Andy you are absolutely right. I learned as much from assisting Irvine Penn, Joyce Tenneson, Ryzard Horowitz and Arnold Newman as I probably did in school. Of course I probably Learned More from Allan Vogel then I did from anyone else. Now I realize they all have decades of experience but they all did one thing more. I will say this though reading a book is the slow train. One of the most important aspects or learning is asking questions. This was the foundation of the Univ. of Paris and all the first Universities. There where no classes just people who has succeeded passing on knowledge in lectures. Where would Michael Angelo have been without Ghirlandaio Davinci without Verrocchio. Michael could have stayed painting copies of the great works on his own and might have been a masterful painter. Without Ghirlandaio the most noted Frescoist of his time in Italy we probably wouldn't have the some of the most famous paintings on earth being done by Michelangelo. As he would have never been sent to study then at Humanist academy under the other great artist.
All the great artist (including photographers) have one thing very much in common. They studied art. That doesn't mean in a school per say. But it does mean they did more then read a book. It is however much simplier to descirbe what makes human vision happy by pointing to the research done by others to describe how the majority of humans look at a scene. Discounting that is like discounting the works in other field like say Einstein in Physics. The brain works the way the brain works. You either work with that to make it a happy brain visually or you with the knowledge of how it works do things that fight against that. The adage of knowing the rules to break the rules applies. As an artist of any kind your are trying to make the viewer look at what you want them to look at. No? So if you don't at least of an innate understanding of why things work you are going to fail. I don't even think that means making pretty pictures that are pleasing. I love to make some disturbing visual works. Probably based on my liking Charles Ives. I know what I am doing though and I am doing it on purpose. Now true editorial documentary work has it caveats as you work in an uncontrolled environment but the basic composition usually still exist. ie this shot from Vietnam. http://also.kottke.org/misc/images/vietnam-war-02.jpg
or this shot from Dday. http://www.alistairscott.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/robert_capa_dday.jpg
Both magically follow the basic rules of composition (of which visual hierarchy is ONE or several)
Now I would bet no one can't pick 10 images from this that don't follow the basic rules of composition. I would guess that Jack was influenced by this artist.
http://tinyurl.com/ns67eqg Every shot that we see is properly composed some he sat for hours waiting for the shot to happen.
All the great artist (including photographers) have one thing very much in common. They studied art. That doesn't mean in a school per say. But it does mean they did more then read a book. It is however much simplier to descirbe what makes human vision happy by pointing to the research done by others to describe how the majority of humans look at a scene. Discounting that is like discounting the works in other field like say Einstein in Physics. The brain works the way the brain works. You either work with that to make it a happy brain visually or you with the knowledge of how it works do things that fight against that. The adage of knowing the rules to break the rules applies. As an artist of any kind your are trying to make the viewer look at what you want them to look at. No? So if you don't at least of an innate understanding of why things work you are going to fail. I don't even think that means making pretty pictures that are pleasing. I love to make some disturbing visual works. Probably based on my liking Charles Ives. I know what I am doing though and I am doing it on purpose. Now true editorial documentary work has it caveats as you work in an uncontrolled environment but the basic composition usually still exist. ie this shot from Vietnam. http://also.kottke.org/misc/images/vietnam-war-02.jpg
or this shot from Dday. http://www.alistairscott.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/robert_capa_dday.jpg
Both magically follow the basic rules of composition (of which visual hierarchy is ONE or several)
Now I would bet no one can't pick 10 images from this that don't follow the basic rules of composition. I would guess that Jack was influenced by this artist.
http://tinyurl.com/ns67eqg Every shot that we see is properly composed some he sat for hours waiting for the shot to happen.
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Lea Murphy <lea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I had the opportunity this weekend to photograph a young lady's senior portraits. Her German exchange student house guest came along. The German girl, Lina, was very interested in photography and curious to know about all I was doing during the session….lighting, lens, f/stop, framing, etc.As I was packing up gear at the end of the session Lina asked where I learned to photograph, what school I had gone to. When I told her I learned it all through reading photography magazines and books she was completely shocked. She said, "NO school?" I said, "No school."My own experience has proven that deep passion combined with diligence, the ability to read combined with access to quality materials allows a person to do many, many things. I started photography when I was eleven years old and knew I was hooked for life by the time I was fifteen. My parents encouraged and supported me so very much in those early years with magazine subscriptions and book purchases, film and camera gifts that to this day warm my heart to think about.I frequently wonder how different it would have been for me had the internet existed back then when I was really working to get photography figured out (late 70s- early 80s)…the ready access to information could have lowered my learning curve greatly. Or it could have completely overwhelmed me to the point of being unable to focus and absorb.The beauty of my life now is that when I find a particular subject I'm interested in I take a class which is usually a very targeted intensive…I've done a master black and white printing class in Santa Fe with George DeWolfe, a studio lighting class with Marc Hauser, a One Light flash class with Zack Arias, and a life photography passion class (this class was so impressive it can't be pigeonholed into a category) in Santa Fe with Keith Carter. Each of them continue to impact my work on an ongoing basis.Leawww.leamurphy.com
your kids . my camera . we'll click
On Sep 10, 2013, at 9:33 AM, Andrew Davidhazy wrote:May I mention that some (maybe most) of the greatest and most successful photographers never took a course on photography in their lives. Formal education is not a prerequisite for effective photography I think. I can't think of what IS required but passion is probably a part of it. But I really don't know. Communication with others is probably another another. Being interested in others, being curious and flexible and open to learning from them or from mistakes are maybe others. Classroom learning is not useless and in fact sometimes is probably useful but it is not essential IMO. But as I say I am no expert on this and am just giving my opinion FWIW.
Andy
