ku # 482 ~ do or die, or, sometimes I act like a hamster
Thursday, July 26, 2007 at 09:14AM 
On our little island on 6th Lake • click to embiggenYesterday's discussion was fun and informative. Good stuff and I hope it can continue.
Special thanks goes to Mary Dennis (who, fyi & imo, has a great gift for seeing) for bringing our attention to this passage from The Art of Seeing Things-Essays by John Burroughs;
"I do not purport to attempt to tell my reader how to see things, but only to talk about the art of seeing things, as one might talk of any other art. One might discourse about the art of poetry, or of painting, or of oratory, without any hope of making one's readers or hearers poets or painters ot orators.
The science of anything may be taught or acquired by study; the art of it comes by practice or inspiration. The art of seeing things is not something that may be conveyed in rules or precepts; it is a matter vital in the eye and ear, yea, in the mind and soul of which these are the organs. I have as little hope of being able to tell the reader how to see things as I would have in trying to tell him how to fall in love or to enjoy his dinner. Either he does or he does not, and that is about all there is of it. Some people are born with eyes in there heads, and others with buttons or painted marbles, and no amount of science can make one equal to the other in the art of seeing things. The great mass of mankind are, in this respect, like the rank and file of an army: They fire vaguely in the direction of the ememy, and if they hit, it is more a matter of chance than of accurate aim. But here and there is the keen-eyed observer; he is the sharpshooter; his eye selects and discriminates, his purpose goes to the mark."
This statement flys directly in the face of this rather ridiculous (IMO) notion, which, in a nut shell suggests that artists are not different/special in any way. The art that they create is merely the result of hard work and dedication.
IMO, this idea serves well those who work hard and are dedicated to creating a lot of stuff, most of which is decorative, little of which is Art. Most of those I know who are creating Art, do so more as the result of an obsession rather than of dedication. They could no more stop the creative process than they could stop breathing.
Does a caged hamster spend countless hours running on its wheel because it's 'dedicated'? I think not. Rather, it's acting out a preternatural impluse/drive to do its running thing - it's acting 'intuitively/instinctively'. In a very real sense, if it doesn't run, it dies.
I would also contest the idea that creating Art is 'hard work'. In the words of the modern philosopher George Carlin - "Hard work is a misleading term. Physical effort and long hours do not constitute hard work. Hard work is when someone pays you to do something you'd rather not be doing."
Most Artists I know, dispite the sometimes exhausting physical and mental/emotional effort and long hours they 'endure', would call what they do more a labor of love rather than hard work.
Reader Comments (14)
There are here two levels: the level of "contemplation" and the level of "creation".
We may be taught to contemplate a painting, a poem or a piece of music, but that doesn't make us a "creator", that is an artist (painter, poet or composer). We have to be gifted to be a creator (an artist).
Nobody goes to the university to become an artist, but does so to become a decorative art professional.
You opened up a whole bag of ants here. Am I to believe that these "special" people (artists) are gifted beyond what others could possibly hope to achieve? Does this mean that every one of us who didn't display a predisposition for the artistic endeavor should just give up? Is there some sort of gene or midichlorians writhing around in the dna of an artist that others do not have?
It is a great argument, that hamster, but I think that dedication has a lot to do with it. Without dedication how would we finish a project that we obsess over? How would we learn what it takes to create the art inside? (yes I guess that should be considered craft) Some have the obsession and love of art and the need to create but just never do. They are content to be critics or live through other artists or whatever.
I will agree that making art is not always hard work, although sometimes it can be demanding. Its the obsession that makes it seem less work than it is. The same as in love. And in life, with its infinite and constantly changing variables, I'd argue that a person who grew up being a technical person drawing squares could end up an artist one day.
Indeed, in the artistic field there is hard work involved. A musician passes several years of hard training to learn music and to develop the necessary skills to master an instrument. The same happened wih famous painters when they learned in the schools of older masters.
But, when two performers interpret the same piece of music, an educated listener may distinguish between a trivial performance and a really outstanding one. The difference is not in the technique but rather in the artistic sensibility of the performers.
Of course the world is not black and white, and between a totally dumb person and a highly sensible one there are many degrees of artistic sensibility. So let's not dispair. We may not be a Rembrandt of photography, we may not create Art, only art.
Thse discussions may not help us to make better images but they surely help us to better appreciate (contemplate) images from others (and from ourselves, if we can be impartial).
I don't despair, I'll be as good as Rembrandt one day :-D
My counter to your point is that I doubt once Rembrandt mastered his tools that he was immediately a great painter. Maybe he was, I'm not up on my art history. And the musician who gave the superb performance was not immediately superb after mastering his tools. I suggest that there is another tool that you must master to be great, and that is your own vision (or artistic sensibility as you put it) I seem to remember an article about Van Gogh sucking pretty bad before he found his vision. Of course that might be debatable but who cares.
My next point is about the term "art of seeing". Seeing must be defined. Since theres about 40 definitions that work I'll pick
To understand; comprehend.
To understand something, is to focus attention onto something, process what you gather, and make judgments upon that information right? Its all about discipline, most people aren't disciplined enough to "see" artistically. But I propose that its possible to obtain the ability to see with discipline and diligence.
My counter to your point is that I doubt once Rembrandt mastered his tools that he was immediately a great painter.
Can't remember if Rembrandt was, but Caravaggio pretty much was - even before he's finished mastering his tools
As for "hard work", I remeber hearing John Berger says all (writing) poetry was like doing hard labour - but the labour of giving birth.
artists are not different/special in any way BTW I'm glad someone else thinks that's a pile of old manure.
It's a bit like the whole - nobody fails a grade or loses a race at school anymore - everyone gets a prize and passes
Arguing that artists ARE special, and you either have it or you dont, sounds like you are glad that it rids you of the responsibility of putting work into what you do.
I don't understand the argument anymore. Is there some kind of test we can take to tell from a certain age if we are an artist or not? There is only two possibilities that you propose "HAVE IT" or "DONT HAVE IT" There now must be a scientific way devised to weed out the "non special" people from our chosen medium.
When it gets to the point that it becomes "hard work" is when I find another endeavor. I do it for the enjoyment of creation.
...and here walk I into that bag of ants.
There is talent (original talent?) and there is learnt talent.
The nearest I can liken this too is an ice skater. Some skaters are born with the requisite faculties in which to effortlessly provide a stunning display. They have worked many years to devlop these talents and the rewards to particpant and viewer are rewarding.
There are those that have years of technical training to tune up some of these faculties that weren't quite fully developed to start with. Yes, they can perform a quad, but they are not quite as graceful, smooth nor flowing between those technical elements.
Case in point: Asada-san (original) versus Ando-san (learnt).
The problem arises finding that talent, nurturing that talent and developing that talent. All talent, however inherited, needs this but some have it more developed initially than others and will appear to be performing more effortlessly with similar results.
Is original talent the art of delivering without thought?
The results, for the viewer, of artistic talent are all very subjective. Rembrandt may have been a great painter but that doesn't mean that I like his work. And this is unfortunately a completely different bag of ants into which one must dive.
Great point!
I'm a little late to this party, but it's always fun to chime in on this "burning issue". I doubt there's many forums out there that haven't dealt with this at some time or other.
For what it's worth, I also believe that the notion that anybody can be great at something if they just work hard enough and are dedicated enough is a steaming pile of dung. Life just doesn't work that way. Talent, like most things, is not uniformly distributed. Remember the movie "Rudy"? Rudy Ruettiger went to Notre Dame in the mid-70's and wanted in the worst way to play football. His work ethic was impeccable - he practiced (and bled) more than anyone. His desire was beyond reproach. Did he become famous? Yes. Was he a great football player? Nope. His total playing time can be measured in seconds. Could he be called "inspirational"? Well, maybe but that's a whole other topic, isn't it?
Can anyone become an Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, or Manny Ramirez if they just try hard enough and want it bad enough? If that were true, I suspect that there would be far more sports millionaires walking around.
Why should "intellectual" talent be any different? Can anyone become an Einstein?
Think about it. When you were in school, did everyone score equally on tests? How were those test scores distributed? A few received very high grades and a few received very low grades. The rest were distributed somewhere in between. Most things are distributed just like that (I'm a statistician if anyone wants a more technical explanation!). Hard work (or whatever you want to call it) can make anyone "better" than they were, but it cannot push that individual from one end of the spectrum to the other.
If you want to be "great", pick your parents carefully.
I wont argue that most of us wont be great. But I will argue against the original point, which was "Some people are born with eyes in there heads, and others with buttons or painted marbles" some people can see and some cant. I argue that the person who hasn't discovered his ability to see CAN learn it. That doesn't mean that they'll be GREAT at it. Now that brings up a different question: where is the line between seeing and not seeing?
I had posted my opinion on this topic, on another site here is the link ( hope that's alright ) http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=18953&b=vf2&st=120&la=1685&ph=131&sid=32595&u=315#119396
Long story short, I agree 100% with Sebastian.
Paul, I wonder how well "Alex Rodriguez, Derek Jeter, or Manny Ramirez's parents were great ball players? Well, maybe they were but I know Gretzky's parents never played much hockey!
The point I'm trying to make, as I mentioned in a post earlier, to Chantal, it's the belief in one's self that really counts.
I used to box a bit, just small time stuff, but we used to say " it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog".
Ali, if you are old enough to remember the famous shuffle and poems and various verbal antics was a great fighter, some argue the greatest fighter. The tatics he used, were a weapon. As soon as he could create that bit of self doubt in his opponent, the fight was all but over.
It's the same thing with artistic vision, in my opinion. If you believe it, you'll see it. Allow self doubt to creep in and you will blinded to your artistic ability. Tim
Got another link there Tim? That one doesn't take me directly to any post. I'd love to read your opinion on the matter.
OK, well I tried to save a bit of bandwith. The person posted this:
"I find it a little hard to accept "Anything is possible, anyone can achieve anything if they really want to. To use the above stated example, I could never have painted like Beirstadt. Not even if my entire life was devoted to it. And I could not have become a pro athlete, nor plenty of other endeavors."
Below is my reply -
What can be taught? To use your imagination! That's the most important thing. As soon as your start limiting yourself due to the fact you are not "so inclined" or "gifted" or don't have the genetic advantages of some others , you are making excuses for failure.
Using the basketball example; the most dominant player in the world right now grew up in a
country ( Canada ) in which the sport is vastly overshadowed by other sports, mostly hockey. The participation is meager compared to other countries , the US in particular, most of Europe, Asia, South America . . . yet this skinny little kid , who nobody even seriously bothered to look at play, in 2005 . . .
"Nash became the first Canadian and the second foreign-born player (after Hakeem Olajuwon) to earn the honor.[1] He is the first MVP who did not lead his team in scoring since Dave Cowens in 1972-73. Nash is just the third point guard ever to be named MVP — along with Magic Johnson and Bob Cousy — and only the sixth guard (Michael Jordan, Oscar Robertson, and Allen Iverson being the others).[1] Nash was the first white player to win the award since Larry Bird in 1986. Nash is also the lowest drafted player to win the award."
in 2006 he won it again. In 2007 , I guess he had an off season . . . he finished second.
Now, I'm sure there are reasons he is such a great player, his whole family is into sports,true.But he certainly isn't the strongest, the fastest, the best jumper. But even his critics, would have to admit, he is one of the most imaginative players, ever. So, is it some genetic gift or the fact that he grew up in an environment that demonstrated the love of the game and the lessons of hard worked being rewarded.
Wayne Gretzky was another skinny little Canadian kid who grew up to be, what most hockey people consider , the greatest hockey player ever. He wasn't the fastest, didn't have the hardest shot, was not a physical player, playing in a game that is so physical it borders on brutal, at times. Was he gifted?
He earned those accolades through hard work, practice and studying the game. His best advantage, like Nash was he learned how to use his imagination, to innovate, to make the players on his team better.
My point is this, it's the use of our imagination that sets us free to be our best,at anything.
Could you paint as well as Beirstadt? Why not? Many people could, why not you?
You pick any painting that he has done and I am very confident that there are many, many painters who could duplicate it so well that you wouldn't be able to recognize the difference. In fact, forgery of major works of Art like that is such a problem, that often experts have to called in to verify that a painting is authentic, sometimes resorting to chemical tests of the pigment and microscopic analysis of the brushstrokes etc. Many times people have bought fake paintings that were verified and later found to be fake.
So what made Beirstadt special, what couldn't they duplicate? That same quality that Nash and "The Great One " displayed.
If you took some people out to one of your favorite spots, as I'm sure you've done, and showed them where to set up, explained how to use the NDGs , taught them how to time the ebb and flow of the wave , demonstrated creative composition and they took the image with similar equipment to yours . . . could we tell the difference between your image and theirs?
But, if you did the same thing except, let them choose the composition, exposure, subject etc. from a camera mounted in same spot, even if they were very competent photographers, you could very well have very different images. Why? Because everybody has a different imagination. That is what makes the difference.
If that is what makes the difference, then why isn't that taught more?
I also have no formal photography training, except one workshop, Freeman Patterson, who is a legend in our field. It lasted a week. He never once looked through my camera, or any one elses that I had seen. I never heard the word F-stop or any other technical term that I can remember being uttered by him. He took us to different areas but that was it, you were on your own and the areas included gravel pits and graveyards, not the naturally beautiful scenes that I expected.
Yet, he so inspired me with his insight and sharing his emotions and most importantly , his imagination , that it changed the way I think about photography in particular and life in general. I'll never forget those lessons as long as I breathe. I would say he is a successful teacher, wouldn't you?
Thanks, Tim