Why are some people good at photography while others arent?

[photomoof]

Originally Posted by Jamie123

Anyways, my point is that you can very easily give a consistent definition of 'good photography'. That is basically what critics do over and over again. The problem isn't that your definition will be proven wrong, it's that you might have a hard time getting people to agree with you

The question asked [by philosophers and critics] is "what makes art objects different from ordinary objects?

My personal belief is, "the question is wrong."

[I Love Film]

Is an idiot-savant who can perfectly replay a complicated piano piece that he has only heard once creative? Or is he a mechanical music box?

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by hteasley

I have a different but important version of that: I think people are born with preferences that draw them to being fulfilled by doing different things. I don't really believe in born potential. My daughter is a good artist, and she will think in the future that she was born that way, but I know that before she was two, she had filled crates and crates of drawings and scribbles. By five she had filled more sketchbooks than I ever will (and I'm an Art Director). Her skill came through experience, but much of it is experience she'll never remember. She just loves to draw, and does it a LOT.

I agree, and this is my current theory or philosophy.
A lot of leading musicians started very young (3, 4 years old), had an enthusiastic parent nurturing them, or influencing their musical taste, and many spent hours playing or practising instead of kicking a ball in the park like other young kids.
There is too much talk of innate talent, and this easily becomes an excuse for failure - "I just wasn't talented". Instead of "I just wasn't prepared to make the sacrifice"

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by I Love Film

There are gifted, insightful, precise and natural genius neurosurgeons.

There are hacks, who laboriously learned surgery through rigid, repetitive practice, and cannot improvise when faced with a unexpected complication.

Who do you want to remove your brain tumor?

I had a recent (and minor) brush with this decision. And the leading guy in my country is the one who has performs such complicated and delicate surgery hundreds of times each year. Recent research actually backs this. Post cancer life expectancy is impacted negatively if you undergo surgery with a less experienced surgeon. Current advice is to shop around and go with the surgeon with the most experience in the operation you need.
It's likely that the more experienced you are, the more you are prepared for unexpected complications.
Nothing was mentioned about talent, or any aspect of hereditary skill.

[Jamie123]

Originally Posted by photomoof

The question asked [by philosophers and critics] is "what makes art objects different from ordinary objects?

My personal belief is, "the question is wrong."

Philosophers, yes, but not critics. Critics aren't concerned with what makes art objects different from non-art objects, they are concerned with what makes some art objects better than other art objects. True, critics tend to dismiss bad art objects as not being art at all but that's just rhetoric.

As for the question being wrong, that is basically the stance taken by Neo-Wittgensteinians in the 50s who argued against the definability of art. While there were a few problems with that argument, the gist of it probably still holds true.

My personal view is that insofar as the question is answerable, the answer is unsatisfactory and any kind of satisfactory answer would invariably be wrong.

[kennylovrin]

I think Sejanus.Aelianus have written a lot of good points that I fully agree with, and I find it refreshing to read.

What I also think is that being good at something in many cases actually means "being good at knowing what will please others". And there are many factors that affects what pleasing other means - who they are, where the world is at, what has been accepted long ago as right or wrong etc. Also who you are, if you are known since before, what you did to get your result etc.

I think some of my own photos are crap, some are good and a few are great. But looking at the overall response I get on them I know that most people place them in the "bad" category. Does it mean I'm wrong? No, it just means that I either suck at seeing what other people considers to be good, or I chose to ignore it.

Then of course there are things that almost everyone agrees is bad, or everyone agrees is good etc. But those are often the extremes. In between, in the lovely gray area, it's a lot harder to define good/bad/right/wrong.

Same thing applies to music for example, painting etc. But it does not apply to very concrete things like running a pre-defined distance the fastest, I'd say.

If you want to hit it off professionally, I think "knowing what others will consider good" becomes extremely important. It's nothing strange really, it's what we all do every day more or less in our "normal" day jobs. If you don't care about taking it to that level but instead do it for fun, you can either choose to just do what you do, change what you do, or do what you do and find the people that likes the same thing if you are after praise.

I'm sure a lot of people doesn't agree with me, but this aspect of good/bad has always bugged me to an extent where I sometimes completely lose my temper just thinking about it. I find it so extremely annoying that sometimes awful products (be it art or whatever) gets praise and I just don't see how it can even be considered remotely interesting. But then again that is just my opinion on that specific piece. I think it is important to remember than when someone says what you do isn't good enough. It's just their opinion. Then after that you have to think about what you are after with what you're doing.

[johnwolf]

Originally Posted by x-ray

....Some people are purely mechanics where as others are artists....

More dualistic thinking, I feel. Especially the "purely," with all its nasty overtones. This kind of thinking leads to segregation, exclusivity, and an us/them mentality.

Watch great mechanics work and you'll see that are incredibly creative in executing their tasks. And you don't become a great artist without exceptional mastery of technical skills. No person is purely anything; we're all too rich and complex for that.

I see it as two parallel sliding scales. Everyone has both; we each fall on different places on each scale. Who knows, perhaps we start life with each slider fixed at one spot. But anyone can move both scales more to the right with training and hard work.

John

[Jamie123]

Just saw this quote from an interview with Jim Goldberg:

"Watching students grow is interesting—and them observing my process helps them see that it’s not that mysterious of a thing to do. In order to figure this artmaking stuff out, it’s trial and error and experimentation, and takes some time and hard thinking."

[koven]

Oh man I was afraid to come back in this thread after the lashing I got on the 1st page but great responses guys. It gave me a lot to think about. I made this thread because a couple opportunities came up for me to take my photography to the next level but I'm really not sure if If I'm good enough or what separates me from the rest. At the same time there are people younger then me who haven't been taking pictures as long doing shows. I just need to stop thinking so much and go for it.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by koven

I made this thread because a couple opportunities came up for me to take my photography to the next level but I'm really not sure if If I'm good enough or what separates me from the rest. At the same time there are people younger then me who haven't been taking pictures as long doing shows. I just need to stop thinking so much and go for it.

You can't worry about who is better than you... there is always someone better than you at whatever you're into. Also, age / time has nothing to do with it... check this out for encouragement:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/genius.html

As for seperating yourself from others, you just have to keep chugging along because you love it (or its your job) and realize it may never happen (and be ok with that).

[mwoenv]

Because what images you decide to capture and how you capture them come from inside you - your perspectives, emotions, mind, and eye working together to create the resultant image, and everyone is different. That's why it is art.

Sure, there are also purely technical skills involved in photography, e.g., in processing, and you have to use your gear competently. But it's mostly you that makes the difference. I think the great emphasis on gear can be misplaced.

[Dirk]

If your photos speak to people, if they mean something to them, if they evoke some emotion in them, then it's art. In order to produce images that have that kind of power, you have to connect with yourself and express what's inside of you, without fear and self-consciousness. You have to have the courage to be truly yourself, which is a maturation issue for some people. Only when you can unflinchingly access that inner core and have the courage to take images that come from within, without copying someone else's style or taking pictures that you think others will approve of, will you create art.