Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
I get what you are saying, but the way I see it, the amount of technique one needs to learn in order to get started with expressing concepts with the camera is minimal; much, much, much more minimal than almost any other artistic medium, IMO. The basic techniques take about a day to explain to a group of students (composing, how shutter speeds and apertures affect the picture, exposure, how light meters work and how to use them, focusing, depth of field). Then it is just a little practice, and you can start expressing concepts visually. The great (and terrible) thing about photography is that you can do a whole lot with it if you have just a little bit of very basic information.

So, I think there is an initial technical hurdle that takes just a little bit of understanding and practice, but after that, most of the visual vocabulary is complete, and there are just bits and pieces to learn as you go on practicing.

I believe "artistry" is mainly something that is a characteristic of a person, and has little to do with medium or technique. These things simply hone and focus ones artistry. I don't think that you can become an artist just because you start using a medium that is used for making art.
I think you are right. It takes less to get "started" of course there is mountains to learn about the equipment.
I have met guitar players that really don't care much about the "gear". They will have a preference, say a Fender over a Gibson but beyond that they just want to play and they will rock you back on your heels. Other players want to know every thing they can, theoretical as well as pratical some care really play and some are just gear guys. I think to your point 2F/2F, the artistry comes from the person obviously and not the gear. When I first started I thought that photography was more about learning to use the camera, lights, film and then you would be good but like everything else artistic, it comes from the inside of the person behind the camera. We can be gear chasers, but still not be a photographer. From another thread here I discovered Ralph Gibson and really like his work. According to what I read he only used a Leica and primes and it seems mostly available light so his gear and set up were not overly complicated but what results!
I am afraid that I have gained a fair amount of technical knowledge but lack the real vision that I want? Is that the way many of you feel as well?