Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Its all about the small details  (Read 21284 times)
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2924


« Reply #20 on: February 19, 2012, 04:22:53 AM »
ReplyReply

I think that it would be more appropriate to state it as the 10 year rule? After all who would be able to count all the hours.  The second essay hasn't - so far - produced the controversy of the first, which is good. As to to what Slobodan said he is correct about quoting. On another forum I was pulled up by a moderator for quoting fully a post of another poster because it took up too much band width. Ironically a couple of days later the moderator picked a sentence from someone elses post and replied to it. No reference to the original and quoted out of context when I finally tracked down the post. You can't win!
Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1743



WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 19, 2012, 04:52:04 AM »
ReplyReply

In art school in the '70s I remember the "10,000 drawings" rule, variously interpreted as the number of drawings/paintings it takes to become a competent artist, or the number of "bad drawings" every artist must get past before reaching proficiency.

Absolutely ludicrous, as is the 10,000 hour, 10 year or any other rule that attempts to quantify talent.
Logged

Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #22 on: February 19, 2012, 04:56:01 AM »
ReplyReply

10.000 forum posts ....
Logged

Hans Kruse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 822



WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 19, 2012, 06:40:45 AM »
ReplyReply

10.000 forum posts ....

LOL!!
Logged

KLaban
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1743



WWW
« Reply #24 on: February 19, 2012, 07:29:18 AM »
ReplyReply

10.000 forum posts ....

Hehe, don't even go there!
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #25 on: February 19, 2012, 07:56:18 AM »
ReplyReply

I think I've kept out of this so far -  but hell, Keith and Eleanor are obviously right. It's what I've maintained all my life - you can or you can't, and you're born with it or without it, for better or for worse, and in many cases (photography) it might have been a blessing to have been born without it.

The pretence that all it takes is time is bullshit; stinks of the snake-oil salesman.

Yes, you can polish your talent if you have it, but you sure as hell can't create it. I'm still waiting for the time I might be able to tune EADGBE to anything, never mind perfection! (Sensibly, I gave up that little adventure by my late teens.)

Nobody can have everything, and that doesn't mean exclusively governed by the wallet.

Rob C
Logged

Craig Arnold
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 19, 2012, 09:27:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Before everyone gets too carried away with dissecting MR's "10000 hour" comment, he never intended it as anything other than a throwaway reference to Malcom Gladwell's book "Outliers".

If a conversation about that really needs to take place here, may I recommend reading it first? As no-one who has currently given their opinion seems to have the slightest clue about the origin of Michael's reference.

As to Mark's articles, well the second one was quite amusing, but nothing on the belly laughs the first one induced. The great thing about the internet is that I have no idea whether the articles were intended as parody or were serious. I'd rather not know. A great read either way! Tongue
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3053


« Reply #27 on: February 19, 2012, 09:55:12 AM »
ReplyReply

On another forum I was pulled up by a moderator for quoting fully a post of another poster because it took up too much band width. ... No reference to the original and quoted out of context when I finally tracked down the post. You can't win!
False dichotomy.
We need to see just enough of the original text to understand the meaning of the words in context. We need a reference to the original so we can check that words are not being put into someone's mouth (or that mistakes have not accumulated through "chinese whsipers" or that it was not all just a misunderstanding from the beginning).
« Last Edit: February 19, 2012, 01:59:49 PM by Isaac » Logged
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3053


« Reply #28 on: February 19, 2012, 10:17:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Before everyone gets too carried away with dissecting MR's "10000 hour" comment ... If a conversation about that really needs to take place here, may I recommend reading it first?

Here's the very short excerpt - "Expert Performance and Deliberate Practice"

Here's the one line quote - "Hence, continued improvements (changes) in achievement are not automatic consequences of more experience and in those domains where performance consistently increases aspiring experts seek out particular kinds of experience, that is deliberate practice ... --activities designed, typically by a teacher, for the sole purpose of effectively improving specific aspects of an individual's performance."

Let's correct some basic misunderstandings:

  • Not more experience but deliberate practice.
  • Not 10,000 hours making photos but 10,000 hours of practice on specific aspects of making photos.
  • Not 10,000 hours to master the basics and reach an acceptable level, but to consistently improve beyond that level.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2012, 11:19:05 AM by Isaac » Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6303


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #29 on: February 19, 2012, 10:30:09 AM »
ReplyReply

... As to to what Slobodan said he is correct about quoting. On another forum I was pulled up by a moderator for quoting fully a post of another poster because it took up too much band width...

Ah, yes! Thanks stamper for reminding me of my third pet peeve (a.k.a. kind request to posters):

3. Please do not quote the whole text (especially not the lengthy ones) only to add such a profound comment as:"+1", "Well said", "I concur" or similar. Quite often it is a "cruel and unusual punishment" to read certain posts the first time, let alone being forced to glance at at again in someone's elaborate reply.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #30 on: February 19, 2012, 11:29:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Ah, yes! Thanks stamper for reminding me of my third pet peeve (a.k.a. kind request to posters):

3. Please do not quote the whole text (especially not the lengthy ones) only to add such a profound comment as:"+1", "Well said", "I concur" or similar. Quite often it is a "cruel and unusual punishment" to read certain posts the first time, let alone being forced to glance at at again in someone's elaborate reply.




Yes, I've often seen reference made to that line... so, just for the record, what does constitute usual punishment? I'm obviously not into S&M or anything of that ilk, so forgive my innocence as revealed in the question.

Rob C
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6303


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #31 on: February 19, 2012, 12:04:27 PM »
ReplyReply

It is a legal term. From Wikipedia entry: "Cruel and unusual punishment is a phrase describing criminal punishment which is considered unacceptable due to the suffering or humiliation it inflicts on the condemned person. These exact words were first used in the English Bill of Rights in 1689, and later were also adopted by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1787) and British Slavery Amelioration Act (1798)..."
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #32 on: February 19, 2012, 12:14:22 PM »
ReplyReply

It is a legal term. From Wikipedia entry: "Cruel and unusual punishment is a phrase describing criminal punishment which is considered unacceptable due to the suffering or humiliation it inflicts on the condemned person. These exact words were first used in the English Bill of Rights in 1689, and later were also adopted by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1787) and British Slavery Amelioration Act (1798)..."



Obviously flawed: how can slavery ever be ameliorated?

I understand it's a legal term, but Wiki's a recent reference and I don't think it goes down for me as case history. However, I shall consult my definitive Erle Stanley Gardner.

;-)

Rob C


Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3053


« Reply #33 on: February 19, 2012, 04:28:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Mark Dubovoy -- "The above words by Henri Cartier-Bresson..."

As far as I can tell something quite like "the above words" appeared in French in an interview in Le Monde of 5 September 1974, but in context it seems that Cartier-Bresson was trying to say something about photography as personal vision in contrast to photography as evidence -

Quote
Dans une interview au Monde du 5 septembre 1974, il insiste sur la nécessité de "s’abstraire, [de] ne pas essayer de prouver quoi que ce soit". « La photo ne veut rien dire, elle ne dit rien, elle ne prouve rien (…) Avoir investi dans la photographie cette valeur de “preuve”, affirme-t-il, a créé la concurrence et les photos “bidons”. Quand il s’agit d’une vision personnelle, il n’y a pas de concurrence. Ce qui compte, ce sont les petites différences, les “idées générales” ne signifient rien. Vivent Stendhal et les petits détails ! Le millimètre crée la différence. Et tout ce que prouvent ceux qui travaillent dans la “preuve”, c’est leur démission devant la vie. »

Quote
... When it comes to a personal vision, there is no competition. What matters, it's the little differences, "general ideas" mean nothing. Live Stendhal and the little details! The millimeter makes the difference. And all that those working on "evidence" prove is that they are resigned to life.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2012, 04:31:20 PM by Isaac » Logged
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2162


« Reply #34 on: February 19, 2012, 05:05:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Couple of points:

Having read MD's second article I cannot agree with some of the interpretations so far. In no way does Mark ever suggest that mere time will guarantee competence. It is possible that in different endevours and with different individuals more or less time is required to reach real competence.
However the principle stands. In my field of endevour, medicine, I see many junior doctors with real talent who make appalling errors of judgement because of lack of experience. With time they learn and their discernment improves. Some senior collegues I work with are poor clinicians and mere time has not improved their clinical ability. One can hone talent and ability but mere time cannot substitute for its lack.

These articles are not academic peer-reviewed level of writing and documentation. We have read MD's opinion. If he was forced to reference every comment the article would be substantially bulkier with no discernable benefit to most of the readers.
MD's opinions are just that - his opinions. Test his assertions if you dare. Some may stand. Some may fall. Your opinions may differ from MD's but lets test what he is saying with our photographic tools (howsoever defined) rather than with sniping comments. These comments say more about you than MD.

My $0.02 worth

Regards

Tony Jay
Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


« Reply #35 on: February 19, 2012, 05:55:46 PM »
ReplyReply

+1.

I personally think that there is no such thing as inborn talent. Two traits that are mostly inherited are intelligence and physicality; without physicality you're not going to be a pro athlete. Without intelligence of a certain level you probably (I can't say "certainly') aren't going to become a famous artist or scientist. But most famous artists (since we're talking about photography) were actually trained into their jobs. They combined intelligence with the learned traits of perseverance and a willingness to work, with certain cultural possibilities (like opportunity) to become artists, but there's nothing in that that I would call inborn 'talent.' Trained differently, I think an exceptional scientist might well have become an exceptional artist.

I think there's something very true about the 10,000 hours. I've read all the books mentioned -- both 'Blink' and 'Outliers' are based on much more boring work, which is why Gladwell makes the big bucks: his books aren't boring -- and I'm pretty much a believer. It's not talent, but work, that makes the star. You just have to know exactly what talent you might be talking about...which is not always obvious. For example, I think Richard Prince's main talent lies in public relations.

But I have noticed that in most professions, it takes four to five years of steady work AFTER graduation in a specialty for even a very intelligent, hard-working professional to become truly competent in his specialty. It's true of law, surgery, engineering, etc. And 40 hours a week, for five years, is just about 10,000 hours. The 10,000 hours, by the way, is not to achieve basic competence as MD suggested, but to achieve a very high level of accomplishment.

JC
« Last Edit: February 19, 2012, 05:57:31 PM by John Camp » Logged
Nick Rains
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 704



WWW
« Reply #36 on: February 19, 2012, 06:20:53 PM »
ReplyReply

10000 hours to master the technical aspects and become thoroughly proficient in all aspects of your craft/skill set. That's OK. But no-one mentions personality and character. Many artists at the peak of their game, not to mention many prominent photographers are also slightly (or very) 'larger than life'. Often who you are, what you say about your work, and how you say, it can be more important that the work itself, particularly from a technical point of view.

I disagree with one part of Mark's essay - the image on the white background looks more contrasty to me, see Bartelson and Breneman (1976) who observed that perceived contrast not only increases with luminance levels but also with the lightness of the surrounds. (From Color Appearance Models by Mark D Fairchild, 2nd Ed, ref 6.9.)
Logged

Nick Rains
Australian Photographer
Leica Akademie Instructor
www.nickrains.com
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3053


« Reply #37 on: February 19, 2012, 07:20:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Your opinions may differ from MD's but lets test what he is saying with our photographic tools (howsoever defined) rather than with sniping comments. These comments say more about you than MD.
If the "Your" and "you" refers to a specific person then please identify the specific person, so we can keep Slobodan Blagojevic happy.

Logged
ndevlin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 580



WWW
« Reply #38 on: February 19, 2012, 08:43:13 PM »
ReplyReply


Having recently passed the 10,000 hour mark in one of my fields of endeavour recently, my take on it is that it is best thought of as a marker of the point at which the basic components of a practice have been so thoroughly internalized as to allow the practitioner to focus on the higher realization of the form, rather than 'think' about what he or she actually doing - kind of like what athletes refer to as "being in the zone". 

In creative fields, this point (whatever the # of hours may be) is where you stop thinking about the act of photographing/painting/singing/playing/dancing and can just do it with a total focus on the creative drive, because the technical components are 2nd nature.

It is not, as others have rightly pointed out, a measure of talent, but rather competence. A mediocre photographer in his 11,000th hour will produce technical stellar but boring imagery.

My 2c.

- N. 
Logged

Nick Devlin   @onelittlecamera
Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1913



WWW
« Reply #39 on: February 19, 2012, 09:04:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Often who you are, what you say about your work, and how you say, it can be more important that the work itself

Thats a very good point Nick.

Peter Lik would be an excellent example of this IMO.
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 9 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad