>> >One needs to master the medium before breaking the rules... Picasso, for

>> >example, could draw and paint like a Michangelo, and did for a number of

>> >years, before he went out and broke the rules of perspective, becoming

>> >Picasso... The shortest route for any of us to become a master of

>> >photography is to first, master the medium...

>> >Denny

>> I have never "subscribed" to this view...;-)

>> Train a "hack" to be a hack, and hack work

>> is the most likely outcome (with vision likely

>> suppressed in the rote); encourage "vision"

>> (even at the expense of technique), and the

>> possible outcome is art; I would rather listen

>> to someone who understands the music play the

>> piano badly then listen to technically superb

>> "playing of the notes" by someone with no

>> sense of the music (though when both appropriate

>> technique and great vision are present, WOW!!!).

>> Technique can be learned/improved-with-time

>> to meet the needs of vision; vision is fragile

>> and needs immediate attention. I used to teach

>> photography, and it always amazed me what a

>> high percentage of students "had something to

>> say" photographically - though "common sense"

>> tells us few become artists. Could this be

>> due to our insistence upon learning

>> standard technique before we have something

>> solid for it to serve, and emptiness is the

>> result?

>> David Ruether

On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:43:59 -0500, "Dennis O'Connor" <doconnor@chartermi.net> wrote:

>Sorry, total disagreement here...

[...long list of "non-art" professions deleted...]

>There are no pictures hanging at MOMA done by someone who never had any

>training or practice..

Well, as a point of information, I did walk into the

MOMA one day, as a kid with no photographic education

whatsoever, and sold the museum not one, but two of my

photos (printed on, of all things, "silk"-textured photo

paper...;-).

And, I have taught photography (and film, and electronic

music) as "art" at the college level, with no formal

"training" in any of these (Thank goodness! You should

see what mind-numbing stuff passes for education in the

local art departments...!;-), so I may have some "feel"

for what is important in art education (which is QUITE

different from engineering, math, etc. - though the

best work in some of science fields often seems to be

done by those without "standard" educations...;-). In

teaching, I considered it very important to bring along

the student's ability to "see" *at the same time as*

the student learned some of the basics of technique.

As a student, I was always most annoyed that instruction

in math, for instance, taught rules and processes

without ever putting them into the context of the field

itself, leaving the rote as mostly useless nonsense

(with no "vision" encouraged at all...;-).

If you read what I wrote above, you should see that

I'm not advocating *no* technique, but *appropriate*

technique - which often may be mistaken for the former

by those with too rigid a view of what may be

acceptable... But, as I said, *IF I MUST CHOOSE*, I

prefer to experience art produced by those with more

vision than technical ability, rather than the other

way around...