ok I'm curious about other peoples thoughts on image creation. Are we as photographers born with the inherent ability to see what would and would not make a good image? or is the art of photographic sight, composition and creation something everyone can be taught as they grow?
Most people don't really use their eyes, save from avoiding physical obstacles some times. Visual artists may use them more, but often they turn to look into themselves more than the outside world. Photographers become obsessed with seen, because it is the physical world that will manifest into their artwork, even if it is an internal creation. A good photographer should become a baby again: see things like for the first time, curiosity and discovery become most important, they are fascinated by every little detail, every little thing and every grand scene and they should feel the desire to capture and keep everything.
__________________
aristotelis grammatikakis www.arigram.gr black & white film is sexy
No some people can't be taught. I once employed someone who thought he'd become a professional photographer, he was hopeless. In fact he did become a full time photographer and worked for car (auto) classifieds newspaper, initially shooting Polaroid snaps of cars for sale before the company went digital.
If you have some ability to see a picture then of course you can learn or be taught to improve.
"Good" photography is as much perceptual as it is social. I have learned a lot by picking up photography books and making an effort to "read" them. Understanding a picture is not innate. You have to know how to look at an image, and what to look for. That's just the comprehension competence. To be able to actually produce something worth its interpretative salt is an even tougher skill to develop.
But the thing you have to bear in mind is that while everyone CAN learn it, not everyone WILL do so successfully. That's where the proverbial line between nature and nurture has to be thrown away and stamped upon violently. There are many reasons why some people achieve greater vision than others, while many others hit a wall, and circumstances play as much a role as fundamental cognitive abilities.
So there is hope: everyone can grow artistically. Just not to the same level.
I can't say it's genetic, but I do believe that folks who take an interest in photography develop a keener sense of visual detail and learn to 'see things within things.' By that I mean people who casually take pictures see a "pretty" scene whereas someone more practiced will see a small corner or detail that makes a far better picture than the whole.
__________________
WYSIWYG - At least that's my goal.
I had a student once who struggled with getting the print right. One day, he came and showed me a print of which he was justly quite proud. It was a portrait of a smooth - headed bald guy, at night, in a parking lot. He was SO HAPPY with this print, and so was I because I knew how hard he had worked to achieve that level of understanding.
So I said, "That's great! The skin tone is perfect! In fact, it is so perfect that it matches precisely the value of that brushed aluminum lamp-post that is extending his head right out the top of the frame."
I DIDN'T SEE THAT!!! he said. In fact, the lamp-post appeared to be the same width as the head, exactly aligned with the head, precisely the same value and apparent texture! It was like the guy's head just kept going up until it went out of the picture. I wish I had a copy of this to show. It was amazing.
Another student photographed a deer. You know, right in the middle. Since it has been on my flickr site for a long time, and she's not objected, here it is. Bull's Eye!
The guy who runs my isp saw this, and he said "If you hit that deer right there with a bullet, it would take out it's internal organs and it would drop dead on the spot!"
Think about this. Our species didn't always have cameras, and while drawing and painting are old media, the qualities of abstract vision are a sort of an extra feature that humans can have, but don't really need. How 'bout this: Two bushmen are standing looking at a wildebeest in the wild. One says to the other "I think that would look a lot better if the wildebeest would move about four feet to the left".
We don't NEED abstract vision to survive. We need the ability to isolate from context so we can shoot things, and thus acquire something to eat. The ability to impose a frame on what's out there, to order space, is not something that came with the package but something that has evolved with us. As far as seeing and appreciating beauty, who knows? How would we know whether, once having shot and killed the wildebeest, the bushman would appreciate the light that illuminates the fur.
It is a good and open, question whether 1) we are born with this ability to actually notice things, to appreciate beauty and organize space. Perhaps this atrophies in most people as we are socialized and don't use it since our societies generally assign no value to it. OR 2) those of us who have these qualities or even value them in others arrive at that through processes of learning be it through training or accidental life exposures. Or, maybe I'm forgetting something; could there be other possibilities?
When we are babies (well, once our vision has settled), and for a short time after that, we can see. And we do. We examine everything. As time goes by we see less and less, until finally, we hardly see anything. We think we see, but really all we are is conditioned to is remember things, triggered cues from our eyes. When something, such as photography, helps us see again, that is a good thing.
__________________
--J Brunner, The Prints of Darkness
Rickety Speed Graphic with some old projection lens/Wiggly 2D with a stripped gear/ 1955 Exakta with pin holes in the shutter/ Holga/ Really nice Crown G I got from Brad.
As a teacher, I like the idea that anybody can be taught anything. It just takes time, though, and possibly hard work. Barring fundamental disability, I do like the idea that anybody can do anything, that it's just a matter of dedication. This is every teacher's faith. We must repeat it to ourselves quite frequently until we believe it
However.... (!) as someone who like to try to find new things to photograph and new ways to do that, I also sort've like the notion that maybe I see things that others don't. And I certainly see students who find the technical stuff trivial. It is amusing to watch them progress more rapidly than their colleagues and wonder how they do it. More often than not I conclude that it is all a matter of enjoying the learning process.
But on the topic of "gifted" photography: it seems to me that we only know who the gifted photographers were/are because they were/are able to sell prints!
That means that in addition to being able to see, these photographers are also able to communicate in a not-too-lofty language that a fair quantity of viewers can appreciate.
As a teacher, I like the idea that anybody can be taught anything. It just takes time, though, and possibly hard work. Barring fundamental disability, I do like the idea that anybody can do anything, that it's just a matter of dedication. This is every teacher's faith. We must repeat it to ourselves quite frequently until we believe it
.... It is amusing to watch them progress more rapidly than their colleagues and wonder how they do it. More often than not I conclude that it is all a matter of enjoying the learning process.
But on the topic of "gifted" photography: it seems to me that we only know who the gifted photographers were/are because they were/are able to sell prints! ...
Perhaps anybody could do anything (within some realistic limits, whatever those might be). I've more often than not found that most people resist learning very strenuously unless their interest overcomes that resistance!
Those who love learning and really get interested will stop at nothing. I can't even go home. Getting them to stop working is almost impossible.
Gifted...a sad story about a friend. Possibly the most amazing and wonderful photographer I ever knew died a chronic acute alcoholic. He never showed his work. Never. At his memorial, a letter concerning him from Peter Bunnell, scholar and currently the photo curator at the Museum of Modern Art, was read. The point here is that not all gifts become visible to the public at large, even if they are genuine. As far as public recognition is concerned, it rarely happens for those who can't get out and promote themselves for any reason.
Do we learn to see? 
Linear Mode
