Originally Posted by Susan Sontag in "Regarding the Pain of Others"
Photography is the only major art in which professional training and years of experience do not confer an insuperable advantage over the untrained and unexperienced - this for many reasons, among them the large role that chance (or luck) plays in the taking of pictures, and the bias toward the spontaneous, the rough, the imperfect.
What do people think? Is this the prophecy that announced flickr?
was forced to read "on photography" at college. I thought it was complete gibberish which didn't go down well with the tutors. Funny thing was that she changed her mind on a lot of its content later. i.e. she exercised her perogative, or to put it another way she will say what ever ever comes into her head at the time.
Take whatever she says with a pinch of salt and remember the saying that "the harder I work, the luckier I get". Now who said that.
Luck plays a role, certainly, but experience allows you to make you're own luck to some extent. I don't agree with her statement that "Photography is the only major art in which professional training and years of experience do not confer an insuperable advantage...".
For, example, the highly regarded "primitive" artists who's work sells for 10's of thousands.
Barry
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.)
First on Susan Sontag: She wrote 'On Photography' after a miserable affair with Richard Avedon. I believe to book was her way of winning all the arguments she lost to Richard. Second, her change of heart came when she finally had a successful relationship with another photographer - Annie Leibovitz. So her view of photography was strongly based on her emotions, not intellect.
Regarding luck. I've always mused that the difference between a good amateur photographer and a professional is that the professional knows WHEN to be lucky. Luck favors a prepared mind, as my buddy Steve Uzzell always says. http://www.steveuzzell.com/photo.html
__________________
When I grow up, I want to be a photographer.
"The harder I work, the luckier I get." Luck in photography is preparation meeting opportunity. If you know how to handle your camera and are in the correct spot at the right time, then you can get "lucky". I think applies more to news photography than art photography.
That being said, the advances in automation in the photographic process add favor to the amateur. Seventy or eighty years ago photography was the province of a few. Now, with automatic cameras and those "image recording devices" which are now incorporated into all sorts of electronic devices we have the opportunity to see a lot more photos. Just by the law of averages, some can approach art.
__________________
"Omnia Lumen Decem Partes Divisa Est"
Stop by the newly designed website have fun with the photographic critique generator. 04/23/2008
Luck can play a part, but then again there's the saying," chance favors the prepared mind". I think you can increase your frequency of being lucky by planning and preparation. Also while someone may have one or two great shots due to luck, one can get a far better read on the ability of a photographer by viewing that person's body of work. A few great shots is luck, a large portfolio of great work is skill and talent.
Idiotic, but I do accept that luck can be a part of the process on a very, very small percentage basis. Being at the right spot at the right time can be lucky, but "professional training and years of experience" can make all the difference in the world in taking advantage of that situation and coming away with something very artful.
__________________
"Photography is an illusion. It is amazing that human beings consider a photograph to be a representation of reality."
---John Sexton
How big a part does luck play in photography? 
Linear Mode
