An artistic "eye" - can it be learned?

To the last post " Iam out throw me another SD and fresh battery."

Cheers:

Allan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magog

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

---

No apology is necessary. Since we can’t play Cricket that well at the moment and Rugby is also on the slide: the only joy left for us down here is to wind up all the Poms and the Kiwis . . .

***

Yes ‘Grammar’, previously ‘Technical Grammar’ weighs in as ‘highly impactful’ on my thinking as to why you were ‘no good at Art’.

All Boys School, perhaps?

You are about my age? (around 21 and a bit, that is)

My vote 1 would be for “peer group pressure”.

The pressure NOT to LIKE something like Art – can be in your face or very persuasive, subliminal and creeping or a bit of both.

You might note that I have already purposefully mentioned Cricket and Rugby in my opening. . .

French, Drama and Music didn’t weigh too heavily as ‘necessary accoutrement’ several years ago at my School - even though ALL of those subjects were compulsory at one stage.

***

You might chuckle at this bit . . .

Interestingly, the revelation of ‘peer group pressure NOT to LIKE’ came to me on an aeroplane flight coming back to Sydney.

I sat next to an English Lady, about 70. Very ‘well spoken’.

She was a retired School Teacher. She taught ‘Languages’: French, German, Italian and I think also Latin.

We chatted. Don’t know how it came up, but I said – “I was never any good at French, but funny how much I recalled recently when I was in France . . .”

She said as quick as Flash words to the effect: “You’re just typical it wasn’t ever ‘cool’ for you to be good at French.”

We chatted for a very long time and I learnt heaps – absolutely no more French - but I learnt heaps from that retired Teacher of Languages and I thank her deeply for that.


WW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pnodrog

We had a similar thread on Feb 6th https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/fo...ead26719-2.htm and it maybe an interesting read before answering here. Slightly different question but a lot of posts relevant to this thread.

---

HI. L.Paul,

Very interesting thread.

Thanks . Will go thru it and post later.

Could I learn to shoot creative and artistic images like those of Sharon (Daisy-Mae)? Not in a million years; even though I enjoy her images very much. Would I like to? Definitely yes!

I could learn to play the piano, but I could never learn to play the piano like Lang-Lang.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrahamS

I could learn to play the piano, but I could never learn to play the piano like Lang-Lang.

---

That's a really good point but learning to play like Lang-Lang includes a physical requirement -- manual dexterity -- that goes beyond having the artistic bent for making music. As an example, our legs are made of some muscles that are ideal for sprinting and some that are ideal for long-distance running. If a runner's legs are made up primarily of one type of muscle, he or she isn't going to become a world-class athlete using the other type.

Similarly, I'm confident that I heard the next Lang-Lang this past weekend. I heard him while I was sitting in the exact same seat that I heard Lang-Lang before he became famous. The next Lang-Lang is 21 years old and is performing mostly in Europe though not yet famous. He has also won numerous composition awards. He got his first of several college degrees at age 12 and has been studying with and being mentored by Alfred Brendel since he was 13. All of us can develop his artistic bent but few of us can develop the talent this guy was born with. His name is Kit Armstrong.

Can it be learned?

Yes .

First of all, before one produces a great painting, technique has to be learned. Colors, paint brushes, palette, charcoal/oil/water paintings, and so on.

Then, the creative / artistic part. I feel the key words are "immersion/internalization".

This includes never-ending research. The history of "paintings", different mediums, different countries / environment/ cultures' influence on modern art/paintings, constant research on the internet, and so much more.

After accumulating so much information and actual paintings, one lets "go" and lets his/her subconscious flow freely.

A moment , in an environment/scene, which suddenly inspires you to transform/express via your painting.

Just like what Sharon said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daisy Mae :

.....I knew I had something but not exactly what.

---

How about those "born with an artistic eye"?

Do they have to learn. Why should she/he?

After all, he/she was born with it, right?

:D

All adults (and children) of today are being immersed in a wonderfully vast and diverse photographic education.

We are being exposed (pardon the pun) to literally millions (perhaps billions) of images (good, bad and indifferent) through television, the internet, newspapers and magazines.

Whether we have learned from this education or not depends whether we have just looked at the images which have come before us or whether we actually "see" these images.

I think that there is a small percentage of people who are absolutely natural photographers and who without any training (especially in today's digital age in which many facets of photography can be captured automatically) are able to produce mind boggling images. They have "seen" the images to which they have been exposed.

I also think that there is a small percentage of people who will never (even with the best equipment and training) produce even decent imagery. They only "look" at the images before them...

For the rest of us, I think that it is a factor of some natural ability, combined with experience and training, which enables us to produce imagery to be proud of. The recipe for this good imagery depends on the individual photographer and how much natural ability he/she starts with, how dedicated to learning the art/craft he/she is and (although I hate to say this) what the financial status of the photographer is. This would determine the equipment he/she can afford; i.e.: it is difficult (but not impossible) to learn lighting without lights with which to work. The financial status also determines the computer and software programs available and just how much time he/she can devote to the art/craft of photography. The financial status also determines whether the photographer can afford a camera with adjustable exposure and focusing capabilities...

Today's digital photographer has a great advantage over the film photographer of the past in that...

1. once the initial equipment is purchased shooting is free
2. we don't need a space and money consuming darkroom in which to process our images
3. we can store our images on a hard drive or Internet site rather than in albums or shoe boxes
4. we can post our images on sites like this and gain feedback
5. we have access to tutorials of all types on the Internet free of charge

I think that it is less expensive today (compared with the average salaries) to purchase a camera which can produce very good to excellent imagery than it was in the days of film cameras. I am thinking of the 1950's. Today, most of us can afford an entry level DSLR with a kit lens. However, Leica's, Rolleis and other cameras of the past were quite expensive compared to what the average person was earning. There really was no middle ground between the box cameras or Instamatics and the very expensive gear.