An artistic "eye" - can it be learned?

[Bobobird]

Everyone is an artist - period!

Heck, even a chimp can be taught to draw (and very likely take pictures).

[Shadowman]

Hi John,

Can an artistic eye be learned? Are there any hard rules to follow in Photography?

I believe an artistic eye can be learned. This will mostly come from observation. The more you observe and the more you are prepared to learn from others the more you will get a “feel” for artistic “balance”. Learning from others will mostly be learning from the Masters. I believe all great painters were instructed by some Master. All great architects were taught by some Master. All great musicians had a Master. Observation as to what the Masters do and how they do it will create your own feeling for the art and you may end up being a Master yourself.

Hard rules in Photography do not exist – aside from the fact that if you never press the shutter button nothing will happened. Let us rather say there is a lot of guidelines in Photography, to be followed. There are guidelines in composition to be followed. The “Rule of Thirds” for example, is not a rule as such but rather a guideline. There are scenes where the “rule of thirds” simply does not work. Guidelines as to form, colour, contrast, patterns, lines, etc.

Yes, I believe you can improve your skill as Photographer by observation and following guidelines.

A great South African artist once said to an amateur painter: “The problem is, you look but you do not see. Don’t look at a Baobab, see what a Baobab looks like”.
Don’t look at the world around you – see the world around you. Don’t hear the music – listen to the music.

Andre,

I think you presented it perfectly with your example of rules of composition, the rule can be taught but by following the rule do you present an image pleasing to the eye. Does it convey the meaning you wished to project. Are you conveying a meaning for the masses or is it an image that instills deep feelings within you and others just happen to feel the same way.

Regarding the hard rules, those are simply and can run into the hundreds.

1. Don't crop the human figure at the knees, cut off the hands, or top of the head (sometimes).
2. Beware of obstructions behind the figure that will appear like it is jutting from their head.
3. Beware of straight verticals near the edge of the frame.

[RustBeltRaw]

Regarding the hard rules, those are simply and can run into the hundreds.

1. Don't crop the human figure at the knees, cut off the hands, or top of the head (sometimes).
2. Beware of obstructions behind the figure that will appear like it is jutting from their head.
3. Beware of straight verticals near the edge of the frame.

I agree that these tenets are often true. However, can you really dismiss every photo that breaks these (or any) rules as bad? To my mind, there are only two (maybe three) rules, and they're general enough to be nigh-useless as aesthetic guides.

1. The GTFO Requirement: You will not get a good photo if you don't gear up, get out, and take photos.
2. Schrödinger's Photo: Until you see the photo, composition rules are both good and bad.
3. Duke Ellington's Razor: If it looks good, it is good.

[AB26]

Regarding the hard rules, those are simply and can run into the hundreds.

Remember John, rules are made to be broken and those making the rules are usually the first ones to break them.

[mknittle]

Learned? I think developed is a better word {pun intended} I believe that you only learn so much, After that you look at your work and form ideas of your own. it goes in steps the more you see and do the more you develop a style.

[Shadowman]

Remember John, rules are made to be broken and those making the rules are usually the first ones to break them.

Ever taken a photograph, noticed you broke one of the rules and said I like it anyway? Happens all the time, of course if you broke the rule while composing the photo, it means you weren't following it anyway.

[Magog]

Wow.
Thanks again for lots of helpful comments. William and Remco, you have some points about Art in school. Maybe I was just not good at Art as defined/graded by the school or maybe it was the compulsion element that made me not "get it". This has a parallel with literature; despite being an avid reader from early on, I failed my English Lit. exam. Years later, as an adult, I decided to go back and re-read the books I had had to study.... and thoroughly enjoyed them.

I realise I may have been incorrect in referring to hard rules; I guess I was trying to differentiate between that which can be codified, perhaps labelled "technique", as opposed to the more indefinable, personal element of "style".

Anyway, as has been pointed out, the main thing is to get out there and take photographs.

[mknittle]

"Maybe I was just not good at Art as defined/graded by the school" That is often the case here. Instructors often grade on a by the book level. or on personal taste.
Remember the by the book part is just someones opinion!

[Dukatum]

A great thread, certainly split opinions down one side or the other

I think that if you were to replace the word "artistic" with "creative" some people might view the question differently. Yet what's the difference between the two words?
I am terrible at drawing and painting, have been all my life, yet I am always told I have a creative imagination, and professionally considered to be full of creative ideas at work. I don't consider myself as lacking the artistic eye because I can not paint or draw, I just lack the technical skills to convey my imagination using that medium.

Don't limit yourself to just reading photographic books to learning how to think/see creatively, many "self help" books are great for this, and if you've ever read Malcolm Gladwell you will be familiar with the 10,000 hour guideline (From the book Outliers), which is again not a hard rule, but states that most people spend roughly this amount of time on a subject before they reach the level of proficiency where others consider them experts.

I think that experience, and inquisitive mind is the foundation of what many might consider to be an "artistic eye" and both of these are linked to learning. With experience you know what has worked and not worked well in the past, with the inquisitive mind you can now question slight changes to "what worked well" and try to improve on it. Other call this progress. The fact that you are looking, thinking and questioning the ideas behind an artistic eye makes you artistic in my view.

[William W]

. . . some points about Art in school. Maybe I was just not good at Art as defined/graded by the school or maybe it was the compulsion element that made me not "get it". This has a parallel with literature; despite being an avid reader from early on, I failed my English Lit. exam.

Yeah maybe – good possibilities: but if I were a betting man, I really do not think you are on the big money.

In the light of Graham’s thread and the fact I just this moment commented there - curiosity has got the better of me on this thread . . .

So ONLY if you don’t mind answering – what PRECISELY were the Primary and High Schools you attended?
(Precise descriptions of the school type – not the school names and a time frame when you attended)

WW

[pnodrog]

A great thread, certainly split opinions down one side or the other

.

The problem is that artistic "eye" conveys two meanings. One meaning is how anyone views in an artistic sense. The other interpretation is a level of competence in seeing as an artist. Some people will never achieve the level of competence that I would say they had an artistic "eye" but I have no doubt everyone can improve their skill.

I would like to know if Bill who teaches photography would consider he can develop all his students to the level he would consider them as having an artistic "eye". He may be an exceptional teacher but I would be surprised if there were not at least some students that he has had that he would be reluctant to say that they had an artistic "eye" even if they achieved the level required by the course.

[William W]

(My emphases in quote):

The problem is that artistic "eye" conveys two meanings. One meaning is how anyone views in an artistic sense. The other interpretation is a level of competence in seeing as an artist. Some people will never achieve the level of competence that I would say they had an artistic "eye" but I have no doubt everyone can improve their skill.

I would like to know if Bill who teaches photography would consider he can develop ALL his students to the level he would consider them as having an artistic "eye". He may be an exceptional teacher but I would be surprised if there were not at least some students that he has had that he would be reluctant to say that they had an artistic "eye" even if they achieved the level required by the course.

I believe everyone can improve on their natural given skill levels.

***

I now refer exclusively to your second meaning of "artistic eye", that which I underlined.

I cannot surprise you.

At WHAT I teach, I do believe that I am very good, yes.

I began teaching Photography at Technical College around the mid 1980’s and have had an ‘in and out’ of teaching service since.

I now ‘coach’ (which means ‘tutor’), mainly High School Art Students in their final two years who are establishing their Major Work as Photography – that number is between one and three each year. I do a couple of workshops now and again. Although I have one longer standing Student who comes and goes, she is now in 2nd Year University.

I agree that: ‘some students that I have had, do NOT have THE genius of the ARTISTIC "eye". even though they have enough of an artist “eye” to achieved the level required by the course.’

I’d also add that, in the last few years , since I began coaching and being selective as to whom I coach, my Students push ME apropos the “artistic eye” and often some of them win – in the sense that their vision and interpretation of a scene, a shooting scenario is: whole; is made; is composite and fully reconciled, whilst mine might still be in the formative stages or not even realized and sometimes even dismissed.

In these cases there are some (recent) Students who are more talented than I, and will always have a better and more finely tuned “artistic eye” than I.

I do not believe that I "have" THE genius of the "artistic eye".

But I do believe I have increased my own skill levels of my own "artistic eye" and the paths to make those improvements, at times have been most difficult tasks: mainly made difficult by me.

I do not believe that my improvement in this area renders me as "having" THE genius of the 'artistic eye'.

However I do believe that I can see genius, when it is in front of me and also perceive when that genius is underlying - and I do believe that I have learned and honed those skill levels of perception to understand where "genius" resides. And also I believe I know several of the means to bring it out and that I am good at doing that.

Perhaps at Technical College, when I was teaching there, there were some Students also who could have been like this – but I did not see them. I would suppose that some of the reasons I did not note these individuals were: the style of teaching; the adherence to curriculum; the large classes and my skill level and my attitudes then, as to what constituted a ‘good teacher’.

I’d add that the second meaning of "artistic eye" which you made - (to me) should be more like:

“having a level of competence in seeing as an artist and applying that skill in a way as to emotionally move the Viewer”



Is that a satisfactorily comprehensive answer to your question?

WW

[pnodrog]

Is that a satisfactorily comprehensive answer to your question?

WW

Absolutely and very much as I suspected.

Your reference to genius reminds me of a flatmate I once had. I learnt the violin for about 6 years and was studying for grade 8 when much to my mothers disappointment I switched to classical guitar which I studied for two years and I think observers at the time would have classed me as musical. Due to a common interest in guitar I started flatting with a self taught guitarist who was studding for law. He picked my knowledge about technique etc that I had been taught. He was exceptionally gifted in music (genius?) and I realised I was someone using written music a bit like a person doing art by painting by numbers. He was and still is a true artist/musician and can now read music but never needs to because if he has heard a piece of music he can play it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76Pg72vCTWw He is the guitarist in the grey hat and the clip does not fully demonstrate his talent.

It is this background that makes me use the term "artistic eye" very cautiously and I do not believe it can be truly gained by study.

[RustBeltRaw]

It is this background that makes me use the term "artistic eye" very cautiously and I do not believe it can be truly gained by study.

There will always be people who have a genetic (or, if you prefer, god-given) gift. But at some point, he didn't know one end of a guitar from the other. Certainly, he had to put less work into becoming great, but he still had to learn. I think it's more accurate to say that some people have savant-like gifts for absorbing knowledge about, and practicing, music or photography, but no one's a genius on day one.

On that note, a couple my parents know in Canada has recently enlisted my services to give some technical instruction to their daughter. Apparently she "has the eye," but her camera's never left auto (at present, pretty much the opposite of yours truly). Haven't seen her work yet, but it sounds like she might be much like your flatmate in his early days. I suspect this is going to be a repeat of engineering school, where some of my fellow students out-scored me on exams I tutored them for.

[William W]

(My emphasis in quoted section)

. . . [The] reference to genius reminds me of a flatmate I once had. . . I realised I was someone using written music a bit like a person doing art by painting by numbers . . . It is this background that makes me use the term "artistic eye" very cautiously and I do not believe “IT” can be truly gained by study.

Agree.
It occurs to me to be the same in every avenue.
I look at this as: “The 10% Rule”.
I have an intimate association with Swimming generally and with some exceptional Swimmers and exceptional Coaches, specifically.
Those, very few, exceptional people whom I know and can count on less than the total fingers I have, are each a result of what I term: “The 10% Rule”.

Apropos the Swimmers (in simple terms) – they each:

 were the 10% who jumped into the water for some reason (or were pushed) and felt reasonably “at home”.
 were the 10% of that previous 10% who flapped about and actually moved somewhere.
 were the 10% of that previous 10% who went to the School Swimming Carnival and won – lots.
 were the 10% of that previous 10% who went to a (reasonable) Coach and “got it”
 were the 10% of that previous 10% who practiced (in mean REALLY practiced) ‘cause they “liked what they did”.
 were the 10% of that previous 10% who “wanted it” in the completion pool.
 were the 10% of that previous 10% who saw it before it even happened – as in ‘a year out’.
 were the 10% of that previous 10% who by some grace or ‘whatever’ had the ‘genius’ and THEN EMPLOYED that ‘genius’ - AT THE PRECISE MOMENTS IN TIME - such that it was a very small personal difference to them - but the most incredibly large historical difference.


It’s that last 10% “bit” that can neither be practiced; nor taught; nor learned.
It would be so with your Guitarist Friend, I suspect – the genius and the precise timing of it to create something astounding and historic.

WW

[pnodrog]

Lex I think we can both take some consolation in that dedication and grim determination can still take us a heck of a long way.

Bill you must have been reading my mind - once I finished typing your 10% analysis appeared.

[William W]

. . . it is easy to mind-read across the small expanse of the Tasman Sea - it is getting a clear signal from Cambridge which is much more difficult: I do hope I get an answer about the Schools.

In any case - you have a good afternoon: as before, nice chatting to you.

WW

[Magog]

. . . it is easy to mind-read across the small expanse of the Tasman Sea - it is getting a clear signal from Cambridge which is much more difficult: I do hope I get an answer about the Schools.

WW

Bill,

my apologies - I was not ignoring you, merely absent from the computer/forum for a while.

Regarding schools, I went to an ordinary state primary school, then on to one of the local Grammar (selective) schools. Maybe of relevance to your thinking is the following:

Prior to achieving Grammar School status, about 10 years before I started there, it was a Technical School (indeed, while I was there it was still called the Technical Grammar, to distinguish it from the other Grammar school). Not surprisingly, it had strengths in craft and science subjects. We all did Metalwork, Woodwork and Engineering Drawing, along with the usual science/languages/maths subjects. Art was in there too.

I dropped Woodwork,Metalwork and Art by age 14 to concentrate on the other subjects - although I did carry on with the Engineering Drawing.

[Magog]

A great thread, certainly split opinions down one side or the other

I think that if you were to replace the word "artistic" with "creative" some people might view the question differently. Yet what's the difference between the two words?
I am terrible at drawing and painting, have been all my life, yet I am always told I have a creative imagination, and professionally considered to be full of creative ideas at work. I don't consider myself as lacking the artistic eye because I can not paint or draw, I just lack the technical skills to convey my imagination using that medium.

A great point, Rob; maybe by fixing on the notion of "creativity" rather than the perhaps more abstract "artistic" it de-mystifies the process.

[RustBeltRaw]

Lex I think we can both take some consolation in that dedication and grim determination can still take us a heck of a long way.

This may be as close as we'll come to a conclusion from this thread. Whether genius or a dullard, the only way forward is to grit your teeth, be moderately self-critical, and keep on shooting.