The Art of Seeing - can it be acquired or trained?

[Dave Humphries]

To address Ted's original question; yes, I think it can be taught - although I fear that people without at least some innate (genetic) ability - those relying on what they've been taught alone - are likely to produce merely a succession of 'derivative' images, based on what they have seen or been taught.

I think that might apply to me, especially as I haven't shown much of what I've shot for the last 3 years, nor shot much at all for the last 2, because I don't think they are 'good enough' - but that's another story.


I believe my brain is capable of visualising images before capture (including both the effect of camera settings plus the 3D to 2D aspects), although if I rush, that side suffers and I end up trying to rescue it in Post Production - perhaps that explains my keenness (and hopefully, ability) to help others here at CiC by offering critique and suggestions on their pictures - let others learn by my mistakes

Unfortunately, being able to visualise 'better' images means that I can work out that I am (in many cases) incapable of getting the angle of view a scene requires (for an 'outstanding' composition) due to factors beyond my control - inability to gain access, get the camera to a suitable position, to control the scene, not have time to wait for the best light, not put up with the physical discomforts - the list goes on.

Or perhaps I give up to easily!

Critiquing images is a lot easier than taking them myself and I think I am better at critique than actually taking them. So I tend to stick to what (I think) I am good at.

That said, my life tends to move in phases and I hope that I'll get back in to a 'photos' phase sometime.

[James G]

So, have a few beers (subdue those frontal lobes) and get the camera out.

Max, that sums up my 'gibberish' quite nicely Seriously though, I find Ted's question very relevant, but also very difficult to respond to, probably because of a lack of the right language to express what works for me. So thanks for the feedback, it helps.

What boards like this do is emphasise the technical aspect. Conceptual stuff seems to be treated with a certain amount of distrust.

I agree that this is true, but to a certain extent I expect that. I do believe CiCs is a (rare) community that does try to respond to creativity questions and issues when they come up, infrequently though that may be.

Maybe we should modify the ubiquitous 'C&C welcome' to a more inclusive statement like 'C&C , technical, conceptual, or what ever seems relevant would be appreciated'.

'Safe' as I truly think CiCs is as a forum or feedback on technical skills, I think because of it's 'public' nature, it always will struggle when it comes to feedback on conceptual, personal, intimate or emotional aspects of the way we express our creativity. Most learners I suspect look for a more private and personal environment for this.

[Shadowman]

That's one method of getting to un-thinking.

But I suggest that there's not necessarily the need to wait until one's emotions are so much or so strong, that they overcome one and a s a result one is forced into the state of un-thinkingness.

WW

Hi William,

I've used this technique, never pre-planned it just seems to happen. I will do as I described in post #2, and a concept will quickly form in my mind. One time it occurred and the only thought that crossed my mind was what effect an UWA would have on the scene that unfolded when I opened my eyes; luckily I had the lens on my camera so I could just immediately capture the scene and worry about technique after the first series of shots were taken.

[rachel]

I've never done a photography course as such but once I went on a day out with a photography group where they spoke to us first, a bit of general info about how to use the M setting and also the rule of thirds. So I tried all day thinking about the rule of thirds and when I viewed the pictures later on screen I didn't like any of them much - too busy thinking of the technique to go with the gut. I'm not saying I have good instinct, just that I think you can overthink it sometimes.

But, slightly off on a tangent here, I'm one for wonky horizons, and what really puzzles me is that even if I take care lining everything up before pressing that button - it's still rarely horizontal. So I hear what you're saying about a disconnect between what you see (or what the camera sees) and what's really there.

[Shadowman]

I've never done a photography course as such but once I went on a day out with a photography group where they spoke to us first a bit of general info about how to use M setting a more, the rule of thirds. So I tried all day thinking about the rule of thirds and when I viewed the pictures later on screen I didn't like any of them much - too busy thinking of the technique to go with the gut. I'm not saying I have good instinct, just that I think you can overthink it sometimes.

But, slightly off on a tangent here, I'm one for wonky horizons, and what really puzzles me is that even if I take care lining everything up before pressing that button - it's still rarely horizontal. So I hear what you're saying about a disconnect between what you see (or what the camera sees) and what's really there.

Hi Rachel,

Comments aren't so off topic, in fact it is a good example of what we are talking about. I tend to look towards rule of thirds or some other compositional style afterwards. The way I like to shoot, candid/street photography; setting up or lining up subjects with an imaginary grid could result in a lost shot. Should also emphasize that I like to be on the move with my candid photography, I suppose if I stationed myself in one spot I could compose and wait for the subject to enter my frame.

[rachel]

I tend to look towards rule of thirds or some other compositional style afterwards. The way I like to shoot, candid/street photography; setting up or lining up subjects with an imaginary grid could result in a lost shot.

Agreed. I learned while taking photos of Semana Santa in Málaga that you can't wait for the perfect shot, there are too many people in the way and you have to grab what you can then crop later. For my purposes the cropped versions are good enough.l

[xpatUSA]

Here's an idea... Many people enjoy viewing their images on an LCD rather than through an eye-level viewfinder when shooting.

I am guessing, but cannot be certain, that it is easier for those photographers to view their images in a two dimensional format, such as the LCD screen), rather tan viewing that image through a eye-level viewfinder and making the mental conversion into a 2-D image.

Thanks for that, it made me realize that I should have perhaps differentiated between the Art of seeing and the Method of seeing. I've just now tried viewing a scene with both eyes open and with one closed. Definitely more '2D' (surprise!) with one closed than with both. So maybe the viewfinder on my cam (it has no live view) does the trick?

[chauncey]

FWIW, I consider myself a competent photographer but...would rather be an artist.

[John 2]

I've come to this late but it is an interesting Q I have not really addressed before. However, reading the comments already posted, has caused me to do just that. The conclusion I have come to in answer to the original Q is that it depends. No, I'm not sitting on the fence. "Seeing" in the context of producing a competent and workman like record image IMHO can be taught. On the other hand, when it comes to "Seeing" in the context of an idea, particularly an original idea, the breadth of the "possible" is just too large to be included in a training programme. The latter is I think, a process of self learning and self awareness based on experience i.e. derived from looking at other peoples images on the one hand (Max's point about spending more time in galleries, "looking at the rich legacy of art.") and on the other, developing ideas based on your own past efforts. Over time, the possibilities become more readily recognised and provided you have mastered your tools, you may perhaps begin to develop an ability to re create what you have "seen" and in a way that is new and attractive to others. Ultimately, you may do this in a unique way, that is develop your own style. The best teachers will not try to teach this but will encourage you to explore what is "possible". It's a journey, and one on which most of us, myself included, don't get past the first few waypoints but life was ever thus. Those that have are probably famous (.... and long gone).

[Max von MeiselMaus]

'Safe' as I truly think CiCs is as a forum or feedback on technical skills, I think because of it's 'public' nature, it always will struggle when it comes to feedback on conceptual, personal, intimate or emotional aspects of the way we express our creativity. Most learners I suspect look for a more private and personal environment for this.

Yes, it is precisely those aspects (conceptual, personal, intimate and emotional) that are so difficult to comment on and receive comment on in a "safe" way. Perhaps this is why they are not addressed on boards such as these. The furthest critique will go is on the more technical aspects of the creative process, such as composition. Perhaps it would be just too risky to bare one's deeper conceptual aims or to comment on them. I hadn't thought of that.

John, you have made some interesting points. However, I either disagree with or have misunderstood some of them. For example, you say that a training course couldn't teach creativity because the range of the possible is too broad. However, that is precisely the point. The range of the possible is effectively infinite. We all have different motivators, needs, issues, perspectives, preferences, opinions; all those things that propel a work of art. And they can be combined in a vast number of different ways. So, no, no training course couldn't possibly show you all the possible works of art you could produce. However, it could teach you how to pay better attention to the factors that drive creation as well as how to approach the task of turning any emergent ideas into a work. That is a manageable task.

And looking at other artist's work is essential not for the purpose of using their ideas (although copying a piece of work can be a very useful exercise) but because it develops those faculties that are needed in the production of one's own work. I would venture to suggest that, if you can't go out and enjoy a work of art, you can't produce one. But that is not to say that how to enjoy art can not be taught. It can. Perhaps that would be a useful exercise for a photographer who feels creatively constipated and isn't in the habit of visiting galleries; join an art appreciation class or group. It might make all the difference.

So, there you are. A two part plan; learn art appreciation and then drink beer. All will be sorted.

[John 2]

..................................... However, it could teach you how to pay better attention to the factors that drive creation as well as how to approach the task of turning any emergent ideas into a work. That is a manageable task.

Max that is precisely what I meant when I referred to a good teachers encouragement. Guidance rather than pure instruction.

[NorthernFocus]

FWIW, I consider myself a competent photographer but...would rather be an artist.

Considering the manner in which many famous artists lived their lives and met their ends, one has to consider whether having a natural bent towards the artistic is desirable.

[flashback]

To me there's a lot of over thinking, both in the OP's original question as well in a number of answers. And so, in keeping with the ever present In-My-Humble-Opinion caveat, I offer my thoughts/suggestions: Find something you like to take pictures of and go out and take pictures of it. Lots of pictures. Eventually you will become very good at taking pictures of that particular thing/view/activity.

Now, are people going to be oohing and ahhing about your picture of a bug or flower 50 years from now? Probably not.
Frankly I do believe that a really good image will indeed be (become) timeless. But no matter, shoot what interests you the most. I have no doubt that were one to shoot nothing but flowers, or bugs, or finely carved walking sticks, eventually you would be the go-to person for that genre.

As for art, it can be subjective and can shift with time. On the other hand, think Mona Lisa, or Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico, or Henri Cartier-Bresson (who had no one to emulate and so developed his own style). So why all the angst as to what is, or how can one achieve, artyness. You may do something photographically that everyone here at CiC thinks is horrendous, but in 25 years you could be seen as an unappreciated genius. On the other hand you could upload images here that everyone (or many) think is pure artistic genius. Yet post it elsewhere and those folks may to a person decry it as derivative and weak.

As for the innateness of talent, I believe there's a strong tie with compulsion. If you're compelled to go and photograph something, anything, talent will out and you will end up producing art-quality work. I'm reminded of what an old time, damn good carpenter used to say, "Senza amore, senza sapore." In english; without love, without flavor or, no love no flavor. In other words, if you do something that your heart isn't in, that you have no love or enjoyment for, it will be apparent in your results.

[xpatUSA]

To me there's a lot of over thinking, both in the OP's original question as well in a number of answers. And so, in keeping with the ever present In-My-Humble-Opinion caveat, I offer my thoughts/suggestions: Find something you like to take pictures of and go out and take pictures of it. Lots of pictures. Eventually you will become very good at taking pictures of that particular thing/view/activity.

<>.

So why all the angst as to what is, or how can one achieve, artyness ?

Pardon me snipping the well-meant advice which I did read through; I assume that "you" meant me, the OP and that the above question was addressed to me.

After having to look up "angst" (Wiki: Angst means fear or anxiety (anguish is its Latinate equivalent, and anxious, anxiety are of similar origin)) it seems that my OP may have misled you. I have none of the foregoing, being simply an old man who is resigned to the fact that he ain't quite as slick as he used to be - like one or two other fellows here . . .

[Manfred M]

Ted - the answer to your question is an unqualified "yes!", but as always, there is a "gotcha".

Henri Cartier-Bresson probably said it best when he suggested that "your first 10,000 images are your worst". Some more modern photographers have suggested that Cartier-Bresson made this comment in the film days, where people tended to be more careful and frugal with their photography because of film and processing costs and 100,000 images might be a more appropriate target.

Regardless, I feel that Cartier-Bresson is correct in suggesting that lots and lots of practice is the key to becoming a good photographer. This level of repetition means we have a decent chance to learn to see photographically (a.k.a. precomposition) which means we can visualize how the image will look, as well as having developed the technical skills to not only frame the picture effectively, but also to have the technical know-how and experience with the camera to execute the mechanical / craft aspect of photography.

[Mike Buckley]

Considering the manner in which many famous artists lived their lives and met their ends, one has to consider whether having a natural bent towards the artistic is desirable.

Please name another group or another bent for which the exact same thing isn't true; there are always going to be large numbers of people in every endeavor who are fundamentally unhappy and unsuccessful in their own eyes.

[Max von MeiselMaus]

Jack, what you say about over-thinking flags up something important; not everyone wants to go to the lengths required to produce "art" (small "a", inverted commas, just to offset the "but what is art?" discussion). Many people just want to get the camera out and have a go. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. However, some of us do feel the need to think and reflect and approach the task in a different way. Whilst I can see this looks like over-thinking, it is just our way, no better nor worse than the less considered approach.

But it does raise another point. Cartier-Bresson's 10,000 practice images. I could see how the get-out-and-do-it photographers would get out there and clock up 10,000 images as quickly as they could and there would likely be improvements. However, the over-thinker would sit down and reflect after each one; what worked, what didn't, how could I do it differently next time. They would also plan for the next one, take some test shots (clock up a few more of that 10,000) change the approach accordingly. All that conceptual stuff. Would they be further on after 10,000 shots? Probably. Would it be worth the extra effort? Possibly.

So, swings and roundabouts in being an impulsive photographer versus a contemplative one.

No guesses as to which I am. I love a good cogitate.

[Manfred M]

Max - First of all, I will fully admit I am prone to overthinking, but given my years of practice in controlling this flaw of mine, I have managed to control myself a bit when I look at images and only apply this trait to what I consider to be my "better" images. That way I productively limit the overthinking.

I approach my photography differently than some, and that is probably due to the way I think. I'm a designer, and while my formal education lead me in this direction (I studied mechanical engineering at university), I started designing things when I was quite young. The design process is all about managing different tradeoffs; and this is certainly also true when we photograph an image. The design process is iterative, so concepts like "working the scene", is something that comes quite naturally to me.

As for the 10,000 (or 100,000) images, I've easily passed the threshold and have too suggest that I think Cartier-Bresson was onto something here.. The other thing I find with photography, I think there is a valid position in comparing it to playing a musical instrument; you need constant practice, otherwise your skills will drop off quite quickly. This includes the taking of the image and the post-processing part. So taking pictures weekly is a good way to stay in shape.

[NorthernFocus]

While I'm contemplating my subjects often leave the scene

[xpatUSA]

I approach my photography differently than some, and that is probably due to the way I think. I'm a designer, and while my formal education lead me in this direction (I studied mechanical engineering at university), I started designing things when I was quite young. The design process is all about managing different tradeoffs; and this is certainly also true when we photograph an image. The design process is iterative, so concepts like "working the scene", is something that comes quite naturally to me.

That touched off analogies with earlier hobbies:

Designing my own model airplanes - free flight and, later, radio-controlled. Never bought a construction kit or followed someone's published plan. True to current form, I became knowledgeable from an early age about aerodynamics, structural engineering - but with limited math, therefore not to the fullest extent.

Designing my own electronic stuff - mainly guitar amps and sound effects, test oscillators. Did build an oscilloscope kit.

Music - I could actually compose in my head and play it by ear. Forgotten the next day because I never learned to write/read music.

Programming the home computer started a new hobby phase because no physical work (cutting, soldering, playing) was required to produce a result.

All these enterprises had one thing in common; I never became expert in the execution due both to laziness and impatience - neither of which characteristics are rewarded in photography.

So . . more practice in 'seeing' for me as advised in this thread - I'm not really lacking in technical knowledge, so the execution is less of a problem.

Onwards and upwards and thanks to you all so far