Levels of photographers

[Augiz]

Honestly, which one are you? :)

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm

[StewartR]

I didn't recognise myself exactly, though I guess "amateur" is closest.

However the really worrying thing was the Two kinds of photographers (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2-kinds-of-photographers.htm) consensed version. "There are two kinds of photographers: those who make pictures, and those who talk about it." I worry that I'm becoming the second type. Maybe I should quit the forums and get out there with my camera.

[Hermeto]

I didn't recognise myself exactly, though I guess "amateur" is closest.

However the really worrying thing was the Two kinds of photographers (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2-kinds-of-photographers.htm) consensed version. "There are two kinds of photographers: those who make pictures, and those who talk about it." I worry that I'm becoming the second type. Maybe I should quit the forums and get out there with my camera.


Many times I ask myself the same question..

[cosworth]

I aim to become a wedding photography whore.

[usul_xti]

I didn't recognise myself exactly, though I guess "amateur" is closest.

However the really worrying thing was the Two kinds of photographers (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2-kinds-of-photographers.htm) consensed version. "There are two kinds of photographers: those who make pictures, and those who talk about it." I worry that I'm becoming the second type. Maybe I should quit the forums and get out there with my camera.

Hard when you have a day job !! hehehe ... and now the days here are shorter and shorter :S

[Hermeto]

Poor Amateur – I don’t know which level is that, tho’.. :D

[Tee Why]

level seven, the artist, most definately.
:)

[rdenney]

Honestly, which one are you? :)

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm

Sheesh. I make pictures, and I talk about equipment. I measure equipment, too, because it's fun in its own right.

I do not know why it is that someone interested in the engineering of camera equipment can't also have an artistic streak. I find that it's mostly those who can't understand the technical bits who complain that those who do must not be artistic. "Measurebators" indeed.

I play tuba, too. And I'm VERY interested in how tubas work. I share that interest with lots of folks, including some of the world's greatest performers on the instrument. Scratch an instrumental musician and find an equipment freak.

Rick "late for rehearsal" Denney

[saravrose]

and my dislike of Ken Rockwell grows...

[Moppie]

and my dislike of Ken Rockwell grows...

He's certianly not the most enlightened man on the planet, infact he has a level of awreness similar to that of a 6 year old child.

[superdiver]

Is there a "Forest Gump" catagory...that would be me...sub level 4....LOL

[JAZZ D.P.G.]

Mr Rockwell needs to operate his site without spyware being hidden in the download.

Symantec caught "Avenue A" when I opened his page.

Not very nice.

[Moppie]

Symantec caught "Avenue A" when I opened his page.



Hmmmm, did a little digging, (and I do mean a little), Avenue A is a tracking cookie, that follows you around as you surf. So you might have picked it up else where, and it only did somethinh active enough to be detected when you visited Kens site.

Of course any reason not to visit Kens site is a good one.

[saravrose]

He's certianly not the most enlightened man on the planet, infact he has a level of awreness similar to that of a 6 year old child.

LOL... I can't be the only one who finds him distasteful to put it nicely...

[saravrose]

so is Rockwell a professional or a whore?...

[Moppie]

so is Rockwell a professional or a whore?...

He thinks hes an "artist", of course its a definition he created himself to fit his own idea of reality. One thats best described as "look at me! look at me! look at me! look at me! look at me! look at me! look at me! look at me! look at me! "

[Moppie]

It's working we're all looking at him, clicking on his website, improving his page rank, upping the revenue from his website, getting mad about it, posting more links to his outrageous articles and doing it all over again







He's probably reading this forum thinking about how clever he is

[saravrose]

He's probably reading this forum thinking about how clever he is

probably.. and probably has a superiority complex that can reach the sky and leads him to further articles that continue to annoy.....:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[MagicallyDelicious]

he doesnt seem to like men who own camera's much!

[freefallu]

happy to admit to being a rich amateur.

[Radtech1]

Again? (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=124350&postcount=38) (2003) And Again? (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=125350&postcount=2) (2003) And Again again? (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=145518&postcount=3) (2004) And still Again again? (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=718982&postcount=1) (2005)

Everything old is new again!

Rad

[Brian Puccio]

I'd like to get to five and have no intentions of going above (including to the top). I might be a four, I think.

[Rob612]

I'm between 5 and 6...

[Woolburr]

so is Rockwell a professional or a whore?...

I like to think the term idiot applies. The scary part is there are people that actually listen to him.;)

[Gouba]

Im an amatuer :) nothing too exciting, i i could pick bits and pieces from different titles tho

[DrPablo]

I don't mean to be an apologist for Ken Rockwell, but at the same time I've never understood why he's so maligned. I mean he has his opinions and perspectives, some of which I'll take and some of which I'll leave. But I learn from reading his essays, and I hold my own brain responsible for properly assimilating what I've read there. The one thing I'd say in his favor is that he has a ton of experience with both film and digital, and that helps him put both the abilities and limitations of digital in its proper context. So he's not perfect, but who is -- you can always corroborate something he's said by looking into it further, and in the end if you've learned something it's valuable.

[Croasdail]

I don't mean to be an apologist for Ken Rockwell, but at the same time I've never understood why he's so maligned. I mean he has his opinions and perspectives, some of which I'll take and some of which I'll leave. But I learn from reading his essays, and I hold my own brain responsible for properly assimilating what I've read there. The one thing I'd say in his favor is that he has a ton of experience with both film and digital, and that helps him put both the abilities and limitations of digital in its proper context. So he's not perfect, but who is -- you can always corroborate something he's said by looking into it further, and in the end if you've learned something it's valuable.

Amen to that. You don't have to agree with everything someone says to learn something from them.... unless I guess if you know everything already. I thought the piece was just done in fun and jest....

[saravrose]

Amen to that. You don't have to agree with everything someone says to learn something from them.... unless I guess if you know everything already. I thought the piece was just done if fun and jest....


if his articles were done in jest we would all get a good laugh with him.. shake our heads and find him entertaining and wonder what his motivation is for inventing such bull****.. unfortunately my impression is that he actually believes everything he says..

sari

[CyberDyneSystems]

He forgot the "Ego Maniacal Know it all and everyone else is wrong" stage.. followed quickly by the "I guess Canon Digital is better than Noink, and won't admit to ever saying otherwise" stage :lol:

[CyberDyneSystems]

I don't mean to be an apologist for Ken Rockwell, but at the same time I've never understood why he's so maligned.

I can't speak for anyone else, but personally I can not abide those who not only offer there opinion, but insist that there's is the only valid one.
Those that insist if you do something another way, you are wrong, those that while offering there point of view manage to intentionally insult all others in the process. Perhaps this insult is not noticed by everyone who reads his work, but if you happen to have a differing opinion, the insult is plain as day. (if you do choose to shoot RAW for instance, or happen to one of those misguided neanderthals that think Digital is an exceptable medium for landscapes,. etc..)

This type of "education" is not only unnecesary, I find it damaging. Trying to steer everyone in a single direction like cattle rather than admit there are other ways to do things and encourage others to find there own path, is very dangerous in some apects of life IMHO. Thankfully all Rockwell is talking about is photography and not politics or religion. Makes his insistance and evengelism on such a subject seem even more bizarre.

[DrPablo]

I can't speak for anyone else, but personally I can not abide those who not only offer there opinion, but insist that there's is the only valid one.

Well, you needn't search hard in virtually every forum on the internet (including this site) to find those who meet that description.



But if you're critical enough to decide what is correct and what is not then you can get beyond his affect and attitude.

I mean far more damaging is political rhetoric that takes the same tact with real world issues -- and yet we know better than to take at face value the words of any politician.

And it's not like 100% of what's on Ken's site is a work of fiction either. Most of it isn't absolute falsehood, even though you may differ in emphasis or conclusion.

I just wish people would do a better job toeing the line of healthy skepticism. I mean there is a huge playing field between sheer gullability and sheer cynicism. If you suffer from sheer gullability, then anything is damaging (including advertisements from the manufacturers). If you suffer from sheer cynicism then you'll never learn. If you are a healthy skeptic, then you can take the best of what Ken has to offer and leave the worst -- damage free.

[PhotosGuy]

Honestly, which one are you? Back to the original question, I'd have to admit to a "Pro-whore-arteest" label. I've made over $1,000 for one shot, and done over 80 shots in one day for $10-15 each. As long as I get paid, I could care less what you call me as long as you get my name right on the check? http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/smilies/rotfl2.gif

[saravrose]

I can't speak for anyone else, but personally I can not abide those who not only offer there opinion, but insist that there's is the only valid one.
Those that insist if you do something another way, you are wrong, those that while offering there point of view manage to intentionally insult all others in the process. Perhaps this insult is not noticed by everyone who reads his work, but if you happen to have a differing opinion, the insult is plain as day. (if you do choose to shoot RAW for instance, or happen to one of those misguided neanderthals that think Digital is an exceptable medium for landscapes,. etc..)

This type of "education" is not only unnecesary, I find it damaging. Trying to steer everyone in a single direction like cattle rather than admit there are other ways to do things and encourage others to find there own path, is very dangerous in some apects of life IMHO. Thankfully all Rockwell is talking about is photography and not politics or religion. Makes his insistance and evengelism on such a subject seem even more bizarre.

well said. you made my day...... :D :D

[jcw122]

Wow...that's about the dumbest list I've ever seen.

I wouldn't hold anyone here to those strange standards, none of those "levels" he talked about seem realistic.

[DrPablo]

Wow...that's about the dumbest list I've ever seen.

I wouldn't hold anyone here to those strange standards, none of those "levels" he talked about seem realistic.

It's a bit tongue in cheek and smarmy.

But it's not dumb at all. If his style of writing weren't so abrasive you might actually find this quite insightful.

The only thing I'd change is that it shouldn't be levels of photographer -- it should be levels of artist. That is what he really means. Note he never talks about talent -- he only talks about attitude and behavior.

7. His highest level, the artist, is an entirely authentic and independent executor of his own visions.

6. The 'whore' level is someone with talent who sells out for pulp. I hate the pejorative nature of the word 'whore' here, but let's look past that. What t's like the difference between Fyodor Dostoyevsky (artist) and John Grisham (whore). They both wrote suspenseful crime stories. But Dostoyevsky's explored the destructive workings of the mind; Grisham on the other hand avoids the humanity in his characters and focuses on plot, action, sequence. The Da Vinci Code is another example of 'whore' (in the Ken Rockwell sense). Catering to popular appeal and therefore never achieving its true artistic potential.

5. Amateur. Better yet, enthusiast. Someone who does it for the love of it. But not at a higher level because it isn't a complete undertaking.

4. Snapshooter. Someone who is good at his/her art -- but doesn't even see it as his/her art. It's just something they do, and it turns out well. They're like level 5, but without the self-awareness.

3. Professional. It's not that pros aren't talented technically -- it's just that most pros aren't striving for artistic statements. They are meeting their clients' needs. This may be pragmatic, and economy will favor the more talented, but what this comes down to is the ability to sell, not the ability to shoot.

2. Rich Amateur / 1. Equipment Measurebator. I equate these two -- the difference is mainly the acquisition of expensive stuff versus the aspiration to acquire expensive stuff. Even though I don't specifically accuse anyone of being one of these two, just scroll through the rumors (or worse yet look at the equipment snobbery on DPR and FM) to see how easy it is to fall into this. There are real differences between different camera toys. But honestly if I had $10,000 to spend on photography right now, I'd spend every last cent of it travelling somewhere interesting to shoot. What Rockwell is describing here is the person who is so focused on equipment that the joy of photography seems lost.

[rdenney]

It's a bit tongue in cheek and smarmy.

But it's not dumb at all. If his style of writing weren't so abrasive you might actually find this quite insightful.

I had composed a response complaining about what I don't like about Mr. Rockwell's writings, and to back it up and went perusing his website again (it's been a year) to gather ammo.

I had to abandon the attempt. In fact, I find myself in complete agreement with a very large portion of what he has written.

What I don't like is the way he makes pronouncements, and the way he disparages others with those pronouncements. I think that is what most people react to negatively. He makes you think he's insulting you even when you agree with him.

The beef I have with his categories is that he numbers them, which gives them a ranking. Your rewrite helps, but still has the ranking. There's nothing to say that an equipment tester/collector isn't persuing as valid an activity as an artist who uses cameras.

And I abhor the notion that photographic artists and commercial photographers (I don't like the use of 'professional' in the photography context, because there is no standard as there is with, say, professional engineers or professional accountants) are in opposition. It furthers the modern foolishness that being paid somehow degrades art (or validates skill). That is a notion that would have been laughable in most of the history of making all sorts of art. I doubt that Mozart would have composed a note or Shakespeare written a word without the expectation of being paid.

Rockwell's definition of art is self-serving. It defines art in terms of intent, taste, and technique. Art should be defined in terms of whether it is received as art by the people who receive it. We think Grisham is a hack while Dostoevsky is an artist not because the former desired money and the latter didn't, but because it would be hard to find anyone whose life and perspective had been materially influenced or altered by reading, say, The Firm. Entertained, yes; changed, no.

Rockwell makes opinionated pronouncements based on his own sensibilities, and that may be appealing as entertainment to some readers but it undermines the value of what he proposes. He writes as though everyone assumes he is an expert, and that's dangerous to assume even for an expert. And there are too many experts in photography who have never had the pretense of being artists.

So, I agree with you. I agree with a lot of what he says, but even if he aspires to be an artist as a photographer he hasn't achieved that as a writer. I've read Ansel Adams's instructional series, and that certainly contains NO pronouncements. Everything was justified and explained and the reader was never asked to take anything on faith just because of Adams's reputation.

Rick "who judges only words, not people, based on writing alone" Denney

[liza]

This article further proves that Ken Rockwell is a monument to idiots everywhere.

[saravrose]

This article further proves that Ken Rockwell is a monument to idiots everywhere.

yep. I just hope there's not too many folks exposed to him, especially those who might take his words to heart.

[DrPablo]

Rick,

Very well said and I completely agree with your take on Rockwell. I only included the rankings as reference to Rockwell's essay, but I wouldn't have included them either a priori.

I would differ in a couple areas, though. First, Ansel Adams was far from innocent when it came to these pronouncements and put-downs (that we're ascribing to Rockwell). Ansel was absolutely no stranger to artistic wars and the consequent rhetoric. You won't read about it in 'The Negative', but you will indeed find it in 'Examples'.

Ansel had outward disdain for those he called 'pictorialists'. He was opposed to sharing the definition of 'photography' with those who used selective focus, or those who composed pictures in order to persuade. He was very dismissive of these photographic endeavors, and even criticized their practicioners (especially William Mortensen) by name. Hence, the manifesto of the f/64 group, which very narrowly defined what he (and his friends) thought was the appropriate aesthetic for photography.

I'd differ from you in one other respect. What makes Dostoyevsky a timeless artist but leaves Grisham an 'entertainer' is not simply that the former moves people but the latter just pleases them. Dostoyevsky made technical advances in both writing and philosophy -- he explored consciousness and put it into words like none previously, he anticipated Freud by delving into the irrational and the self-destructive nature of humans, he challenged social conventions by indicting society and elevating castaways.

A more extreme example is the difference between the relative contemporaries James Joyce and JRR Tolkein. I guarantee that more people have been moved and stirred by Tolkein than by James Joyce. But as wonderful and masterful as is Tolkein's world, it's completely unimportant in the artistic sense. He wrote with themes and styles that Western Europe had been using at least since the time of the Charlamagne, more than 1000 years earlier. His characters, though vivid, are not complex -- they don't change, they don't confront themselves. His world is extremely imaginative, but it's all external -- it's all a vivid fantasy.

On the other hand, James Joyce (and William Faulkner and TS Eliot and Samuel Beckett and others), at the same time as Tolkein, were completely changing the landscape of writing. The technical breakthroughs with consciousness, reflectiveness, and language, were tremendous (and they were unique to the modern age too). Other slightly later contemporaries were Sartre and Camus, exploring existence and how to confront meaninglessness.

When you look at Tolkein in the context of the 20th century, it's hard not to have a sense of irony about it -- the idealized good and evil in Tolkein kind of buckles beneath the self-destructiveness of 100 year span that saw world wars, genocides, a nuclear arms race, and terrorism. It's hard to imagine a world now in which evil can be conquered by throwing a ring into Mt. Doom, because the evil is within us as societies, always spontaneously arising. This is much different than Tolkein's conception, and it's probably the main motivator behind modernist and post-modernist thought -- the irony and extremity of our self-destructiveness.

Like Asimov's writings Tolkein's are the absolute pinnacle of modern imaginative storytelling -- and they were wonderful writers as well -- and that is why they moved people. But they are also more accessible and more external, which is why you can make a movie of 'I, Robot' or 'The Lord of the Rings', but you can't make a movie of 'Finnegan's Wake'. I think the most accomplished artists are explorers of humanity, and they don't merely entertain their audience, they challenge it.

[rdenney]

A more extreme example is the difference between the relative contemporaries James Joyce and JRR Tolkein. I guarantee that more people have been moved and stirred by Tolkein than by James Joyce. But as wonderful and masterful as is Tolkein's world, it's completely unimportant in the artistic sense. He wrote with themes and styles that Western Europe had been using at least since the time of the Charlamagne, more than 1000 years earlier. His characters, though vivid, are not complex -- they don't change, they don't confront themselves. His world is extremely imaginative, but it's all external -- it's all a vivid fantasy.

It seems to me that you are expressing a common position in modern thinking, and that is that innovation has artistic merit in its own right. Few innovators will be remembered into the distant future unless their innovations had real artistic merit, and we should not confuse the two effects. Tolkein's characters change dramatically--some grow, others struggle with their own evil tendencies (sometimes victoriously, and other times not), and still others are consumed by self-doubt until the moment where they sieze the day. What makes Tolkein art is not that he is or isn't innovative, but that some people who read his work love it and are changed by it. That not everyone is so moved just means that art isn't universal, which is really at the root of the problem with making pronouncements. Tolkein may not have moved you, and so your criticism will reflect your own tastes and sensibilities. But his worked moved me and I see as far more than vivid fantasy. But my defiantly pronouncing Tolkein's work art won't persuade you, and it might even insult you because you believe your own position is well-considered. More on that later, but I want to go back to the notion of innovation as art.

If I make a photograph of Yosemite that is the same photo made by dozens of others over the years, then I may lack innovation but that doesn't make my photo unartistic. it just makes it trite. Trite art is still art, and might be accepted as such by those not immersed in the medium as we are. But the postcard that appeals only to the surface color and doesn't make the viewer feel anything that the photographer felt fails in the definition because of how it is received, not because of how it is made. A photograph is artistic if in viewing it, at least some people are moved to feel what the photographer felt, whether that be awe, horror, admiration, a sense of beauty, or whatever. The skill of the photographer is in cutting away all material (by use of technique) that doesn't support the feeling that he or she is trying to convey.

Consider it this way: How artistic did Tolkein have to be in order to create great art in a style that is not innovative? There were thousands of Romantic authors whose work has lapsed into well-deserved obscurity because they lacked that art. The challenge is like asking a composer to make music people will really love, say, in the style of Mozart. The triteness of the style in the moden ear increases the demand on the art, but it can be done. Brahms, for example, was not a great innovator, but his artistic sensibilities have stood the test of time.

And there are many who are revered as being great artists who are merely innovative. Some generations will have to pass before we can see how history records them, but my own feeling is that many of the musical innovators of the post-modern period, such as Cage, Lutoslawski, and so on, will fade while those we deem merely commercial (e.g. John Williams, Bruce Broughton, and Elmer Bernstein) will be remembered and played. Tschaikovsky's ballet music was purely commercial in its day just as movie music is today, but it is still remembered, loved, and played today because it is also great art.

It was C.S. Lewis who first attempted to define art by observing how it was received rather than by how it was intended or executed. He did so because he was tired of reading critical review that was merely critical. He felt that it was the critic's job to open doors rather than close them, especially if closing them is merely an expression of the critic's taste and artistic sensibility. Critique that is merely critical is part of what annoys me about Rockwell's approach.

Yes, Adams was dismissive of the Pictorlalists. It wasn't any particular technique, such as selective focus. Adams himself used selective focus in his portraits. It was the attempt by some pictorialists to express photography in the language of paintings. He opposed those who treated photography as a dodge around the inability to paint, because he thought photography would lose in the comparison to real paintings and needed to stand on its own. That was the purpose behind f/64--to make photographic art in purely photographic terms. The sharp focus and clean tonality was something that made photography a unique medium, and was therefore something to be embraced. It was not mere innovation.

He also opposed the mixing of photography-as-reportage with photography-as-art. He felt that a poor photograph was a poor photograph even if it pictured a momentous event, when evaluated in artistic terms. (He clearly thought the opposite when evaluated in historic terms--his beef was mixing the two.) That was the basis of his opposition to Edward Steichen. It was not reportage per se that he opposed, of course. He was a great fan of many photographers whose most famous works are reportage. He just insisted on evaluating them in artistic rather than historic terms. Paul Strand comes to mind as one who recorded history in an entirely artistic way. Adams's question was: Is it the art that moves the viewer, or the events being portrayed? It is a difficult question to answer even today.

That's not to say that I completely agree with Adams's opinions. But Adams saved the rhetoric for times when opinion was appropriate (such as in Examples when he was explaining his own artistic sensibilities, or in letters he wrote to Beaumont Newhall during the Steichen controversy at MoMA), and avoided them when giving instruction. Even when he disparaged Pictorialism, he explained why and did not treat his own standing as being self-evident, as Rockwell too often does.

Rick "who does not think Rockwell is an idiot even if wrote some idiotic words" Denney

[rdenney]

yep. I just hope there's not too many folks exposed to him, especially those who might take his words to heart.

Sara, I disagree. There is much to be learned from his articles. Don't worry too much about what people read. Some people are so credulous that they can only learn the hard way. There is stuff out there more misleading than Rockwell's by a large margin, and on subjects (unlike photography) that are really important.

But we should not underestimate readers. If we see through his disparagement, what makes us think others won't? We are so accustomed to filtering polemical rhetoric, given that we hear it all day every day, that it is unlikely many will take what he writes at face value. And if they do, the worst that can happen is that their experience teaches them of their error.

I have to say, though, that Rockwell's technical discussions are pretty accurate. Landscape photographers indeed generally use large format, and comparing a very small format such as APS (whether digital or not) to 4x5 will indeed expose much bigger differences than comparing one small-format camera to another. That's not at all the same thing as saying great landscape photography can't be done on small format. It's just a matter of how big a print you want to make, and Rockwell says that, too. He also says that the small differences we see at maximum magnification make little difference in the real world, and that's a hard position to refute on the evidence. And he says it's more important to select the right aperture than to select the right lens. That's pretty hard to refute, too. He reminds us that sharpness is not something you buy but rather a product of technique, and I recall saying much the same thing independently in another thread just this week.

Okay, so in the end he ranks us in a way that disparages many of us. It gets us all thinking about why we do what we do, and that's a useful result, even (or perhaps especially) if we disagree with him.

Rick "who judges words not people" Denney

[DrPablo]

Rick,

The undefinability of art makes this an impossible subject to resolve. There's paradox even within individual artists. Romeo and Juliet is just as grand in popular imagination as Hamlet, but Hamlet is far more profound in terms of ideas, expressiveness, and psychological depth; Romeo and Juliet is very cartoonish by comparison.

But overall I think historical legacy favors the innovator. Haydn was far more popular, productive, famous, and wealthy than his younger contemporary Mozart. But Mozart was the greater innovator and craftsman, and while Haydn is by no means forgotten he certainly isn't regarded as an equal of Mozart's. As for John Williams I haven't heard any non film music of his, but he's extraordinarily effective as a composer of music for films. I mean imagine Star Wars without his music. And yet his echoes of Wagner and Korngold are incredibly strong -- and they diminish his importance in the historical context of classical music. Just as would be the case if a modern composer could compose magnificent music in the style of Renaissance polyphony. John Taverner is kind of like that, though there is a minimalist, modern angle to him.

But this is where, perhaps, aesthetic sensibilities begin to conflict with innovation. Ask any music scholar who is the greater modern composer -- Arnold Schoenberg or John Williams -- and the answer will be Schoenberg with near unanimity. But that doesn't mean he's pleasing to listen to.

That doesn't necessarily make John Williams trite. But his legacy (as will be Tolkein's) will be as a supremely gifted entertainer rather than an immortal in the history of his art.

And I am stirred by Tolkein -- his writing is extremely powerful and evocative. But take a day to read 'Notes from Underground' or a week (month?) to read 'The Brothers Karamazov' if you want to see tortured, complex human beings who struggle with the conflicts that inhere in human consciousness. The changes undergone by Gollum, by Aragorn, by Frodo, are no more complex than Anakin being seduced by the Dark Side. They're for the most part 'type' characters, and while a single character can have more than one 'type' (like Gandalf being at turns the powerful wizard and the wise gentle companion) that is not quite tantamount to the tortured self-destructiveness of the Underground Man.

I don't necessarily think it's important to be an innovator. It's not important for me (in photography -- in my career that's a whole different story). But that's why at best I'll reach the 'amateur' rank on the Rockwell scale. I'm not interested in pushing the boundaries of any artistic medium -- I just want to become technically skilled and have something nice to hang on my walls.

[rdenney]

But overall I think historical legacy favors the innovator. Haydn was far more popular, productive, famous, and wealthy than his younger contemporary Mozart....

Ask any music scholar who is the greater modern composer -- Arnold Schoenberg or John Williams -- and the answer will be Schoenberg with near unanimity. But that doesn't mean he's pleasing to listen to....

That doesn't necessarily make John Williams trite. But his legacy (as will be Tolkein's) will be as a supremely gifted entertainer rather than an immortal in the history of his art....

...if you want to see tortured, complex human beings who struggle with the conflicts that inhere in human consciousness....

I always wondered why people expect artists to be neurotic. Personally, I don't. One of my favorite composers is Ralph Vaughan Williams, who seemed to be cheerful and agreeable who displayed at most the occasional tantrum just for effect (and amusement). Yet I don't think you could listen to his 4th Symphony (or even his 3rd) and think him simple or uncomplex as a result. Innovator? Perhaps not, though all his music, despite it's wide range of emotion, is undeniably his, so he brought something to it nobody else did.

Likewise, when I hear a John Williams score, I can usually guess that John Williams composed it. He does have his unique point of view, even if I do hear smatterings of Holst (far more than Korngold).

You seem to favor art that involves lots of internal turmoil, but that's a matter of taste, don't you think? I sometimes prefer art that is calm and pastoral, or that even shows people being simply happy rather than tortured. In fact, I usually don't want to see tortured complexity. I prefer clarity. Is V.S. Naipaul an artist as an author? I surely hope so. Yet his work is like crystal--so clear you can't see the hand of the author at all.

I nearly used Haydn as an example of a true artist who was not an innovator in support of my point, heh, heh. Just because he didn't innovate doesn't mean he didn't produce art, even good art. That Mozart is more popular in memory is clearly a matter of the quality of the music itself, not the fact that Mozart was the innovator and Haydn not. I doubt that a large percentage of the people who have heard both and have an opinion even realize that Mozart was the innovator of the two. And it wouldn't surprise me that Haydn would be more popular had their being an Oscar-winning movie made about him.

That reinforces my point that innovation isn't the primary judge of art. The primary judge of art is how it affects people (not how many people are affected). I'll give you this much: Being innovative may be a side effect of someone with powerful and singular artistic vision, and that vision will embue their art with merit if their technique is at all up to the challenge. It's not the innovation that gives it power, but the vision. The innovation may be a marker rather than a maker.

I absolutely do not understand why art cannot or should not be entertaining, nor do I believe that "real" artists don't care whether their art entertains. I know many artists, and not one of them is impervious to booing. But I agree that something can be entertaining without being particularly artistic. That music scholars (of which I should include myself, I suppose, at least as an advanced amateur) should prefer Schoenberg over John Williams is more a statement about the modern music establishment than the quality of the art. Give it another 100 years. Right now, music scholars are pretty much the only people left who know Schoenberg by more than just name.

But some future music critic will happen upon Schoenberg's work, and will write an article talking about how the music moved him. That will open doors rather than close them. A description of his role as the innovator of 12-tone serial music will probably just be ignored outside a music theory class.

The ability to market one's art seems to be a separate and disconnected skill from the ability to produce it. Some artists have it and some don't. Frank Lloyd Wright produced architectural art of the highest order and yet was a consummate salesman. Nothing he designed could reach the three-dimensional world without someone else paying for it, and architecture on paper is worth no more than muscial notes on a page and never performed. Beethoven was a skilled marketer. Mozart was a fool with his money. Ansel Adams was a commercial photographer, and kept a clear distinction between "assignments from without" and "assignments from within", but it's not so easy to see that distinction in his work. Look at Fiat Lux, which was done on commercial commission, to see what I mean. Wagner was a powerful personality while Bruckner was quite meek, yet they both displayed tremendous power in their music. Other examples abound.

Rick "who thinks many innovators fizzle because of the weakness of their artistic vision" Denney

[rdenney]

...Some people are just thin-skinned. You guys probably don't want to listen to Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken, either). I'll take colorful and opinionated over boring and even-handed every day ;)

Agreeing with the message makes the style of delivery a lot easier to take. I enjoy listening to Rush Limbaugh and abhor listening to Al Franken, but if I had the opposite viewpoint, it would probably be the other way around. I agree with much of Ken Rockwell's message but I understand how it would offend others. I'm entertained by learning something new, not by hearing opinions as unsubstantiated pronouncements. The stuff he writes that he substantiates is worthy reading, and I agree with many of his conclusions. Polemics and instruction are rarely compatible.

Rick "who, in part, teaches for a living" Denney

[DocFrankenstein]

I beleive his writing style to be an obvious hyperbole never indended to be taken literally.

My main problem is not liking his images. Either I am not advanced enough artistically to appreciate them or he is lacking in delivering