should not
be confused with teaching creativity.



So, Andreas has a point, but it's not the whole story. Geniuses and
dolts prove that.



--
PeterN

On May 21, 2015, PeterN wrote
(in ):

On 5/21/2015 11:05 AM, John McWilliams wrote:
On 5/21/15 PDT 4:54 AM, Sandman wrote:
In ,
Whisky-dave
wrote:

Andreas Skitsnack:
Some of the efforts by these untrained children show that there
is an innate talent involved.

Sandman:
Nope.

Yep, Mozart, I hope you've heard of him.

Thousand and thousands of hours of training. Yup, I've heard of him.

I believe that some have innate talents that other do not have. I also
believe that with the proper high level of interest and intense
practicing, high levels of accomplishment are possible.

One may learn the craft with intense training, but I don't see that
creativity can be taught. Sometimes the creativity is surpressed because
of an an individual's psychological quirks. That hidden talent may be
brought out through proper encouragement. Such encouragement should not
be confused with teaching creativity.

Since everybody has used Picasso as an example, it might be worth noting that
Picasso’s father was a painter who was also a professor of fine art and an
art museum curator. It was his father who provided a formal artistic training
for the young boy and who got his son admitted to the Barcelona school of
Fine Arts. Picasso went on to to the Royal Academy of San Fernando in Madrid,
but dropped out quite soon. He then spent much of his time hanging out in
places such as the Prado, and much of the art he was exposed to there
influenced his work.

So it seems Picasso’s natural born talent was the ability to emulate his
father at an early age.

So, Andreas has a point, but it's not the whole story. Geniuses and
dolts prove that.



--

Regards,
Savageduck