Tuesday's post elicited a number of comments. One, in particular, caused me to actually use my melon to think about it's implications.An anonymous commenter responded with: "people like him (Ryan McGinley) because his stuff captures a sorta realness and is a scene from his everyday life. not everyone loves the ultra shiny models surrounded by tons of lights in a studio look that magazines always shove down our throats. its good to see people like McGinley, Richardson, Kern, Boogie, Naz, Rikki Kasso etc.. doing something a little bit different. younger people are getting tired of the airbrushed look and want something more real, everyday life sorta stuff."
I decided to Google the photographers listed in the comment as I wasn't familiar with them. What I found interesting was that, while these photographers did attempt to reflect more of a real-life feel to their work, their levels of technical skill seemed all over the map. So now I'm wondering if subject and style trumps technical skills? Or, do technical skills only marginally matter these days? (i.e., amongst younger people as the commenter infers.) If this is true, than the digital revolution is certainly a boon to anyone who chooses not to take the time to learn the science and craft of photography but, rather, chooses to pursue photography relying, solely, on their artistic and creative aesthetics... thanks, primarily, to modern cameras' auto-modes and creative-modes and all that stuff.
Don't get me wrong-- I took no personal exception to the commenter's comments who, in the balance of his comment (which I did not quote) said some nice words about your humble photographer/scribe. Besides, it's a big world and there's certainly plenty of room for all kinds of photographic styles: From ultra-shiny studio pics to gritty realism. But whichever style a shooter chooses to pursue, I think that the photographer's technical skills (or lack of them) should be in the equation--whether you're an art critic, a fellow photographer, or simply someone looking at a picture--when making decisions about the relative "greatness" of the shooter. When I view images that contain a realistic approach, I'm still looking to see if the photographer seems to grasp the science of photography, as well as the art of the craft. IMO, one without the other does not a photographer make.
Today's gratuitous eye-candy is Jenna. Not really an ultra-shiny studio pic but not exactly gritty realism either. Simply, a hot, semi-naked chick who possesses, amongst other attributes, a particularly photogenic derrière.
11 comments:
I agree. You first have to learn the technical skills before you brake them.
The thing is to break the rules on purpose not by accident.
When you do this you can also create something, instead of something getting created by accident.
/R
technical skills mean different things to different people... shooting with 4 stobes and 2 reflectors is one look at it, shooting with available light and making the best of it is another.. I don't think it's fair to say they don't possess technical skills.
brian--
i completely agree. but, in the case of mr. mcginley, i really didn't see much in the way of those skills regardless of his photos being shot with available or artificial light. then there's all that other stuff involving exposure, shutter speeds, and so on.
Well I think that technical skill counts more for other photographers and artists than it does to the mass public. I know the photo's that I've taken that my friends and family like the most are the one's that I think are average at best... This is still art and while we all use a fair bit of science when creating our art, it is still in the eye of the beholder...
Jason
www.fieldoffocus.com
jason-- i agree. but Mr. McGinley's hype is being driven by art critics, people who (should) know something of photography, and others of that ilk... not family and friends.
While I understand what the commentor was saying, I disagree with his associations. Terry Richardson and Richard Kern are miles above Ryan McGinley.
Ultimatly its about the emotional response a photograph creates. Technical skill is secondary to this.
If you see a picture and it creates an emotional response regardless of its technical skill then the photograph is good as it serves it purpose (assuming the response isnt 'god what an awful photograph'.
Claiming that the viewer just doesnt understand is like claiming that someone who loves cats doens't understand pets because you like dogs.
Let me clarify, technical skills are technical skills, it has nothing to do if you use lot's of strobes or available light, one still has to understand the use of light.
It's like a painter knowing how to mix colors on their palette to get the shade they want, instead of mixing colors at random and using whatever comes out.
Or how to frame a picture understand composition on create a certain feeling on purpose instead of letting a monkey hold a camera which automatically takes a shot every 3 seconds and then selecting the good ones..
/R
I think confusion abounds around the topic of technical skill in photography. I think it really started with Susan Sontag and her philosophical writings on photography. She claimed thought that being in the right place at the right time was much more important than technical skill. I belive either she, or some one else explaining her position, used 911 as an example. Most of the pictures that came from that tradjic day were not taken by professionals, but had profound impacts on the viewer. She has a point to a degree but is also not completely right.
Another point of confusion surrounds the title of photographer. Essentially it's one who presses a shutter button. Ellen Von Unwerthin a Am Photo article claimed to have very little technical knowledge and relied on assitants and technical people for that. Now I've heard people say this is not true and her technical knowledge cup overfloweth, but she at least wants to appear this way to photo enthusiasts. If you tell your technical people what you want, have them set it up and then direct the action and press the button, I think that makes you more of a director. But in photography, if you push the button, you're the photographer.
Personally I think anyone can happen upon and take a good picture. Take enough pictures and it's bound to happen sooner or later. It takes both technical knowledge and aesthetic knowledge to create consistantly good, and occasionally great images. And sometimes being at the right place at the right time can help. I think sometimes people are either technically inclined or artistically inclined and tend to eschew their weaker areas because it just doesn't seem possible for them to learn. The reality is that it is possible, but harder by comparison. I mean, none of this is rocket surgery. I think if you look at *great* photographers it's hard to tell what they were better at, the art or the technical stuff.
For me I'm better at the technical side I think but I try to further both aspects of photography.
James-- Interesting that tech skills versus artistic eye often seems like an "either/or" thing. Personally, I think great photographers "marry" the art and technical skills together. They are not at the exclusion of each other but should work together, harmoniously and in very synergistic ways. That's the mark, IMO, of great photographers--celebrated or virtually unknown.
the shot of jenna haze is very nice..simple and subtle
Post a Comment