civilized ku # 492 ~ opposing POVs
Thursday, May 6, 2010 at 10:35AM 
Inside out ~ Rue St. Paul Est - Old Montreal, CA • click to embiggenOn one hand, you've got this opinion:
…There are too many people studying it [photography] now who are never going to make it. You can’t give them a formula for making it. You have to have it in you first, you don’t learn it. The seeing eye is the important thing. ~ Imogen Cunningham
On the other hand, you've got this:
I am often asked about the role that talent plays in the creation of art in general and of Fine Art Photographs in particular ... underlying this question is the assumption that talent is something innate, something that you either have or do not have ... I don’t know for sure if there is something real that we can call talent. Maybe there is, maybe there isn’t ... For me, if there is such a thing as talent, it is the ability to make the best use of your time, when doing something you deeply care about, by engaging in regular practice, study and dedication. Talent is also seeking help from people who are where you want to be, because the experience of someone who is more experienced than you is one of the most valuable assets you can find. Finally, talent is not giving up when faced with difficulties. Talent, in other words, is the ability to focus, work hard, seek guidance and not give up. ~ Alain Briot
Once again, I have been thinking about such notions re: my desire to conduct a few Picture Making Chautauqua.
IMO, talent - as in, an innate ability - is a real "thing". You either have a talent for something or you don't. In my youth, a talent for something was considered to be a "god-given gift" - something you couldn't wish for / work for / strive for. In Cunningham's parlance, you were either born to dance or you weren't.
Which does not mean that in Briot's world you can't - with focus, hard work, guidance, and determination - learn the techniques/craft of dance. Quite obviously, many can and do (to one degree or another). However, learning and mastering the techniques/craft of dance does not a gifted dancer make. In a very simple sense, it is the difference between "going through the motions" (even at the highest level of skill) and imbuing those motions with feeling / emotion and a sensation of passionate purpose and meaning.
That said, over the years, the idea of "god-given gifts" has been significantly eroded by the over zealous implementation of the self-esteem movement which, in its worst manifestation, tries to elevate the self-esteem of many by denying the uniqueness of those individuals with special abilities, aka - talents.
You know what I mean - we don't keep score because everybody is a winner. There are no losers and everybody is an artist. No one is "better" than anyone else. Isn't it all just a matter of "opinion" anyway? And, hell, since no one is "better" than anyone else, then no one opinion is better than any other opinion so it stands to reason that there are no losers and everyone is a winner.
But, back to the original dueling opinions re: talent - it should come as no surprise that Briot, the dedicated, technically skilled hard worker, has the "overwhelming feeling that talent was/is not all that it was/is supposed to be ... that talent was/is way overrated." At least this comes as no surprise to me inasmuch as I have heard, over and over again, basic variations on this same "feeling" from quite a number of dedicated, technically skilled hard working picture makers who have little or no talent for seeing, as in possessing Imogen Cunningham's notion of "the seeing eye".
All of that said, I still am not certain about if and how one can teach anything meaningful about "the seeing eye" or the art of seeing.
Here's a question for you - without even considering whether you have a "seeing eye" or not, if you were to attend a picture making workshop / seminar, what it is that you would be wanting to learn? What is it that you would want to learn that would help make you a better picture maker?
Reader Comments (4)
You are right, there are undeniable innate gifts. In the music world you often bump into people with absolute pitch. You either have it or you don't. For someone with this talent the difference between musical pitches is a simple perception, it can't be taught or even really explained. The difference between an f-sharp and an a-flat is as clear and obvious as the difference in color between and apple and an orange. Trying to teach absolute pitch is like explaining to someone without color vision what it means to see color.
There must be other gifts that are not as easy to quantify and test. I have no doubt that some people see the world in a way that lends itself better to visual arts than others. But as a teacher, what do you do with that knowledge? By definition, innate abilities can't be taught, so in a certain sense they are irrelevant from a pedagogical point of view.
Also, it's a dangerous game for a teacher to start trying to determine who's got 'it' and who doesn't. While you can't teach something defined as innate, you certainly can crush a student and prevent them from realizing their talent. There are too many stories throughout the history of arts and sciences of students with great talent that had to overcome teachers who were too set in their way to recognize what was in front of them. It's easy in hindsight to recognize Imogen Cunningham's talent, but could you have done it when she was twenty from the vantage point of 1903?
I have to agree with Briot. An artist simply cannot concern himself with talent or innate ability, because he can't change it. He can only work and keep pushing himself. If it turns out that he doesn't have 'it,' so be it. Also, to be a little cynical, having talent may work against your commercial success in today's environment. The correlation between talent and commercial success historically seems to hover around zero.
I really like your idea of a Picture Making Chautauqua. If your aim is to help students see, I think looking at a lot of art that demonstrates what you mean by 'seeing' would be helpful. For many photographers, often including myself, the world of fine-art photography is a bit of a mystery. I would love to sit down with a person or group of people who "see" what is going on in the work of gallery darlings like Jeff Wall and just talk about it. To sit and talk over actual photos about the difference between photography as a conceptual art and photography as a decorative art, the interplay between meaning and appearance, etc. and then try to put those ideas into practice to see if it helps stretch my ideas about photography. That would be a lot more interesting than the typical photo workshop.
I think it is almost impossible to prove if talent is something you can develop or simply something you are born with. The only thing that is certain is that some have it and others don't. In sports I know of people with extreme talent that didn't make it as pros, and some who made it with lot's of hard work and a little less god-given abilities. When I used to be a musician I could play pretty much anything on a guitar after owning one for a year. I have friends who've tried for years to learn a single tune with no success. It's simply a huge mystery, but I think much of talent is composed of a deep and profound interest in whatever you have or develop a talent for. But in the end, lots of people have talent, so having it isn't so special. What's special is developing that talent into a successful career. That takes a certain kind of personality which is hard to develop. Having grace, charisma, high enery level etc. is what separates the wheat from the chaff.
Some people are short, some are tall, some are artistic, some are analytic. We all have particular 'talents' but the key thing is to discover the activities which best exploit our talents. If we engage in activities where we don't have a talent then there's the fall back position of hard work ... and being able to apply ourselves to a task is perhaps another 'talent'.
In regards to workshops, I'd say it's in the [commercial] interest of the workshop presenter to create the impression that hardwork is the main ingredient for success, rather than talent + skills + persistent effort.
Of course Briot is going to downplay the role of talent. To do otherwise would undermine his ability to play on people's artistic insecurities to get at their money.
I have attended a couple of workshops, and I have learned from each one. It is always interesting to see how other people work, and to learn how they approach that work. Plus, it is a few days where I am focused on nothing but photography, which is pretty rare with all of the other demands on my time.