Does Technical Knowhow Interfere With Creative Intuition?

> If you want an excuse to forgo learning the craft of photography, you
> won't get one from me.

Read, carefully, I did not say that I didn't want to learn the craft.
I was polling for opinions to find out if other people feel that the
technical aspects can be a hindrance to creative intuition. This does
not necessarily imply that one is too lazy to learn the technical
aspects of photography. I frequently use view cameras, incorporating
all of their movements. I also have a B.S. in Physics. I do not
believe that I am open to the allegation of being mentally lazy.
However, as I have previously mentioned, I feel concerned that
technically minded, over analytical people such as myself might have a
creative hurdle to overcome that other, less analytical folks, might
not have an issue with.
 >> Stay informed about: Does Technical Knowhow Interfere With Creative Intuition? 

Chris wrote:
> Does Technical Knowhow Interfere With Creative Intuition?
>
> I have been wondering about aesthetics again. I am a very technical
> person, and I sometimes wonder if it gets in my way as a photographer.
> I have noticed many of the photographers I admire the most have been
> women. I am not stereo typing women, but I have noticed that NONE of
> these women have a technical approach to photography (as I know them
> personally). Some even refused to be taught anything technical.
> However, from my understanding of Edward Weston, he was a very
> technical photographer (I won't even mention AA), and I admire
> Weston's work immensely.
>
> Does this analytical introspection destroy intuition like some kind of
> artistic Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? I'm just wondering what
> other's thoughts are on this topic.
>
> Chris Maness

I don't think there is any generalization that could/should be applied here.
Your question depends entirely on the photog in question.
For me, I don't feel that I have a very good artistic eye. I have a sense
for framing, etc., and I can shoot technically OK, but the extra artistic
thing remains what it is (or is not) regardless of whether one has the
technical understanding of things. For a person who really has the artistic
eye, it helps a great deal if they also have technical issues mastered.
THAT is when their artistic eye can take over, without having it ruined by
technical goofs.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson
 >> Stay informed about: Does Technical Knowhow Interfere With Creative Intuition? 

both can go hand in hand. there is no reason to assume that they are
mutually exclusive. however, it has always been my experience that the
"naturally gifted", those who create by instinct, generally evolve that
way, and part of their unique vision is that they are not saddled with
the how-to book learning of those (the rest of the crowd) who feel they
require it.

ie,,,,,the creative, uniquely gifted artists all leave school early.
they don't hang around feeling they need to get a degree. that's your
naturally gifted versus your book learners.
and how common is the thought that great sports athletes make terrible
coaches?

on a grander scale, that magnifies your question concerning technical
know-how and pure creative instinct......because INSTINCT, you must
understand,,, is in the domain of creative genius, and cannot be
taught.

the creative soul can learn to be technically proficient, but the
technically proficient can never become a truely instinctive creative
force.
 >> Stay informed about: Does Technical Knowhow Interfere With Creative Intuition? 

Chris wrote:
> Does Technical Knowhow Interfere With Creative Intuition?
>
> I have been wondering about aesthetics again. I am a very technical
> person, and I sometimes wonder if it gets in my way as a photographer.
> I have noticed many of the photographers I admire the most have been
> women. I am not stereo typing women, but I have noticed that NONE of
> these women have a technical approach to photography (as I know them
> personally). Some even refused to be taught anything technical.
> However, from my understanding of Edward Weston, he was a very
> technical photographer (I won't even mention AA), and I admire Weston's
> work immensely.
>
> Does this analytical introspection destroy intuition like some kind of
> artistic Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? I'm just wondering what
> other's thoughts are on this topic.
>
> Chris Maness
 >> Stay informed about: Does Technical Knowhow Interfere With Creative Intuition? 

bruin70.DeleteThis@mail.com wrote:
> both can go hand in hand. there is no reason to assume that they are
> mutually exclusive. however, it has always been my experience that the
> "naturally gifted", those who create by instinct, generally evolve that
> way, and part of their unique vision is that they are not saddled with
> the how-to book learning of those (the rest of the crowd) who feel they
> require it.
>
> ie,,,,,the creative, uniquely gifted artists all leave school early.
> they don't hang around feeling they need to get a degree. that's your
> naturally gifted versus your book learners.
> and how common is the thought that great sports athletes make terrible
> coaches?
>
> on a grander scale, that magnifies your question concerning technical
> know-how and pure creative instinct......because INSTINCT, you must
> understand,,, is in the domain of creative genius, and cannot be
> taught.
>
> the creative soul can learn to be technically proficient, but the
> technically proficient can never become a truely instinctive creative
> force.

These replies are much better. Thanks.

To spice up the conversation a bit, I have learned in my psychology
class that many of the great geniuses of modern times and antiquity
actually peaked in their field after about 10 years of focused work and
learning in that area. (ie artists, poets, novelists, chess masters).
I have also seen photographers evolve from quite mediocre to fantastic
given the same 10 year period. That same psychology book also went
into great detail describing what creativity was and what different
aspects go into building it. I do not believe creativity is a fixed
entity that someone is born with. I believe that genius is passion for
ones art or craft expressing itself. Einstein ruminated endlessly for
years before he penned the theory of relativity. Was this natural
genius? Or just the product of a somewhat normal person's obsession.

Just food for thought.

CM
 >> Stay informed about: Does Technical Knowhow Interfere With Creative Intuition? 

Paul Mitchum wrote:
> Chris <chris.RemoveThis@chrismaness.com> wrote:
>
> > Does Technical Knowhow Interfere With Creative Intuition?
> >
> > I have been wondering about aesthetics again. I am a very technical
> > person, and I sometimes wonder if it gets in my way as a photographer.
> > I have noticed many of the photographers I admire the most have been
> > women. I am not stereo typing women, but I have noticed that NONE of
> > these women have a technical approach to photography (as I know them
> > personally). Some even refused to be taught anything technical.
> > However, from my understanding of Edward Weston, he was a very
> > technical photographer (I won't even mention AA), and I admire Weston's
> > work immensely.
> >
> > Does this analytical introspection destroy intuition like some kind of
> > artistic Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? I'm just wondering what
> > other's thoughts are on this topic.
>
> If you want an excuse to forgo learning the craft of photography, you
> won't get one from me.

Might depend on the level of your technical knowledge. If you are
already relatively advanced, you might be able to trust or develop your
eye further.
Perhaps your female friends have an understanding of and have already
incorporated the technical into their work, without formal training, or
even understanding why or how, even though they know it works on
different levels.
I believe that it is a matter of instinct, which can't be taught, and
at a certain level focus on everything but the technical.
But then again, I am a woman, and when I have a camera, that is
precisely what I rely on.
 >> Stay informed about: Does Technical Knowhow Interfere With Creative Intuition? 

one mistake,,,, you're assigning a timeline to the creative process
re:einstein's evolution of his theory. every field of endeavor has a
different timeline. artists, ie painters, all "peaked" from 50-60. i
guess that means i should be there as of right now . they evolve
slowly, as do writers because there is the experience factor. they may
show good things but they never really do anything until their 20's.
musicians, otoh, start out quickly, re: child prodigies and 10 year old
concert violinists. in spite of what you might read occasionally about
painting prodigies,,,that's bullshit and is a product of the current
art culture that repudiates craft. gymnasts start out early, basketball
players are competitive by the time they're 17, and football players
are competitive by 21.

i don't believe in quantifying genius. that is an area left to those
scientists who try to unlock the secrets of life. let them cut the
gordian knot with their fingernail file.

the 10 year period you talk about,,,,i'm not quite sure what you mean
except i notice things in general go through a ten year cycle. after
ten years of unfolding the complexities of a given endeavor, let's say
painting flowers, one learns all there is to know about flowers and
moves on to bowls of fruit.

i cannot agree with your assessment of genius. genius has many layers
so it's hard to cover in one fell swoop, but did that ever stop me?
there are those who REALLY LOVE to do something(that's your
passion),,,,,,and then there are those who MUST to it. those who MUST
are the geniuses, and their genius is also their burden. they cannot do
anything else. not "cannot" as in they're worthless trying to walk
across the street. i mean "cannot" as in they have no choice,,,it is
their destiny. it is a different kind of drive that is nowhere like
"passion". i have passionate artist friends, and they LOVE their art,
and they breathe it morning, noon, and night. this will never make them
more instinctively creative. they can work at it,,,they can get more
proficient. but that spark of genius, that touche in their brushstroke,
that instinctive flip will never be there. they come back to me all the
time. i say "you were doing well. what's going on?" they say "we lost
it and we need a refresher"....because ultimately they ruminate over a
process that the instinctively creative do as a matter of fact.

now,,,one of the issues that cloud this whole thing in regards to
photography, imo, is that the photographic process has always been a
very technical field. from a craft pov, it is much easier to seperate
the great athlete, painter, musician. for those gifted, you see before
your eyes the quality of craft. for the photographer, the medium is
technical,,,it is the camera. the seperation in "genius" comes from
within and is much more subtle because the expression of your vision,
the camera, is the same for everyone. my expression of my vision,,,my
brushes and style, is different from other artists.
 >> Stay informed about: Does Technical Knowhow Interfere With Creative Intuition? 

Chris wrote:
> Does Technical Knowhow Interfere With Creative Intuition?
>
> I have been wondering about aesthetics again. I am a very technical
> person, and I sometimes wonder if it gets in my way as a photographer.
> I have noticed many of the photographers I admire the most have been
> women. I am not stereo typing women, but I have noticed that NONE of
> these women have a technical approach to photography (as I know them
> personally). Some even refused to be taught anything technical.
> However, from my understanding of Edward Weston, he was a very
> technical photographer (I won't even mention AA), and I admire Weston's
> work immensely.
>
> Does this analytical introspection destroy intuition like some kind of
> artistic Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? I'm just wondering what
> other's thoughts are on this topic.
>
> Chris Maness
>


I'm not sure that technical ability INTERFERES with Artistic ability,
but I think that they are Right brain/Left brain activities.
Logic and objective, critical thinking are Left hemisphere activities.
Art, Emotions and Subjectivity are Right hemisphere activities.
Most people, though capable of both type of thinking, are predominantly
one or the other. (Kind of like handedness).
Some persons are equally capable in R/L Brain activity. (Kind of like
ambidextrous ability).
I took a course in Photoshop at the local community college. It was
taught in the Art Department. Most of the students were Art majors but I
am a techie. I could often run rings around the Artists as far as "how
to" skills were concerned, but the artists were incredibly clever with
"what to" skills, producing really neat, unusual, finished products. We
each admired the other's skills. I think with time they could develop
the needed mechanical skills, but I'm not sure I could ever develop
their subjective artistic skills.
As a photographer, my emphasis is on Reality. (Sharp, crisp, good
lighting, etc.)
Most artists seem to focus is on the abstract, emotional,
impressionistic rendering of Reality.
See: http://www.funderstanding.com/right_left_brain.cfm
Bob Williams
 >> Stay informed about: Does Technical Knowhow Interfere With Creative Intuition? 

"Chris" <chris.RemoveThis@chrismaness.com> wrote in message
news:1160245506.573959.316330@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Does Technical Knowhow Interfere With Creative Intuition?
>
> I have been wondering about aesthetics again. I am a very technical
> person, and I sometimes wonder if it gets in my way as a photographer.
> I have noticed many of the photographers I admire the most have been
> women. I am not stereo typing women, but I have noticed that NONE of
> these women have a technical approach to photography (as I know them
> personally). Some even refused to be taught anything technical.
> However, from my understanding of Edward Weston, he was a very
> technical photographer (I won't even mention AA), and I admire Weston's
> work immensely.
>
> Does this analytical introspection destroy intuition like some kind of
> artistic Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? I'm just wondering what
> other's thoughts are on this topic.
>
> Chris Maness

In the book "The Creative Photographer" by Andreas Feininger (1906 - 1999),
he discusses this topic at length and he emphasizes that the greatest
photographs come from people who have a deep feeling for the artistic
aspects of photography, rather than those who dwell too much on the
technical aspects. Of course, a good knowledge is required of the technical
aspects, but I recommend this book for people who are more interested in the
creative aspects of photography.
 >> Stay informed about: Does Technical Knowhow Interfere With Creative Intuition? 

"Creative" <creative RemoveThis @creative.com> wrote:
>"Chris" <chris RemoveThis @chrismaness.com> wrote:
....
>> Does this analytical introspection destroy intuition like some kind of
>> artistic Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? I'm just wondering what
>> other's thoughts are on this topic.


>In the book "The Creative Photographer" by Andreas Feininger (1906 - 1999),

I recall that decades ago, Feininger's "Principles of
Composition in Photography" was the only book on composition
that I actually kept on the book shelf.

>he discusses this topic at length and he emphasizes that the greatest
>photographs come from people who have a deep feeling for the artistic
>aspects of photography, rather than those who dwell too much on the
>technical aspects. Of course, a good knowledge is required of the technical
>aspects, but I recommend this book for people who are more interested in the
>creative aspects of photography.

A person who has _less_ ability to isolate mental processes and
concentrate on in one area to the exclusion of others, and in
particular if they have abstract reasoning abilities that are
_high_, can apply technical and artistic knowledge to the
production of an image without conflict.

A person with _less_ ability to engage abstract reasoning, but who
_can_ isolate and concentrate on one aspect of a process to the
total exclusion of all else, will have conflicts in application
of technical and artistic knowledge.

The first type will likely have a high percentage of "great
shot" exposures, but won't be able to maintain or use a large
variety of equipment and assignments will be restricted. The
second type of person probably won't be as productive, on a
percentage basis of great pictures per 1000 exposures, but will
be able to deal with a larger inventory of equipment and variety
of assignments with the ability to produce "usable" images.

A highly successful wedding photographer is probably the first
type. A highly successful newspaper photographer might be
either. A highly successful product photographer is probably
the second type.

Choose a career track according to your talents, and don't worry
about what other people can or can't do...

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd RemoveThis @apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Does Technical Knowhow Interfere With Creative Intuition? 

before straying i reread your first question, and in case i never
answered clearly,,,,,no technical know-how DOESN'T HAVE to interfere
with creative intuition.

however, it depends where one is coming from. if you MUST seperate the
two, imo a "techie" will always have a tough time overcoming his techie
knowledge in order to be more creative. being instinctively creative is
just that,,,instinctive. i see streams of book learning artists
immersed in it's minutea. they either simply find it too difficult to
free themselves,,,and maybe they cannot, or maybe book learning was
their only way to improve and set up a coherent routine for them to
reach their goals. in other words, the instinctively creative can be
all over the place and find several approaches to arrive at their
stated goals, whereas the book-learning crowd must follow a strict
routine. what this results in is that the process allows for the
creative to encounter infinite variables that they can tangent off of
and create inspirational works, while the "techies's" routine leaves
them with very little options(options which they probably wouldn't have
known what to do with anyway). which leads to another point...NOTHING
EVER FOLLOWS A STRAIGHT PATH,,,and a creative can immediately adjust
and maximize while a book learner cannot.

the creative will easily synergize book learning. in fact, they will
use it to fine tune what they do instinctively. and as i said
previously,,,one can be learned the other can't.
 >> Stay informed about: Does Technical Knowhow Interfere With Creative Intuition? 

ken, just because one photo is more "technical" and another is more
"artsy" is not a good example, imo, of the difference twixt a techie
and an artsy person. they are both examples of a creative
endeavor.....because a technie would've done both essentially the same
way. but since these are both examples of YOUR creativity...you merely
approached them with what you thought was the right way to express
their essense.

i recall reading a director who was explaining the difference between
richard gere and robert de niro. gere, he said, would do 10 takes and
they were all the same, while de niro would do 10 takes and they were
all different.

with each take, de niro seized upon a nuance of change and expanded on
it in the next take. each being more expansive-each giving more
insight. gere, otoh, was completely oblivious. he is a "techie"


Ken Weitzel wrote:
> Hi...
>
> I think there are two distinct groups of us; just like back in
> school. The artsy types and the techie nerds, with very very few
> (if any) managing to blur the line very well.
>
> Using a bit extreme example... if you look at a few of my pics,
> and are feeling kind, you'll likely say gee that's sharp and well
> exposed - but wonder what it's a picture of
>
> On the other hand, if you look at my photo hobby grandkid's, you'll
> say gee that's an interesting and well composed shot - but wonder why
> it's out of focus
>
> For what it's worth, both of us have a work-around... we take
> tons of pics, and once in a while accidentally get one right
>
> Just my 2 cents
>
> Take care.
>
> Ken
 >> Stay informed about: Does Technical Knowhow Interfere With Creative Intuition? 

and also meryl streep.....some artists display sheer brilliance by
laying bare the structure of their art.

but don't you find some artist SOOO technically perfect, that they
inspire awe? and who's to say that within their own framework, they
aren't exploring every nuance they can. i'm not going to argue,
because my artistic heros are all over the board as well. and i'm not
good enough to bottle what olivier does and disect it. but one thing
all great actors seems to bring is a sense of style. the room is
permeated with their personality. pacino is the biggest ham of all but
there's no denying he has presense, and his acting range is loud louder
loudest as well.

ethel merman's vocal range was like pacino's acting, and she's consider
one of the greatest of all time. go figure.

ASAAR wrote:

>
> Where would that place Olivier, who appears to have been a techie
> who was not oblivious to nuances, and was able to use them to
> improve successive takes? There are some actors I've disliked
> watching primarily because their nuance vocabulary is severely
> limited. Nicholas Cage (nothing nuanced about his excessive
> reliance on maximum rage, screaming and fist pounding) and early
> Mickey O'Rourke (man of 1,000 "knowing" smirks) come to mind.
 >> Stay informed about: Does Technical Knowhow Interfere With Creative Intuition?