urban ku # 119 ~ racing the sun
Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 08:27AM 
A putt for birdie on the 390 yard 7th at Adirondack CG • click to embiggenThis was an odd week of Grand Jury duty - 1 full day and 2 days of 1 hour sessions. Yesterday's late afternoon 1 hour session was the last bit of a messy/ugly child sexual molestation case. I hit the street at 4:30PM with the intent of meeting the wife and her mother for a glass of wine, but the day was glorious and, as I walked to the car, I got the urge to walk down a fairway. Fortunately, whether I venture near or far, my golf stuff is always in the car for just such a golf emergency. So, I managed to get in 9 holes before daylight departed the scene, which, around these parts at this time of year, happens at 6:15PM.
When I arrived home, I was surprised to see all the comments on yesterday's entry. Gordon McGregor was quite involved and along the way, he asked some good questions, including this one; "It's also somewhat amusing that everyone continues to talk about the easy to talk about technique and design parts and still little discussion of vision (or how to have them). Mushrooms ? Painful introspection ? Following subconscious urges ? ... It's pretty easy to talk about how you don't do things or what you reject. But what do you do ? How do you do it ?
Sean McCormick had a good answer; "I don't think you can teach that. I think it's something that comes to a person through doing. Sorta like falling in love. One day it's not there and the next day it is. And you know when it is, but it's sure as hell not something you can learn or knowledge that can be applicably transferred to someone else."
And Aaron Hobson also mentioned; "I think it is too personal or too complex to explain for most...I think you would have to peyote trip with me, but even then I wouldn't be making sense."
Both answers make sense to me.
Reader Comments (13)
I actually asked 'But what do you do ? How do you do it ?' not so much in the context of being able to teach it to someone else, but just to understand for yourself. There's probably answers or even useful questions in understanding your own process that can lead you to new insights.
Least I find that. There's things that I do that lead me towards being more creative in my photography. There's things I do that lead me towards churning out stuff that looks like everyone else.
The more I try to understand the difference, the more I find out what makes me work in ways I'd like to work more.
I don't think you can specifically transfer your process on to someone else - but I think there must be some potentially useful approaches or insights that can be shared. Sure they might not help anyone else but yourself, but maybe they would. If it just helps yourself improve, that's not a bad place to start, either.
Though there's also probably the flip side to this. The process that withers by examination. Look too deeply, think too much and you'll shut it down or crush the idea. So there's danger in this too. Makes it all the more fun.
Though I suspect, that if it comes to a person through doing, then putting them in situations where they are doing it, might be a way to lead or impart the idea too.
I realize that I'm very late to this discussion, so I apologize for that. But I find it interesting (and ironic) that the whole thing began with Mark's observations about the Radiant Vista community. I find it interesting because it created the kind of "open" discussion here that rarely occurs over there (despite Gordon's comments). To survive there, you pretty much have to adopt a certain amount of what can only be described as dogma. There are certain philosophical ideas that you pretty much have to accept. One in particular is the philosophy embedded in one of Craig's most quoted articles,"The Myth of Talent".
In this article, he essentially says that anyone can do almost anything if they want it bad enough and if they try hard enough. There is no such thing, he says, as "natural talent". Anyone, in other words, can become a visionary photographer if they truly want it and put in lots of hard work and practice. It's really one of the cornerstones of the RV philosophy. As such, it tends to discourage what I would call free, critical discussion. It encourages you, on the other hand, to say really nice things about someone else's images even if you actually believe that they're all crap. After all, everyone is on the same path to an enlightened state and critical comments are not productive. So everyone remains blissfully ignorant. So most keep posting the same types of images and saying the same things.
The truth, of course, is that talent, like any other attribute, is a random variable. For any given pursuit, we all have varying amounts of talent and some of it we come by "naturally". I hate to stoop once more to sports analogies, but think about this. Unless we're paralyzed or have no arms, all of us can throw a baseball to some degree (even GWB was capable of throwing out the first pitch). But only a very few can throw a baseball 100 mph with accuracy (a skill they get paid large sums of money for). Now, I don't care how much you'd like to be able to do this or how long you practice it - most of us are never, ever going to be able to do it. Those that can were born with a very large head start. They have "natural talent". Sure, it has to be developed, but these folks are genetically predisposed to be able to do it. You might say that at birth, they're already wired correctly for it.
The "creative" side of photography is no different. Some people, I think, were born with a certain "vision", a way of viewing the world around them. They simply had to discover it and hone it. At the other extreme, there are people who will struggle forever to find it and their images will reflect it. It's not their fault - it just happens to be the way they're "wired". All the rest of us fall along that vast spectrum that's in between those extremes.
Sorry for the extended rant. I just find it ironic that a discussion about "vision" that should take place frequently on a community forum like the RV takes place, instead, on Mark's site. Thanks for planting the seed, Mark.
I think its more of a rambling train of thought that I've been trying to discuss anywhere I can find anyone willing to talk about it for about 5 years, on a variety of sites, in bars, with friends and anyone who'll listen, express an opinion and so on. My blog rambles on about it at length over the last year too.
I think the 'myth of talent' thing gets taken the wrong way quite often (as it was in Paul's whole comment). He doesn't say that natural ability doesn't exist. Or that some people are more gifted than others. In fact, that's stated pretty early on. Just that those basic innate abilities are a starting point, worthless if you never use them. I'm not actually here to defend Craig or his ideas, but I have seen him inspire a lot of people to actually have a go, when they probably wouldn't have otherwise. Sure many of them will not become 'great' artists. They might just develop the courage to do something they personally like. Others might do something interesting that they maybe wouldn't have tried before.
Its back to the discussion of nurturing and guiding that we had yesterday. Maybe you can't teach vision. Perhaps you can instead inspire people to look ?
In this article, he essentially says that anyone can do almost anything if they want it bad enough and if they try hard enough. There is no such thing, he says, as "natural talent".
I even went back and had a look:
They say “surely you aren’t denying that gift and natural ability exist?” I do believe in gift. [...]But the gift of natural ability, without the awareness of it, or without passion attached to it, is either an unknown or unfulfilled potential. Even when natural ability is discovered and nurtured, it is only good for one thing – altering the trajectory of your learning curve.
Now I take the sports analogy. I can see that if you don't have the right type of muscle fibers, you'll never be the fastest runner on the world. Genetics plays a huge factor in just how fast you could ever run. But so does how much you train. There's certainly an aspect of both in there. Certainly people run a lot faster now than they ever did before. Because they train harder or understand the process better. People dedicate more and more time to that short 100mm. Years ago the idea of a 4 minute mile was considered insane. You'd die if you ever ran that fast. Then someone decided it was possible.
Now you are considered a fairly mediocre runner if you can't break 4 minutes. It's only been a 100 years, so we haven't evolved more natural talent. Maybe more people now have the opportunity or give it a go. Effort is a huge part of the expression of talent. I don't actually know where in that continuum it stops though. I suppose it must be nice to know when you've reached your creative limit. You could stop trying after that.
I need an edit button. 100m. Not 100mm. That'd be a boring race distance ;)
Another thought, then I'll leave y'all alone. The Myth of Talent pitch is very similar in many ways to Paul Butzi's Art is Verb I've got no idea if Paul would be horrified by that comparison or not, but I think they are both coming from the same place. I just went back and re-read Paul's article too. So thanks for getting me to to do that.
Like Gordon, I don't want to push this too far, but I'm not at all convinced that I'm one of the many who, as he states, "have taken it (the 'Myth' article) the wrong way". It's hard to misinterpret an essay that's titled "The Myth of Talent". When you read that "talent is a set of skills you develop over time through desire", it's fairly clear that the author believes that hard work and desire trump raw talent. I'm only saying that the opposite is more likely true - without some threshold level of raw talent, no amount of hard work and desire is going to help.
Also, when you close your argument by stating that "I became a photographer because I entered the realm of my most closely held and passionate desires and I was committed to remain there - in that perfect place where anything is possible", the "hard work and desire over raw talent" message is certainly reinforced. If you think you can do something, if you truly believe, then you can. When I first read this essay, I was reminded of Dororthy in "The Wizard of Oz" where, near the end, she says "I do believe, I do believe....." over and over again to get back to Kansas. Nice story, but the world just doesn't work that way.
Again, I'm not downplaying the effects of hard work and desire. The best results in any endeavor are the culmination of all three variables: raw talent, hard work, and desire. A little luck doesn't hurt, either. But if the raw ingredients aren't there to begin with, it's "game over".
For most of us, it doesn't really matter. Most of us don't expect to be in the upper echelons of whatever we pursue (whether it's baseball or photography). We simply want to believe that we've done our best and that we had some fun along the way.
Oh, and I don't think Paul Butzi's article comes from the "same place", either. I completely agree with Paul - art is nothing if not a verb. It's not just art that's a process, everything in life - including life itself - is a process. I hate to revert to old cliches, but "the journey really is the destination". I believe that. But I don't believe that a person can embark on any journey they want - and be successful - just because they have the "desire".
One comment about "vision". I tend to agree that it can't be taught, but I do think you can help someone find theirs. In that sense, I guess Gordon and I agree. I had this very discussion with a photographer I admire very much, and he asked me a simple question about my own work. Talking about images I'd taken the previous day, he asked me if there were any that I'd be willing to hang on my wall "forever". I looked at them and said no, there weren't any that I'd want to look at for that long a time. "In a sense, then" he said, "you wasted your time. They're not you". I will never forget that. He didn't tell me what my "vision" should be, but he did offer me a clue about how to find it.
Something floating around my head as a response to this is to look at it from the other perspective. Let's assume the myth of talent is false. What would that mean ?
If we come up with some trite equation that says artistic vision is effort + talent and we've all got a varying degrees of talent, when do you top out ? Is there a limit to how creative and how much vision you can have ? Probably. So when do you reach it ?
Where's the point where you cant go any further? Can't do anything new. When are you limited by your lack of vision ? If just working harder can't get you somewhere new, then I suppose you must assume that there's some finite point where you just aren't talented enough to get any better/ more visionary/ interesting.
You could well be always limited by your lack of vision, in one way or another. But if you keep working at it, you will see something new - at least for you. In that respect I do think desire and effort will take you further than just raw talent, whatever that is.
That's what I mean about Paul's art is a verb and Craig's myth of talent coming from the same place. They are both in one way or another exhorting people to try; not just assume someone else has the ability that they don't have. You may not like the metaphor in either case, but the message is fundamentally the same.
On the flip side I'm reminded of a quote about teaching sculpture "Everyone can be taught to sculpt: Michelangelo would have had to be taught how not to." Could also branch off into discussions of thin-slicing (ref Blink) Some people just do see differently. I don't doubt that at all. But that's just the raw potential. You still have to do.
To quote Paul's article (and why I think they are similar in thrust)
And, as a result, for most people, art is something that is done by someone else - someone who is special, someone who is different, someone who is unfathomably strange
But as an artist, I think it's a mistake to attempt to deal with art as a product, and not as a process. I think that primarily because the vast majority of artists are not making their art so it can be sold in the commodity art world; the vast majority of artists are ordinary folks who make art as part of their life - the housewives, lawyers, plumbers, high school students. For those artists, the important thing is the process, not the outcome. Those artists are ordinary folks who have realized that art is not a spectator sport.
It's the same motivation. Don't feel that you can't do it because you aren't special. Just do it and see where you go.
1. Does this work open up new avenues for me to explore?
2. Do I understand more about anything as a result of making this work?
3. Now that I've made this work, what will I make next?
Mark, I like the golf photo. It makes me think of sitting out in the ocean, getting a few waves before dark. I keep my board in the car in September and October; there's still the opportunity for after-work surfs in clear late afternoon sun if you're prepared. You know in the back of your head that once the clock shifts back, it's darkness after work until spring.
"A putt for birdie on the 390 yard 7th at Adirondack CG"
talk about the wonderful capabilities of Photoshop!
Photoshop, my ass
it's photography that aims at being true, not at being beautiful because, what is true most often is beautiful - just like 2 'pure' golf strokes and a putt for bird.
which, truth be told, I didn't sink
and golf. Don't get me started on golf. Talk about an intersection of talent, desire and effort. Talk about needing to find the balance between attention and search for perfection along with letting go and not thinking too much.
I miss golf.