Also interesting to note that when I teach workshops the most challenging topic or section is that on discovering and developing artistic vision. Not so much because it’s difficult to understand but rather because many photographers just starting-out want to know only the specifics of camera settings, equipment and software, as in “how much and where can I get it.”

Guided learning through self-discovery is far more challenging than our traditional education system based on repetition and imitation. Perhaps that’s part of the problem with so many photographers who succeed with the craft yet fail with the art ?

Not sure I really want to be an “artist” if art is just a contrivance of the human mind! I’ve thought of art as the ability to see and portray the existing beauty of natural phenomena – yes, with my own eye and perspective, pointing out beauty/characteristics/marvels that could be easily overlooked. Maybe that’s the “ulterior meaning” of which you speak? Drawing something out, pointing out a fact, a subtlety, a grace? Funny I would use the expression “drawing out” – art isn’t necessarily a contrivance of the mind as in “making something up” – but rather in presenting it in a particular fashion, is it not? One could argue that the natural creation on its own is an art, an expression of the Creator, complete with “ulterior” motives. For example, why do we see in color? Why a million shades of green on a hillside? Why are we so fascinated with mothers and their young? Why is a sunset beautiful? Why do we admire the majesty of an elk or an elephant? Or the intricate details of a flower blossom? What about those “ancient photons” that Mark’s father renders? Is there a message in them from the first artist? Would I not be an artist myself if I were able to “draw something out” in such a way that people would see beyond the technique, see the subject, and say “wow, that’s beautiful!” or “my, that’s amazing!” and marvel at the subject, as I did – rather than at “my” art? Or does my intent of drawing out the subject make it art?
It seems like trying to make a distinction between art and the beauty it represents, is slightly egotistical – after all, my ‘intent’ wouldn’t mean much if there were not already something to intend …Even very abstract paintings or photographs are usually based on *something*–like light, color, or movement. I understand your point, though, that “thoughtless” photography wouldn’t be art – but I don’t know why a person would bother with serious photography in general unless they already had some ‘intent’ as far as portraying the subject – be it iconic or otherwise. The development of technique “enables” that portrayal… for example, I just purchased your Creative Processing Techniques. Hoping it will give me some insight into how to better “draw” things out.

“They do what they do without truly understanding how, then make up a lot of convoluted theory”

I’ve run into that all over the place, not just in photography. It’s surprising how common this is — and even more, how often it can turn create arguments and disagreements that simply don’t make any sense. (I ran into this on another forum just yesterday.)

Anyway, I’m also of mixed opinion about the stories behind the shots. I include them, because it gives me something more interesting to write about than the technical stuff when I publish photos.

One comment I’ve received is that my stories and photos entice readers into wanting to visit the places that I photograph. Another is gratitude for sharing my story with someone who wasn’t able to go. Others were reminded of their own stories. Very rarely does anyone ask about the technical stuff, and even that so far has almost almost invariably been when they see the prints… but even then, I get more questions about where those places than about the technique.

If something is advertised as art, it should by definition be the product of an artist, not just untouched raw material. This is not to say that it is good art or bad art or anything else of that nature. THOSE are up to the audience.

And to clarify, I deliberately included “understanding of” in the sentence you quoted. Formal art education is wonderful for those who can afford it and the time investment but many (possibly most) working artists do not have it and it is clearly not a pre-requisite for creativity. Still, there is no excuse for not employing the vast knowledge at our fingertips to learn what it is we’re claiming ourselves to be.

In short, you rail against the (glorified) snapshot approach to landscape.

I see Rodney’s comment, above, as a reaction to that.

Several folk I know fall into the LF-landscape genre. Last summer I smelled the coffee and wondered, `how come, if they claim their work represents what it felt like to be there, they *all* feel “4×5 portrait, tripod low on the ground, at the beach, rear perspective tilt, velvia RVP”?’.

I think you’re advocating an idea that, to call oneself an artist, one has to have a “world of landscape” in one’s head, into which one pushes reality, in order to somehow stand apart from the crowd. *In practice*, this is not what happens, even amongst arty-landscape-photographers. Does this mean, if I take a photo of the Black Mount landscape, I have to consider cloning-out “that tree”? One reason so many people make photos of the Buachaille Etive Mòr from beside the River Coupall is that the scene lends itself to a good composition; should I selectively recolour the water pink and sky green because I’m aspiring to be a crazed artist?
Well, thanks for the ideas – I might try exactly those things now.

Probably about the time someone (Kodak?) started propagating the idea of crouching down to “get an interesting angle”. It starts with that; nobody cares that your knee was up your nose to get the shot, rather, they care what you placed where and how in the frame you brought to reality.

There is one amendment to this theory, however: the existence of NASA and Hubble demonstrates the existence of a bar above which “hero story” is a contributing factor, and sets the bar very high indeed.

The elitism you rail against is surely evident in this statement! Who decides what is Art surely it has to be the audience? Not academia or the educated elite?

As always your work is inspirational and writing eloquent but I do wonder why the angst?

Who cares I wonder probably only the Elite you rail against?

Let the “Art” speak for itself without needing the crutch of educated critics to validate its worth.