A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old May 22nd 15, 02:33 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default Can good photographic ability be taught, or is it in-born?

In article m, Savageduck
wrote:

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

Sandman:
Nope.

Whisky-dave:
Yep, Mozart, I hope you've heard of him.

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

John McWilliams:
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.


PeterN:
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.


Of course, and Mozarts father was a composer already. Your environment is one of
the biggest influences of your life.

--
Sandman
  #112  
Old May 22nd 15, 02:36 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default Can good photographic ability be taught, or is it in-born?

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

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

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

Andreas Skitsnack:
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.


Sandman:
And Andreas won't understand anything of it, claiming that none of
the words used are in accordance to his book of "Fully Accepted
Words".


The difference between us is that I will openly admit it when I
don't understand something just as I did in a reply to one of
Floyd's recent posts.


That may be true - what you WON'T openly admit is when you are wrong. Even when
you are proven wrong beyond all reasonable doubt you would never ever admit to
being wrong. You can spend weeks snipping away substantiations from posts that
proves you wrong just so you can keep pretending you're correct.

Need an example??

You, on the other hand, refuse to admit that you don't understand
something just as you did when saying "look it up" when caught out
not understanding what a linguist is.


Well, did you look it up?

linguist
noun
1 a person skilled in foreign languages.
2 a person who studies linguistics.


--
Sandman
  #113  
Old May 22nd 15, 02:38 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default Can good photographic ability be taught, or is it in-born?

In article , Andreas Skitsnack 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.

Andreas Skitsnack:
What does that have to do with it?


Sandman:
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.


In what way do you think it doesn't apply? Are you claiming that Einstein was a
linguist? That would make sense.

Also find it hilarious to see Andreas Skitsnack whine about snipping!

--
Sandman
  #114  
Old May 22nd 15, 02:46 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default Can good photographic ability be taught, or is it in-born?

In article , Andreas Skitsnack
wrote:

Sandman:
Intuition is when you're doing some based on what you feel is
true, without using reasoning.

Andreas Skitsnack:
Yes, and that's why intuition is linked to what we call natural
talent. An artist may draw a scene a particular way because
he/she intuitively feels that that is the way the scene should
be drawn and not because the artist has been trained to do it
this way, and not because the artist has practiced drawing the
scene.


Sandman:
If the artist is drawing a scene in a particular way, he or she is
doing so by choice, not by intuition.


Are you really this thick? When you choose to do something that is
not predicated on some prior input, that is choosing based on
intuition.


We'll add the word "intuition" to the already long list of words that have you
completely stumped.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intuition?s=t

Sandman:
Nope. When I've been to my children's school to watch the
drawings, I can easily discern which kids have taken an interest
into drawing. Your "example" is only valid if this was the first
time these kids ever held a pen.


What you call "taken an interest into [sic] drawing" is simply the
visible result of a natural ability.


Incorrect. When you're interested in something, you naturally tend to perform
or pursue that interest, which enhances your skill. For young people, this
usually happens at an accelerated rate due to eagerness and the access to a lot
more free time.

Andreas Skitsnack:
It's not just children. Give an adult his/her first camera and
send them out to take photographs. Some will come back with
very ordinary photographs and some will come back with
surprisingly good photographs from a subject matter and
compositional standpoint.


Sandman:
Which means that the ones that have "better" composed photographs
have an interest in composition. Perhaps they have been doing
some interior decoration at home, perhaps they're painters
already and already have learned the basic rules of composition.


Again, it's the visible result of a natural ability.


No.

"Taken an interest in" is an almost meaningless term in this
context.


Of course not.

A person can have taken an interest in a subject or process
without having any ability or talent in regard to that subject or
process.


Without having any ability, yes. Talent is a myth.

There are many people who have taken an interest in photography who
are unable to produce interesting photographs.


According to you, perhaps. Good photographic ability needn't produce a result
that you find interesting.

Skill != Art.

Not that this is bad thing, though. If the person enjoys the hobby,
or produces images that record important things to that person, then
there's no requirement that the photographs be particularly well
done.


What you consider "well done" isn't a parameter in this discussion, however.

Actually, there are other hobbies that come to mind more than
photography. There are people who have "taken an interest in"
pottery, painting, knitting, etc, and created nothing but hideous
results of their interest.


Again, according to a retired guy in Florida.

At least in photography you usually tell if it was supposed to be a
tree in the picture. Not so with some who develop an interest in
painting.


Skill is the subject, not any supposed judgement of the end result. You may
dislike the painting, and other may like it. It may still be the result of a
highly skilled painter that has spent thousands of hours practicing painting to
become skilled at it. Whether or not the result is "art" in your eyes is of no
concern to the subject or his skill.

Andreas Skitsnack:
Training and practice may improve everyone's ability in this to
some degree, but some will always be ahead of the others because
of an intuitive ability to see the subject and how to best
capture that subject.


Sandman:
No.


Such a ridiculous position. Pity.


I grow tired of repeating myself. Refer to my earlier responses regarding the
same claims if you want a more elaborate answer.

--
Sandman
  #115  
Old May 22nd 15, 02:47 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default Can good photographic ability be taught, or is it in-born?

In article , nospam wrote:

In article
,


Sandman:
When it comes to opera singers, there *is* a "born
with it" factor to it, since your physical body plays a part
in how well you can perform what you do. It's not "talent",
but your voice capacity is important, like how "born with it"
length is important to a basketball player. Also, I'm not
really all that interested in opera singers, so it's hard to
come up with a list of comparable people for me.

nospam:
in other words, it's not just practice, but being born with it.


Sandman:
But not "talent". Being tall doesn't mean you have "talent" for
basket ball. It means you have an (unfair) physical advantage.


correct.


talent and practice are separate things, and entirely separate of
having a physical advantage.


Also, talent doesn't exist, so with an unfair physical advantage and lots of
practice, you can become a great basketball player. With a physical advantage and
no practice, you're a tall guy in the middle of the ball court and that's it.

No "talent" required.

--
Sandman
  #116  
Old May 22nd 15, 02:54 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default Can good photographic ability be taught, or is it in-born?

In article , RJH wrote:

Rich A:
There is no argument, some painter and sculptors are gifted


Sandman:
Only if they're autistic. Skill isn't something people are born
with, skill is born from an interest, and that interest means you
do it, a lot.


Like Bob Ross said: "Talent is pursued interest. Anything that
you're willing to practice, you can do".


I think the flaw in your argument is that some people will only be
willing to practice if they have the ability, and in some cases,
that ability may be innate.


Of course not. You're "willing" to practice something if you have an interest. If
you find yourself unwilling to practice to become good, that just means you're
not all that interested in becoming good.

For a photography group, this should be easy to relate to. How a lot of people
really want to take awesome photos without learning exactly how. So they use apps
with filters in their phones, or buy compact cameras that have retro filters
built in etc etc. It's a short cut for those that want to create something that
looks sort of special, but require little skill.

With an interest in photography, you learn about the camera, about lighting,
about composition. You spend a lot of time practicing, looking at your photos
that didn't turn up as good as you had hoped, and adjust accordingly. It takes
time and isn't something you're "born" with.

For example, athletes. But more on-topic, good and colour-accurate
eyesight, say. So, 'willing' is rather a loaded term - 'able' may
be better?


I've already been over this a few times. Some things do require physical
abilities that make it easier, or lack of handicap's that make it harder.

But that's a flawed argument, because being tall doesn't mean you have an in-born
talet to become a basket ball player, and having long fingers doesn't mean you
have an in-born talent for playing the piano.

Sandman:
The "born with it" is a myth, probably created by people that
hasn't practiced enough.


I'd probably agree that nobody is 'born a da Vinci', but you're more
likely to become one given a set of formative circumstances. 'More
likely' are long odds :-)


"Formative circumstances" - Absolutely! Born with it - not a chance. Talent -
nope.

For myself, I'm not too good at photography because I haven't
practised enough - no excuses here!


Indeed.

--
Sandman
  #117  
Old May 22nd 15, 02:56 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default Can good photographic ability be taught, or is it in-born?

In article , RJH wrote:

Rich A:
I couldn't carve a "David" if I had 1000 years of
training.

Sandman:
Yes, you could. A more or less accepted idea is that
it takes 10,000 hours of practice to excel at a given task.
The problem is having an interest that leads you to invest
10,000 hours into that.

newshound:
I'm with Rich and Floyd. I must have spent 10,000 hours trying
to play the guitar over the past 50 years, and I'm still
rubbish.


Sandman:
Just to repeat: 10,000 hours is playing the guitar 8 hours every
single work day for a solid five years.


Also, as I've also said - it's a combination of time *and*
interest. Anyone can do something for 10k hours that they dislike
and still be bad at it. But if those 10k hours are the result of
an interest on your part, you will be good at it.


Even if you're tone deaf, arthritic and can't afford new strings?
:-)


No one is tone deaf unless you have a hearing handicap. Someone that is "tone
deaf" is someone that has taken no interest in music and can't be bothered.

Handicaps and economy is important. But if you have a real interest, it's rarely
a huge problem. As you're probably aware, history is filled with great artists
that hardly could afford to put food on the table. Yet they persisted and refused
to give up their craft because they lived for it, it was their single largest
interest.

--
Sandman
  #118  
Old May 22nd 15, 03:08 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default Can good photographic ability be taught, or is it in-born?

In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

Rich A:
I couldn't carve a "David" if I had 1000 years of
training.

Sandman:
Yes, you could. A more or less accepted idea is
that it takes 10,000 hours of practice to excel at a given
task. The problem is having an interest that leads you to
invest 10,000 hours into that.

newshound:
I'm with Rich and Floyd. I must have spent 10,000 hours trying
to play the guitar over the past 50 years, and I'm still
rubbish.

Sandman:
Just to repeat: 10,000 hours is playing the guitar 8 hours every
single work day for a solid five years.


Also, as I've also said - it's a combination of time *and*
interest. Anyone can do something for 10k hours that they
dislike and still be bad at it. But if those 10k hours are the
result of an interest on your part, you will be good at it.


RJH:
Even if you're tone deaf, arthritic and can't afford new strings?
:-)


I'd like to know what lens and camera a photographer with parkinsons
disease would need and would he be worried by f stop defraction
limiting.


Full circle: http://imgur.com/gallery/Ath29UY

--
Sandman
  #119  
Old May 22nd 15, 03:37 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,514
Default Can good photographic ability be taught, or is it in-born?

| 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.
|
| Incorrect on both accounts.
|
| Art is in the eye of the beholder.

You're contradicting yourself here. I'm not talking about
whether I think someone's photos are art. I'm talking about
whether you regard the practice of photography as art.
It appears that you've never really thought about that
and don't have any defined sense of what it means to
practice an art form. For you it's merely a "skill".

| But the subject was skill, the ability to use a given craft on a superior
or
| professional level.
|

No. The subject was photographic ability. It's you
who have narrowly redefined that as mere technical
expertise.


  #120  
Old May 22nd 15, 04:09 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default Can good photographic ability be taught, or is it in-born?

In article , Mayayana wrote:

| 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. | |

Incorrect on both accounts. | | Art is in the eye of the beholder.


You're contradicting yourself here. I'm not talking about whether I
think someone's photos are art. I'm talking about whether you regard
the practice of photography as art.


Then you were being unclear. The answer is "no", I don't think the practice of
photography is art. I think some photos have varying degrees of artistic value,
but not all, hence "photography" is not art, just like "painting" is not art.
Some paintings are, but not all.

It appears that you've never really thought about that and don't
have any defined sense of what it means to practice an art form.


How things "seem" to you is of no concern to me.

For you it's merely a "skill".


Of course not.

Skill != Art, and Art != Skill.

Having the skills to paint well doesn't make you an artist, making something that
someone considers "art" doesn't mean you have painting skills. There isn't a 1:1
relationship between "Skill" and "Art". Chances are that with greater skill your
chances to create something that more people consider art is greatly enhanced,
but not something to be taken for granted.

| But the subject was skill, the ability to use a given craft on a
superior or | professional level. |


No. The subject was photographic ability. It's you who have narrowly
redefined that as mere technical expertise.


ability
noun
1 possession of the means or skill to do something
2 skill, or proficiency in a particular area



--
Sandman
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A star is born! Douglas[_5_] 35mm Photo Equipment 0 November 21st 07 11:11 PM
40D GETS TAUGHT A LESSON ! Annika1980 35mm Photo Equipment 10 October 27th 07 10:36 PM
40D GETS TAUGHT A LESSON ! Annika1980 Digital Photography 7 October 24th 07 03:21 PM
A new photographer is born Mary Digital Photography 0 January 28th 06 09:25 PM
flatbed scanners with neg film scanning ability ? Beowulf Digital Photography 12 September 1st 04 11:10 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.