Is knowing the history of techniques of composition important for master photographer

[deleuze3]

I had a debate with someone.

My point is that masters of photography all knew the history of the techniques of photography so well, the conventions, the different schools of how to frame, the lens used and their effects. To be master of a craft you need to really know these rules, the history, to transcend these techniques.

The person i was with argue that these masters of photography were not really into techniques, that they just had an eye, they were doing it with intuition, they were pure genius, inspired.

I showed the rule of 3rd to him and he told me "look at these pics, this is a master and he doesnt use the rule of third, all the face are centered in the frame and he is one of the greatest master."


I really believe that these masters learned at first the techniques and knew the history of techniques in the past, but they use intuition as well. But they are analyzing themselves always based on techniques and rules of composition, they are constantly evolving. A photographer who has less method and talent will have more difficulty to progress.

What are your thoughts about it?

 

[Mitch Gross]

Your friend is deluding himself. All great artists study the work of other artists. Art and many other concepts build upon a history and the foundations of others. Picasso had to learn classical art techniques of portraiture, oil painting, composition, etc., before he could abandon them and step beyond. Hitchhike created the "Vertigo Effect" of zooming while counter-dollying in order to effect depth compression and then it was used by others and expanded upon. There are literally thousands of other examples I could reference.

So many people like to think that they just "know better," and that being a self-taught autodidactic is the only original form. They shun the benefits of a classical education, not realizing that such a thing does not trap them, but instead frees them to grow upon the foundations of others. Those that do not understand history are condemned to repeat it, and the ones who refuse to learn the techniques already established will almost always surely be stuck at the most rudimentary levels.

 

[Run&Gun]

It's true that there are MANY people with a 'good eye', natural talent and that are 'self taught'(meaning they didn't necessarily have formal training. But that doesn't mean they haven't learned these things, none-the-less). But I also like the old saying, "You have to know the rules before you can break them".

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I had a debate with someone.

My point is that masters of photography all knew the history of the techniques of photography so well, the conventions, the different schools of how to frame, the lens used and their effects. To be master of a craft you need to really know these rules, the history, to transcend these techniques.

When the Wife and I were active in presenting at various photography conferences/conventions/seminars, we would devote some amount of our presentation to 'history of art' in general. Most of the people in these seminars were not 'art school (confidential...)' educated, and we found it was just simpler to provide this, even if a few attendees had 'heard it all before'.

The techniques are tools and if a photographer does not have a tool kit... well... I probably would not be impressed with their work.

It is of course possible for someone to find some way of presenting an image, without formal training, but most likely they have lots of 'failed' images in their trash can.

 

[Justin Kuhn]

I find the "rule of 3rds" to be a it of a misnomer...it's not a rule, it's a lens to see the world through, a brain hack. A lot of people get hung up on the r-word.

 

[danap]

Answer: Yes it is of paramount importance to know these rules, especially if you intend to break them in a narratively meaningful way. Reference: Jean-Luc Godard

 

[mcbob]

Yep... far, far predates the history of photography, dating back to the first attempts of mankind to capture a realistic 2-dimentional reproduction of a 3-dimensional world on a limited-sized rectangular canvas.

 

[CustomerGH4]

First you learn the rules and then you break them.

Btw as for the rule of thirds, check out Wes Anderson films, he always composes to the middle.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

First you learn the rules and then you break them.

Btw as for the rule of thirds, check out Wes Anderson films, he always composes to the middle.

Wes has a unique way of telling stories. I certainly am a huge fan. Another example would be Kubrick. He's definitely not a big fan of the rule of thirds.

 

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

And yes, it immensely helps to study other artists work.

It's semi-narcissistic to think otherwise. Some filmmakers tell me that they don't watch films because they don't want to copy other people. It's the most absurd comment I've ever heard. The best filmmakers in the world are often the biggest film historians. Tarantino is a great example.

People who make comments about avoiding watching films, looking at photos, or learning the history of the technique of the arts are fooling themselves. Sure they may not read about the history of the art, evolution of theory, or study techniques in a conscious way, but unless your friend is from an Amazonian tribe deep in the jungle, he's been bombarded by other people's art, style and technique since his birth. His decisions in his own art are subconsciously influenced by photography/cinematography he sees in everyday life. He's not picking up a camera and being original, 100% unique or uninfluenced. He's exactly what he wants to avoid, but in the worst way: uneducated and unknowing.

 

[Drew Ott]

If you want to really carry the tradition of the visual language inside you, study not just the history of photography and cinematography, but the history of all art. Photography is only a century and a half old, but people have been producing art for many thousands of years.

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/fine-arts/how-to-look-at-and-understand-great-art.html

This is a worthwhile course for any filmmaker. Note: only buy Great Courses videos while they're on sale-- they frequently have 70% off sales, so if you're ever buying for full price you're getting ripped off.

 

[sonofaresiii]

What exactly do you mean by "history"? Do I need to know when the first zoom/dolly combo was first used, what movie it was used in to make it popular, in order to use it? Nah. Can I watch some great examples of it anyway to see how it's best used? Sure.

Having a good eye and intuition takes me a long way. But I like to think of "studying" other artists as adding tools to my toolbag. I need a certain "feel" here, and I'm not quite sure how to get it... hey you know, that thing they did in Vertigo might work really well here... hey it does! Awesome! It's just another tool I can reach for to help me get what I'm going for.

ps the rule of thirds is crap. I'm never seen a convincing argument for it. Every example someone's shown me of something breaks down like this: "The rule of thirds works best when you either get important points close to one of the lines of thirds, or split the lines of thirds." Well, literally anything in the frame meets that criteria. Always seemed more like a case of finding evidence to support a theory, than the other way around.