# Educated in art or not......



## mishele (Jan 14, 2012)

I've had some schooling in the art world but is it a hindrance when viewing other peoples work?  Do all the ideas and philosophy cloud your gut feeling? At times I feel like I try to interpret or analyze art too much instead of just letting the feeling flow....lol   Does anyone else struggle w/ this?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 14, 2012)




----------



## mishele (Jan 14, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


>


LOL F the popcorn.....

Answer the damn question.....=)


----------



## manaheim (Jan 14, 2012)

I've had no schooling in art, really, but I can tell you that having people tell me what is art and what has not _seriously_ screwed up my ability to be artistic.  I frankly don't think I'll ever recover from it fully.

Why would you take an art class, though?  Really, you're one of the most artistic people I "know".


----------



## Overread (Jan 14, 2012)

One day I'll teach Bitter how to subscribe to threads without the popcorn  

As for the question, I'm not trained in the arts at all (at least formally speaking) and only have a smattering of understanding of the arts and technicalities with reference to photography. However your point about the learning getting in the way of your gut feeling is something I can understand. I think its a phase many go through and you can easily see it time and again in forums (though often its a lesson people have to repeat a few times before it really sinks in).

You can easily see it in the people that quickly jump on photos that are not composed with the rule of thirds. A clear display of when peoples understanding of the theoretical (however complete or incomplete) limits them to only critique/view within the boundaries of those rules; whilst ignoring the ability to step back from those theories and view the image before them as a whole with less bias. 

OF course the more you learn the more selective your pallet will become and the more discerning  your eye as well. So what onetime would have been interesting rule breakings are now less interesting. However against that there's the other trap, that of bordem. You can see that too when more experienced people start to critique not because the photo as it stands is bad, but because its something they've seen before over and over .


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 14, 2012)

I like the little green person!


----------



## Derrel (Jan 14, 2012)

Education that clouds one's judgement? What? 

Education that impairs critical thinking? Huh?


----------



## mishele (Jan 14, 2012)

manaheim said:


> I've had no schooling in art, really, but I can tell you that having people tell me what is art and what has not _seriously_ screwed up my ability to be artistic.  I frankly don't think I'll ever recover from it fully.
> 
> Why would you take an art class, though?  Really, you're one of the most artistic people I "know".



I'm saying that the "art education" that I have already received is a hindrance. The education I have is actually taking the enjoyment out of viewing other people's work. =)


----------



## skieur (Jan 14, 2012)

I wrote computer art curriculum for the Ministry of Education at one point and demonstrated its implimentation in the classroom in an arts school.

skieur


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 14, 2012)

Yes, and no. When critiquing a photo I look at the technical side of most of it first and foremost. Much of that fall in with a good image, but it's like you always see everyone say: learn the rules first. Then learn to break them. 
I can absolutely love an image that is not technically perfect. I think I am yet to produce an image that is technically perfect-or even remotely close to it, but I have actually LIKED my own work a time or two. 
I like a LOT of technically incorrect stuff. I love the hazy warm images that are over exposed with a white balance that isn't true to color... And a lot of other styles that aren't perfect. 
I don't know as I'd say it's a hindrance, but I am aware of the proper. If you teach at all you have to be. BUT I also seem to have no problem breaking all of the rules too-and most of the time not on purpose!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 14, 2012)

> all I did was crop it. I think it looks better. But thats just my opinion.


 


> Why didn't you just center her?
> 
> Or if you must off center, why did you put her on the left side?
> 
> Why chop her legs in favor of more space above her head?


 


> I put her eyes in the upper left quadrant of the RoT. I thought you guys don't like centered pics.



The end.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 14, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> BUT I also seem to have no problem breaking all of the rules too-and most of the time not on purpose!


 Are these your strongest images?

When you break one or two "rules" in an image, are there other elements of design or compositional theory that are at play instead?

Are you saying you create successful images that actually ignore EVERY element of design and composition?


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 14, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > BUT I also seem to have no problem breaking all of the rules too-and most of the time not on purpose!
> ...


Oooo... this is a good discussion!
Hmmmm... Yes, there are other more advanced elements at play in an image that are having an effect on the image-sometimes, probably almost every time. Sometimes no, but then I think it's not exactly the most powerful image. I'll have to go find some really "broken" images and look at them now. The one that comes to mind is the one posted in elizabeth's post of the heart shaped bokeh. It's out of focus and God only knows if the white balance is great or horrible; HOWEVER it has a leading line of bokeh going thru it and the heart shape is taking the OOF elements and making them in focus... so, broken but not broken at all. 


Is every rule of composition, design, etc. broken in an image that is successful? No, I probably do not have one where every rule is shot or even MUCH of good design is shot. Not in a professional work... Now in my MOM work? OH YES! I have images that I just absolutely love that are technically horrible. But that is 1. an emotional attachment and 2. I know the story of the image. It evokes an emotion from me because of my connection with it on a personal level and not as that of the artist.


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 14, 2012)

I also think it's kind of hard to break every element or rule. You accidentally have elements of design that happen without thinking about it. Even in my mom images from 20 years ago.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 14, 2012)

I do not find "schooling" in Art a hindrance.
In some ways it has taught me that Art (including Photography) does not need to be technically perfect as that does not define the image, so I look at all pictures that way.


----------



## mishele (Jan 14, 2012)

I agree that shots can work without the rules. I just don't want to look at something and start dissecting it right away. I want to "just look" at something again w/ out all the rules and philosophy in my head....=) 
I guess, it becomes the mindset that you have when you look at images on here. It's more of a C&C reaction towards things, instead of the looking in a gallery type of relaxed feel.

Education always helps me make a shot......but I don't think it always helps me like someone else's.......lol


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 14, 2012)

Put that way... I tend to look at an image first just to look at it. Then I begin to pick it apart to see what makes it work and what could have been done differently to make it work in a different way. Or at what makes it not work and why.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 14, 2012)

My biggest peeve is all the talk of breaking rules, as if it's the holy grail. It's bull ****. It's ignorance. It's lack of understanding. And good photographers perpetuate it, which makes the mind boggle.

When you talk about an images succes, there is more to it than the art/composition side.
Like you give examples of, MLeek, there is also the human element. There is the historic element. There is the STORY element. The emotional element. These can very often trump the importance of composition! Content can trump composition. BUT, an image can be successful, relying on composition alone!!!

But, people are coming here to learn to do better. If they have no desire to actually learn about elements of design and composition, and they poo poo them out of ignorance, and believe they can break their so called rules and be awesome, then they better have some much, much, stronger content than ducks.

Elements of design and composition are TOOLS, not rules. They are tools to be used to communicate intent. You want to make an image that makes the viewer feel calm? There's a line for that! You want to express nervousness and anxiety? There's a line for that. You want to portray power? There's a friggin' line for that too! You want the viewer to feel alone? Theres a color for that! you want them to feel reminiscent? There's a color for that! You want to give the viewer a sense that they are dreaming, there's a condition that will portray exactly that! You want to instill a sense of vertigo? There is a perspective for that!

Rules. 


*pffffft*


----------



## MLeeK (Jan 14, 2012)

Learn the rules. Then learn to break them.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 14, 2012)

But they're not rules, and you never break them. You are simply choosing one tool over another.
Whether by choice, or accident.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 14, 2012)

I agree with Bitter ... just like using a wide brush over a knife, there is no set tool ... only your correct tool(s) to achieve the image you are trying to capture.


----------



## mishele (Jan 14, 2012)

Not rules.......guildlines......lol


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 14, 2012)

Picasso and Pollock were not bound by rules.
This is what schooling in Art taught me.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 14, 2012)

Jesus Christ.


----------



## mishele (Jan 14, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Jesus Christ.


WHERE!!!!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jan 14, 2012)




----------



## mishele (Jan 14, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


>



The subject is centered in this shot. I would try to use the RoT's.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 14, 2012)

Hands/Hair in top third
Open mouth in middle
Papers/Desk in bottom third


----------



## unpopular (Jan 15, 2012)

I think that art education and appreciation can provide a wider vocabulary of how to critique an image and offer insight to it's context in a much more broad history than the expectations which we typically have. Sometimes it is difficult to appreciate what a fine art photographer is trying to convey without this historical context and as a result we kind of have this knee-jerk reaction based solely on our own personal expectations regarding aesthetics.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 15, 2012)

dxqcanada said:


> Picasso and Pollock were not bound by rules.
> This is what schooling in Art taught me.



Picasso was fraud who is credited for what Braque and Matisse were responsible for.
That's what schooling in art taught me.


----------



## Fred Berg (Jan 15, 2012)

mishele said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



But if you take the window behind the subject as the framing, then the centre of interest is moved to the left of centre.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 15, 2012)

The whole center of interest thing is a _design_ issue, not an _art_ issue.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jan 15, 2012)

dxqcanada said:


> Hands/Hair in top third
> Open mouth in middle
> Papers/Desk in bottom third



I like this. Who ever said that if you used the RoT in an image, it had to be applied both vertically and horizontally? 


Frankly Mishele, I don't see how art education can be a hindrance to the creation of art work but I can see it in the case of art appreciation. And people who have had only a little art education often make me cringe way more than people who have had none. When learned appreciation takes over feelings, it is never good. But then again I can't help and roll my eyes when someone thinks black velvet paintings are fine art 

Unfortunately, I feel this is a problem similar to that of "what is art?" One that has no simple, one-size-fits-all answer.


I had a similar problem to yours when I studied screenwriting. I couldn't enjoy a movie anymore because I was too darn busy analyzing it... It passed.


----------



## unpopular (Jan 15, 2012)

^^ I often find a warmer reaction to my images from those who have no idea what is "wrong" with them. Too little education is definitely worse than none at all.


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Jan 15, 2012)

More talk about the god dam ducks. I have no idea if ducks are ok or not. I say no.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Jan 15, 2012)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Frankly Mishele, I don't see how art education can be a hindrance to the creation of art work but I can see it in the case of art appreciation. And people who have had only a little art education often make me cringe way more than people who have had none. When learned appreciation takes over feelings, it is never good.



This is an excellent point about the "amount" of knowledge.  Sometimes just a little bit of knowledge can be a bad thing.  If you only know one rule (guideline) and apply it to everything you see then you aren't seeing the whole picture (pun totally intended).

The same thing applies to music.  When I first started writing songs I didn't know anything at all about music theory.  I was free man, no rules no restrictions!  And the results were, in hindsight of course, generally horrific with the occasional short bursts of accidental coolness (inverted melodies that are almost harmonized and the like).  When I started to learn a few basics, I felt really trapped in, often abandoning pieces because they "just didn't work" and I struggled with that for about a year.  The main problem was that my ear and my tastes were far more advanced than my knowledge of theory and it took some time to catch up.

Some of the best advice I've ever read on the subject was by guitarist Joe Satriani.  He said something along the lines of, "Learn everything you can about theory, then forget it.  Because sometimes the wrong note is the right note."  I don't see how that advice can't apply to visual art as well.  If you don't know the rules (guidelines) then you'll never know the best time to break them.


----------



## mishele (Jan 15, 2012)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Frankly Mishele, I don't see how art education can be a hindrance to the creation of art work but I can see it in the case of art appreciation.


I completely agree w/ this!!
I was just in Key West and went to a couple of Galleries. I had no problem looking at all the different forms of art. I enjoyed them for what they were and never really never questioned them or analyzed them.
I think it's just the state of mind that I'm in when I look at art. Looking at art on here feels like work.....lol


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jan 15, 2012)

bentcountershaft said:


> "Learn everything you can about theory, then forget it.  Because sometimes the wrong note is the right note."



It absolutely can be applied to the visual arts. And the forgetting part comes naturally. One day you are watching your composition, the next day you are just shooting kind of thing. Although it is not really forgetting, more like storing it away where you don't think about it but it's still there.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 15, 2012)

unpopular said:


> dxqcanada said:
> 
> 
> > Picasso and Pollock were not bound by rules.
> ...



... and that knowledge influences your view of any of Picasso's works ?


----------



## ann (Jan 15, 2012)

In the art world, the bottom line DOES IT WORK! If it does, no one cares and if it doesn't they couldn't care either.


----------



## Trever1t (Jan 15, 2012)

mishele said:


> I've had some schooling in the art world but is it a hindrance when viewing other peoples work?  Do all the ideas and philosophy cloud your gut feeling? At times I feel like I try to interpret or analyze art too much instead of just letting the feeling flow....lol   Does anyone else struggle w/ this?



Absolutely not!

While one does not need an art education to be an artist an education can only be a benefit to those who already possess artistic ability and those that don't. Don't for a minute think that Picasso or Dali or Escher or most other successful artists didn't have a education in the arts 

Seriously, how can you break rules you never learned?


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jan 15, 2012)

Trever1t said:


> Seriously, how can you break rules you never learned?



I guess you haven't heard of the old Naïve art...


----------



## Trever1t (Jan 15, 2012)

> *Naïve art* is a classification of art that is often  characterized by a childlike simplicity in its subject matter and  technique. While many naïve artists appear, from their works, to have  little or no formal art training, this is often not true. The words "_naïve_" and "_primitive_" are regarded as pejoratives and are, therefore, avoided by many.[SUP][1][/SUP]



Learn rule to break rule


----------



## Derrel (Jan 15, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Learn the rules. Then learn to break them.



There are no rules!!! There are no "rules". There are elements and principles of design and composition. There are no set "rules". Lets repeat that about a million, billion, trillion times: "There are no rules".

The so-called "Rule of Thirds" is not a rule, but is instead a guideline that allows people a shortcut to placing elements of a composition in places where the eye tends to linger, and where tension will not be caused. Most of what people think of as rules are instead, shortcuts and typically accepted ideas about general ways to accomplish things. For example, in a portrait, it is considered bad form to leave 1/8 inch of top space on what will be an 8x10 sized portrait---that little top space or head space, will place the top of the head at the edge of the composition, which creates tension.

Composition is the most-effective or best utilization of the image area. Composition is arranging the elements using design principles to achieve a desired effect. Composition is the one thing that can be tremendously improved by studying the fine arts. A typical compositional blunder is to place a child in the middle of a horizontal image area, crop off the top of his or her head, crop really,really close to the chin at the bottom, and then to say, "I like it this way." That is the hallmark of the uneducated, unstudied, ignorant photographer--one who has absolutely ZERO idea of how to BEST use the entire image area. It typically results in 40% person, and 60% dull, uninteresting, irrelevant, and  distracting background that does absolutely nothing to advance the composition, or to cause the viewer to want to look at the image for more than 1 or 2 seconds. I see that a LOT. Pictures like that show me that the photographer does not understand anything about composition.

In most of the USA, public school students have a very limited education in art. "Art" in public schools is typically really not much more than "crafts". Turkey hand-tracings, color-by-number drawing and painting, identical clone-like "art projects" where each student creates the same, basic piece of "art". That is not art education--that is "crafts". Performing the mechanical (filling in areas with colors, pasting on macaroni, drawing a hand-turkey,etc) without any education in the theory or principles is not really art education. But that is kind of what typical elementary school kids receive as their "art" education. So it is little wonder that by the time they hit high school, kids for the most part are not interested in "art". Art has been devalued in American education. It's not even Cliff notes--it's the back of the book blurb.

One thing that art education will teach a person is how composition and design are found everywhere. And it will teach a person that the world is filled with kitschy junk being passed off as "art". The worst part of this entire discussion, this discussion of the value of studying art, is that so,so many people with absolutely zero education in the study of fine art weigh in with opinions, *as if* they know what it (studying art) will do...it's as if somebody who has never flown in an aircraft tells you what flying will feel like, or what a person who has never left the city for more than a day tells you how you will feel after a 10 day foot trek along the Pacific Coast Trail...  Listening to the points of view and arguments of people who have absolutely NO EDUCATION in a field of study is a dangerous way to form opinions. Would you listen to the opinions of a self-trained medical doctor operating with zero certification, zero courses, and zero understanding of the field of medicine? Art as a field of study is almost as old as medicine. We recognize the need for training in medicine in order to be qualified to talk about it. Same with the law. But with art, and old Jane or Joe can weigh in. I mean--your kid can do "art" by gluing macaroni onto a piece of craft paper! "Art" is crayons and watercolor paint, and Elmer's glue!


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jan 15, 2012)

Trever1t said:


> > *Naïve art* is a classification of art that is often  characterized by a childlike simplicity in its subject matter and  technique. While many naïve artists appear, from their works, to have  little or no formal art training, this is often not true. The words "_naïve_" and "_primitive_" are regarded as pejoratives and are, therefore, avoided by many.[SUP][1][/SUP]
> 
> 
> 
> Learn rule to break rule



Re-read me. I said, the *old* Naïve art. There's probably a reason I put that word there.


----------



## Trever1t (Jan 15, 2012)

:hug::  it's all good


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jan 15, 2012)

Trever1t said:


> :hug::  it's all good



Sure but it still makes a huge difference. The original Naïve art form was exactly that. Naïve. Artists with no art education. Artists like that are still around although more rarely seen in galleries and still create wonderful works. Even though they have no idea there are "rules."


----------



## tododelsur (Feb 9, 2012)

I'm late to this, but that's normal. 

I never took a photography class, so everything I learned about the technical side of it was through the internet over the course of a month or two. I don't really have the patience for studying or tests. Over analyzing things does seem to suck the fun out of things for me. I know a little about how a photo can be composed, and why it's attractive to people, but in the end I just try to make what looks good to me. I mostly photograph people, so the content is often the more important thing to me. I'm trying to catch part of a persons personality, or whatever it is that made me want to photograph them in the first place.


----------



## ahcigar1 (Feb 9, 2012)

I never studied art nor do I want to.  There is no way to define art.  Because everyone views and defines what it is so differently.  That is one of the great things about it.  What I view as not art someone else will and vice versa.  Art is through the eye of the beholder.


----------



## mishele (Feb 9, 2012)

ahcigar1 said:


> I never studied art nor do I want to. There is no way to define art. Because everyone views and defines what it is so differently. That is one of the great things about it. What I view as not art someone else will and vice versa. Art is through the eye of the beholder.



Wouldn't you want to know why a picture of yours looks good? 
Wouldn't you like a higher percentage of your shots to be keepers?
Knowng a thing or two about art might help you have pictures that YOU like more often.


----------



## ahcigar1 (Feb 9, 2012)

mishele said:


> ahcigar1 said:
> 
> 
> > I never studied art nor do I want to. There is no way to define art. Because everyone views and defines what it is so differently. That is one of the great things about it. What I view as not art someone else will and vice versa. Art is through the eye of the beholder.
> ...



I guess I worded it incorrectly what I was trying to say is that what I see as something I love and think looks good may not be for another person.  And the issue with studying art is that someone always tries to tell you what is wrong and what is right and tries to curve your opinion and mold you into what THEY think art should be.

Perfect example for me is abstract images.  I am someone who just doesn't see it as something wonderful, but I can still appreciate the art of it and know that there are others who love it.  But it isn't for me.  I much prefer lanscapes and scenery and put a horse in there and you have a winner.  That is my opinion what I see as art.  And if I has someone who as teaching me about art and they thought that abastract was art and the only way to go was with abstract then it would most likely begin to curve my judgment away from my personal thoughts and views.  Does that make sense?  Very difficult to portray idea over message board, much easier to speak this kind of idea.


----------



## Overread (Feb 9, 2012)

As one who isn't much into abstract work myself I can certainly understand what you mean ahcigar1, however I think you've made a mistake in your interpretation of understanding artistic theory. 

You're looking at the subject, the abstract against the landscape, rather than at the theories which underlay both, which are the same. Compositional/artistic theory isn't about subjects so much as placement and elements within them - understanding that is the same for whatever field you enter into


----------



## ahcigar1 (Feb 9, 2012)

Yes.  But aren't we as photographers and essentially a form of artists always talking about finding something different?  And not forming to the mold?  Because if all of us formed to the mold and followed all the 'rules' then everything would essentially be the same just different subject.


----------



## Overread (Feb 9, 2012)

True only to a point - but then again how can you break a "rule" if you don't yet know what it is yet? 
People get hung up on the rules idea, in truth its not rules, its a series of theories which can be used alone or in combinations with each other in order to get the final photo. Furthermore once you learn the rules (or rather start learning as there are many) you can then come to understand why they work - once you understand the why you can understand when they are best to use, and also when specific ones are best not to use - as well as how and why and when to "break" them.


----------



## ahcigar1 (Feb 9, 2012)

I get your point.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 9, 2012)

ahcigar1 said:


> I guess I worded it incorrectly what I was trying to say is that what I see as something I love and think looks good may not be for another person.


That is more correctly described as 'Taste'.



> And the issue with studying art is that someone always tries to tell you what is wrong and what is right and tries to curve your opinion and mold you into what THEY think art should be.


Hmmm...that's not really how art education works at all. Well, at least at a good university. Like anything, the quality of education varies, and you get what you pay for.






> Perfect example for me is abstract images.  I am someone who just doesn't see it as something wonderful, but I can still appreciate the art of it and know that there are others who love it.  But it isn't for me.


Perhaps this is because you don't understand it, and don't have the vocabulary to put into words why you like it or not.
You don't have the knowledge to truly appreciate abstract work, so it's easy to dismiss it.




> I much prefer lanscapes and scenery and put a horse in there and you have a winner.


Because you have to identify with a subject. If there is no straight forward subject, you are lost.



> That is my opinion what I see as art.


It is an uneducated opinion. Call it what it is.



> And if I has someone who as teaching me about art and they thought that abastract was art and the only way to go was with abstract then it would most likely begin to curve my judgment away from my personal thoughts and views.


 A teacher is a guide, and should never force your creativity one direction or another. Well, a good teacher, that is. Teaching art is teaching a student to see, to question, to express themselves, to think, to challenge, and how to get all that out in an effective manner.  




> Does that make sense?  Very difficult to portray idea over message board, much easier to speak this kind of idea.


It's difficult to portray, because it's difficult to agrue any subject from a point of ignorance and lack of knowledge on the subject. Text or verbal argument would end in frustration for both parties, when it is unedumacated vs. edumacated on any given subject.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 9, 2012)

because

*Knowledge is Power!*​


----------



## jake337 (Feb 9, 2012)

Derrel said:


> Education that clouds one's judgement? What?
> 
> Education that impairs critical thinking? Huh?



Happens everyday.


Just look at all those doctors pushing dangerous drugs on my parents and others.  Just because their education told them so....


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 9, 2012)

That's because we are a drug oriented culture. Don't blame that on education.


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 9, 2012)

The 'rules' are poor explanations of how people see.
People get cues and hints from pictures that have nothing to do with the content.
If you can make the content work with the cues and the hints then a picture is more likely to be liked by people just because teh cues/hints are congruent with the content.


----------



## mishele (Feb 9, 2012)

It's more about the MONEY than anything else!!


----------



## jake337 (Feb 9, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> That's because we are a drug oriented culture. Don't blame that on education.



True.  But it would be ignorant to say that everything taught in educational systems is perfect and has no flaws.


----------



## jake337 (Feb 9, 2012)

jake337 said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > That's because we are a drug oriented culture. Don't blame that on education.
> ...



I, somewhat, take this back.  It is not so much the content of educational systems, but how the content is delivered to the students.


----------



## ahcigar1 (Feb 9, 2012)

Bitter why the need to be so harsh and rude in your post. I have never have been condesending to anyone. Quite a good way to keep a new member around. I think what you have failed to miss is that this was only my opinion, which everyone has the right to. And Overread has already changed my view of how I was portraying the subject. Your response was unneaded especially in the form that you have done so.


----------



## jake337 (Feb 9, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> ahcigar1 said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I worded it incorrectly what I was trying to say is that what I see as something I love and think looks good may not be for another person.
> ...




So you are implying one must be educated in the arts to appreciate it? 

Wow.

I'm not going to look at a piece of art, not like it, then change my mind because I find it has some elements of artistic design.

A piece of art either pleases my eyes or doesn't.

I'm not saying elements of artistic design and theory are not important.  They are great tools and knowledge is definitely power.

I am saying one does not need to understand or even know them to appreciate art.  Because if the artist is using them wisely, the viewer should not need to understand them, the concepts the artist is trying to convey should come through during viewing even to an unedumacated person as you so nicely stated.


On a side note, I have enjoyed every piece of art you have posted since I have joined.  With no edumacations in the arts.  Why because you use artist design, and it comes through to me, the viewer.


----------



## brush (Feb 9, 2012)

I definitely wouldn't call it a hindrance...the more informed I am, the better I feel I can appreciate things that are good...not just in art...but in life. Music, technology, society, politics, faith, etc. Being informed is the absolute opposite of a hindrance. But there is certainly something to be said to the line "ignorance is bliss" also. Once you learn to really appreciate something, the crap pictures you used to think looked cool aren't going to do it for you anymore. Same thing happens with music. Surround yourself with some really talented musicians & suddenly you can't hear mustang sally in a crappy local bar without wanting to run hide. 

So no, not a hindrance, but I admit that sometimes I do miss the days when I knew less...and someday I'll miss the days I only knew as little as I know today.


----------



## mishele (Feb 9, 2012)

You can't say you don't need something like art education, because you have never had it. That just doesn't make sense. You don't know how you would feel looking at art through educated eyes. Why wouldn't you want to be able to see both sides and then have an educated opinion. If you still feel the same way, that it's not needed,  more power to you.


----------



## ahcigar1 (Feb 9, 2012)

All I was saying is that there are so many different aspects of art and how you can portray it that it is difficult to learn or take a class because it is such a personal emotion that people have when they view art.  A teacher can be as unbiased as possible but in the end ultimately will be biased because of thier emotions.

And as far as Bitters response to my post stating "Because you have to identify with a subject. If there is no straight forward subject, you are lost."  I don't neccissarily have to identify with a subject or else I am lost.  Being an equine photographer I naturally lean to and enjoy photos that portray horses much more than others because that is my taste.  But at the same time I can see beauty in other photos as well no matter what the genre.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 9, 2012)

jake337 said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > That's because we are a drug oriented culture. Don't blame that on education.
> ...


 
True there is no absolute. But you shouldn't put forth an argument in such a simplistic manner. It's not because of education alone that doctors are drug happy. There are many factors involved. You blamed one.


----------



## jake337 (Feb 9, 2012)

mishele said:


> You can't say you don't need something like art education, because you have never had it. That just doesn't make sense. You don't know how you would feel looking at art through educated eyes. Why wouldn't you want to be able to see both sides and then have an educated opinion. If you still feel the same way, that it's not needed,  more power to you.



No, no, no.  Definitely not saying it's not needed.  Just trying to point out that a great artist can convey what they want to an uneducated person with knowledge of artistic design.  

I'm really just trying to stick up for the person bitter bashed for being "unedamacated".  

Remember though, you started this thread and you were the one feeling hindrances caused by your education in art.  You said it yourself, you were looking for the elements of design instead of letting the artwork flow.  

I like to look at art and let it flow.  Yes, it's nice to have an understanding of the whys and hows of the design of a certain piece.  But in my opinion, that is the job of the artist to use these elements so that I, the viewer, need not think about them.  
When one has to search for elements within a piece of artwork, I feel, that the artist didn't use them properly.  I shouldn't have to find them.  They should flow smoothly.

Maybe it's just me, but looking for the elements of design in art isn't letting it flow.


----------



## jake337 (Feb 9, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter Jeweler said:
> ...



You are correct.  That is why I agreed with you.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Feb 9, 2012)

jake337 said:


> I'm not going to look at a piece of art, not like it, then change my mind because I find it has some elements of artistic design.
> 
> A piece of art either pleases my eyes or doesn't.



In my own experience I have to say that after studying art for a while my tastes changed a bit.  It's a slow process but over the years it happened.  

I think an interesting, long term experiment would be to show some begining art students a twenty or so works of various mediums of varying quality.  Some masterpieces and some worthless ****.  None of these should be famous works that are the least bit recognizable.  Have them write down a couple sentences for each one about what they liked, didn't like how they felt or whatever.  Then, after four years of art classes as them to do it again.  Assuming they haven't seen them since the original showing I'd be willing to bet that a lot of opinions would change, both ways.


----------



## ahcigar1 (Feb 9, 2012)

jake337 said:


> I'm really just trying to stick up for the guy bitter bashed for being "unedamacated".



Thank you Jake I do appreciate it, but as a correction I am female, LOL.  Just as a side note.


----------



## jake337 (Feb 9, 2012)

ahcigar1 said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm really just trying to stick up for the guy bitter bashed for being "unedamacated".
> ...



Edited


----------



## jake337 (Feb 9, 2012)

bentcountershaft said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not going to look at a piece of art, not like it, then change my mind because I find it has some elements of artistic design.
> ...




I can agree with that.  I just don't appreciate it when some implies that others can't appreciate something because they are not educated.


----------



## analog.universe (Feb 9, 2012)

So, the thing that I want to add is the significance of who is teaching you.

I don't know much about formal education in the visual arts, but a number of my friends have had formal education in music.  Listening to them speak, certain schools acquire reputations for producing risky musicians, predictable musicians, technical musicians that lack emotion, emotive musicians that lack technique.  I'm sure a lot of the same happens in the visual arts.  Everybody interprets their own education differently, but every teacher interprets their job differently as well.  I think sometimes people do get blinded by an art education so to speak.

It reminds of that Taoist quote, I forget exactly how it goes.  Something to the effect of "learn my teachings, and then forget that you read them."  I think if you really want to be connected to your art, and produce art that connects with others, you need to have a big-picture/amorphous kind of understanding of it.  It's impossible to teach the big picture though, all you can teach is specific bits and pieces.  If you learn the pieces well enough that you understand everything as a whole, then the pieces themselves lose their relevance.  Because you can, in effect "re-derive" them from your own knowledge.

...which ties into what folks were talking about earlier regarding some formal education but not enough.  Until you've got enough to get the amorphous knowledge blob, all you have is a pile of pieces that don't connect.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 9, 2012)

jake337 said:


> So you are implying one must be educated in the arts to appreciate it?
> 
> Wow.



NO! I am differentiating between liking something as a matter of taste, and liking something because it comes from a deeper understanding of the work. 

I have a friend that is becoming a sommelier. I have always enjoyed wine. I never really appreciated it. I could say it's sour, or its too dry, but I never looked for the finer points. But being around my friend, and learning more about wine, I have become much more choosy. She has taught me the vocabulary, the things to look for. She has allowed me to put my likes into words, so that I can go to a wine seller and tell them the kind of wine I am looking for, and get recommendations. I am more educated, and have no problem dropping $50 on a bottle. Here's the catch! I still have my TASTES, and I have purchased expensive bottles that I would never buy again. But now I can appreciate, or understand whats going on with that particular wine to say why it doesn't appeal to ME. 

Mind you this friend is so good that I was amazed at a restaurant, when she asked how long the special offered was open. The waiter said a couple hours, and she asked for a taste. She rejected it and told him it was at least 6 hours old. The waiter asked, and she was right, and they opened a new bottle for her! Now I don't ever expect to reach that level of knowing, taste, appreciation. I don't have the desire to take it that far. I would never have known the difference a few hours makes.



> I'm not going to look at a piece of art, not like it, then change my mind because I find it has some elements of artistic design.
> 
> A piece of art either pleases my eyes or doesn't.


And that's all well and good. I believe the discussion is whether or not art education is beneficial. We have a whole lot of people who are not educated on the subject saying it's not important. These people are throwing out their opinions based on what? NOTHING. We have a whole lot of people here attempting to learn the art of photography, saying art education isn't important. They say composition isn't important. They say screw the rules, do what you want. Don't you get it? The ignorant on the subject who want to learn, are rejecting being taught, rejecting being educated, and spuing that forth to others who are here to learn. And there level of expertise on the subject. ZERO




> I'm not saying elements of artistic design and theory are not important.  They are great tools and knowledge is definitely power.


 So, people should learn them, right?


> I am saying one does not need to understand or even know them to appreciate art.


 Like I said, that comes down to taste. One may like a particular work because they are fond of the color red, or they like horses, or mountains, or cars, or excitement, or calm. These are all issues of ones individual tastes, not of real art appreciation. 



> Because if the artist is using them wisely, the viewer should not need to understand them, the concepts the artist is trying to convey should come through during viewing even to an unedumacated person as you so nicely stated.


 That's just it. This forum is full of people trying to learn to take better pictures. They want to become the artist. This discussion stems from the standpoint of being a photographer MAKING art. Is art education important to do so? YES!




> On a side note, I have enjoyed every piece of art you have posted since I have joined.  With no edumacations in the arts.  Why because you use artist design, and it comes through to me, the viewer.


 That doesn't mean you understand what I have done. But you have been around enough that you are indeed becoming educated on the subject. Amirite? You are picking up the finer points because you are learning. You are stepping away from liking things just as a matter of taste.

Art appreciation isn't just "liking" something, just because. Art apreciation is understanding WHY you like it, or WHY you don't. It's being able to say why it works, and why it does't, through your eyes.

Abstract art is misunderstood by the masses. It's dismissed by those learning art as something that is sooo out there, and beyond them, when the actuallity is that it is the very essence of what they are trying to learn. I have had the immensely pleasurable experience of seeing quite a few people here, on this forum, go from not liking abstract work, not getting it, to finally having that "Ah Ha!" moment where it clicks. They are the ones that will truly learn. Shooting abstract images, can be used as a tool to learn. I don't think everyone should give up what they love to shoot, be it horses, mountains, people, or cars. But learning to take successful abstract images will improve the work they want to focus on.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 9, 2012)

ahcigar1 said:


> Bitter why the need to be so harsh and rude in your post. I have never have been condesending to anyone. Quite a good way to keep a new member around. I think what you have failed to miss is that this was only my opinion, which everyone has the right to. And Overread has already changed my view of how I was portraying the subject. Your response was unneaded especially in the form that you have done so.



Sorry. 

Why not argue against my points instead of calling me rude? 
Can you deny anything I said?

Are your opinions based on knowledge of the subject or are you arguing from ignorance? Answer that.

I think the problem is you are offended by a word. I am not calling you an ignorant boob or anything. I am using the term as a descriptor of your level of education on the subject matter. It's not a put down. We are all ignorant of a great many things. Some just choose to not enter debates they know very little about.

Read my reply again. Tell me if there is any truth in what I said or not. Don't read it as an attack. Read it as straight forward information. Debate it. Tell me where I am wrong. Admit where I am right.

You said:


ahcigar1 said:


> I never studied art nor do I want to.


But you are here, and you want to learn to take better pictures...well, I am assuming you do.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 9, 2012)

analog.universe said:


> It reminds of that Taoist quote, I forget exactly how it goes.  Something to the effect of "learn my teachings, and then forget that you read them."  I think if you really want to be connected to your art, and produce art that connects with others, you need to have a big-picture/amorphous kind of understanding of it.  It's impossible to teach the big picture though, all you can teach is specific bits and pieces.  If you learn the pieces well enough that you understand everything as a whole, then the pieces themselves lose their relevance.  Because you can, in effect "re-derive" them from your own knowledge.



Well said!

Your bit about teachers, is true. That's why you should never rely on just one source for your education of anything you attempt in life. Pull your knowledge gained from as many places as possible, and reassemble them into your own hopefully unique view of the subject. It's also why studying at The Cleveland Institute of Art is so much different than studying at the Art Institutes (Ai), or the Draw Tippy Art Instruction Schools, Inc. Some community colleges have fantastic art programs, some suck.


----------



## Compaq (Feb 9, 2012)

So, abstract images. I have learned to appreciate abstracts. I can't really explain why, but more often than not I find lines, curves, textures and shapes pleasing to look at. That doesn't seem to me as "valid" reasons for liking them, as I feel I should be able to interpret these dimensions and put words to why I find them pleasing. Sometimes I appreciate the artist for taking them - or, rather, the artist's ability to find the subject. But, that doesn't sound right either. And I fear starting to like photographs just because it "fulfills a list of points".

But I trust that shooting more abstracts will indeed improve one's artistic eyes, seeing things that others miss. Being able to notice shapes, textures, shadows, lines or curves, contrasts (and not only bright/dark, but also contrasts in textures, lines, warmth), and put them together in appealing ways. I just wrote in my photo note book to take more abstracts, and I think I will (try to).


----------



## mishele (Feb 9, 2012)

jake337 said:


> mishele said:
> 
> 
> > You can't say you don't need something like art education, because you have never had it. That just doesn't make sense. You don't know how you would feel looking at art through educated eyes. Why wouldn't you want to be able to see both sides and then have an educated opinion. If you still feel the same way, that it's not needed,  more power to you.
> ...



I started this post because I looked at photos *on this site* in a critique mode.  That was the only hindrance. When I visit a gallery, I have no problem letting the art flow.  My knowledge of art design and theories has changed my life!! lol I'm a true believer that it opens your eyes to a new world. =)

Sorry for the vague first post. I thought if I made it a broader topic we could have some good debates......I think that worked.


----------



## mishele (Feb 9, 2012)

If you like this thread try this one.....lol
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photographic-discussions/271730-thinking-beyond-rules.html


----------



## bentcountershaft (Feb 9, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> analog.universe said:
> 
> 
> > It reminds of that Taoist quote, I forget exactly how it goes. Something to the effect of "learn my teachings, and then forget that you read them." I think if you really want to be connected to your art, and produce art that connects with others, you need to have a big-picture/amorphous kind of understanding of it. It's impossible to teach the big picture though, all you can teach is specific bits and pieces. If you learn the pieces well enough that you understand everything as a whole, then the pieces themselves lose their relevance. Because you can, in effect "re-derive" them from your own knowledge.
> ...



I was fortunate to have a great art professor my first semester in college.  I didn't think he was great right away, I thought he was a pain in the ass and I wanted to kick him in the face.  Every time I asked a question he asked me one in reply.  I of course thought, "What a dick!" about him quite a bit.  All the time he would do that and all the time it would piss me off.  I don't know how long it took my stubborn ass to figure out that he wasn't teaching me design he was teaching me critical thinking.


----------



## jake337 (Feb 9, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > So you are implying one must be educated in the arts to appreciate it?
> ...



I do understand the points you are making and I agree.


I think I am just a strange one.  Maybe it is just me.  I am not implying just "liking" something.  I really don't know how to put this into words my friend.

When I view art I do "feel" what the artist is trying to interpret or convey.  Far more than just like.  When I view a piece of artwork and I "truly" feel something is when I enjoy it most.  When I truly feel something in a piece, it has many elements of design in it.  What I'm saying is I don't want to have to look for those elements in order to understand it.  When used well, you just "get" it without thinking to deeply.

Also. I thought the thread was about whether having knowledge in the arts could be a hindrance when viewing others work.  

I just want to state that I never said education in the arts was a bad thing or not necessary, but that one can still more than "like" art without knowing the elements of design.  Maybe they can't explain the feelings the get from the art they view, but the still have them(at least me).


----------



## cgipson1 (Feb 9, 2012)

Interesting discussion!  Thank you for starting it, Mishele!  Makes one think.....


----------



## ahcigar1 (Feb 9, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> ahcigar1 said:
> 
> 
> > Bitter why the need to be so harsh and rude in your post. I have never have been condesending to anyone. Quite a good way to keep a new member around. I think what you have failed to miss is that this was only my opinion, which everyone has the right to. And Overread has already changed my view of how I was portraying the subject. Your response was unneaded especially in the form that you have done so.
> ...



I'm not denying what you have said what I have an issue with is the way you said it.  There is a way to say things constructively rather than being condescending and rude.  Basically calling me stupid and ignorant and "unedumacated" as you like to put it.  You are right I haven't had any formal training but I do know a thing or two about the subject and yes I am still learning and have joined this board to learn as I am sure you have as well along with everyone else.  Everyone can learn and teach each other.  Art and photography are a never ending subject that is always giving you new things to discover.


----------



## mishele (Feb 9, 2012)

ahcigar1 said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > ahcigar1 said:
> ...



Here you go........start learning.....lol
Composition and the Elements of Visual Design
10 Top Photography Composition Rules | Photography Mad


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 9, 2012)




----------



## Overread (Feb 9, 2012)

Does this mean you've given up/got bored of popcorn now?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Feb 9, 2012)

No. It's the much sought after candy coating. Even though it's the apple that's the part that's good for you.


----------



## rexbobcat (Feb 9, 2012)

ahcigar1 said:


> All I was saying is that there are so many different aspects of art and how you can portray it that it is difficult to learn or take a class because it is such a personal emotion that people have when they view art.  A teacher can be as unbiased as possible but in the end ultimately will be biased because of thier emotions.
> 
> And as far as Bitters response to my post stating "Because you have to identify with a subject. If there is no straight forward subject, you are lost."  I don't neccissarily have to identify with a subject or else I am lost.  Being an equine photographer I naturally lean to and enjoy photos that portray horses much more than others because that is my taste.  But at the same time I can see beauty in other photos as well no matter what the genre.



There is a difference between interpreting a photograph on an emotional level and interpreting it on a formal level.

That's where the line between appreciating art and liking art begins.


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 10, 2012)

Before everyone gets all wrapped up into the class system of those who understand art and those who don't, I want to say this.

I have zero art education.
I consider myself a decent photographer  but better at seeing the problems and issues about others' work. 

I won't say the word 'critic' because that implies something I'm not comfortable with.

In the  past the opinions I've given are generally concurred with and I have a fair reputation for them.

SOOOOOOOOOOOO...

It is possible for someone to proceed to some level of ability and, if not expertise, then success in amateur photography without any formal art education.

Perhaps I may never be as good as I could be just because I have no formal training but I am extremely uncomfortable with what seems to be a willingness to assume superiority because of knowledge and formal training.

What I think and say about others' pictures is based on what I think and I believe that any opinions given should be *res ipso loquitor - *they should make sense on their own.

This 'arguing from authority' - "I say so because I know something" - isn't helpful and is demeaning.

That is not to say that what is said isn't true on its face but it is more useful, helpful and respectful of others to show them what a person thinks then to pass judgement - as if one was passing on knowledge from the art gods.

On the rare occasion when someone comments about a picture I've posted and they say, effectively, 'I have this experience or I've been trained or I've been thus and so and therefore your picture sucks', my immediate response is to ignore what they've said because they are invested in a position before they've seen the picture. 

If someone says 'I don't like this because ........', then I listen because it is a person talking to me and not some embedded way of looking at things.


----------

