The Art of Learning Photography

RichardTaylor said:
Whilst discussing this thread with my son he suggested that most, if not all, advertising photography is art in that it creates emotions in the viewers mind to influence them to "buy" a product.
So if you want some current "art" for "inspiration" just look around you or pick up almost any magazine.
Click to expand...

Most Advertising designers, artists and photographers have gone through the mill of studying their subject and the world of Art, as well as the psychology of what makes us tick.
It is true that the "Gifted" are better in whatever field they are interested in. but this is enhanced by their studies and learnt skills, and moulded into a saleable skill.
 
boyfalldown said:
what Pete said really. You may be following intuition and have forgotten the rules, but I'll bet if you're producing compelling photography you're pretty closely folowing some anyway
Click to expand...

That is like saying the Tail wags the Dog.

Rules as in the arts are partly technical and partly observations.
The Art came first...
some was "Good"
some was not.
Over time some people sought to imitate the "Good"
This analysis of what made "Good" art eventually established "rules"

By faithfully following "the rules" those with little artistic ability can produce reasonable formulaic results.

Original artists Probably know of these "Rules" and may on analysis find they exist in some of their work. However they never use them as a framework on which to create the new works.

Wagner wrote a whole opera about the worthlessness of following "Rules" and in doing so broke every convention in producing a masterpiece "Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg"
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Original artists Probably know of these "Rules" and may on analysis find they exist in some of their work. However they never use them as a framework on which to create the new works.
"
Click to expand...

As far as photography goes that bit doesn't stand up - original photographers do use the "rules" of composition to create new works - about 99% of the time.

This is because the 'rules' (guidelines is probably more accurate) are not entirely based only on analysis of what has gone before but also the neurological understanding of what the human brain perceives as aesthetically pleasing - which is what the golden ratio etc is about

I'm not saying that everyone must follow these guidelines .. and not following them can produce remarkable results ... but it can also produce an enormous amount of rubbish along the way.

It is unfortunate that some in the artistic photography community have become so adverse to the rules that they have now created an adverse formula ie don't compose on thirds, don't follow the golden ratio, don't have leading lines, don't compose in zones and so on... and many are now following this formula and kidding themselves that they are being creative.

its a little like car modifying - you can with knowledge and talent modify a car for performance and appearance and create something outstanding (generally by following established principles of aerodynamics and engine power management)... however you can also ignore established practice but instead follow the tired prescription of take a corsa add a redtop engine, add as much Halfords body kit as you can find, add a shopping list of stickers, lower it as far as possible, put a boot install in etc .. however at the end of the day you haven't been creative and special , you've done exactly what lots of other people have already done in pursuit of being 'original' and created a laughable understeery, poor handling bucket.

Just as the corsa created by following the 'be original' prescription isn't a performance rally car , so an out of focus picture of nothing in particular , poorly exposed and unattractively composed and then converted to B&W isn't a master piece of art.
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
That is like saying the Tail wags the Dog.

Rules as in the arts are partly technical and partly observations.
The Art came first...
some was "Good"
some was not.
Over time some people sought to imitate the "Good"
This analysis of what made "Good" art eventually established "rules"

By faithfully following "the rules" those with little artistic ability can produce reasonable formulaic results.

Original artists Probably know of these "Rules" and may on analysis find they exist in some of their work. However they never use them as a framework on which to create the new works.

Wagner wrote a whole opera about the worthlessness of following "Rules" and in doing so broke every convention in producing a masterpiece "Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg"
Click to expand...

Errrr no..........


Maybe going back and reading all my posts will help understand my post. I'm sure if you listen to the opera you mention (all of it) you'll find it actually filled with convention.
 
What a lot of people don't realise is that the rule of thirds was actaully first described by the famous Irish offal entrepreneur Pogue Bogroll, (who among many other things, invented the first tripe hod), when viewing Da Vinci's legendary painting of the kings Richard 1, 2 and tree and describing it as a rule of turds.
Such was the respect Da Vinci had for Bogroll, he adopted the phrase permanently, though Holbein and Titian both dismissed him as an arsewiper, they too succumed to pogues brogue and thus the the rule of thirds was born.:cool:
 
Loud banging, guffaws and shouting from the stalls renders the actors inaudible. Will the play recover?

Regarding the Bogroll tripe-hod, I understand from W*k*pedia that it had a quick release facility that consisted of striking its head with a sledge hammer ...
 
Last edited:
nah rubbish

the rule of thirds was originally a precept of divorce law , it stated clearly that in any matrimonial split the wife gets a third of the assets, the husband gets a third, and the other 33% goes to the lawyers ;)

This was thought inequitable so the grid was redrawn into 9 squares, now each spouse gets a ninth, with the other 7 ninths split between lawyers, judges, mediators, estate agents....
 
boyfalldown said:
Errrr no..........


Maybe going back and reading all my posts will help understand my post. I'm sure if you listen to the opera you mention (all of it) you'll find it actually filled with convention.
Click to expand...

I did read all your posts...
I stand by what I said

I have also seen and heard all of Wagners works several times from end to end.
there is no doubt, that despite his racial and other faults, he change the course of musical theatre for ever. Like all great composers his work was not fully understood for quite some while
 
RichardTaylor said:
@ Droj
Not much difference to a lot of the art for a roughly 1000 years (to about 1500). Only the major patron(s) have changed.
Click to expand...

Western art changed dramatically with the discovery of Perspective.
Chinese and eastern art did not use it. In Chinese art the things closest to you are at the bottom, distant things are at the top. size does not change with distance, but can do so in importance.

An even great influence on photography was Chiaroscuro in art.
 
RichardTaylor said:
Whilst discussing this thread with my son he suggested that most, if not all, advertising photography is art in that it creates emotions in the viewers mind to influence them to "buy" a product.
So if you want some current "art" for "inspiration" just look around you or pick up almost any magazine.
Click to expand...

Your son knows where it's at:thumbs: good boy!
 
boyfalldown said:
In that case you didn't understand them :).
Click to expand...

There is a world of difference between understanding someone elses point of view and agreeing with it or their conclusions.
I had no trouble at all understanding what you were saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top