Jorge, I respect your point of view, but I am forced to disagree.Originally Posted by juan
I think the really significant art DOES, in fact, come from a "rule-less" atmosphere=- "Anarchy", if you will. Not a situation where one carefully considers the "rules" and consciously decides to deviate from them, but from a clear, blank sheet of paper.
Three instances come to mind:
Gordon Parks - whose first experience with photography consisted of buying a second-hand camera loaded with film, photographing a few images - and then returning the camera to the shop where he bought it, because he did not know how to unload the film himself. Not even close to any pre-conceived "rules".
The camera shop owner unloaded, developed and printed the film - and invited Gordon to have his own show in a gallery associated with the shop.
Then - Linda Eastman (later, Linda McCartney - married to Paul, of the Beatles).
She attended an Extension Course class in photography, taught by a "great light", Anne Archer. After the first session, she, and the class, had an assignment - take some photographs and bring them to the next class. She borrowed a camera, photographed, and had the film processed at the local one-hour lab. When Archer saw these, she said, "There is nothing more I can teach you. You have the `eye'."
Linda went on to be a world recognized photographer ... with, as far as I know, no additional "training" ... and no more "rule deviation" than her first assignment examples.
Then - there was Jackson Pollock ... who first gained recognition by slopping paint from a carelessly opened paint can onto a canvas...
And on the other side of the coin ... I've been trying to think of examples where the artist was educated to the teeth in Photography and/ or art ... and became really significant. Not easy.
Hmmm ... Adams? - No, his education was in Music....