# You either have it or you don't - the eye



## runnah (Apr 22, 2013)

Can you teach or learn the creative "eye" or is it something that people either have or do not. 

I think you cannot. I've seen people who can pick up a camera for the first time and produce amazing images just because they have an natural ability to "see" good composition. On the other hand I've seen people who have been through dozens of classes and they still can't seem to get it.


----------



## Overread (Apr 22, 2013)

Yes you can learn it and yes it can be taught and yes some people will have more natural talent than others. The thing is not everyone can learn the same way and not everyone "clicks" with learning at the same time. Some people can't learn from a book, no matter how many they might read; others can sit in class after class but will only really learn when one instructor uses a certain kind of language and teaching method that really clicks with how they think.


----------



## runnah (Apr 22, 2013)

Overread said:


> Yes you can learn it and yes it can be taught and yes some people will have more natural talent than others. The thing is not everyone can learn the same way and not everyone "clicks" with learning at the same time. Some people can't learn from a book, no matter how many they might read; others can sit in class after class but will only really learn when one instructor uses a certain kind of language and teaching method that really clicks with how they think.



But I would argue that those who have to learn it are not as good as those with natural ability.


----------



## o hey tyler (Apr 22, 2013)

I'm going to have to say funny fourth option. It speaks to me.


----------



## Pukka312 (Apr 22, 2013)

I always said it would be easier to find someone with natural creativity and no technical knowledge of working a camera vs someone who can operate a camera but can't compose a creative shot. You can teach how to operate a camera, and can teach composition, but it's a lot more difficult to teach someone to think outside the box. They can mimic and copy, but to truly have some originality, I think you have to have some natural creativity. 

Creativity is also probably loosely assigned, since most ideas are inspired by something...though maybe if you started teaching creativity at a young age... I know my dad tried to teach my sister that way, telling her at 5 years old to maybe color everything "outside the lines" when the teacher asked her to color a picture.


----------



## amolitor (Apr 22, 2013)

Like everything else, it's a spectrum.


----------



## sm4him (Apr 22, 2013)

I'd have to go with: To a degree.

I like Picasso's statement that every child is an artist; the trick is *staying* an artist when you grow up. I really do believe that we ALL have at least some of the curiosity and wonder that spawns creativity when we are children.

I'm not sure it's really so much a matter of teaching the "creative eye" as it is a matter of helping people learn to release the creative vision and curiosity that is already there and has just been buried under layers of practicality.

BUT--I also believe that we are all different. My youngest son is an artist; he always has been. He just innately SEES creatively and--and to me, this is really an important aspect--he THRIVES on that.  My oldest son--he's a rocket scientist (and on his way to literally being one). He can be creative; he's got some pretty decent art talent himself and sometimes he dabbles in it. But it doesn't make him "more alive" the way it does my youngest son. My eldest--he THINKS in math equations.  He's just got that kind of view of life--it all breaks down to math and science. If he really got into photography, he'd be one of those who could tell you all about why and how f-stops work and he'd have the DOF calculator automatically in his head. And, if he worked at it, he could CREATE some pretty cool, creative stuff. But it would just be a fun thing to do; it wouldn't feed his soul the way it does mine, or my youngest son's.

I'd also add that it's easier to "teach" a more logical, scientific/math-minded person to "see" good composition, than it is, sometimes, to teach a really creative person with a good "eye" all the technical stuff needed to pull off their vision. My sister is a case in point--she's got a great eye, but despite classes and help from me, she still struggles to even get the basics of the exposure triangle well enough "embedded" in her head to just automatically know what settings she needs to use. 

I could have avoided all that and said: Yes, you can teach it. To some extent. But yes, some people just have more of a natural ability, and DESIRE, to see creatively.


----------



## sm4him (Apr 22, 2013)

runnah said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > Yes you can learn it and yes it can be taught and yes some people will have more natural talent than others. The thing is not everyone can learn the same way and not everyone "clicks" with learning at the same time. Some people can't learn from a book, no matter how many they might read; others can sit in class after class but will only really learn when one instructor uses a certain kind of language and teaching method that really clicks with how they think.
> ...



I'd say that is OFTEN true, but not always. Since the finished product is a result of both vision AND technical ability, it all depends on the balance between the two. Someone with great natural ability to "see" but no understanding of the technical skills needed will generally do no better, and perhaps worse,  than the person with great technical skill who struggles with the creative aspect.  The best--in my opinion--are those who have BOTH a natural creativity and a good, innate understanding of the technical aspects.


----------



## Overread (Apr 22, 2013)

runnah said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > Yes you can learn it and yes it can be taught and yes some people will have more natural talent than others. The thing is not everyone can learn the same way and not everyone "clicks" with learning at the same time. Some people can't learn from a book, no matter how many they might read; others can sit in class after class but will only really learn when one instructor uses a certain kind of language and teaching method that really clicks with how they think.
> ...



Those with "natural ability" likely just started learning earlier in their life (maybe without realising it). Furthermore those who have natural talent still have to practice and exercise it as well as learn and continue to develop it otherwise it will simply go stagnant. Those people who just pick up a camera and frame really well are likely people are simply taking prior experience of things like artwork or photographic inspiration and putting it into practice - maybe they've spent years drawing or looking over and really looking (not just glancing) at photo after photo. 


Also you do agree then that you can be taught artistic styling and composition from any point then. Yes some start higher than others and those people might well find it a lot easier and quicker to gain a very high level of skill; that doesn't mean that others can't do so as well - although it might take them longer to get there and might require more work to achive the end result.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 22, 2013)

Oh look. Another runnah thread...


----------



## amolitor (Apr 22, 2013)

RUNNAH WAY!


----------



## bunny99123 (Apr 22, 2013)

I agree with natural talent. I know people who take beautiful photos in the aspect of mechanics, but they use the same poses over and over. Nothing says, Unique! Then there a few that takes photos that scream it.


----------



## Designer (Apr 22, 2013)

This poll is growing legs.  At my vote, it was 6 to 3 in favor of "yes", but oddly enough the funny fourth option was at 5 votes.

While voting "yes", I realized that there is a methodology to teaching anything, and if the right method is used, and an average learner, then much can be taught.


----------



## spacefuzz (Apr 22, 2013)

runnah said:


> But I would argue that those who have to learn it are not as good as those with natural ability.



I think I will disagree with your premise, Overread has it right.  There is not really such a thing as "innate" talent. Different brains are set up differently with neuron lengths and chemical imbalances relative to each other, but its no like someone is born knowing how to play piano or follow the rule of thirds.  All of that knowledge is picked up throughout life, perhaps your parents love paintings, so drag you to the art museum every weekend when you are 5 yrs old.  Later when you pick up a camera you can sub-conciously mimic the same techniques the painters use, and you seem like a prodigy! 

This is actually a well researched field, and its quite difinative from a psycological and biological perspective that there really isnt anything such as innate talent.  If you want an EXCELLENT book, read the Cambridge Handbook on Expertise and Expert Performance.  Its an intimidating book, but if you want to learn how to gain "talent" its the best collection of scholerly articles and case studies in existance.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 22, 2013)

Creativity requires imagination.  Not everyone with a good imagination is creative but I think this imagination is invaluable to anyone that wishes to learn to be creative.  

I don't know if that makes any sense.  I'm tired and my head hurts.  If it doesn't, just ignore it.


----------



## Benco (Apr 22, 2013)

Sort of. There's technique which if learned and practiced enough can get very good results, then there's talent (call it  a musical ear, an artistic eye, and other things no doubt). Talent is the intuitive understanding and some indefinable creative spark that makes that learning journey easier. Much easier. 

To achieve real excellence you need both, great technique and creative talent, one you can learn, one you cannot.


----------



## cynicaster (Apr 22, 2013)

It's a tough question.  I think you sometimes get people who don't have a very strong innate creative ability, but they go to great lengths to deeply understand the technical side of photography.  What ends up happening is that their results reflect the tech-heavy nature of their skill set: the photos are always strict rule-of-thirds, horizons always perfectly straight, always tack sharp focus, always perfectly exposed faces, always perfect white balance, etc. But unfortunately, the most "technically correct" result isn't always the most "interesting" result.  I think a big part of the "creative eye" is knowing just the right moments to deviate from the cook book.


----------



## Overread (Apr 22, 2013)

cynicaster said:


> It's a tough question.  I think you sometimes get people who don't have a very strong innate creative ability, but they go to great lengths to deeply understand the technical side of photography.  What ends up happening is that their results reflect the tech-heavy nature of their skill set: the photos are always strict rule-of-thirds, horizons always perfectly straight, always tack sharp focus, always perfectly exposed faces, always perfect white balance, etc. But unfortunately, the most "technically correct" result isn't always the most "interesting" result.  I think a big part of the "creative eye" is knowing just the right moments to deviate from the cook book.



I would argue that being able to deviate from the cook book is the difference between learning to copy what is presented and learning to understand the underlying foundations of what is presented. It's the difference between learning how to frame to conform to the rule of thirds and learning why the rule of thirds works. 

In one case the person has learned to a point that allows them to achieve a level of quality in their work. For some this is enough, they don't feel the pressure to really push beyond that learning boundary (or they lack the resources or the knowhow to do so). So they reach a point and sit there - for many many hobbies this is the same for all things. Some people like to run and if they can do their circuit in 30mins they are happy - sure they could push themselves harder and do it in 25 but maybe that's just "too dedicated" for them or requires more training than they can give (time is finite in the short term). 

The same is true for things like compositional theory - a lot of people only learn the tiny bits. The basics of composition like rule of thirds and straight lines - they don't really learn "why" those things work or the more detailed theory behind them. They just don't feel the need to so they reach a standing point in their learning. They might progress from there with experience but it will take time (how much depends on the person). 
Those who learn more (and its important to realise that with many things you can learn a heck of a lot just by watching and copying - esp when you're a child) will push the boundaries more; they will learn more compositional theories (either directly as theories or they'll learn them via copy and repeat from inspirational sources). 


This ability to learn and develop skills HAS to be present otherwise natural talent would have produced outstanding cave paintings that rival the skill and complexity that we see today. The fact that we don't see cave paintings of such nature suggests that the quality and artistic skill we see today MUST come from somewhere - my argument is that that somewhere is teaching and learning - especially so but not exclusively from a young age. Now of course in todays world kids are not brought up in a strict "learn your parents trade" environment- so the freedom to choose as a child is more present; then of course there are parental influences - great artists who pay attention to and help their kids will often have children who can be good artists (if they choose to focus upon those interests)


----------



## runnah (Apr 22, 2013)

spacefuzz said:


> There is not really such a thing as "innate" talent. Different brains are set up differently with neuron lengths and chemical imbalances relative to each other, but its no like someone is born knowing how to play piano or follow the rule of thirds.  All of that knowledge is picked up throughout life, perhaps your parents love paintings, so drag you to the art museum every weekend when you are 5 yrs old.  Later when you pick up a camera you can sub-conciously mimic the same techniques the painters use, and you seem like a prodigy!



No? How do you explain top tier athletes, musical geniuses or even the great painters. Surely you are not suggesting that with some training anyone could be the next Jordan, Van Gogh or Schumacher.


spacefuzz said:


> I truly believe that everyone can be good but it takes genetic advantages to be great.
> This is actually a well researched field, and its quite difinative from a psycological and biological perspective that there really isnt anything such as innate talent.  If you want an EXCELLENT book, read the Cambridge Handbook on Expertise and Expert Performance.  Its an intimidating book, but if you want to learn how to gain "talent" its the best collection of scholerly articles and case studies in existance.



While well researched, it is also an divided field. From a biological standpoint the concept falls apart. If we are were the same and had no mental or physical differences than why have we evolved as far as we have?


----------



## imagemaker46 (Apr 22, 2013)

I believe that some people have natural abilities, physical and mental, how they choose to use them will be influenced by their surroundings, education and the people in their lives.  A great coach and turn an average athlete into an exceptional one.  Some athletes have less natural ability and have to work harder.  Photography is the same.  Some people will never be great at it, some people are simply more creative in their thinking, some see the light and understand how to use it, others don't. Photography is a learned skill, like everything else.  I love motor sports, I have been around cars all my life and done engine changes, but know that regardless of how much I was taught I would never be as good as a buddy of mine that has been doing it for the past 30 years.


----------



## Dikkie (Apr 22, 2013)

Yes, it can be learned if you're very young. If you're already grown up, it's harder to learn it, unless you have a natural talent for it which you haven't discovered yet.

But I know lots of people who were stimulated when they were young, as a kid, and are still creative with lots of things now as adults.
I know some people going to drawing school when I was young, some of them ended up as a real artist who paints/draws/sings/makes music/... another one still draws, but different way, and has now become an architect. His father was an architect too, so he saw him building homes when he was a kid... he grew up in that world.


----------



## bratkinson (Apr 22, 2013)

To me, "the eye" in photography is the expression of natural, artistic creativity. While some level of artistic creativity can be learned, this 'head knowledge' type of creativity is a very distant second place to natural creativity. 

Consider the nose of a bloodhound vs that of a golden retriever...as in...'smell??? what smell??? I just wag my tail and chase rabbits!' Having had a golden, they definitely are not 'led by their nose' when outside. I don't think a golden is even capable of becoming a criminal/lost person finding dog, either.

To claim that one can 'learn' to be a great photographer with 'an eye' for great photographs, to me, is complete rubbish. While one can learn various composition 'rules', they are unable to 'apply' those rules other than by attempting to replicate what they have seen of others work. And, of course, what makes a great photographer 'great' is knowing when to break those rules, think outside the box, and 'create' something unique. But at the same time, the great photographer knows the abilities and limitations of his/her equipment and gets the results he wants with what he has to work with.

I am not saying that either one 'has it' or 'doesn't have it'. It's not a 100% or 0% thing. Some people have more artistic 'eye' than others. It could be anywhere from 0% to 100%, with even fractional percents along the way...if it could be somehow measured. And, as always, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What one might consider 'a masterpiece', others consider it a waste of pixels, or canvas, or whatever the medium is. One person might strive for geometrical/symmetrical patterns in what they photograph and others look for 'disjoint' extremes of some kind. 

Bottom line, there is no limit, high or low, of what is 'the eye', or creativity, or art, or <fill in the blank>. While some have to 'work at it' to get good results, to others, it comes 100% naturally. I only wish I was nearer to the 100% naturally group.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 22, 2013)

I'll say it again... Any question for which the answer is preceded by "for me", is a question with no answer.


----------



## Overread (Apr 22, 2013)

runnah said:


> No? How do you explain top tier athletes, musical geniuses or even the great painters. Surely you are not suggesting that with some training anyone could be the next Jordan, Van Gogh or Schumacher.



Depends in part when the training starts. Don't forget many of those "GREAT" people started their craft or interest from a very young age or were born into a family who were involved within those skills/talents. So many would have been "learning" from a very young age - 15 years odd+ or learning is a long time and we learn very fast when we are younger. 
Sure some people will be just a cut above the others; but that won't stop other people being good or great at something. It seems like we are trying to define the ability to learn and to teach something by looking at the most extreme top end and saying "Well if you can't take a 5 year uni course and 5 further years of practice and get that good then the whole subject can't be taught at all"


----------



## ronlane (Apr 22, 2013)

Is it really creativity if it's taught?


----------



## spacefuzz (Apr 22, 2013)

_Runnah Quote: No? How do you explain top tier athletes, musical geniuses or even the great painters. Surely you are not suggesting that with some training anyone could be the next Jordan, Van Gogh or Schumacher.

I truly believe that everyone can be good but it takes genetic advantages to be great.


_So top tier athletes do have a genetic component in that hey its preferential to be tall and get selected for first on the basketball team as a child. That initial selection snowballs as the child recieves praise for decent initial performance, they then get preferential treatment and training which turns eventually into being  a pro athlete.  The best example of this is pro baseball players in the US and pro hockey players in Canada.  The cutoffs for the child leagues is Jan 1st, so a child born in January will be significantly larger than a child in the same bracket born in December, since at age 6 a full year of development and growth is huge. This can be traced (and has been) all the way to the pros, with 75% of professional baseball players being born between January and April, and the around 20% being born between April and June. As this is repeated nearly verbatim in canadian hockey, it is not a statistical abberation and represents the nurture of talant based on an initial random variable, birth date. 

So yes if you start young, you can be anything you want (or more properly, anything your parents want).  Look at tiger woods, his father started training him at age 3.  By 13 of course he looked like a prodigy, he had 10 years of experience!


----------



## runnah (Apr 22, 2013)

manaheim said:


> I'll say it again... Any question for which the answer is preceded by "for me", is a question with no answer.



You are spitting in the face of the entire notion of philosophy!


----------



## o hey tyler (Apr 22, 2013)

ronlane said:


> Is it really creativity if it's taught?



Yes, because effectively utilizing the creative part of your brain will lend to communicating your vision.


----------



## runnah (Apr 22, 2013)

spacefuzz said:


> Runnah Quote: No? How do you explain top tier athletes, musical geniuses or even the great painters. Surely you are not suggesting that with some training anyone could be the next Jordan, Van Gogh or Schumacher.
> 
> I truly believe that everyone can be good but it takes genetic advantages to be great.
> 
> ...



Your idea is sound until you realize that the entire professional sports organization is filled with the biggest and best but yet still certain people rise to the top. Did they just have more training or are they more uniquely suited for it?


----------



## runnah (Apr 22, 2013)

Overread said:


> Depends in part when the training starts. Don't forget many of those "GREAT" people started their craft or interest from a very young age or were born into a family who were involved within those skills/talents. So many would have been "learning" from a very young age - 15 years odd+ or learning is a long time and we learn very fast when we are younger.
> Sure some people will be just a cut above the others; but that won't stop other people being good or great at something. It seems like we are trying to define the ability to learn and to teach something by looking at the most extreme top end and saying "Well if you can't take a 5 year uni course and 5 further years of practice and get that good then the whole subject can't be taught at all"



See my other post but what makes some more special than others? How come there are records that remain unbroken, art that stands the test if time and musical pieces that still are profound?


----------



## amolitor (Apr 22, 2013)

You can absolutely learn some elements of creativity. Music schools offer classes on how to improvise, and how to compose music. You can learn how to manage your mental states to increase the frequency with which you have inspirations. Can everyone be taught to be Mozart? Certainly not. Are there a few people who cannot be taught to compose even a simple tune? Certainly there are. Most of us are somewhere in the middle, and can be taught to be creative to a greater or lesser degree. For some reason, Mozart is always dragged out as an example during these discussions, and nobody ever seems to mention that the dude has a completely thorough and rigorous education in music.

There are many factors that go in to creating an artistic work. Training, temperament, hard work, and some sort of innate quality called "talent" which is not easily distinguished from the others, at least.

- It's probably impossible to be creative if you are completely and 100% lacking in any one of the necessary preconditions.

- It's definitely impossible to create at the very highest levels unless you are fully loaded up on all of the necessary preconditions (you MUST be well trained, AND very talented, AND work very hard, AND, etc)

- Most of us fall in the middle, with varying amounts of all the preconditions. You can compensate, to a degree, with extra training and extra hard work.

Photography, happily, is not music. Most of us can be taught to perform it quite capably without a creative bone in our body. Most of us could become a very successful artist through training, hard work, and a sufficiently lucky set of contacts and breaks. Where there exist objective standards, very little creativity is required. Where creativity is demanded, nothing in the way of objective standards exists. It's quite a happy place!


----------



## Overread (Apr 22, 2013)

ronlane said:


> Is it really creativity if it's taught?



I dunno but I'm willing to bet if you teach 2 groups of people you can see a difference;

Teach one just rule of thirds and (assuming they all come from a generally non-artistic background) they'll show a certain base level of creativity

Teach the other class several theories and chances are whilst you won't be able to teach specifically how each one will combine the theories, they will show an increased variety in creative choice and style. 


I agree that a base level of creative style can be unique to a person, but I also realise that that person can be taught tools and methods to use to augment and use within their creative vision and that the more theory they learn (and I mean learn not just get lectured at them) then the more generally creative they will be capable of being.


----------



## mishele (Apr 22, 2013)

This video proves to me, that there are people out there w/ talents that cannot be taught.


----------



## Overread (Apr 22, 2013)

mishele said:


> This video proves to me, that there are people out there w/ talents that cannot be taught.



Aye though examples like that are into the 1 in billions kind of statistics (ok maybe not that high but certainly exceptionally rare - and often not without some falldown in other areas)


----------



## amolitor (Apr 22, 2013)

Stephen Wiltshire has some skillz, and a lot of it seems to be innate for sure. That said, he's spent years at art school, as well.


----------



## mishele (Apr 22, 2013)

If that man can draw Rome, who is to say that everyday people don't have a innate natural talent for seeing colors or lines differently?


----------



## mishele (Apr 22, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Stephen Wiltshire has some skillz, and a lot of it seems to be innate for sure. That said, he's spent years at art school, as well.



Suggesting that his art training could be why he is capable of doing such a feat is just silly...:hug:: I could have been trained for my whole life and still NEVER be able to get close to doing that.


----------



## amolitor (Apr 22, 2013)

Well, yeah. I think I said the opposite of "his art training could be why he is capable of doing such a feat" actually. So, we're in agreement!


----------



## mishele (Apr 22, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Well, yeah. I think I said the opposite of "his art training could be why he is capable of doing such a feat" actually. So, we're in agreement!


Sorry...I read it wrong. :hug::


----------



## runnah (Apr 22, 2013)

Overread said:


> mishele said:
> 
> 
> > This video proves to me, that there are people out there w/ talents that cannot be taught.
> ...



That's why there is only one Michael Jordan, one Rembrandt and one Mozart.

You forget through the sheer volume of people that becoming statistically relevant is a hard thing to do.


----------



## runnah (Apr 22, 2013)

mishele said:


> This video proves to me, that there are people out there w/ talents that cannot be taught.



This is why you are the best mod. You agree with me.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 22, 2013)

runnah said:


> You forget through the sheer volume of people that becoming statistically relevant is a hard thing to do.



My genius would have been recognized a thousand years ago then.


----------



## Overread (Apr 22, 2013)

runnah said:


> You forget through the sheer volume of people that becoming statistically relevant is a hard thing to do.



It's not also specifically tied to talent


----------



## spacefuzz (Apr 22, 2013)

runnah said:


> spacefuzz said:
> 
> 
> > Runnah Quote: No? How do you explain top tier athletes, musical geniuses or even the great painters. Surely you are not suggesting that with some training anyone could be the next Jordan, Van Gogh or Schumacher.
> ...



Training Training Training! Ive seen this first hand when I rode on my college cycling team, the team won national championships and even produced some cyclists who went on to be olympians and professionals. The thing that always seperated them from the rest was the type of training they did. 

The Australians have perfected this at their national center for sport, its a model that many other countries are trying to replicate and its all based on using deliberate practice to create master athletes. I believe there was a recent article about them in Wired magazine, and an example where they created an olympic athlete (swimmer?) out of someone who barely knew what a breast stroke was 18 months prior. 

I will let you keep your ideas on the matter though, because if you start out believing you cannot succeed due to genetics or what have you, then you wont and I'll have an easier time getting to the top


----------



## amolitor (Apr 22, 2013)

Here's the thing.

It's got to be ALL of it, at the very top. There's just no other way. Every statistic has to be maximized. I can prove it:

Let's suppose you're the top cyclist in whatever your event is, in the world, and it's ALL TRAINING. You can't be the top cyclist, because there's someone out there who's trained just as hard as you have, AND has slightly better leg geometry and a more optimal ratio of slow and fast twitch fibers in his thighs. Boom, you're number two.

Try to decide if it's training OR talent is reductionist and dumb. You need both to play at a high level. You need _all_ of the whatever-it-is-that-helps to play at the very highest levels, in any discipline.


----------



## peter27 (Apr 22, 2013)

runnah said:


> Can you teach or learn the creative "eye" or is it something that people either have or do not.
> 
> I think you cannot. I've seen people who can pick up a camera for the first time and produce amazing images just because they have an natural ability to "see" good composition. On the other hand I've seen people who have been through dozens of classes and they still can't seem to get it.



I would argue that it isn't really possible to have a natural ability to see something which is based on conventions and value judgements. 

Can you teach the creative eye? You can raise someone's awareness of the concepts and notions involved.

Can you learn the creative eye? Once aware of the concepts and notions involved, it can be honed.


----------



## runnah (Apr 22, 2013)

spacefuzz said:


> I will let you keep your ideas on the matter though, because if you start out believing you cannot succeed due to genetics or what have you, then you wont and I'll have an easier time getting to the top



No? So me being 6'3'' and 250lbs won't get in the way of me being a professional jockey?

Seriously thought. I was a hardcore trying to be professional snowboarder. For 10 years I tried to be the best but I kept hitting hard walls. Why? Because my big frame made it harder for me to rotate around. My friends who were all 5''8 and smaller had a much easier time spinning their mass through the air.


----------



## spacefuzz (Apr 22, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Here's the thing.
> 
> It's got to be ALL of it, at the very top. There's just no other way. Every statistic has to be maximized. I can prove it:
> 
> ...



With cycling dont forget the EPO! You gotta have the drugs to ride the TDF


----------



## Designer (Apr 22, 2013)

runnah said:


> ...spinning their mass through the air.



Ayuh!  Seen 'em do that on the TV.

So there is a minimum requirement for snowboarding.

I maintain that the minimum requirement for artistic achievement is average intelligence and a desire to learn.


----------



## runnah (Apr 22, 2013)

Designer said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > ...spinning their mass through the air.
> ...



Achievement not superiority.


----------



## spacefuzz (Apr 22, 2013)

runnah said:


> spacefuzz said:
> 
> 
> > I will let you keep your ideas on the matter though, because if you start out believing you cannot succeed due to genetics or what have you, then you wont and I'll have an easier time getting to the top
> ...





But at 250, why no lose some weight and try it at 200 lbs?  Do you think that is how the olympic sprinter without legs talked to himself?  Oh everyone else has it easier I might as well give up?  I seriously doubt it.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 22, 2013)

runnah said:


> You are spitting in the face of the entire notion of philosophy!



Pretty much, yeah.


----------



## JacaRanda (Apr 22, 2013)

There has to be something deeper.  In regards to Michael Jordan...he was not the quickest, did not jump the highest, was not the tallest etc.  However, his desire and heart and hatred of losing (probably more than his love of winning) all made the difference.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Apr 22, 2013)

Runnah, how much do you think your legs weigh?  Gotta get you under 126# including gear to ride at Churchill.


----------



## runnah (Apr 22, 2013)

spacefuzz said:


> But at 250, why no lose some weight and try it at 200 lbs?  Do you think that is how the olympic sprinter without legs talked to himself?  Oh everyone else has it easier I might as well give up?  I seriously doubt it.



It's not too much about weight (I was 210 at my fittest) as it is about lower center if gravity for a rotating mass.


----------



## jake337 (Apr 22, 2013)

I voted for the Funny Fourth option.

I'm sure it's not yes, or no, so it can't be maybe...


I'm also sure it is yes and no, so it can't be maybe...


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 22, 2013)

It's kinda complicated for me.  I don't necessarily think that you can learn creativity, but I definitely do believe that you can learn to "unlock" and express the creativity that has always been there.

That's what I usually struggle with - diluting a complex idea down to one photo.  I think pretty much any "idea" is complicated when you're trying to get it across with a photo.  You never know if others are going to see the same thing you saw.

So, yeah - funny fourth option.


----------



## weepete (Apr 22, 2013)

Hmm, the good old nature or nurture debate. In reality its a combination of both. 

But most of us can mistake hard work for natural talent. Nowadays you need to network to be at the top of the game. If anything else it is easier than ever before to netwok given our global communication systems now, so an increase in population means nowt. I don't like it but that is the way it is.

Can you teach a creative eye? Well to answer that question we need to ask ourselves what is a creative eye?

Ps Picasso was and still is baws.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 22, 2013)

I think all children are 'artists' in that they are equally undisciplined and in the chaotic messes they produce, we see 'art'. 
One can learn composition and technique but you can only nurture creativity. 
Growing creativity without some innate talent is like saying you can grow a tree without a seed.


----------



## Designer (Apr 22, 2013)

weepete said:


> Ps Picasso was and still is baws.



Sorry, "baws" is not listed in this British slang dictionary.

Dictionary of English slang and colloquialisms of the UK


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 22, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> Growing creativity without some innate talent is like saying you can grow a tree without a seed.



Kinda what I had in mind, but expressed much more effectively.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 22, 2013)

My wife often says "I'm not creative."

I was once in a business seminar and the man speaking asked a couple simple questions.

"Tell me," he said, "how many people here consider themselves an artist?"

Out of the sixty or so people in the room, perhaps five or six people raised their hands.

"Ok, good," he said, "Now tell me, how many people considered themselves artists when they were kids?"

Everyone in the room raised their hands.


People are naturally creative.  People, unfettered by the various rules and restrictions of our society and conforming to it within their every day life, naturally see things in ways that are unique... beautiful... unorthodox.  People are naturally artists.

So that's part of the equation.  The other part is being effective at it.

Being effective at it is the usual combination of "rules", "guidelines" and just a "sense of things" that we beat to death around here now and again, but in the end there is a certain mechanic to taking something that is interesting and rendering it in a way that is effective for the viewer.  There are MANY choices one can make in execution, but there are most definitely "more right" and "more wrong" choices within that range of possible selections. In the end, however, this is largely mechanical.  

Anything mechanical can be taught.  Some will have more aptitude for it... and some will just have more aptitude for learning... but in the end, it is a teachable thing.  I can teach someone to replace a spark plug... I can teach someone to execute an effective photograph.

Since people are naturally artists, and since the execution is teachable... anyone can have "the eye".

Case in point: I'll be the first to tell you that my artistic side has been pretty much buried by years and years of public school, following rules, keeping out of trouble, being an IT engineer and the drudgery and soul crushing burdens of corporate middle management... when I first stated taking pictures, I simply couldn't "see" where the picture was, nor could I ever hope to render it effectively.  These days, I'm by no means a representation of the high art form of photography, but I'd say my efforts are more than passable.


----------



## hopdaddy (Apr 22, 2013)

I have never understood one's need to ask this question in the first place . I am going to be the best photographer I can be . I study art and photography each and every day and use my camera most everyday . I doubt I ever become  the level of many on this site ,Ever. Who really cares....your not a world renowned artist ether . you may be better than me but not as good as ...? fill in the blank.  I do it and study it (ART) because I like it . If you have a need to appear as a better photographer ....Great for you ,But if you spend as much effort honing your skills , may-be you would get over the "Who's the best" mentally .

Where I use the word (You) I am not pointing at the op but at anyone who has the need to think.... I'm a better photographer than "That " person.
    By the way, anyone can tell a story.  What is yours?......Just tell it in Pictures and you will be the best one, that can tell, that story.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 22, 2013)

hopdaddy said:


> I have never understood one's need to ask this question in the first place . I am going to be the best photographer I can be . I study art and photography each and every day and use my camera most everyday . I doubt I ever become the level of many on this site ,Ever. Who really cares....your not a world renowned artist ether . you may be better than me but not as good as ...? fill in the blank. I do it and study it (ART) because I like it . If you have a need to appear as a better photographer ....Great for you ,But if you spend as much effort honing your skills , may-be you would get over the "Who's the best" mentally .
> 
> Where I use the word (You) I am not pointing at the op but at anyone who has the need to think.... I'm a better photographer than "That " person.
> By the way, anyone can tell a story. What is yours?......Just tell it in Pictures and you will be the best one, that can tell, that story.



I agree.  The need, in this case, is for runnah to cause massive traffic on TPF.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 22, 2013)

manaheim said:


> My wife often says "I'm not creative."
> 
> I was once in a business seminar and the man speaking asked a couple simple questions.
> 
> ...



That, in its entirety, is total BS, based only on opinion and belief without a scintilla of possible proof.

Children seem creative because they don't know any rules and so they go wiggledy, waggledy however they want.

Lack of discipline or knowledge isn't creativity.
Saying that school drives creativity out of anyone is an excuse to try to explain unequal behavior.
Face, some got it, some don't got it.

If one is creative they use whatever they come across to create within those strictures.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 22, 2013)

hahaha...

Ok, and you have proof of your position?

hmmmm?

Face it.  This question is unanswerable or it's "everyone's opinion is valid".

I'm just piling my BS on top of everyone else's BS because it's amusing.


----------



## Designer (Apr 22, 2013)

I've always been fairly creative, in many different ways.  Not always artistic, but sometimes.  I think my 5 years in architecture school helped some.  So did touring museums.  So did viewing good photographs.  Do I draw?  Not very often, but when it came to needing to, I got very good grades in school.  Have I made some good photographs?  Maybe a few passable.  Have I re-engineered a tractor steering gear? Yes.  Have I invented the odd mechanical device?  Yes.  Have I made "art"?  Once in a while.  

I think people are naturally creative, but many simply have not practiced the skills necessary to put it on paper.


----------



## pgriz (Apr 22, 2013)

Creativity is doing the same thing a new or different way.  Kids can be creative partly because they don't yet know the rules, and ignorance of the rules does lead into new territory (sometimes).  Adults tend to "draw within the lines", partly due to social conditioning.  Any society with 100% creative populations will descend within days into anarchy and starve to death.  On the other hand, a "Brave New World" social organization is stifling and static.  Creativity will happen in environments where dissent (ie, disagreement with the predominant group-think) is tolerated and even encouraged.  Can creativity be taught?  Perhaps not directly, but by removing the usual impediments to creative thought and vision, there is a greater possibility of any person venturing outside their normal patterns of thinking and seeing.  Some of this will result in gibberish.  And yet some will create a new way of perceiving and understanding.


----------



## o hey tyler (Apr 22, 2013)

You either have it or you don't - Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) 

None of us had it. Or all of us survived it?


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 22, 2013)

When I shot my first few concerts, I should've been cited for littering. The photos were horrible.

It was something I wanted t continue do but, if that's what was going to happen, I would have to learn how to do it, so I did. I've done well with that since.

Yes, it's a skill which can absolutely be taught, and that skill can develop into a talent...


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 22, 2013)

runnah said:


> Can you teach or learn the creative "eye" or is it something that people either have or do not.
> 
> I think you cannot. I've seen people who can pick up a camera for the first time and produce amazing images just because they have an natural ability to "see" good composition. On the other hand I've seen people who have been through dozens of classes and they still can't seem to get it.



And, if the opposite were never true, you would have a valid point...


----------



## peter27 (Apr 22, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> Growing creativity without some innate talent is like saying you can grow a tree without a seed.



For me, helping someone to develop the creative eye, or indeed being helped to develop this, is akin to the process of grafting in horticulture. This idea seems to be supported by TPF in the mentoring scheme available.


----------



## Juga (Apr 22, 2013)

My suggestion is to ask your parents if you were born with a camera in hand. Then you will have your answer to this question. 

Mine said 'no' so I am definitely screwed.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 22, 2013)

Every person is born with every single skill and talent he or she will EVER have. EVER!!! Ever,ever,ever,ever--ev-er!

Yeahhhhhh, riiiiight.


----------



## peter27 (Apr 23, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Every person is born with every single skill and talent he or she will EVER have. EVER!!! Ever,ever,ever,ever--ev-er!
> 
> Yeahhhhhh, riiiiight.



Possibly we need to rename aperture-priority and call it a-priori.


----------



## Benco (Apr 23, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Every person is born with every single skill and talent he or she will EVER have. EVER!!! Ever,ever,ever,ever--ev-er!
> 
> Yeahhhhhh, riiiiight.



Nice straw man there Derrel.


----------



## pgriz (Apr 23, 2013)

Skill and talent and creativity are all different beasts.  The Wikipedia article on creativity (Creativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) reviews a number of different views of this area, and various formulations designed to match it to a process or a set of attributes.  It appears to suggest that creativity is something that can be taught, although there is great personal variation in how well this teaching will help and how much innate ability a person may have in this field.  In my own (work) experience, creativity is linked to the ability to see a problem in unusual ways, which in turn suggests non-obvious solutions (the out-of-the-box thinking).  In the visual arts, creativity is linked to a novel juxtaposition of elements or the presentation in a new and unusual way.  My artist wife, who teaches art to both preschoolers and adults, finds that with adults the initial problem is to get the student to "unlearn" some of the perceptual ways they see the world, and approach the creative process in a non-linear and associative way.  

If we look at the art forms displayed on TPF, we have some notable examples of people doing interesting and inspiring things.  We all have admired Mishele's flowers.  Part of the visual surprise, is the combination of elements (blur, out-of-focus parts combined with in-focus elements, a combination of colours) that as many of us know, are not so straightforward to put together.  There is obviously a technical component, but part of the attraction is their novelty in that they seem to abstract the essence of "flower" in a flowing and interpretive way.  If we look at some of Bitter Jeweller's studies of shadow and shape, we again see the ability to isolate visual elements and present us with novel perspectives.  Part of the reason his work is so attractive is that he has been able to separate the objective reality of any subject from its visual construct, leaving us to explore the visual elements without being concerned about the "thing" that is being imaged.  Invisible has shown us a number of his abandoned house/cars/objects images, in which he has used his ability to frame the subject in a non-standard way, which in term allows us to see things we would normally just skim over.  KenC has posted a number of abstract images that involve closeups of peeling paint, faded posters, and the like, and his work too brings us to seeing details that otherwise we'd just skip over.  PixelRabbit has come up with a number of exploratory images involving motion, which violate various "rules" of image-making, and at the same time connect us more deeply with the essence of the subject.  Squirrels has shown us some intriguing "landscape" images that again move us to perceive the form what we recognize as a landscape, without actually seeing the elemental components that we would normally see in a landscape.  There are other photographers who I could mention (and my apologies to the many who deserve to be mentioned, but this post is already getting long), and in each case, we see the photographer's ability to see from a fresh or novel perspective, which in turn makes us slow down our "skimming" of an image, and actually examine and explore it.

Can creativity be taught?  Yes, I will argue that it can be taught just as one can learn to run.  Some will run faster than others, but we all (assuming we have the basic equipment of two lower appendages) can run.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Apr 23, 2013)

Everyone is born with the same number of fat cells that they have until they die, it all depends on how they fill them.  Some people will add a little more filling and some will add a lot.  People can be taught not to use them, others can't.  A box of twinkies should not be considered breakfast.

This has nothing to do with photography, but then after a while these threads stop being about photography anyway.


----------



## Benco (Apr 23, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> Everyone is born with the same number of fat cells that they have until they die, it all depends on how they fill them.  Some people will add a little more filling and some will add a lot.  People can be taught not to use them, others can't.  A box of twinkies should not be considered breakfast.
> 
> This has nothing to do with photography, but then after a while these threads stop being about photography anyway.



It's a broader topic than just photography anyway. Anyhow what's your point with the breakfast twinkie analogy?  is creativity about making an educated choice? is it an act of willpower?


----------



## Derrel (Apr 23, 2013)

A box of Twinkies should be sold on e-Bay as a *collectible*!!!! It's the most fitting end for a box of Twinkies.


----------



## Benco (Apr 23, 2013)

I've never even seen a twinkie, I assume it's some sort of ghastly lump of sweet, processed carb.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 23, 2013)

Benco said:


> I've never even seen a twinkie, I assume it's some sort of ghastly lump of sweet, processed carb.



You either *have* a Twinkie, or you *don't have* one.

You have either* had* a Twinkie, or you have *never had* one.

Your supposition is mostly right, Benco, except it's not a ghastly "lump" of sweet, processed carb, but rather a ghastly "log" of sweet,processed carb.

Now, when I was a young boy, I LOVED Twinkies, and they were a true treat....but the last one I ate a few years back at some post-soccer match end-of-year party was..."ehhhh"...


----------



## runnah (Apr 23, 2013)

Stop hijacking!!


----------



## Derrel (Apr 23, 2013)

runnah said:


> Stop hijacking!!



I prefer to think of it as hitchhiking...you know, sort of riding on the coattails of other arguments that have already been made in this thread...echoing those far-off arguments and heated discussions, such as the childhood filled with creativity [filled metaphorically, as opposed to the literal filling the Twinkie had), versus the rigid, desolate, joyless "adult" world we now all live in, which is a lot like the post-Twinkie apocalyptic era seen in so many horror films.

Oh, no mere hijack my dear runnah, my goal was more lofty; specifically, to contrast and compare the great,glorious, Twinkie-blessed past and the modern, Twinkie-free era...


----------



## manaheim (Apr 23, 2013)

Holy crap.


----------



## cynicaster (Apr 23, 2013)

pgriz said:


> Can creativity be taught?  Yes, I will argue that it can be taught just as one can learn to run.  Some will run faster than others, but we all (assuming we have the basic equipment of two lower appendages) can run.




Bingo.  It's a fanciful notion, this concept of all of us being innately equal, with potential bounded only by our own will and the nature of our nurture... but give me a break.  

I remember in my engineering studies seeing people bust their asses trying to get their heads around Calculus, but they flunked out anyway.  Meanwhile, other students coming from the same educational system, same culture, similar socio-economic backgrounds, etc. would buzz through with A+'s without even really exerting themselves.  It wasn't because they locked themselves in their dorms like obsessed mad scientists--some of them still goofed off, still went out and got stoned every Friday night, still acted like typical college-aged kids, but they excelled in spite of all that.  I know, I know... you can say "you don't know how much encouragement they got as kids" and "you don't know their level of inner dedication" or "maybe they just know how to study more effectively" and blah blah blah, all of which may have a level of truth, but maybe--just _maybe_--the answer is simply that student A was dealt a genetic hand that facilitates success, whereas student B was dealt a genetic hand tantamount to no-ace-no-face-no-trump, and is hence doomed to flounder no matter how hard they try.  

Is anybody really going to try to say that this performance discrepancy example can be fully explained by nurture?  I know math and photography are completely different animals, but I'd just be curious to know why, if by chance we do agree that things like math come down to innate ability, it's so unreasonable to say the same about creative endeavors.


----------



## IByte (Apr 23, 2013)

cynicaster said:


> It's a tough question.  I think you sometimes get people who don't have a very strong innate creative ability, but they go to great lengths to deeply understand the technical side of photography.  What ends up happening is that their results reflect the tech-heavy nature of their skill set: the photos are always strict rule-of-thirds, horizons always perfectly straight, always tack sharp focus, always perfectly exposed faces, always perfect white balance, etc. But unfortunately, the most "technically correct" result isn't always the most "interesting" result.  I think a big part of the "creative eye" is knowing just the right moments to deviate from the cook book.





..I'm one of them.  For me, trying o be creative gives me a worse brain vein than reading the theory of Arch Linux.  I am hopefull it will be just as rewarding when I finally understand it.


----------



## IByte (Apr 23, 2013)

pgriz said:


> Skill and talent and creativity are all different beasts.  The Wikipedia article on creativity (Creativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) reviews a number of different views of this area, and various formulations designed to match it to a process or a set of attributes.  It appears to suggest that creativity is something that can be taught, although there is great personal variation in how well this teaching will help and how much innate ability a person may have in this field.  In my own (work) experience, creativity is linked to the ability to see a problem in unusual ways, which in turn suggests non-obvious solutions (the out-of-the-box thinking).  In the visual arts, creativity is linked to a novel juxtaposition of elements or the presentation in a new and unusual way.  My artist wife, who teaches art to both preschoolers and adults, finds that with adults the initial problem is to get the student to "unlearn" some of the perceptual ways they see the world, and approach the creative process in a non-linear and associative way.
> 
> If we look at the art forms displayed on TPF, we have some notable examples of people doing interesting and inspiring things.  We all have admired Mishele's flowers.  Part of the visual surprise, is the combination of elements (blur, out-of-focus parts combined with in-focus elements, a combination of colours) that as many of us know, are not so straightforward to put together.  There is obviously a technical component, but part of the attraction is their novelty in that they seem to abstract the essence of "flower" in a flowing and interpretive way.  If we look at some of Bitter Jeweller's studies of shadow and shape, we again see the ability to isolate visual elements and present us with novel perspectives.  Part of the reason his work is so attractive is that he has been able to separate the objective reality of any subject from its visual construct, leaving us to explore the visual elements without being concerned about the "thing" that is being imaged.  Invisible has shown us a number of his abandoned house/cars/objects images, in which he has used his ability to frame the subject in a non-standard way, which in term allows us to see things we would normally just skim over.  KenC has posted a number of abstract images that involve closeups of peeling paint, faded posters, and the like, and his work too brings us to seeing details that otherwise we'd just skip over.  PixelRabbit has come up with a number of exploratory images involving motion, which violate various "rules" of image-making, and at the same time connect us more deeply with the essence of the subject.  Squirrels has shown us some intriguing "landscape" images that again move us to perceive the form what we recognize as a landscape, without actually seeing the elemental components that we would normally see in a landscape.  There are other photographers who I could mention (and my apologies to the many who deserve to be mentioned, but this post is already getting long), and in each case, we see the photographer's ability to see from a fresh or novel perspective, which in turn makes us slow down our "skimming" of an image, and actually examine and explore it.
> 
> Can creativity be taught?  Yes, I will argue that it can be taught just as one can learn to run.  Some will run faster than others, but we all (assuming we have the basic equipment of two lower appendages) can run.




(((O.O))) HOLY CRAP!! There's a lot of words here lol.


----------



## Designer (Apr 23, 2013)

Derrel said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Stop hijacking!!
> ...



The Twinky reference made me think of the movie "Zombieland".  Great zombie movie, BTW.


----------



## IByte (Apr 23, 2013)

runnah said:


> Stop hijacking!!




You have not seen hijacking if Unpop was present.


----------



## IByte (Apr 23, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> Everyone is born with the same number of fat cells that they have until they die, it all depends on how they fill them.  Some people will add a little more filling and some will add a lot.  People can be taught not to use them, others can't.  A box of twinkies should not be considered breakfast.
> 
> This has nothing to do with photography, but then after a while these threads stop being about photography anyway.



I am trying to fill it as fast as I can :i, there are only so many hours of man-cave time I have lol.  Good point btw.


----------



## mishele (Apr 23, 2013)

Designer said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...


LOL That's what I thought of too!!


----------



## IByte (Apr 23, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Every person is born with every single skill and talent he or she will EVER have. EVER!!! Ever,ever,ever,ever--ev-er!
> 
> Yeahhhhhh, riiiiight.




In the Matrix it was a simple upload, open your eyes...BOOM instant martial arts master.


----------



## Benco (Apr 23, 2013)

IByte said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Every person is born with every single skill and talent he or she will EVER have. EVER!!! Ever,ever,ever,ever--ev-er!
> ...



Never mind Ju-jitsu, they should have uploaded 'acting' first for Keanu Reeves. 

"whoa dude! I can act"


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 23, 2013)

OK, here's one...  If creativity is something you learn - when will we have creative machines?  Computers/robots that can create art.  If you can learn it, you can teach it, which leads me to believe that you should be able to program it too.


----------



## Overread (Apr 23, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> OK, here's one...  If creativity is something you learn - when will we have creative machines?  Computers/robots that can create art.  If you can learn it, you can teach it, which leads me to believe that you should be able to program it too.



You'll probably have them - of course there will then be endless debates on if the machines are really being "creative" or just using maths to make things that "look" identical to creative things. Heck considering the advances in computers and things like facial recognition I wouldn't be surprised if you could build a computer program today which could frame a family photo based upon identification of the properties in the shot and theories of composition (it might have difficulties dealing with the vagaries of controlling lighting and more exotic variations simply due to the scale of choice, but it could be done).

Heck vast amounts of background terrain for Pixar films is done by computer code.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 23, 2013)

Here's a thought about creativity and art and artistic ability: before the Renaissance, the very-best European fine artists painted human figures so crudely that they outlined every single human form with a thin, black line. In other words, humans were drawn first, and then basically, painted-in, in an almost coloring book style. The idea of the vanishing point, and the idea of one-point perspective...all were unknown to legions of European artists. Of course, in the Orient, gorgeous painting were being made, using aerial perspective, and demonstrating amazing grasp of artistry and technique. But it took EUropean artists around 400 years to figure out some of the very basics of "Creativity" and "art".

Perspective: The Rise of Renaissance Perspective

So, for literally hundreds of years, the very-best artists in all of Europe painted like children paint. And then, suddenlyc (if a 400-year learning period can be called sudden) they learned some visual principles, and some concepts that made their paintings look "realistic". Huh...quicker than language's development...I wonder how the great apes might fare at this learning???

If humans were truly unable to learn "the creative eye"...there would never have been any evolution in the ability to paint realistically, or to draw realistic scenes,and mankind's museums would all be filled with pencil-and-sheepskin or pen-and-ink drawings and crude,crude painting of glorified stick figures.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 23, 2013)

Some have said that not painting 'perspectively accurate' (whatever the word for that would be) scenes was a deliberate choice.  Anyone can draw what is in front of them.  You can see perspective.  To assume that everybody before the Renaissance just never noticed it before is a little ridiculous...

The theory was that these 'perspective lacking' scenes were a "God's eye view", where everything was perfect.  Something like that.


edit
I can't remember what it was called, but the point was - it was intentional.  The use of perspective was a breaking away from that older school.


----------



## IByte (Apr 23, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> OK, here's one...  If creativity is something you learn - when will we have creative machines?  Computers/robots that can create art.  If you can learn it, you can teach it, which leads me to believe that you should be able to program it too.



...you're with Skynet..aren't you Oo?!


----------



## manaheim (Apr 23, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Here's a thought about creativity and art and artistic ability: before the Renaissance, the very-best European fine artists painted human figures so crudely that they outlined every single human form with a thin, black line. In other words, humans were drawn first, and then basically, painted-in, in an almost coloring book style. The idea of the vanishing point, and the idea of one-point perspective...all were unknown to legions of European artists. Of course, in the Orient, gorgeous painting were being made, using aerial perspective, and demonstrating amazing grasp of artistry and technique. But it took EUropean artists around 400 years to figure out some of the very basics of "Creativity" and "art".
> 
> Perspective: The Rise of Renaissance Perspective
> 
> ...



I think that's more method than creativity, though.  More technical.  No?


----------



## Overread (Apr 23, 2013)

manaheim said:


> I think that's more method than creativity, though.  More technical.  No?



Method yes, but there is still an element of evolution in the depiction of art. Cave paintings for example don't really aim to draw the eye or be viewed in the same way as a painting or photograph will. Furthermore the quality of art increases as we see communication and civilizations advance. Not just in a methodology of how they produce something, but also in the style and structure of the creativity. 

If this element of evolution of art an the study of what humans "like" to see wasn't part of things then we wouldn't see this evolution within the arts repeated over and over again (and indeed during darker periods where information or education is lost we again see the arts fall back and have to re-learn what was learned before). 

Yes because a core fundamental of what makes creative things "good" is what is pleasing to the eye there is always an element of "stumbling" upon this information without formal tuition. That said there are still patterns that can be observed - and if they can be observed and explained then they can be repeated and taught.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 23, 2013)

Overread said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > I think that's more method than creativity, though. More technical. No?
> ...



Ok so here's where you howl in pain...

...but what YOU'RE talking about is group creativity... the creativity of civilizations... the creativity of large groups of people in improving a method, where individual creativity can later be employed with a higher degree of effectiveness.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 23, 2013)

I really do think that creativity is "just there".  Some people might have more of it than others, or just know how to tap into it better, or whatever...  I do think you can learn to unleash it on the world more effectively (haha), but, like Lew said - the seed was already there.  It just needed some water.

So, to tie in with the question I posed earlier, I don't think a "creative machine" is possible.  A machine might have a facade of creativity, but it is just a facade...


----------



## manaheim (Apr 24, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> I really do think that creativity is "just there".  Some people might have more of it than others, or just know how to tap into it better, or whatever...  I do think you can learn to unleash it on the world more effectively (haha), but, like Lew said - the seed was already there.  It just needed some water.
> 
> So, to tie in with the question I posed earlier, I don't think a "creative machine" is possible.  A machine might have a facade of creativity, but it is just a facade...



If you cannot clearly identify where creativity comes from its fairly presumptuous to say where it doesn't exist.

I mean no offense- you know I think you're awesome.  Just debating the point.


----------



## Benco (Apr 24, 2013)

manaheim said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > I really do think that creativity is "just there".  Some people might have more of it than others, or just know how to tap into it better, or whatever...  I do think you can learn to unleash it on the world more effectively (haha), but, like Lew said - the seed was already there.  It just needed some water.
> ...



You're assuming that it can be explained in that way, creativity isn't a commodity that can be quantifed or switched on or off or put in a little box labelled 'creativity, grade A, 1 unit of'. Somethings are 'just there' or not. Creativity is a word that describes a quality that people have that's pretty damn mysterious. You might as well try to reason out love or fear or curiosity.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 24, 2013)

There is an almost parallel discussion about the influence of technical knowledge on great photographers going on*here.*

It is my opinion that technology is, like protein, necessary for growth in some degree but almost poisonous if taken in too large a dose.

There is this lure of technique and technical knowledge because, although it may be difficult, it can be conquered and from then on, one is in charge and fully competent.
Whereas, creativity can never be conquered, someone trying to create must always work hard at it, and the more you do, the steeper the creative hill to climb. 
It is so tempting to fall back on the comfort of what one has already done, to produce what seems like new work but what is really the same old stuff.

Great photographers - and those who wish to be great but will settle for good - take technology only in doses _prn (as needed)_ and push the rest away in favor of creative work.


----------



## amolitor (Apr 24, 2013)

Derrel makes some fine points. I do not think that he's put a nail in it, though.

Talent and creativity always exist in a current milieux. There are contemporary standards and ideas for how art can be and should be made. Mozart composed within the idiom available to him, he wrote tonal music, he wrote in sonata form.

Creativity, whatever it is, is as much about working within strictures as it is about working past them. It's about expressing things in new ways within the current artistic idiom, as much or more than about changing and expanding the current idiom. If the current idiom is crude cartoon drawings, that's what creativity will work within.

Trying to parse out what's innate and what's trained is arguably impossible. If you can figure out what it is that's innate, if you could really nail it down and define it, then you could probably teach it. Since people are in fact working away at just that task, the boundaries of what is teachable are always on the move. Mozart, in a burst of creativity, shows us a new approach to modulation, and the next thing you know it's in all the textbooks and all the kids are doing it. Walker Evans shows us America as we never imagined it, and pretty soon every idiot is out there with a view camera taking pictures of tin shacks.

Did Mozart and Evans have something indefinable and great? I think so. What it is is pretty hard to pin down, though, since it's manifestations are art, and we can always deconstruct the art to see what makes it tick. And then we've just got a pile of watch parts on the table, the mystery is revealed, and we say "Oh, it's just a mechanical contrivance after all." Except it wasn't, and it isn't.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 24, 2013)

Benco said:


> You're assuming that it can be explained in that way, creativity isn't a commodity that can be quantifed or switched on or off or put in a little box labelled 'creativity, grade A, 1 unit of'. Somethings are 'just there' or not. Creativity is a word that describes a quality that people have that's pretty damn mysterious. You might as well try to reason out love or fear or curiosity.



This is the same argument used for a lot of things over the course of history that man could not explain with the science available to them at the time, and - again no offense intended- but it's a pretty weak argument, and has been shown to fall apart quickly as we learn more.

There was a computerized painting machine created done years back.  I stood and watched the thing operate for hours.  I have to tell you the thing showed way more "creativity" than I've witnessed in many people... Or at least mimicked whatever this mysterious "quality" is enough so I couldn't tell the difference.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 24, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> There is an almost parallel discussion about the influence of technical knowledge on great photographers going on here.
> 
> It is my opinion that technology is, like protein, necessary for growth in some degree but almost poisonous if taken in too large a dose.
> 
> ...



I'm not suggesting however, that one begets the other... Nor am I suggesting that they are the same,

What I'm saying us that creativity and technical know how are two completely separate elements.  The latter enables the execution of the former, but that's about it.  We certainly had extremely creative people pre-renaissance (to use Derrels example), but they just lacked technical know how that the culture had in later years.

The point here is that someone creative can be trained to have the technical know how to render that creativity in a meaningful way.

But if course, my other point is someone with technical knowledge only can be taught to think and see creatively.

By the way, I'm NOT suggesting that everyone has equal potential.  Like any SKILL creativity can be something that comes naturally to someone or something that is so against their grain as to be nearly impossible, but I do genuinely believe it's a base enough skill that the rudiments of it can be picked up by pretty nearly everyone.



amolitor said:


> Derrel makes some fine points. I do not think that he's put a nail in it, though.
> 
> Talent and creativity always exist in a current milieux. There are contemporary standards and ideas for how art can be and should be made. Mozart composed within the idiom available to him, he wrote tonal music, he wrote in sonata form.
> 
> ...



Nice. (!)


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 24, 2013)

I guess what I'm saying is that creativity is just part of what makes us human.

You can't prove that you have a soul, yet millions of people believe that they do.


----------

