The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Great Article by Tim Ashley

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I feel that I must come to the defense of the Photography Workshop School, and I will do it through analogy with music, with which I am much more familiar. To misquote Nadia Boulanger, "Technique is the least important thing, yet without it, we are lost." And technique doesn't just mean fast scales and octaves, but all the methods of tone production so that they are available when needed.

My own teacher stresses the importance of pushing each idea or technique well beyond what is desired (or in good taste) so that one has the freedom later to use the right amount, and not just "as much as possible". And if wanting to play a passage "just like Horowitz" gets you to practice it until it is effortless, you might just discover that you want to play it differently, but you'll now have the ability to do what inspires you.

The parallel to *learning* the craft of photography is immediate. So while I agree that it is a poor use of time merely to reproduce the work of others (maybe with more saturation, as Tim suggests), it is a very useful step in finding out what is possible. Yet photography suffers from the permanence of experiments. I don't record my piano practicing, but all my photographs are in the file system somewhere.

--Matt

(Note: cross-posted to Tim's blog.)
 
Last edited:

jonoslack

Active member
I feel that I must come to the defense of the Photography Workshop School, and I will do it through analogy with music, with which I am much more familiar. To misquote Nadia Boulanger, "Technique is the least important thing, yet without it, we are lost." And technique doesn't just mean fast scales and octaves, but all the methods of tone production so that they are available when needed.

My own teacher stresses the importance of pushing each idea or technique well beyond what is desired (or in good taste) so that one has the freedom later to use the right amount, and not just "as much as possible". And if wanting to play a passage "just like Horowitz" gets you to practice it until it is effortless, you might just discover that you want to play it differently, but you'll now have the ability to do what inspires you.

The parallel to *learning* the craft of photography is immediate. So while I agree that it is a poor use of time merely to reproduce the work of others (maybe with more saturation, as Tim suggests), it is a very useful step in finding out what is possible. Yet photography suffers from the permanence of experiments. I don't record my piano practicing, but all my photographs are in the file system somewhere.

--Matt

(Note: cross-posted to Tim's blog.)
Hi Matt
I've read Tim's response to your post, and although I don't subscribe to the 'Lomo Only' school of photography, and I'm certainly not against hard work and practice, I think there is a fundamental difference between your piano lessons and photography . . . content . . . When you take a photograph, you are the composer, when you play the piano, you are the interpreter. it isn't really a similar situation.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Jono,

Photography is, of course, different, and the photographer has to make Art out of whatever light is at hand (well, for most landscapes). And the vast majority of what passes for (classical) music performance in the 21st century adds little of the performers creativity. But it needn't (and shouldn't) be that way. I often say that the best pianist of the 20th century was Ella Fitzgerald. Admittedly, it's a Zen Koan kind of statement, but as she made music with every utterance and gesture, it mattered not a whit that she wasn't playing a piano and didn't compose the works she sang. "The composer wrote it that way!" is the poorest excuse for interpretation I can imagine. Yet we all have to start playing what the composer wrote. (Yes, there are others - very serious others - who take exactly the opposite approach and try only to divine the composer's intent and inner state. I have no sympathy for such an abdication of artistic sensibility. It's like a snapshot with no post-processing.)

Now I completely agree with Tim's criteria and find his favorite works breathtaking. I just felt that his essay judged the Learning of Art to the same standard as the Art itself. For those of us without blinding innate talent, the learning is to be cherished where it can be found.

--Matt

(Oh dear. Perhaps too much :chug: I think I'm just struggling with making even a good cliché.)
 
Last edited:

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Matt
Jono,
(Yes, there are others - very serious others - who take exactly the opposite approach and try only to divine the composer's intent and inner state. I have no sympathy for such an abdication of responsibility. It's like a snapshot with no post-processing.)
You mean like Cartier Bresson? (the snapshot with no post-processing - my unaccomplished dream)

Now I completely agree with Tim's criteria and find his favorite works breathtaking. I just felt that his essay judged the Learning of Art to the same standard as the Art itself. For those of us without blinding innate talent, the learning is to be cherished where it can be found.
Well, I'm not sure about Tim, but I don't think that learning how to replicate other people's cliches is anything to do with Art. I think the analogy with learning to play an instrument is pretty fallacious. IMHO the art in photography is learning what to point your camera at, and when to press the shutter, not about HDR techniques in photoshop. (but of course, it is just my opinion, and it might easily be a cover for my PP laziness!)
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Anyone who can get Emperor's underpants and thongs into a discussion on fine art photography can have exclusive rights to anything I'm concerned with . . .
Sorry for the excerpt from Tim but I hope he'll forgive these masterful couple of paragraphs:

'When it comes to 'conceptual lens-based art', I suspect tHe emporer isn't always wearing knickers, however clearly visible his trousers are.

So I do like to look at work, especially landscape work, which is primarily photographic in addition to stuff which is more 'Tate and Moma' in its ambition. I love Steichen and Kandar, and Burtynsky but I'm quite partial to Gursky too, and to the Bechers. On the other hand I have never been totally convinced that Gregory Crewdson isn't quietly 'going commando' - or wearing the artistic equivalent of a thong.'

:ROTFL: This was a coffee snorter for me .... I totally agree with you Jono. :D

Great article Tim!
 

ustein

Contributing Editor
Like the article.

>There are a lot of photographs, and I would include the current work of Gursky in this, which are in my opinion primarily art, not photography. They just happen to have been made with a camera.

There was a 45 minute documentary in German about the making of one photo. Made very clear that the camera is more like his brush.

But it would be interesting to see what people think about his work without knowing the price tags. Gursky's work is interesting but the art world price tags are hilarious.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Jono,

Who said anything about HDR? <shudder> ;)

There are many photographers on this site alone whose work I admire greatly. None of them seem (to me) over-processed. Some are set-pieces, but with gorgeous lighting. Some are commercial, but with perfect technique. And several seem to just wander around and find beauty wherever they go. (I know it isn't that easy. They just make it look that way.) I feel an affinity for technical camera landscapes, and study the examples in the Behind The Scenes thread. The finished products often don't look too much like the snapshots, and that's (pardon the pun) illuminating.

And then one day I'll capture a moment, and change my outlook completely. :ROTFL:

Best,

Matt
 

jonoslack

Active member
J
And then one day I'll capture a moment, and change my outlook completely. :ROTFL:
Perhaps I'll be able to think about a successful image beforehand . . and change my outlook completely . . but no . . it's too late . . I've just looked at the clock, and I'm 60 - no more revelations or epiphanies . . . now I'm just old :cry:
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I personally am not too interested in others work as far as viewing and knowing there style since it may cloud my own personal style or vision. But maybe that's just me I don't want to recreate what's been done before.

I just like having my own path to my art and not emulate anyone. Not that I don't appreciate what they have done just don't want it in my head when I'm working on mine.
 

ustein

Contributing Editor
>But maybe that's just me I don't want to recreate what's been done before.

1. First most things have been done
2. I kind of find it dangerous to try to be original
3. I think if you do what you like to do you likely will be original as you bring in your view
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I don't think originality for its own sake is being endorsed here, but the freedom to do something differently if you feel like it is, IMHO, essential.

--Matt
 

ustein

Contributing Editor
>but the freedom to do something differently if you feel like it is, IMHO, essential.

I am all for it. But then not being original is the motivation it turns out (or maybe not) to be original.
 

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Anyone who can get Emperor's underpants and thongs into a discussion on fine art photography can have exclusive rights to anything I'm concerned with . . . but wot's an M10?
Gotcha!!! Jono is not testing the M10 because its not ready and the forecast for MAR13 is correct . :facesmack:
 
S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
Is it really important to explain which camp you fall under, and how it informs your work?

When I was getting my Masters in Architecture, there was this huge change going on in the architecture department... moving from the modernist and classical schools of architectural education to a more philosophy-based education stance. I loved it. The faculty members on both sides of the isle hated each other as both sides viewed the other in exclusionary terms. In simple terms, the philosophical guys were big into "intent" whereas the more old-school professors were about modernist visual convention and construction. The new-school guys looked at "intent" as some holy grail of design. Strangely, though, we would work on projects.... post them to be critiqued... get grilled by both sides... and THEN, I would invariably ask "why is intention so important when it, too, comes from the nether regions of my mind... like any other idea?".

I never could get an answer...

I'm not doing a good job explaining this... but I guess what I'm saying is that all camps, artistically, seem valid to me. If you asked me to align myself with one, it would be on the Gursky side of things... love his work and what it says to me. But, in the end, the moment rules the day and if someone gets a beautiful experience (for them) out of photographing those old rocks in the West, so be it. Gursky's art still seems comes from something inner that drives and informs his work... but is that any no more "valid" than the impulse driving the modern photographers in the Aesthetic-school?

That impulse just comes from a different place and may or may not lead to something "original"... and isn't experience what art is about, regardless of camp?

I excitedly look forward, however, to Tim's guests' posts... looks like it'll be a great series!
 

ustein

Contributing Editor
>but I guess what I'm saying is that all camps, artistically, seem valid to me.

I agree and you have to keep up the respect. But you yourself will fall into one or the other camp because of your own vision.
 
Top