I'm short-circuiting part of another thread (http://www.apug.org/site/main/viewto...602&highlight=) because it's strayed quite far from its initial charter.
Photography inherently operates in two conceptual arenas -- those of the viewer and the photographer. The photographer sees something (in his viewfinder or imagination) that leads to the creation or recognition of the photo before presentation, the viewer only sees the photo. Both pairs of eyes are involved. But the photographer must also somehow MAKE the photo -- must set his or her hand to the task.
The viewer rarely sees the hand of the photographer, so it's often a forgotten aspect. But I think it was Winogrand who once said something like "without the eye, there are no good photographs. But without the hand there are no photographs."
In the previous thread, it's been asserted that there have been great photographers whose mastery of technique -- the process of picture making -- was on minor importance in their work. This has been challenged (rightly, imo) by Michael Smith and some others. Requests for examples of such photographers have not been forthcoming, and I personally don't think they will be, It seems so simple to me: if you lack the ability to make photographs to some standard level (you may have a personal definition of this, but you need to control your process to some extent), then you simply won't make photographs.
- - - - - -
For the sake of illustration, the best example of "anti-technical" I can think of right now is probably Nikki S. Lee (one dealer URL here: http://www.tonkonow.com/lee.html). Lee doesn't take her photos, they're snapped by passerby using point & shoots. Or in the case of "the yuppie project," by a hired portraitist (in a manner similar to Parr's "Autoportraits"). Yet ask yourself -- could these images have been made another way with the same impact? Would they have been made this way, with such obvious care and deliberation, without a very keen and specific knowledge about the feel that such snaps have, and a specific technical notion about how to acheive the correct desired look?
Even as they seem on the surface to reject technical considerations, they are in fact the product of a very specific technical agenda. Lee may not be a great printer, maybe she never touched an SLR (unlikely, given her NYU and FIT photography degrees), but she had a very specific notion about how to technically acheive those particular images, and the subtle signifiers of vernacular photography that they would carry. As an example of "untechnique," Lee fails. Instead her work is technically precise and formal, hewing close to a very specific genre who technical considerations are narrowly defined.
Any other better examples?