I've been doing some research on talent and mindset. Here are my musings!
http://robertpoolephotography.com/20...hers/#more-231
I've been doing some research on talent and mindset. Here are my musings!
http://robertpoolephotography.com/20...hers/#more-231
Robert,
To those people who claim that you can accomplish anything if you try hard enough...
I say: find me a 5 foot tall basketball player in the NBA.
Andre
There are no rules without exceptions.
I think the problem is an over simplification, probably on my part. Of course in sport there are going to be biological/genetic advantages. A 7" tall baskeball player will have an advantage over our plucky 5'3" Muggsy Bogues the shortest ever NBA player. The point MG is making is that "natural ability requires a huge investment of time in order to be made manifest." so, no, not just hard work, grit and determination but we can all build on our natural talents/intelligence and abilities by having the right mindset.
I haven't read any of Gweck's work, but her premise is not particularly surprising. Some people are risk averse and others are enjoy challenges and understand that there will be failures along the way. On the other hand, Malcolm Gladwell's book (which I have read) has been thoroughly discredited; there is nothing magic about 10000 hours - some skills take more time and other less time to master.
The bottom line is that it takes time to become proficient at something and you will make mistakes along the way (or at least you might think they are mistakes at the time). I firmly believe you can teach anyone who has the interest, to become a very competent photographer, but that will by no means mean that they will be the next Annie Leibowitz.
In conclusion, I'll have to disagree with your headline; there are indeed talented photographers; but they also had to work hard to get there. There are also talented photographers that are their own worst enemy, and through either a lack of drive or some other skill, will never reach the heights that they are capable of.
I disagree with the premise that "There are no talented photographers"...
I have known people who, from the first time they picked up a camera shot very good to excellent imagery and needed only a bit of training to help them bring their technical skills up to the level of their artistic talent.
On the other hand, I have known many photographers who were the beneficiaries of extensive training (Such as graduation from the U.S. Naval School of Photography at Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida), and who had virtually unlimited resources in the days of film (the Navy was generally very generous with us using their film for training purposes) with many of these trained and experienced photographers never evolving to anything greater than technical proficiency.
People of today have had a far greater exposure to imagery than I had in my formative years. Video, cinema, the proliferation of print magazines publishing imagery all have exposed today's aspiring photographer to literally millions of images. However, it is my opinion that many people just look at these images and never "see" them. Additionally, IMO, many people could care less about the quality of imagery. Content is all that they are concerned with.
Finally, studies have indicated that people view images in different ways. As an example, there was a study done with eye scans on how engineering students view images vs. how art students view those same images. The trace of the eyes over the images are totally different with (if I remember correctly) the engineering students gazing all over the image equally and not honing in on any one center of interest while art students tend to concentrate on certain important points of any image...
I would be very interested in seeing the studies you mention; being both an engineer and photographer.
That being said, one of the first things that engineering students were taught on the first day of classes was to understand the big-picture view before diving into the minutia of solving a technical problem. There was a great deal of emphasis on "problem identification", i.e. making sure that we were actually solving the right problem.
Of course, I would have liked to see a follow up study to see whether the engineers or the arts students produced better photographs. The fact that we analyze things differently likely has little or no bearing on the quality of work that we end up producing.
I am not at all claiming that one way to look at an image is any better than another way, or even that the engineering student's eye tracking was inferior to the art student. Or even that the art student might be the better photographer. I am just saying that there are different ways that people look at images.
What I do think would be significant is a person's dedication to or desire to produce good images. I know that there are people who could care less about the quality of an image. An example is my sister-in-law who will oooh! and aaah! over an image of one of her grand kids, as long as the kid is barely somewhat recognizable in the image. However, she looks at the best images that don't include a grand kiddie and simply has no interest in it whatsoever!
Do you think that a person with that mindset would ever produce good images. My answer is that so far she hasn't and she's well over 60 years old...
There are no five foot tall rugby players in the All Blacks
Barry from New Zealand