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

On Sat, 23 May 2015 09:34:27 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

| Indeed - because "Skill" != "Art".
|

You might be interested to also know that
English != C++.

cout "What's going on here?" endl;

In article , Mayayana wrote:

| Indeed - because "Skill" != "Art". |

You might be interested to also know that English != C++.

Non Sequitur.

--
Sandman

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

Mayayana:
| Indeed - because "Skill" != "Art". |

You might be interested to also know that English != C++.

Sandman:
Non Sequitur.

Actually, his comment does follow. Using English, we would write
"Skill is not the same as Art" or something very close to that. The
use of != is a computer language convention.

That's the point - that makes his followup a comment on something I wrote, not
what I wrote - i.e. his comment did not followup on any of the content of my
post. He realized he could no longer argue his position in the discussion and
reverted back to attacking the format of my post instead of the content of my
argument. It's a classic technique, used primarily by you actually.

--
Sandman

| His comment was not a "Non Sequitur" [sic].
|

He does seem to agree that it was a comment, so
I guess that's progress.

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

Mayayana:
| Indeed - because "Skill" != "Art". |

You might be interested to also know that English != C++.

Sandman:
Non Sequitur.

Andreas Skitsnack:
Actually, his comment does follow. Using English, we would
write "Skill is not the same as Art" or something very close to
that. The use of != is a computer language convention.

Sandman:
That's the point - that makes his followup a comment on something
I wrote, not what I wrote - i.e. his comment did not followup on
any of the content of my post. He realized he could no longer
argue his position in the discussion and reverted back to
attacking the format of my post instead of the content of my
argument. It's a classic technique, used primarily by you
actually.

Sorry, Popinjay, but you do not get to have control over the path of
discussion in a thread.

Nor am I trying to.

He's allowed to diverge and bring in any
point he wishes to bring in.

Of course - hence the "Non sequitur".

I don't blame him for the diversion. Your argument is so ludicrous
that further on-point discussion is a waste of time.

best endorsement I could ever get.

You have taken the position that this is an open forum in which
anyone can jump into any thread. By the same token, you should
accept that anyone can add any comment to any thread. That includes
a comment on the usage and terms you employ in your post.

Of course. That doesn't make it any less of a non sequitur


--
Sandman

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

Sandman:
Of course. That doesn't make it any less of a non sequitur

Despite the fact that you claim there is no such thing as a natural
or in-born talent for something, you show that you have a natural
ability to obfuscate, bluster, and weasel ad infinitum to avoid
admitting error.

How many weeks will you keep this troll going, Andreas? I may have to reschedule
something if I have to read your nonsense for an extended period of time.

--
Sandman

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

Sandman:
Of course. That doesn't make it any less of a non
sequitur

Andreas Skitsnack:
Despite the fact that you claim there is no such thing as a
natural or in-born talent for something, you show that you have
a natural ability to obfuscate, bluster, and weasel ad infinitum
to avoid admitting error.

Sandman:
How many weeks will you keep this troll going, Andreas? I may have
to reschedule something if I have to read your nonsense for an
extended period of time.

I'm responding to your posts. As long as you continue to post
nonsense like claiming something is a non sequitur when it isn't,
that choices can't be based on intuition, that there is no such
thing as a natural ability in some areas, and other such
absurdities, I will attempt to educate you if I feel like it.

Let me know when you'll stop trolling and start this supposed "education" which
you've provided none of so far.

If you don't want to read the posts, that's your decision. The
better solution is to read and learn.

There has to be something in your post that contains information that is worth
learning first. I'm waiting.

I know your massive ego will not allow you to admit error

Of the two of us, I am the one willing to admit to errors. Maybe I should quote
some of the multitude of occasions you have been proven wrong yet refused to
admit to your error? Of course not, you'll just snip it away and run away like
you always do.

but you can avoid continuation of the education process by reading
and not responding with another argument.

"Argument"? Why should I provide something that you do not? There hasn't been any
"argument" between the two of us for years. There has been trolling from you and
correcting misinformation from me.


--
Sandman

In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

Whisky-dave:
Well when refering to photography certain aspects of it are
considered art. Composition for example, we're not sure where an
artistic thought originates or why certain things look good
while others not so much.

Sandman:
"Composition" isn't art in itself, the end result may be. Product
photos on web sites apply composition, yet aren't art because of
it. You don't have a clear idea what "art" is.

That's irrelivent to wether it is a learnt skill or you are a
talented artist.

Correct. Thus - "Art" != "Skill". They're not related. One may benefit from the
other, but neither leads to the other.

Whisky-dave:
Everything is learnt, but some find some things easier to learn
than other things for that reason people are said to have a
talentfor it.

Sandman:
No, they have a greater interest.

There's no evidence of that as somne practice longer than others.

More practice is the result of a greater interest.

Whisky-dave:
Some peolpe are better at the arts than language or science,
some are born left handed others are born right handed. If
everything is learnt then that means there's no differnce
between people(s) at birth as far as what they can do.

Sandman:
Correct.

That's the thing it is not correct there's are differnices in
individuals at and even before birth.

Not as far as having great photographic ability comes, no.

Sandman:
You can nail trash to a wooden board and put it in a gallery, and
some might consider it art, yet the act of nailing it to the
board didn't require any superior ability or skill.

So how come so many hit their thumb, it's because it's a skill that
some have and some can develop.

Yes, skill. Not talent.

Not everyone can become a cubist painter,

Yes they can.

but they might all think they are, and people like you
might tell them they are because they themselves can't tell a cubist
painter from a painter and decorator.

Lack of skill or knowledge means they have yet to practice enough.

Whisky-dave:
In general you need to be born with working eyes to be anny good
at photography

Sandman:
"Working eyes" isn't "talent".

And yuo can;t train your eyes or become more skillfull with your
eyes.

I'm not sure what "skillful with your eyes" is even supposed to mean.

You're eyes are fixed the only way to imporve on them is after
birth. And you can;t teach your eyes to see better. You can;t teach
yuor ears to hear better. Most people hearing deteriorate with age
(as do eyes) yuo can't be trained to hearc better.

This is of course irrelevant to the discussion about talent vs. skill.

Whisky-dave:
, it's also handy to have a reasonble good colour vision and not
be colour blind. Some people have better vision than others you
can't learn to have better vision.

Sandman:
"good vision" != "talent".

How do you train a blind person to see ?

I repeat: "Good vision" != "Talent".

--
Sandman

I'm not sure what "skillful with your eyes" is even supposed to mean.

That you can pick out subjects and colour details that others can't.
Thought you'd at least relise that people have differing eyes and brains and
that we see slighlty differnt colours. There's plenty of test out there for
it.


Not only physical differences, either. My main
income comes from contracting, mostly things
like office/kitchen/bath renovation. I often
help people to pick colors of fixtures and paints
and have found that people vary greatly in their
aptitude for color. Not only seeing color differences,
but also sensing the mood effects of colors and
sensing the aesthetics of different color combinations.
One person might like peach and white while
another might like olive and gray. But both are
affected by colors around them, despite the fact
that they may not actually be aware of it.

One person goes into a room and says, "I don't
like this room". Another goes in and says, "This
room is nice, but the beige is too green. It's giving
the room an ominous feel." Both people feel the
same evoked energy from the combination of
the space and the colors, but the second person
has a "talent for color" that the first person lacks.
In most cases, neither one has actually studied
or practiced any kind of color perception training.

The same is certainly true with photos. Slight
differences in hue can have a big affect on the
feel of an image, even though different people
may perceive that affect differently.

In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

Whisky-dave:
That's irrelivent to wether it is a learnt skill or you are a
talented artist.

Sandman:
Correct. Thus - "Art" != "Skill". They're not related. One may
benefit from the other, but neither leads to the other.

I didn't say they were, people use those terms differntly.

Yes, some use the word "talent" to describe why one person is better at
something than someone else, when in fact he or she is more skilled because
they practiced more.

Whisky-dave:
There's no evidence of that as somne practice longer than
others.

Sandman:
More practice is the result of a greater interest.

No it's the other way around usually.

No.

Usually you find something of
intrest before pursuring it.

That's what I said. You find something interesting, and practice it. More
practice is the result of greater interest.

Whisky-dave:
That's the thing it is not correct there's are differnices in
individuals at and even before birth.

Sandman:
Not as far as having great photographic ability comes, no.

What is ability here, the ability to hold a camera ? Where does
ability come from...

1. possession of the means or skill to do something.

2. talent, skill, or proficiency in a particular area.

All of the above - apart from the "talent" part.

Sandman:
You can nail trash to a wooden board and put it in a
gallery, and some might consider it art, yet the act of
nailing it to the board didn't require any superior ability
or skill.

Whisky-dave:
So how come so many hit their thumb, it's because it's a skill
that some have and some can develop.

Sandman:
Yes, skill. Not talent.

Yes a skill is learnt, a talent is a natural ability of one you've
not tried to evolve by learning from others.

I.e. talent doesn't exist, since no one knows how to paint a masterpiece
without any prior practice. No one is born with "talent".

Talent is a myth - skill is pursued interest.

Whisky-dave:
Not everyone can become a cubist painter,

Sandman:
Yes they can.

How ?

By practicing.

Whisky-dave:
but they might all think they are, and people like you might
tell them they are because they themselves can't tell a cubist
painter from a painter and decorator.

Sandman:
Lack of skill or knowledge means they have yet to practice enough.

That's meaningless.

Of course not.

Whisky-dave:
In general you need to be born with working
eyes to be anny good at photography

Sandman:
"Working eyes" isn't "talent".

Whisky-dave:
And yuo can;t train your eyes or become more skillfull with your
eyes.

Sandman:
I'm not sure what "skillful with your eyes" is even supposed to
mean.

That you can pick out subjects and colour details that others can't.
Thought you'd at least relise that people have differing eyes and
brains and that we see slighlty differnt colours. There's plenty of
test out there for it.

This has nothing to do with "skill" or "talent".

Whisky-dave:
You're eyes are fixed the only way to imporve on them is after
birth. And you can;t teach your eyes to see better. You can;t
teach yuor ears to hear better. Most people hearing deteriorate
with age (as do eyes) yuo can't be trained to hearc better.

Sandman:
This is of course irrelevant to the discussion about talent vs.
skill.

the discussion isn't about talent vs. skill.

Yeah, it is.

--
Sandman