MicrostockGroup

I believe that photographers can have an "artist" eye, but stock photography is different.

It is, in mho, knowing what "media" needs to "market" goods, services,etc. - that makes a good stock photographer. Imagination too. And most important - the technical side of the camera. You can have all the "eye" you want, but unless you understand your instrument and light, your stymied.

On the other hand, I come from a family of artists, (published and commercial)
Father - artist,
Mother - no so,
daughter one - artist,
daughter two - no so,
daughter three (me) - artist. 

I am talking about the ability to paint, draw, the fine art stuff. The daughter that is not an artist visually takes after the mothers side of the family, where as the two daughter that are artists look like the father side. Coincidence?  I say genes.

Then again...
My husband - musician,
Mother (me) good ear, can't play an instrument to save my life.
Our Son... picked up guitar,(acoustic & electric) piano,trumpet,sax,flute, etc etc, at the age of 14, (self taught) no lessons, no interest before, never picked up an instrument prior, is 16 now and is writing his own lyrics and music, doing solos in front of large audiences, utilizing tracks of the many instruments he plays and making CDs. His talent is natural.

Too much coincidence here - I say genetics. My son was exposed to (and enjoyed) art way more than music.

Regards
Penny

coincidence is unfortunately discounted way too much -- your anecdotal evidence is useful, but not demonstrative, much less conclusive -  were none of these people exposed to music and art as they grew up?  did none of these people take any lessons, do any study to improve on that initial interest?

the nature/nurture debate continues, but it's rare to find any talent/aptitude that can really be ascribed mostly to genes. 

it's especally iteresting t consider something like photography which didnt exist 200 years ago -- what selective pressures could there have  been to select for an aptitude that had no selective advantage?

s

amen

Science says certain types of recognition of art are inborn, therefore defined by genes, like the human preference for symmetry or the rule of thirds.
To express art is a bit more difficult. Even if your brain produces great ideas, you need training in the media you wish to express your ideas with. Training can be learned, with interest, enough time, effort and a good teacher by almost everybody.
Last thing is the great idea itself. That´s where artists are different. They think beyond the norm. And the ability to do so seems to be mostly inborn. So thats 2:1 for the genetics.

I was not born with a camera in my hand, but I do get a few lucky shots now and then.  Funny, but come to think of it - the more I study and practice, the luckier I get.

(No I'm not full of myself - it was w. eugene smith if I remember who said something like that.  )

what a great thread.

my eldest daughter now 16, learnt the alphabet and taught herself to read (a biggish part from sesame street she hit school at 5 already reading books. I have a degree, masters degree and almost finished phd, I have the more advanced vocabulary but even at 16 she writes better and easier than I ever will, for her it just comes natural and easy. 

my son is in 5 year and sitting with the year 8 maths textbook. skims a chapter of instruction in a few minutes and then does the end of chapter review. occasionally he makes a simple mistake. his teacher complains he doesn't show working, he says he just sees the answer, to show or even do the working is extra work not a process along the way (personally I think he does it, but it is just that fast). I know more maths than him, but I worked hard with lots of practice. as long as he stays interested he will be well beyond what I know with only a small amount of work.

I have done so much logic and problem solving I often get problems and come up with a solution or two and people look at me strange. I try to explain that the answer is really not that hard, and really is obvious that just look even stranger.

makes me also think of movie good will hunting. I think if I was to put 100 hours a week into golf, I dont think I'd ever be as good as tiger woods.

BUT back to photos

Nowadays I look at an area and see the shots (or how a shot isn't going to work) I see more or better than I did a couple of years ago and that was better than a few years before (but it was always there).  The problem I still have is getting my vision of the scene into the camera, and even more so through photoshop.  The vision is there, just have to get the mechanics of the rest of it to happen.

I also look at some pro photographers around the place and see that really dont have it. I looked at a people workshop and come away with if thats what your showcasing then I aint interested.  I looked at studio specialising in headshots and would have cut what they showed in half. beyond bf/ff images there was a lot of images that were just bad artistically.

I started to write that it is all just learnt then editing and changing while I write I seem to have gone the other way. really I feel that you can be extremely good with a lot of hard work but to be in that extreme greatness it is born. I also think everyone has there own talents, my people skills are poor (stereotypical academic but my 2nd daughter will know everyone in the room within minutes

Interesting, I first think you need to reread what I said without making assumtions, second this is an opinion thread and that is what I gave.

"I do not claim to be a master or even one of the greats. However, I do aspire to be, and I hope that history will remember me in that way."  Funny that you see this as self-serving, looks to me like I said I am not the one to be the judge of my own work and that if I am ever called or judged to be a master or great, it will be history, (I.E. the claims and regards of others) not myself making the claim. Sounds pretty humble to me, really didn't believe it needed the longer explaination.

I would like to use your post however to futher explain my "opinion", whether you are a great mechanic, mother, painter, ballplayer, you are great when the inspiration drives you to find the craft, not the craft that drives you to be inspired. It is there that defines the difference between a great or master photographer/artist and an artist who produces some really great work.

You seem very proud of yourself.

Cranky MIZ

this was the sort of example i had in mind earlier when i said that claims of pure innate ability are  unfalsifiable -- what you just described seems like a prime example of a LEARNED response - you examined the subject, made some predictions, tested them, and then improved your hypothesis when you got the 'duds'  - resulting in a great shot!

you dont need a teacher to learn - contrast this to what we should expect if this talent was BORN -- you could hand your camera to someone who'd never taken pictures, never seen an archer, and knew nothing of basic physics and they'd still get the shot you did - how likely is that?

steve

I wouldn't say 'very proud'. 'Chuffed' is probably a better way of expressing it.

It's not 'great art' ... it's not even art ... I'll be the first to admit that. And it may not sell at all. Time will tell. But I got a great deal of satisfaction working to capture an instant that  (I don't think) any other photographer there had thought to try for.

Do you have a problem with that?