"WHAT NOT TO DO" - thoughts in photography

Snapshot is a pejorative term with no real meaning.

I create images, my friends take photographs and you take snapshots. Simple.

JeffreyG wrote in post #9406173
Snapshot is a pejorative term with no real meaning.

I create images, my friends take photographs and you take snapshots. Simple.

I make art, ****! It's just not expensive because I'm not dead yet.

cdifoto wrote in post #9406178
I make art, ****! It's just not expensive because I'm not dead yet.

Try cutting off an ear and dying in a mental institution.

JeffreyG wrote in post #9406184
Try cutting off an ear and dying in a mental institution.

Nah. Chicks dig scars but they don't dig missing body parts.

chauncey wrote in post #9404262
Gotta agree with CD here...you cannot teach someone to be creative, but you can teach them to take a good exposure, which is a good start.

If you weren't born with a right sided brain dominance, you will not be creative, regardless of what branch of the arts that you choose to pursue.
Training can enhance your position on that Bell Curve of creativity, but it won't move you from one side to the other.
You can puruse and memorize and copy the works of the great artists, even to the point of putting your tripod in their holes, but is that creating, not IMHO.

But then I remember have this discussion before.

I don't understand why so many hold the position that you can't teach creativity. You are basically crapping on anyone who has gone to art school or majored in art in college.

Every child is born an artist. I've never met a child that doesn't like to draw with crayons or markers, or passes up a chance to play with clay.

I think what you might be thinking is that the aim of 'teaching creativity' would be something akin to learning something technical. Like: "ok, creativity 101...step 1 do this, step 2 do that, we do step two this way because of this reason...etc."

Learning creativity or maybe better put is 'learning a medium' can involve a lot of things. You do step into the shoes of other artist and allow them to sit on your shoulders. You don't mimic their work to pass it off as your work, but you seek to internalize their structure of understanding. You learn about the creative process. You get constant feedback from peers and professors who each have a unique perspective. You study the liberal arts to give you more 'stuff' to work with in your art and to deepen your understanding of the world. You learn design principals that can be broken but give you a framework of understanding the relationships of elements on a page. You study others to see where the art has gone before so you don't end up reinventing the wheel. You learn how to see. That is a big one. Especially with a 2D medium like photography. You learn how to see the 3D world in a different way. You learn how to communicate about art. Rather than looking at something and say: I like it, it is pretty. You can actually build a fluency in how to talk about art and from that you can communicate with others and learn at a deeper level about other art.

Go to an artist talk, when someone exposes their process, their intent, and their influences, you start to internalize their understanding.

kkamin wrote in post #9406204
I don't understand why so many hold the position that you can't teach creativity. You are basically crapping on anyone who has gone to art school or majored in art in college.

Only the ones who wasted their time and parents' money.

kkamin wrote in post #9406204
I don't understand why so many hold the position that you can't teach creativity. You are basically crapping on anyone who has gone to art school or majored in art in college.

People don't go to art school to learn how to be creative. People go to art school to learn the technical aspects of their craft which will, in turn, give them more tools with which to express their creativity.

kkamin wrote in post #9406204
I don't understand why so many hold the position that you can't teach creativity. You are basically crapping on anyone who has gone to art school or majored in art in college.

Art students don't go to school to learn how to be creative. They go there to learn the technical skills needed to put their ideas in a concrete form, work in industry, or both.

toxic wrote in post #9406705
Art students don't go to school to learn how to be creative. They go there to learn the technical skills needed to put their ideas in a concrete form, work in industry, or both.

Did you go to art school?

If art school was what you stated above it would be a tech school. You can learn art at tech schools and they tend to be poor on developing the conceptual side of the medium.

I went to art school for seven years, and I will tell you the technical side was the least emphasized aspect of the cirriculum. There is a reason they call it a Bachelor's of Fine Arts. Or a Master's of Fine Arts. The emphasis is on developing the conceptual sides of the students. The technical side is important but most get it fairly quickly in a school. The hard part is creating work that anyone would care about.

kkamin wrote in post #9406951
Did you go to art school?

If art school was what you stated above it would be a tech school. You can learn art at tech schools and they tend to be poor on developing the conceptual side of the medium.

I went to art school for seven years, and I will tell you the technical side was the least emphasized aspect of the cirriculum. There is a reason they call it a Bachelor's of Fine Arts. Or a Master's of Fine Arts. The emphasis is on developing the conceptual sides of the students. The technical side is important but most get it fairly quickly in a school. The hard part is work that anyone would care about.

I have a close friend who attends art school. I was very involved when they were choosing schools and I am still very aware of what's going on.

Some schools focus on preparing you for industry, others focus on helping you develop your individual work. As you said, they will teach you concepts and ways to communicate. None of them teach you how to be creative.

toxic wrote in post #9406705
Art students don't go to school to learn how to be creative. They go there to learn the technical skills needed to put their ideas in a concrete form, work in industry, or both.

If that was the case, art school would be 6-months long and basically a long workshop. If you haven't gone to art school, I don't see why you are commenting. Go to any art school's BFA course description and you will see the focus is on building the conceptual side. It's was an amazing experience for me. It's not as instantly gratifying as learning how to do something technical. It's more of a slow growth process of expanding your ideas and visions through constant producing, critiques, studying masters, learning how to see, etc.

I doubt we would be having this debate if the forum was a painter's forum. There seems to be a overwhelming dismissal of the conceptual side of photography; much like when photography was first invented and merely seen as a recording device without artist merit.

Where are all the art photographers on the internet? I feel like I'm swamped with people who feel the camera is a hammer and a nail, but in reality it is closer to a paint brush--no matter what type of photography you do.

The conceptual side has nothing to do with how to be creative. A teacher can teach you what the concepts are, what meanings it might evoke, etc. No one can teach you how to put all of them together in an original way.

toxic wrote in post #9407058
I have a close friend who attends art school. I was very involved when they were choosing schools and I am still very aware of what's going on.

Some schools focus on preparing you for industry, others focus on helping you develop your individual work. As you said, they will teach you concepts and ways to communicate. None of them teach you how to be creative.

I'm pretty sure your friend is going to leave the school better at their primary medium with expanded ideas and an understanding of it.

It's just like learning the technical side of photography. You can't really start to create until you are in control of your tool. Then the conceptual development works much in the same way. The more you work in your medium, understand what has been done, see where other have gone, get insightful feedback on your work, view others triumphs and failures, learn about yourself...I feel this all leads to expanded creative power and enables you to view the medium from with a broader scope. Creativity also comes from limitations, otherwise it is like playing tennis without a net. I forgot who said that.

toxic wrote in post #9407142
The conceptual side has nothing to do with how to be creative. A teacher can teach you what the concepts are, what meanings it might evoke, etc. No one can teach you how to put all of them together in an original way.

Learning how to be more creative or expanding your creativity through creation, study, critiques, observing masters, professors, peers, life experience, and delving into the "why", helps develop a students conceptual side.

This is what a BFA is man. It's 90% conceptual development in the student. It's pushing the student to push their boundaries of ideation and conceptualization.
You learn tech stuff in the first few classes. And continue to work on tech stuff but it takes a back seat to the art that you produce.

toxic wrote in post #9407058
None of them teach you how to be creative.

They teach you to be more creative. It's the same thing. No one starts at a zero level of creativity and needs to learn how, as human being we are innately creative creatures and have a drive to create things. Dude in the garage building a bird feeder or suburban mom doing paper crafts. People doodle on scratch pads when on hold on the phone. We tell each other stories and need to construct them using the artistic structure of story telling, whether we realize it or not. It is impossible to teach someone how to be creative because we already are. But you can teach people how to be more creative by exposing them to new processes and ideas.