From: Jeffrey D. Mathias (jeffrey.d.mathias@worldnet.att.net)
Date: 03/13/01-06:59:27 AM Z
Judy Seigel wrote:
> ... If you work primarily on intuition, you have to be
> able to afford the brain power, effort and *attention* so required.
But is not this part of being an artist?
> There
> is absolutely no way that this intuition can be applied without effort or
> distraction -- except by an accidental knack, or some higher order of
> being of which I am not one. ...
and Bob Maxey1 wrote:
> ... I do agree that it takes time to develop that intuition to a degree where
> it becomes truly useful.
But this is why I put together a procedure to quickly assemble
variations in negatives and prints for comparison that may otherwise
have taken years to collect by chance. And yes, one should have an
ability to concentrate and the discipline to apply the effort.
Judy Seigel wrote:
> Nor do I see that the judging of negatives has one single thing to do with
> being a creative artist, photographer, or even a good person. ...
I can agree with whether being a good person, but if one does not have
understanding and control over their materials, then how can they master
what it is they are attempting. I have never accepted the argument that
art is some random or mystically given event that is somehow thrown upon
the world. Not all photographers are artists, and that is OK. But to
be a creative artist, one must possess the intuition, brain power,
effort, and attention (even if subconsciously).
Does a poet have an intuition and understanding of words?
Does a composer have an intuition and understanding of notes?
Why then should a photographer not have an intuition and understanding
of tonal values?
They must have as it is essential to what they are doing.
-- Jeffrey D. Mathias http://home.att.net/~jeffrey.d.mathias/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/02/01-09:55:26 AM Z CST