Do you agree or do you think I'm some sort of pompous a**hole on an ego trip.

My answers to both questions were terse and to the point.
1. Almost agree.
2. Skip this one 

I think that people have or don't have a "sense of aesthetic" and that you cannot learn it.

 

can of worms on this one, MIZ... 
..having been doing this thing coming up on 50 years...  IMHO

1. Yeah,  you are born with  'the eye'...  or 'the talent'.  Same as everyone can't be a Michealangelo,  a Frank Lloyd Wright,  a Bach, a Da Vinci ,

2.  Yeah, I agree with Pywrit on this one... It can be taught/learned... but only with extreme effort and dedication over years and years.  On the other hand,  that in itself may imply that a shred of the talent was there in the first place.

 =tom

I'd rephrase this a little bit. I think a good photographer can be made, but a great photographer is born.

I think we can learn basic rules of composition and lighting to get us from mediocre to good, but I think there are some who possess an eye for extreme detail and are very astute observers of the world who do things at an instinctual level that many of us could never learn. Or if we could learn it, it would too much time to actually think everything through and execute, and we'd still probably forget a lot of things.

Every see the movie Amadeus? That what this is about. No matter how hard Salieri tried he could never come close to matching the genius of Mozart. Things that never even occurred to Salieri were instinctual to Mozart.

With that said, I think there is case to be made for salesmanship.  I think a few good artists can become great if they can convince the right people that their work is also great.

But remember, we don't all have to be great to be successful. I think very few people recognize true greatness.

Just my thoughts.

John,.....no single malt in the coffee I hope

Either you can feel it.. or you don't. I have seen plenty of music graduates not able to create a simple tune. Anyone can read a book. Being able to identify/create the subtle things that make the "art" work or not work is something you are born with.

To quote John Lennon
"I'm an artist, and if you give me a tuba, I'll bring you something out of it"

Steve_oh said the best!

Nah - the top stock photographers are 'production machines' working to carefully researched formulas.

There is a difference between stock and 'art'.

Mozart and Beethoven both died destitute, and Van Gogh could hardly make enough money to feed himself.

On the other hand Andrew Lloyd Webber and The Spice Girls are production machines worth millions.

Nah - the top stock photographers are 'production machines' working to carefully researched formulas.

There is a difference between stock and 'art'.

Mozart and Beethoven both died destitute, and Van Gogh could hardly make enough money to feed himself.

On the other hand Andrew Lloyd Webber and The Spice Girls are production machines worth millions.

LOL... that's true Hatman I'm more interested to be in the spice girls category

not sure I agree with this.

I agree that some people have an ability with the arts, and some others are suited to other things. But imagery could be expressed as writing, painting, sculpting.

I think most people who are "arty" struggle with the technical aspects of photography.

I think that everybody has the possibility to do anything in them.  Creativity is inherent in everybody.  Talent however IMO refers to the ability, partially technically, partially by feel, to transfer what is found in the mind into what something that can be communicated to others.

Whether via spoken words, written words, visual art, photography, film, musical composition, musical performance, architectural/engineering design, scientific discovery, all of this is nothing more than various forms of communication, something that humans have mastered relative to other creatures on the planet, yet still humans communicate very rudimentary.  The ability does not exist to communicate to others what exists in our heads exactly.  We can get close, especially in some areas, other areas are very lacking.

I think that musical performance gets the closest, musicians exist that can communicate the sounds in their heads to others almost exactly as they hear it in their minds eye (I saw a fantastic Santana show with Prince as a guest musician, both literally seemed to be taking to one another via their instruments, both clearly had the ability to play back exactly what the other had just played and expand apon it, it was really amazing to hear).

Spoken language, as rudimentary as it is, works, though the eloquence of a thought is often lost in the translation into language, and thoughts and ideas exist that there is no way of expressing verbally.

Wheras mundane concepts that are easily described by language and musical notes are fairly easy for humans to communicate, visual ideas are much more difficult, and non-mundane concepts are the most difficult of all. 

Everybody has the ability to visualize things somewhat, they inherently recognize the aspects that make a good photo/painting, etc..., but to transfer that from recognition to creation is a big step (even communicating why it is good is a difficult task to master, it is not something that language is good at describing inherently), not only requiring technical proficiency to use the medium but also the ability to communicate via the medium, which is often referred to as talent, but the ultimate teacher could teach the "talent" to anybody, the problem is the ultimate teacher does not exist, not even close, due in large part to the limitations of verbal communication.  Words do not exist to properly describe the mental process of artistic communication, it is something that you have to kind of figure out on your own, some people can, others that need help to see the way are considered to be lacking talent, they could do it if their mind could be shown the way.

The one place that I think that our teaching is most advanced is in the field of engineering and architecture.  Everybody has the ability to visualize something that doesn't exist.  Though education engineers are taught via endless practice to hold and refine a model in their head, ascribe forces, materials, money, and feasibility to it, and learn the technical proficiency to communicate this to others via agreed upon standards for communication of the design via plans.  Anybody can be taught to be an engineer or architect, the ones that make it however are the ones that can be taught to be effective in a reasonable amount of time.

I really feel for theoretical physicists, their creativity is on fronts where there is no effective language to communicate, and no predetermined system to describe their ideas to others.  Numerical equations exist, but they are but a small part of the understanding of the concept.  Einsteins special theory of relativity is a prime example.  It is a very simple concept mentally, yet there is no equation that can describe it, and it is very difficult to put into words.  Einstein's explanation with trains and clocks is very bulky and difficult to understand, others have described it better, but it still is always a very bulky and difficult to understand explanation, but the concept at the core is so very simple.  Scientific explanation as seen by outsiders is so very far behind the true forefront of understanding, at the very edge there is absolutely no means developed yet to communicate that understanding to others, it only exists in the mind and nowhere else.

Sorry for my spiel and back to photography.  I firmly believe that everybody has the ability of a master photographer in them.  But they need to develop it (there are no savants that can pick up a camera and be Ansel Adams from day 1), both by learning to describe what a great picture is using the boundaries of language (Flickr is fantastic training for this), which also codifies it for ones self so it doesn't require extra thought at each execution attempt, and learning the technical aspects of using the medium.  Over time and practice the visualizing of a great picture comes easier and easier, to the point where it becomes possible to "see" prior to clicking the shutter.  All of the aspects; lighting, composition, color, framing, become visible with honed practice, and findings one voice reflects a comfort level with regard to subject where the previsualiztion of the shot and subsequent execution of it comes with the most ease of all to the photographer, almost natural compared to other subjects and styles.  I am one person that feels strongly that your first 10,000 clicks are crap, that any great successes are more the result of an accident gone right than a meaningful success compared to later more refined photography that comes through experience, where understanding all of the variables involved and the having the ability to have complete control over them has been learned.  Even then this just makes a good photographer, a great photographer has complete and total mastery of every aspect of the image, from previsualization and subject, to execution and delivery in a finished form.

* you guys are getting long winded

I would entirely agree with your observations.  I also believe that there are a few artist's amongst us who have such finely tuned BS .......

Amen to that, gbalex!! I couldn't agree more with that statement!!   And I am sure that some of my stuff is in that very category,  fact,  I know it is. 
None-the-less, .........it sells. 
   I put it in this frame of light.  I'm sure there are many, many top notch, world-class chefs that wouldn't be caught dead eating in a McDonald's....
Yet,  if I told you how much my McDonald's stock has grown in the last 30 years...  it would become immediately evident that it doesn't matter what world-class chefs think of their menu fare.
    Yeah a lot of my stuff isn't  Ansel Adams excellence or whatever/whoever... but magazine and book publishers are buying it. I'm making money doing it and that is why I'm doing it.  For the money. I  don't expect anything I ever shot will be hanging in a museum in 100 years and if I drop dead tonight,  by this time tomorrow, no one here will even know it or miss me.  It's just business.

I do have images that I do think are beautiful and of high quailty. None of those are on any microstock.  But they do hang in private homes.  Some have fetched pleasantly remarkable prices in auction. And I have no doubt that many, many here can say the same or similar   
      .......sooooo........          ...  so what.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  I know a shot is crap, as a pro in the biz, you know it's crap....  but some guy somewhere saw it and just paid for an EL....   that's why I'm in the micros.... to sell ..whatever will sell,  I'm not here looking to be in the Louvre by 2050.  And if I ever did make it to a museum anywhere.... It's not likely it'll be something that came out of my micro stuff...              unless, of course, the museum curator is the next Andy Warhol...

And, gbalex,  please don't take this the wrong way.  I am actually  agreeing with you.  peace =tom