emr,

The question you pose is very loaded. I am sure that great majority of us see how this can lead us straight to the land of rhetorics.

I don't know. I don't know.

I am not sure how well defined the art of photography is. I am not sure if art has ever been appropriately defined. I am not even sure if art should ever be defined. In fact, I feel that it should not be.

Photography does not demand that artistic process is thoroughly considered. I think it is possible to shoot fantastic photos without having any artistic implications.

Yet, it is so very clear that there are things in this world that just cannot be taught. I know this because if all things are teachable and learnable (boy, some creative spelling here), then all things will look the same, everybody will achieve same results, and act of differentiation between good and bad will have become completely pointless.

I take photographs because I see things in my photos that I don't see anywhere. But, aesthetics of anything is derived out of this kind of snobbery, if you will. Someone will present his "views," and once they are deemed "creative," then people will jump on the bandwagon and gain some momentum of some sort, and the artist is born. The desire to be accepted and well regarded runs deep in human psyche. Sometimes we confuse art and approval by others very badly and rather frequently.

But, it is rather clear to me that art exists because there are always presenters and observers. Without that dynamic interaction we have nothing. So, I am really not sure where to draw that line.

I wish we can chat about this over a beer or two.

[nanhi]

My answer to this simple question "can one learn the ART of photography" for young aspiring photographers is - a big YES.
This is how I did it: in high school I got hold of some very old Kodak and Focal Press Books from street vendors. I learnt the basics - composition, DOF, exposure, cameras, lenses etc with a lot of photographs as example. Then I found a Photo Work Book, probably the best in the world, that taught you by example how to shoot people, landscapes, street photography etc.
I started taking good photos - so much so that I was the official photographer at school and college.
My learning continues with my new digital toys and the array of lenses, what with the vast resources on the internet.
My young budding photographers you can do it.

just that I am not old, only getting older

[mithrandir]

Each to thine own heART be true.

[stover98074]

As long as the journey is fun and there is something to be gained does it matter what level you obtain?

[Rupert]

As long as the journey is fun and there is something to be gained does it matter what level you obtain?

Probably not.......but we do live in a world where striving for perfection is almost a requirement. If this is a person's profession, then that does indeed make sense. I have great admiration for those that are highly skilled photographers or aspire to become such. My carefree attitude is more a reflection of my amateur abilities than a guide for new shooters.......we all have different needs and goals. Still, Pro or amateur, you are dead right, the journey should be fun! I will never be a Pro, but I will always have fun!
Best Regards!

[casil403]

I guess my thoughts on this is who determines what is art in the first place? Can one learn the art of photography? I guess that answer lies in whoever determines what their version of art is..........which would be the person viewing it.

Example:
Is this art? I certainly think not but the National Gallery of Ottawa certainly did a while back as it cost them 1.8 million dollars in taxpayer money to purchase it:

Behold....The Voice of Fire!



So really if one can learn to paint 3 straight vertical stripes on a canvas in acrylic paint and sell it for 1.8 meelllleeon dollars (imitating the voice of Dr. Evil) then I think almost everyone can learn art in some way.

[magkelly]

Having superb technical skills does not always make you an artist. But lacking them doesn't mean you can't be one. David Bowie is only a so-so singer and musician if you really want to get down to it, but he's definitely considered a true artist at what he does. He's actually a better visual artist, painter, and an actor than a musician, I think, but he's forever going to be known for the work he's done in the music field.

I love him, always have, but I can't sit here and tell you he's the best singer and songwriter I've ever seen standing on a stage because he's simply not. But I deeply respect him for his artistry, his ingenuity and his style, and I will overlook the fact that the man's voice is for the most part merely pleasant because I think he's amazing taken in his totality as a multi-media artist.

There are probably several million normal people out there who's singing voices are definitely better than David Bowie's, who can maybe even write a better lyric, paint with far more technical skill than he can, but Bowie clearly has something that most people simply don't otherwise he wouldn't be capable of touching so many people with his work and he wouldn't be who he is today.

In an era when pop "stars" are a dime a dozen he's practically a legend and even the people who don't particularly like him will give him his due. 50 years, a hundred years from now when the Britney Spears of this world have long been forgotten David Bowie's legacy will live on. Of that I have no doubt. He's just one of those people who's work is probably destined to live on after him.

I'm not saying real artists are better people than anyone else. Being an artist certainly doesn't give you the excuse to act like a total jerk to people who's talents may be found in other directions. It's not a free pass in life though clearly some people think it is.

Me, I have respect for all people that way because when you get down to it nearly everyone has some some talent that sets them apart, even if it's only a small one. Some people are truly gifted artistically speaking, just as some people have a knack for higher math or speaking dozens of languages without any difficulty. I tend to think it's just rude to assume one talent is more important than another that way, that being talented in one direction gives you the right to be a total snob and a brat to people who aren't.

But still I think most people would have to admit that someone like Bowie just doesn't come along every day.

[ghelary]

Art is a very complex and difficult to define part of human cultures.

But at the end of it, you may separate Art in two intricate elements: Maker and Viewer.

The Maker uses his cultural background (and that includes language) and his inspiration to produce "something", the viewer uses his cultural background to resent and feel the "something".

The 20th century have been paved with movements exploring the boundaries of what is Art, the most important of them being "Dada". For some time, Photography was taken by many critics as not being "true" Art, for them it was just a scientific copy of reality, with no added value of the photographer.

This of course have never been true and since the beginning of Photography, there have been some photography with aesthetic ambitions.

But the real question lies here, what is the "added value" of the photographer ? Is there a look ?

My impression from the discussions above is that when you speak about technical skills, people are thinking about understanding the physics of photography (aperture, exposure, DOF etc..) but in a broader way, it can include some aesthetic conventions like composition rules, exposures (high key, low key etc...) and the cultural values associated.

I said above that a Maker comes with cultural background and inspiration, and culture can be taught, with professors, by going to exhibitions, reading books, surfing the Internet etc... Can "inspiration" be taught ? definitively not, but I believe everybody has some, getting your skills right, helps you to listen to it and not be bothered by anything else.

[Kerrowdown]

You can certainly learn the technical side of photography i.e. how to operate a camera, you can learn the rules of picture composition and you can learn all about exposure etc.

All these things will make a you a better photographer (as opposed to a beginner) and you will by default produce better photographs.

But I'm still not sure these will make you a more artistic photographer, I know that I see examples everyday and think wow, why didn't I see that.