Teachers Wanted
I’m teaching more these days. I find it increasingly important. There were times when photographers studied, practiced or even apprenticed for years before venturing to create their own work. Today, photographers are created as early as when a package is delivered to their door. It occurrs to me that one could get a better education in fine-art photography in the 40s and 50s than they might today. Part of the problem, as I see it, is an ocean of knowledge and opinions and a dearth of real teachers to help navigate its waters. Where the great teachers of the past left off very few picked up, and Professor Internet filled in, with as much distraction and misinformation as valuable lessons about the art and purpose(s) of photography.
There was a period in which photographers made pilgrimages to New York hoping for an audience with Alfred Stieglitz. An exhibit in An American Place (Stieglitz’s gallery) could launch an artist’s career and their name into the history books. Photographers were exhibited alongside some of the greatest names in American art of the times. It was Stieglitz who introduced a young Ansel Adams to Paul Strand who, in turn, advised the inexperienced Ansel on matters of technique, equipment and vision that shaped his future and the practice of nature photography as we know it today. The tradition of great teachers and mentors was then carried forward by the likes of Minor White who fostered students such as Paul Caponigro, Jerry Uelsmann and Philip Hyde, among many others.
Today, it seems, most nature photographers’ pilgrimages are to iconic locations, repeating images made many times before; and very few even know of Stieglitz, Strand, Weston or White, let alone recognize their works and teachings. I may be speculating, but my guess is that the postcard view of Delicate Arch at sunset or the view from Inspiration Point in Yosemite would not have made it through the doors of An American Place today. Neither would that Japanese maple in Portland. Originality, creativity and personal expression — the foundations of art — no longer seem to carry the day. I have long lost count of web sites consisting of yet more copies of the same images with a prominent link above proclaiming to tell me “About the Artist.” What artist?
The trend is not unique to photography. Compare the complexity, social commentary and envelope-pushing of movies, novels or music over the last few decades, and the trend becomes clear: big, bold, loud and over-simplified triumph over sophisticated, subtle, nuanced and intellectually-challenging almost every time. Gimmick replaces craft, extreme replaces smart, conformity replaces innovation and celebrity trumps genius. It’s a trend we should condemn and reverse lest all art will become meaningless and unnecessary; a world devoid of meaningful art is not one I wish to live in.
Along with the dearth of teachers in our day also comes a great lack of commitment to art among photographers. Art is not something practiced over the weekend and left neglected until the next break from other occupations. Art is a way of life. It does not have to consume precious time or distract from necessities, but it should be on the artist’s mind constantly in order to evolve beyond the easy and the obvious. It should also be at the forefront of thought to achieve its true goal: the balancing of otherwise utilitarian pursuits, and the keeping of one’s soul from being drowned by the mundane.
Art always reflects the artist behind it, whether they wish for it to do so or not. If you want your images to be daring, you should be daring. If you want them to appear joyous, be joyous. If you wish for them to be original, creative, authentic and inspiring, be original, creative, authentic and inspiring. Pretending will not do. The view in the other direction is even less complimentary: if your images lack in composition, are technically flawed or poorly presented, what do they say about you? Worse yet, what does it mean if your images look like someone else’s?
The role of teachers should not be to affirm the methods you already use, the prejudices you already possess or the approaches you already take, but to help you gain new insight and find your way to creating better work, more personal work, more creative work, more important work. A good teacher may not have a ready answer for you, but they should be able to guide you to one that fits what you hope to achieve. They must do more than just demonstrate technique; they should also challenge, question, introduce new concepts, open doors, foster growth, offer honest critique and make you confront the questions you did not even know to ask. They should know when to impart wisdom and when to step back and let you take the stage. They should not be afraid to learn from their students. Most importantly, they should help you articulate the reason and purpose for doing what you do. Without this foundation, growth and progress are meaningless concepts. You must know what you want to grow into and what you wish to progress towards before seeking ways to get there.
Without good teachers and hungry students, the lessons of the past will be lost. And without knowledge of what was already learned, the evolution of the art itself will be at best random and coincidental; at worst non-existent. Be one or the other or, better yet, both.
On a recent workshop I proposed a simple assignment to students: at the end of each day, have at least one image that nobody else does. I had no intention of checking everyone’s work each day, but I wanted to plant a seed. In the image reviews we conducted I saw many things I expected and some things I did not, and I learned a thing or two myself – another reason why I’m teaching more these days.
Category: Featured, Thoughts and Musings
I could not have said it better or perhaps even quite as well. I will add that although the average quality of work has dropped, there are still plenty of original and exciting photographs being created every day. I actually think that more high-quality work is being produced now than ever before. But it gets lost in the ever-increasing noise of mass production and mindless imitation. And when photo competitions reward pictures of maple trees in gardens, it does devalue original and creative work.
All is not lost!
Patrick
Patrick, I can only respond with the same: I could not have said it better! Thank you for chiming in.
Guy
I agree with you to a point. But there are lots of creative images being produced, you just won’t see it in the general landscape/nature venues like 500px, Flickr, Facebook, Google+ or in mainstream magazines like Outdoor Photographer or even Nature’s Best. Some of the best creative images these days seems to be made by commercial photographers, I almost always find great stuff in Communication Arts.
I agree, Alan, and I think Patrick phrased it very well: “more high-quality work is being produced now than ever before. But it gets lost in the ever-increasing noise of mass production and mindless imitation.”
Guy
Guy, I am so happy to hear that there’s a photographer (and to be honest I’m really happy to hear its you, because I love your outlook on things) out there wanting to teach. THIS is what we neophyte photogs are thirsting for. Not all of us will admit it to others or even to ourselves. The Master/Apprentice relationship, in my humble opinion, is /key/ in beginning the journey of developing ones chosen Art (pick your poison). As you said, planting seeds, watching and learning, teacher and student. Develop my own personal style/vision and create or capture something in an *gasp* original way, now that would be something~
I have to agree. I am attempting all kinds of approaches to get my creative photography out. I feel photo competitions are focusing too much on photography of social or environmental issues and hardly on creative expression, often despite the fact that this is what they ask for. Sometimes I wonder if people expect photography to be ‘realistic’ and have difficulty accept photography as an artistic expression.
Great thoughts as always… Haven’t they always said “imitation is the highest form of flattery”
I feel it is inevitable that the photography artist distribution curve will always reflect the diversity of Intent behind the image making. Those who live the lifestyle in a full exposure way will always be a small majority in the same way that some painters choose to live a life of poverty and solitude to express themselves.
For some, packing their $15k worth of gear and driving into the countryside for a few hours to attempt to replicate a much-loved view, will be enough for them to – sticking their toes into the lukewarm water of expression.
BUt I agree, a great teacher can inspire people to take that plunge into adventure and expressive art – realising there is more merit in originality than in plagiarism – unless of course you’re Bod Dylan
Of course, I meant small “minority” in the above post!
It seems nearly impossible these days to know true originality. When the handful of historic greats you mention were around, were they not also some of the most prolifically published as examples of the art in photography? The reference base was a relatively small entity. There was a much stronger filter in place then. People had a relatively short path to find them. Now, as Patrick refers to, is a massive sea for someone seeking inspiration and guidance from droplets of originality.
A question that remains with me to this day is: Is it necessary to be truly original when compared to others, or to simply be more original than your last photograph?
With so much noise, I think one can be proud of accomplishing the latter.
Lovely thoughts that I am sure I’ll ponder upon for a while.
In my mind, being original is being true…most importantly to yourself.
Thanks Guy for sharing your thoughts. These two sentences were the most meaningful to me: “Art is not something practiced over the weekend and left neglected until the next break from other occupations. Art is a way of life.”
Thank you for putting into words a very accurate summary of why I do what I do.
This was a very interesting read Guy. I am most certainly not as well spoken as you but I will try to share my opinion for what it is worth. I agree 100% with your feelings on teaching. Any semi-skilled photographer can take another person to an iconic location and tell them where to point their camera & what settings to use to make a certain image. Some students actually want and expect that kind of direction. It is much more beneficial to both the photographer and the teacher to encourage them to find their own creativity and express that through their work. I have no doubt about that. Having said that, I have always found it interesting that some photographers get so caught up in what images others are making and have such strong opinions about them. I do not have any photographic education and that fact alone would cause some people to discount me as an artist. Frankly, I think that is ridiculous. Besides being a decent photographer, I can also draw fairly well. Growing up, it is all I ever did in my free time. I never picked up a book about drawing nor did I ever seek out others drawings to compare my work to, but I loved to draw. When I showed my drawings to other people, they told me that they really enjoyed them. When I reached 9th grade, I decided to take a drawing class, and according to the teacher of the class I was doing everything wrong. I was not following theory, or the “rules” and I ended up getting a D in the class and needless to say I never took another one. I am taking the time to write this not to disagree with you just because we have a difference of opinion, but because I hope to give you an opportunity to enlighten me further. This is the best way I can sum up my opinion. The most important thing for any artist, above all else, is that they are enjoying what they are doing and the work they are producing. Secondly, should they be interested in sharing their work with others, I would say that whether or not those viewers are moved by their work in some way would be a close second. The very last thing that they should be concerned about is whether or not another artist appreciates their work or feels that it fits into the box that they have created for themselves as what is right or wrong, creative or not. The creation of art is personal and it should remain that way. I have seen many photographer’s work who claimed that theirs was somehow more creative, original and inspiring yet when I viewed it it did nothing for me personally and felt very boring. I don’t try to correct or condemn them in any way because I am assuming they created that work because it moved them personally. Believe me, I understand the point you are trying to make but I must ask you….what if one of your students was inspired by those same old iconic landscapes, yet they looked up to you and read this blog and then began to question what they liked? Maybe they would go out and try to “get more creative” and capture only original, vastly different images than what they saw everyone else doing and after losing pleasure in doing so, they gave up all together? What if we had not imposed our will, and our opinion on how they “should” or “should not” create and we just them them be free……
I don’t need to be educated in art or history to be confident that art, and it’s artists will survive long after we have become dust in the wind and time has forgotten all of the work we have done here. To think we are any more important than that is arrogant. It won’t matter if the art is as we think it should be now or not…that is left to the artists who take over after we have gone. If you are making an attempt to create…I say you are an artist in every sense of the word and I would never try to stifle your growth by telling you otherwise. Thank for listening.
I’ve missed your writings, Guy, they help me maintain my island of hope and sanity in the ocean of garbage
Very well said. I’m just turning in the night before teaching a one day photography class and this came to the top of my Facebook news feed… as it was meant to be. Trust that many points are the same as my own feelings, but you gave yet more to consider. I enjoyed reading your thoughts.
Oh and also, “You must know what you want to grow into and what you wish to progress towards before seeking ways to get there.”. applies to life as a whole.
Thanks so much Guy.
“What artist?”… very hard hitting!
But you do generalize a bit, no?
Thanks everyone!
Aaron, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. I think you highlighted some problems with formal education systems; primarily that they tend to be formulaic and focused around teaching facts rather than concepts. If your art teacher thought you were doing something “wrong,” they have no business teaching art. There is no such thing as wrong when it comes to creating art.
I will still contend that knowing something about the history of your chosen art is essential to the development of an artist beyond merely enjoying what they do, which I think is an empty goal. If enjoyment is your primary goal, get a chocolate cake and spend an afternoon on the couch. Art must first and foremost be meaningful (to the artist). Creating meaningful work requires more than just technical skill.
For a photographer today to not recognize the works of Edward Weston or Paul Strand is like for a painter to not know the work of Van Gogh or Rembrandt. It doesn’t require formal education, just an awareness and a desire to be inspired by the works of other artists. Impressionism, Cubism, etc. were not created out of nothing; they were reactions to (or protests against) the dominant styles of their day. I would guess that Picasso did not find much enjoyment in many of the initial reactions to his work.
And yes, I think artists should be more concerned with the works of other artists than anyone else. If someone is innovative and can inspire me to develop new awareness and insight – I want to know about it. If someone is making copies of my work and claiming them as their own – I want to know about it, too.
Appreciation of art is another topic. No amount of originality, creativity or skill will guarantee that the work will be considered good by any random viewer. An artist must satisfy their own sensibilities first and trust that someone, somewhere, maybe even in another time, will ultimately be able to relate to it.
My use of the term “teacher” above may be further qualified as “mentor”. Just because someone is employed by an academic institute doesn’t make them a good teacher (who among us can’t think of examples?).
Guy
P.S. As an aside, you can gain great insight into the history of photography without attending a formal class. Look up Jeff Curto’s “History of Photography” podcast. Listen a little each day and you will be better informed than most working photographers today.
Excellent commentary and so true. When studying photography in college back in the early ’70s I had an excellent teacher who insisted we only use prime lenses for assignments. When I had to leave school for financial reasons he took me aside and gave me this little bit of advice, “Take two steps closer, and then another one.” I never pursued photography as a career, but never forgot his advice, and it is something I try to follow in all my endeavors.
That sounds like a European stereotype of the whole of American culture, not just cinema and photography. Big, bold, loud and over-simplified are commercially successful. Or get more views or comments on Flickr. Sophisticated, subtle, nuanced and intellectually-challenging make better art, but success in those areas comes with little in the way of immediate positive feedback.
We look back at artists whose work has the qualities you’re pointing out as desirable, but this is visible mainly in retrospect as a properties of their oeuvre. What was visible for those artists in the short term (i.e. at the beginning, before it’s possible to take a longitudinal view of their work) was quite a lot of commercial non-success.
James, take a look at my previous post titled “What I Do”. Commercial success is a very poor measure for the value of art.
Well done and perfect timing, Guy! Thanks for your insights.
Gerry
Everyone of you has a photo, or dozens, that look just like someone else’s from years before. I have yet to see ANY photographer (teacher or student) that hasn’t copied another, intentionally or not. It’s so unfortunate that, IMHO, many follow a path of approval and NOT a path of creative liberation & enlightenment. Most of the modern photography forums are just as destructive as they are constructive. Darwin Wiggett nailed it when he summed up the evolution of a modern day photographer in the Exif and Beyond podcast years ago.
Ultimately, IMHO, most teachers are flawed with their direction, and the students with their goals. There should be a prerequisite upon teaching photography; a holistic itinerary covering fundamental basics of psychology, reification, art history, and most importantly, untainted, unbiased, unprejudiced, raw self expression.
Thanks for responding Guy but I feel maybe I wasn’t clear enough in what I had hoped you would expand on. WHY does it matter if a photographer today knows of, or has seen the work of Weston? A painter can absolutely be a painter without having ever heard of of Van Gogh or Rembrandt. In the world of fine art photography, one persons work is brought to the light or not based on what a curator of a gallery or a panel of judges says is quality or not. These ideas of what is “true fine art” seem to be touted around like they are scientific fact or something. As for the idea of copying others work, how many times have we seen leaves floating in a reflective pool of water? 100′s if not thousands. That isn’t any more unique or creative than someone taking another picture of the tree in the garden in Portland. A picture taken of the patterns in a tree trunk are beautiful and artistic because the tree is beautiful and part of nature. The tree did all the work. My argument is just that artists should not show their arrogance by claiming one form of art is better or more important than another. Just think if we had started with Classical music and in order to get your music played, you had to have an owner of a concert hall dub your music acceptable. Throughout the years, only Classical music was ever heard by the masses because that is what the Concert Hall owners deemed as “fine music”.400 years later, no one has heard of Rock & Roll, or Country or other forms of music. That would be a shame in my opinion. Anyone that claims they know without question what is art and what is not, is arrogant and closed minded. Art is everywhere and in everyone.
Technology, in my opinion, has compromised the craft of photography. As you mention, “[the guiding principle of photography at large] is an ocean of knowledge and opinions and a dearth of real teachers to help navigate its waters”, is spot-on. Furthermore, the proliferation of these ridiculous camera systems of today, has a profound effect on the ego – where some people just because they have the latest DSLR automatically think they are a ‘professional’. But, the disjointedness is in the word ‘think’; by golly why should I have to think? All I want to do is press the button and have a blended, garishly-horrific HDR scene show up on the 3″ LCD. Of course, this poor excuse of generalization among photographers accounts for a select few – the ‘new school’, if you will, who never has had the smell of fixer on the their hands.
Because I carry a large camera doesn’t mean jack. It’s the usage of the tool; the extension of my creative vision to facilitate the capture of the scene before me. My goal is to generate evocative and moving images, regardless of their subject matter. While all is not lost, the pragmatists of the photography world are doing a disservice to the ones who enjoy taking their time, learning the lightplay, seeing the scene from different angles than their thousands of counterparts. Then, the amazing ability to sit down and critique an image – to learn from mistakes, break the rules, and not be offended by harsh scrutiny. While you may think your image is incredible, others may not. Accepting the fact that opinions matter, while others are entitled to their critiques – is a fundamental way of reinforcing productivity, success, and enlightenment.
Thanks Guy,
Good luck with the forthcoming teaching efforts.
Wonderfully put and thank you.
Very apt post at the right time, Guy! Just love every word of it. Indeed, across all cultures – a guru or a teacher is revered for his/her ‘selfless ability’ to pass on the precious knowledge. You just made my day a day to contemplate on the past, present and future! More later.
Aaron, I’m not sure if you were asking a question or making a statement. I believe I answered the “why” question in this paragraph:
“Without good teachers and hungry students, the lessons of the past will be lost. And without knowledge of what was already learned, the evolution of the art itself will be at best random and coincidental; at worst non-existent.”
Talk to any music professor and they should be able to trace (or at least offer a theory for) the roots of Rock to Classical music for you (through Jazz, Blues, Folk, indigenous music etc.) In fact most arts as they are today represent a melding of multiple influences of the past.
Certainly art can be spontaneous and requires no approval. What Ansel Adams and Group f/64 did in their day was a significant departure from how photography was applied before them. So was Impressionism for painting, Jazz for music, Relativity to Physics, etc. Many of these were dismissed and disapproved of by authority figures of their day.
Still, every significant evolutionary step relied on a legacy. This doesn’t mean you have to mimic or implement the lessons of the past but without knowing them, progress becomes significantly less likely.
Guy
You can’t know where you are going if you don’t know where you came from.
There are so many things to comment on here and so many avenues and topics to explore that it’s not possible to put it all down in a short enough space for a comment. But yet again you have fueled the fires of passion, thought, and contemplation for me. I need to mull on this awhile.
What I can say is that I would have loved to have had a mentor in my early days of photography (film) and again when I started down the digital road. I would still love to have a mentor today – but now for helping with the business end of things more so than the creative. Learning leads to new discovery and personal growth. To dismiss it and say it’s unnecessary without exploring its effect on you is naive at best.
Hey All,
What is art? Well art is obviously a beautiful image of fall colours reflecting off a river in New England that you sell a single image of for $1,000,000. Now that is an art I’d like to learn.
Know any teachers that guarantee results?
-Ed-
PS That said…
What is the relationship between art and the viewer? To what extent must art resonate with a viewer at some point? Is anything art if it never resonates with anyone other than yourself? Is everything that resonates Art? How do you know if your work is art? Or if you are an artist?
Is it this way? Here is a verse from The Band Perry’s song If I Die Young…
A penny for my thoughts,
Oh no,
I’ll sell em’ for a dollar
They’re worth so much more after I’m a goner
and maybe then you’ll hear the words I’ve been singing
funny when you’re dead how people start listenin’
Seems there was a nanny from Chicago – is this how she became an artist?
So what is the point? Well like a tree that falls in the forest with no one around to hear it obviously makes no sound – the creation of art by definition requires that you have someone with a eye attuned to see it. But then the question becomes context not just the context of the artist but also the context of the viewer. Context must agree with context and it is unfortunate if they are separated by time ala Vivian Maier and fortunate if they “jive” at the same time ala Peter Lik. History may help provide you with context but is of little use if the viewer has none. Craftsmanship is only understood by those who understand the craft and that too is a reason to teach – maybe a different style to a somewhat different audience (i.e. not teaching the craft to a craftsman wannabe). What would the content of such a lesson be and where and how would you market it? How valuable would it be?
Guy, this is a fine read with many good points. I have often raised some similar questions and concerns on my blog and in discussions with other photographers. While I believe what you are saying needs to be said about the rehashing of the same old images over and over, here’s a thought that may also put it into perspective… Huntington Witherill, a friend of my father’s and a long-time straight photographer-turned Photoshop impressionist, said to me one time in a discussion, “There has always been far more bad art than good art. This will never change, no matter how riled up about it you get.”
Guy, what a great discussion we had about this in the truck last week… This subject and the tie in with music was amazing…. How about a podcast onit later in November?
As I sit here at 34,000 feet on a 737, and access the Internet at that, I can only ponder the importance of sifting through the mounds of mis information out there. Yesterday morning I had a workshop group in the Portland Japanese garden. There was a line
of 5 people waiting their turn to photograph “the tree”. I asked 2 of them (both with impressive gear) why they were a) making an image that has beer done so many times. Both gave me an answer I totally didn’t expect. I told thm why I was asking this question…After hearing my reasons for asking….they both thought a bit and both said the did not really know why they felt the need to make an image of this tree, shot as nausium. This is very scary sometimes it seems like having to think is getting too much for us…heck our I pads do it all!……. Scary
JG
I certainly was, Jack! Looking forward to doing it again. Enjoy your time in OH.
That’s a great observation, David. Still, if you care you get riled up, whether you think it’s effective or not. Change never comes from indifference.
Very interesting read. I enjoyed it very much and certainly agree with your thoughts. The problem for me is that I am not sure where I am on my photography journey. I certainly look at everything with a photographic view point. Noting the lighting and the different angles of view. If it is an iconic location, I look for new ways to view or photograph it. I have now stopped trying to copy or be like photographers I follow (although I believe that is an important step on the journey) and I am trying to build a vision all my own. That process I find frustrating, not because I don’t enjoy it but, for the reason that the masses don’t seem to understand there is a process at all. If you can afford good camera gear and can build a website, a flickr page or even use facebook, you are a great photographer. It doesn’t seem to matter what you know or what your technical abilities are, if you can point your camera and get a half decent image you are a great photography. For me there is more to it then that. I certainly am aware of the Photographers you mentioned however, most of my inspiration comes for a new generation of Photographers. Darwin Wiggett, Daryl Benson, Mark Adamus, John E. Marriott and yourself. Darwin, Daryl and John I have had the pleasure of meeting and being taught by (in brief workshop type settings, with a little one on one thrown in). I now even consider them friends of mine. I can say that their knowledge and teaching has helped me a great deal. Are there others who can take great images? Sure there are but, when you get to listen to the passion and view points of these people you start to understand there is a lot more then being able to point your camera and snap an image. There is just something more, theses people are artists and you quickly learn that from them. It is somewhere I would love to be and I hope to get there (making some great images along the way would be nice as well, lol). There are some others that can see things as an artist would. Samantha Chrysanthou is another photographer I watch and after spending time in the field with her you can see what she brings to this craft. She has an ability to see locations from a different view point, you can see the Artist in her. It is great to watch and experience in person. I think we would like to be A Galen Rowell or a Freeman Patterson but, we certainly don’t have the understanding of what it takes to get there. More teaching and mentoring is required and the masses need to be willing to except that. Now, I just need to find more ways to absorb the teaching and knowledge of others while still being able to afford to eat. Hopefully I am not just one of the wanna be photographers and someday find the artist that I think is inside. Thanks for the inspiration I will keep following along trying to learn what I can from the art that you a so willing to share.
Hi Guy,
Interesting observations and definitely a subject that is often on my mind.
I think that most nature landscape photographers go through a phase of copying scenes of photographers that they admire, heck in the past I have been guilty of this. I remember the first time that you posted an image of the then semi secret slot, “Zebra Canyon” I really wanted to see and photograph the canyon for myself. I wanted a piece of the Guy Tal experience.
I believe many nature landscape photographers, especially those starting out feel great satisfaction in repeating the successes of past photographers and in the process perhaps a need to be recognized for ‘their’ accomplishments. It’s all about the image and proof that they/we can be as good if not better than those masters before us. Who doesn’t enjoy showing an image to an audience and getting some sort of praise for their effort, heck I know I do. Going to an iconic location and copying a scene is much easier than taking a risk on something new and unknown. I think it boils down to self confidence and an ability to eventually move away from what the crowd is doing. Also an ability and openness to learn and grow from life experiences, applying them towards our art. It’s kind of like watching my fourteen year old daughter grow up. At this point in her life she is so afraid of being different from the rest of her friends, she doesn’t want to stand out, she wants to fit in. I go to her school and it’s often hard to pick her out from the crowd, they all look the same, like a bunch of clones. She posts pictures of herself on Facebook and the pose is the same as everyone else, it’s quite funny actually. Now and then one kid will make a stand and move away from the crowd, they are the ones that I would want to follow. My point is that my daughter lacks enough self confidence to move away from the crowd. There will always be those that are looking for the quick fix, the instant self gratification and recognition. Then there are those that will start off by emulating their photography heroes, eventually discover their own path, start to take risks and hopefully inspire others to do the same. These same individuals also have the ability to learn from the artists that came before and after them, celebrating their art as unique without trying to emulate them.
Lastly, I have noticed that it’s not only the art of nature photography that seems to be going down the tubes somewhat but the word “nature” seems to be disappearing as well.
Thanks again Guy.
Guy, I think you have a minor case of mistaken identity, Inspiration Point in Yosemite isn’t as highly photographed as Tunnel View. Tunnel View is where the large parking lot is and you’ll always find 25 photographers. I think you would connect better with any new readers that happen to be Yosemite experts or so called experts of the icons there. You actually have to hike to Inspiration Point but it’s still the same view.
I frequently write on the subject of creating new perspectives. Shoot, I even offer workshops to places not iconic but more people buy the popular locations.
PS. I’m not a big art buff but I do see Van Gogh’s Starry Night in your tree trunk.
Sometimes words elude me to properly express the response I feel, a lack of verbal intellect possibly but, for me the desire is strong to be a teacher in the sense of being original. Teacher may not properly describe my quest, possibly nonconformists? To be able to portray a world, a life that only I see is not about being accepted or producing something better than the next person but producing something totally unique and genuine.
My experiences obviously are unique, as are each persons but, how does one properly expedite such experiences, thoughts or emotions into visual art is the question I seem to be in constant search for an answer too. With this struggle the quandary that plagues me is, am I trying hard enough or too hard to seek an answer that may be far away, or possibly right in front of me.
Your posts have a way of making my brain hurt sometimes Guy, which I think, is a good thing.
Beautiful Guy, I absolutely love and look forward to all your blog posts.
One thing that sometimes irks me is when some photographers complain about stolen comps and imitations but then lead workshops where they teach exactly that. Its so lowly and unacceptable until money gets involved. Sometimes I think it devalues their own images when a host of replicas start showing up. I think what your mentioning is exactly whats needed during these teachings.
I’ve tried incredibly hard to photograph less popular areas but have occasionally shot at what I consider to be well over photographed areas but only because I visited them as a child and they stir certain emotions in me upon return. Lately I’ve been forcing myself to shoot with lenses I usually wouldn’t think twice about using and leaving my wide angles at home, its been an incredibly eye opening experience and I definitely think its one of the many ways to get new and original images from familiar locations.
Anyhow great write up as usual, you always manage to get me (and I’m sure many others) thinking.
Hi Guy,
This is a well thought out and executed article. I Have always tried to push myself to make new, unique images no matter where I am. I tend to stay away from the heavily shot scenes and try to find and focus on other things in the area. This is not to say that I won’t grab an iconic shot from time to time, but that shot will not be the one I take away from that area that helps define my work.
I have recently started instructing small workshops and I find them to be very rewarding. I learned from other photographers sharing information and tips with me and I have always felt it was important to do the same.
Watching it “click” with a student is about as rewarding as it gets. Watching them get excited when they learn various techniques and execute a brilliant image is truly rewarding. Hearing back that their vision has evolved since taking a workshop is the icing on the cake.
I guess these are general ramblings, but these are the thoughts that your article evoked and I had to type them out.
Keep up the solid work.
- Shawn
Couldn’t agree more with your post!
On the other hand I live in a country where landscape photographers (and captures from the beauty of this country) and rare, we really have to think and strive to find all those hidden treasures, it gives much (to the so called hunt for something inspiring, something delicate) yet we sometimes feel hidden under a huge pile of captures from other known places around the Globe.
A good teacher will always trigger the feelings and inspiration of a student, yet a good teacher will always know that there is room to learn and he can surprisingly well learn from a student as well.
Art is hard, and especially in photography which now days is a habit nearly everyone has, yet I believe there are inspirational artists out there, capturing those small details that most other photographers bypass, this is a procedure that will never stop, nature has a lot to provide it only needs an artistic approach.
Hi Guy,
I think something that you and many of the posters have discussed without directly writing it, is artistic integrity. Artists need to create from within themselves and for themselves first and foremost.
How many great artists/musicians throughout history were financially wealthy? Very few. The baroque, renaissance and romantic eras from the 1600′s through the 1800′s were a time when many of the great artists were financially rewarded for their efforts by retainers. But were they motivated to create for themselves or for their retainers? Did their work become formulaic? In many cases it did. Beethoven broke all of the molds and established a genre that helped move the musical world forward. He also died penniless and miserable. Today he is revered. He took commissions, but he clearly wrote for himself. Money and acceptance can not influence a true artist. That is not to say that a true artist can’t accept money for his talents, but he can’t be motivated by it. Art has to be the primary concern for the artist, not whether someone will pay for it or even if the audience will like it.
Professional photographers have to eat. Many times that means that they create work for clients that is not necessarily artisitic. They can still create art seperately on their own time and they can sometimes be artisitic with their photoshoots. However, being a professional often requires you to sacrifice your art in exchange for the coin. This leads to workshops that go to iconic places, because they sell. There are many “amateur” photographers out there that are far more artistic than many “professionals.” They don’t make their living from photography and it is quite possible that they wouldn’t be able to. That doesn’t mean that they are less artistic or that their images are less valid than a “professional’s” image.
In many cases, the court of public opinion shouldn’t be the only way to judge art. Unfortunately, public opinion has a huge sway on what is produced and consumed. It is often easier and more financially rewarding to produce formulaic eye candy than it is to be original.
When it comes to nature photography, I would argue that while it may not be original to photograph Half Dome at sunset, that image may do more for protecting the environment than an abstract that does less to inspire the public to care about nature. Is one better than the other? That’s for each of us to decide. Furthermore, the iconic landscapes are akin to great stories and pieces of music. The great stories get told again and again. The songs are sung from generation to generation. Each story teller and singer adds their own flair and embellishment to the masterpiece that they perform. In this way, photographers returning to the icons are learning to interpret a great idea. This will help them to be able to create their own ideas and find their own voice if they continue to pursue their artform. Besides, what is more inspiring than standing where the masters stood and trying to understand what they saw?
Thank you for providing such great thought provoking questions!
Sincerely,
Greg Lessard
Wow.
Quite the dialog. Coming from an art education background for over 20 years, in ALL forms of art, not just photography. IN reading Aaron’s comment. I can say that while there is no “wrong” way to create, there are plenty of lazy ways that dont’ adhere to a specific assignment. I have students all the time that like to do what THEY want, and that’s fine…but don’t expect me to give you a grade you will enjoy. I give assignments to teach specific concepts or lessons. If people choose to complete it hastily, it shows, if people choose NOT to do it, it shows (or doesn’t I guess.) I wasn’t obviously in Aaron’s room…and don’t know the assignment but it could be that Aaron didn’t complete the assignment as directed, which in theory would make it wrong. When it comes to work done outside of a scholastic setting, that’s TOTALLY up to the individual aritst and yes, while the educator may or may not like it…it certainly can’t be “wrong” if there isn’t an assignment.
If I give you an assignment geared towards shading and you give me a line drawing. You fail, no matter how good the line drawing might be. I may be nice and give you some extra credit, or the opportunity to RE-DO it….but as for the completion of the assignment, it’s a FAIL. I often tell students they failed to follow directions. They rushed through the project, and while it might be their veriosn of the assignment. I will and often do fail them. It might not be wrong…but it might not be any good either.
Education, in my opinion when it’s done correctly is a collaboration between teacher and student. It’s taking the ideas of the student, and the experience of the teacher and working together to realize vision, and improve on skill, technique, and all of those concepts that comprise most art classes.
A big issue I see now is a lack of people who want to learn. The arts get pushed back all the time in school. Lack of funds, lack of materials, etc. That’s not new. What I find is that a lot of students an people look for the easy way out. Rather than explore the ideas, or the projects and try to get the most out of them…they want to be done and on to the next area or the next project.
I find apathy is a large part of education today. If you tell someone a project could be done better, and offer creative feedback I often get
“Well CAN I be done with this?”
“Yes you CAN be done with it, but it’s poor quality.”
I love to find students who can take feedback, channel it and come back with new takes, and WANT to learn. It’s rare. We live in a society where many people are bombared with media and their likes and dislikes change as fast as status updates on a facebook page.
I think, a lot of times, is that in a lot of cases maybe there are fewer good students out there as well.
Great stuff Guy, as always. I could discuss this topic FOREVER.
OK, I forgot to read it ALL I have an answer for Aaron in his second post.
“WHY does it matter if a photographer today knows of, or has seen the work of Weston? A painter can absolutely be a painter without having ever heard of of Van Gogh or Rembrandt. In the world of fine art photography, one persons work is brought to the light or not based on what a curator of a gallery or a panel of judges says is quality or not”
This is really an age old question. Back in the day a lot of what appeared in galleries depended on who knew who, what circles they ran with, and who they studied with. A student with a respected teacher/mentor/Guild etc usually had a better shot at getting somewhere. It MATTERED who your teacher was. People spent large sums of money to send th eir kids to places where the teachers would push their kids and cause them to grow as artist’s.
To an extent things haven’t changed much a lot of what becomes popular is still based on people with money, and what they will and will not spend money on. Supply and Demand has every bit to play in the popularity of art as does the background of the aritst, and to some extents the quality of the work.
What I think is important in the arts is to pay attention to as much of it as you can from all points of art history. I know personally a LARGE part of the way I see comes from having an art history background. I see colors, patterns, textures differently then I would gather most photographers do BECAUSE of my art background. I would gather Guy has spent a lot of time in art books as well.
Experience helps shape your art. Education does as well. Even though the focus of what I do now revolves mostly around photography I still go to fine art museums, I still read my art history books, I still look at what the old “masters” did and try to learn, and see and expand on my background.
One of these days Aaron, over a cold one we’ll have to sit and have some discussions. I’m not sure my fingers could type as much opinion as I have on this topic without cramping up.