Subscribe by email
Subscribe by RSS feed
Can Vision Be Taught?
June 12th, 2009
Because I’m either profoundly curious about what people are saying about my book or I am morbidly narcissistic, I followed a link to a review of my book this afternoon that suggested I had failed, in the book, to teach “how to see with a creative eye.” By that I assume he means vision. So setting aside the matter of my book not being about that, it raised a good question.
Can vision be taught? I asked the Twittersphere and here are some of the too-short answers to a question that deserves more exploration.
It’s more about the personal experience that matters rather than a “vision formula.”
It cannot be taught any easier than teaching someone to see the world in a grain of sand and a heaven in a wildflower.
“How to get a creative eye” can be taught. Can it easily be learned via a book is the better question.
People want easy. They want a pill. That’s not the path to vision. It doesn’t come in package for $19.95.
Creative eye taught? Don’t think so. At best it can be dared to find its own way. That’s where the “creative” comes in.
I’m not sure it can be taught if either talent or vision are absent…vision being the more important of the two.
I don’t think so, no. But there are exercises that can help you develop a better understanding of it.
I don’t think it can be taught, but the journey can have a guide.
I think it’s like songwriting, with vision & talent as the raw materials, it can be coached & honed.
You can only teach someone how tools work. What they do with them is where their creativity comes in.
No. You can mentor and guide and push people but there’s no 1 – 2 – 3 to a creative eye.
Can’t be taught. One should trust/have faith in their individuality and keep shooting what interests them. It’ll come.
If there is “teaching” involved, it should be focused on *practicing* creativity. You know, “How do I get to Carnegie Hall?”
I think this is a question worth raising. Of course the reply that it draws out of you depends on the definitions and baggage you bring to it. But here’s my initial knee-jerk reaction, one I’ll no doubt go back and forth on a dozen times before the day is out.
Vision is part of you, it’s what you see and how you see it. Can we be taught to see things differently? Yes. But only so far before we bump into the limits of our creative DNA. People see the world in an intrinsically unique way and I think the best we can do is to accompany people on a journey of self-discovery. To be introspective enough that we begin to unearth the way, or ways, we see the world with greater clarity. Will it change? Of course it will, as will we. But what lies at the heart of this whole thing, I think, is this: we’re in a culture – even the sub-culture of digital photography – that has taught us all we need are the tools and where knowledge is lacking, a book or video. But vision isn’t knowledge. You can’t teach vision any more than you can teach someone to be a poet. You can teach about poetry. You can teach the technique with which we express it. You can teach about the vision of the masters. But you can’t teach someone how to have vision anymore than you can teach someone how to feel passion for his wife or outrage over an injustice.
But the point of this for me isn’t the answers, it’s the questions. And I think there’s a reason all this is resonating so much with most of us – it’s because we’re longing to express ourselves and we’re bumping up against the reality that this is hard. It is for me too, every day. For all the joking my friends do about me being “Dr. Vision,” I wrestle with this stuff too. The Chinese philosopher/poet Lao Tse is attributed as saying “what’s in the way is the way.” Wrestling with our vision and its discovery and expression is not an obstacle to our photography, it is the path of our photography. I can’t give you a road map because only you know where you are and where you’re heading. Discovery is the point, not getting there.
Every body has vision. It doesn’t need to be taught. What you teach is how to get someone to be able to recognise and express their vision. It’s like language. Every one has something to say. We just need to teach them how to speak.
Some people (not me, unfortunately) have an uncanny ability to express their vision. Others have a hard and long slog (me, unfortunately) until they can express themselves. For most of us we just need perseverance and patience. But, eventually, if you keep your eyes and mind open, it does come.
Gordon
This is excellent.. i need to start twittering pronto!
Everyone has their own individual vision of creativity. But sometimes that vision needs a teacher to be unleashed.
Nice Post, Hits the nail right on the head.
BTW P.63 “cant polish a turd” actually it can be done as the legendary Mythbusters proved.
[...] This post was Twitted by younesbounhar – Real-url.org [...]
You say “Discovery is the point, not getting there”. I agree that “discovery is the point” but I think you are short changing the “getting there” part. Evolving through experience of what works (or doesn’t) for others, serendipity, experimentation… all, I think, are part of discovery. Taking in the reception of our work, be it self-scrutiny or public review, is fundamental to learning and leading to what we call our vision. This whole discussion raised by the reviewers comment is a great case example.
Everybody can look, but not everyone sees (very Zen
).
Seeing depends on your frame of reference. A part of your frame of reference is tauch, a part has develeped by experience (another way of training). Yet another part depends on interests. I therefor propose a nuance: a part can be trained, a part not.
Furthermore, developing a vision means developing only one skill. Another skill is to express that vision
I think vision is innate; we all have one. And yes, it does change, not so much “as we change” but because we change. That’s the point of our individual journeys: the change. It’s why we’re here. To express your vision you need two things: a medium and a mastery of the tools of that medium. We get to choose the medium, though the poet would argue it chooses us. Either way, for some the medium is poetry, for others music, or painting, or sculpture. There are many oher media. After the medium is chosen, you need to learn to use the tools of that medium. And that’s the part — the only part — that can be taught: the craft. What you do with it is up to you, but it’s how you express yourself and share your vision with the world, should you choose to.
Hey, I thought of an analogy…. Here in the US of A we have a two party poitical system: the Donkeys and the Elephants. Trying to teach vision if like trying to teach someone to be a Donkey or an Elephant. People do try and what you usually end up with are political cartoons, newspaper editorials, and arguments. Everyone trying to explain why it’s best to be a Donkey or why it’s best to be an Elephant. But not much changes. How you came to be a Donkey or an Elephant in the first place is part of the Great Mystery.
I think this remark from your post sums up my view quite nicely (how do you manage to do that all the time?)
“You can’t teach vision any more than you can teach someone to be a poet. You can teach about poetry.”
“Dr. Vision” – that’s fun. I think “vision” and “seeing creatively” are more easily separated when viewed outside of artistic endeavors.
A CEO of a large corporation should have a vision for that company, …where they are going and what can be accomplished. He may need help getting there, and may need to “see creatively” to solve problems in order to get there, but he has a destination fully in mind.
Vision is a compass, experience is the guide.
I am not sure your book failed to teach “how to see with a creative eye”. There are many many hints and suggestions in there about doing, thinking, and shooting differently and deliberatly than you might have before. I learned and had reinforced a good number of those tools.
I think these “tools” of how to shoot creatively is different from vision. You can’t teach me MY vision. It is my vision that I need to get out, using the creative tools you have presented to present the image that I see, or want others to see.
I also think the book does a good job of describing what you mean by vision. By reading this book and thinking about what each of the chapters means to me, I think I have a much better handle on what my own vision is. Even better, I now realize that I need to figure out what I want a photograph to say before I take it if I want it to be more than a snapshot. That’s hard for me.
So, did the book teach me to see creatively? I believe it gave me some tools that when applied can help me make more creative pictures.
Did the book teach me my vision? Sadly, no
But it did help me emensely along my journey to understand just what having a vision is, and what mine is.
here’s a thought: if you have an opinion about something, you might have vision.
Sometimes we know more about what we don’t like than what we do. When you find you have a strong opinion about something, write it down. Keep a list of things you feel strongly about, don’t like or would never do. Once a month or occasionally get out the list and take some time to think about “why.” (i.e. Why do you think HDR photography is “weirdo art”)? As you go through this exercise, you might discover you have more vision than you thought.
…”what’s in the way is the way.”
There seems to be some confusion regarding definitions – the reviewer David refers to seems to think that a book on vision should teach its readers to see the world the way e.g. Ansel Adams did. The point, however, is to teach how to tap into one’s innate worldview. In the end, this personal vision may never resonate with the general public, no matter how well expressed. So the phrase in one of the comments above, “Everyone can look but not everyone sees” should really be “Everyone can look and see something different”. The difference between me and a pro is that the pro has a clear vision and knows how to convey it to the audience, while I’m still struggling to define mine and still learning the tools.
As for the book which I’ve just started reading: it is true that the only thing David or anyone else can teach are the tools to express one’s vision. However, this is the first book where these are taught with the constant emphasis on thinking about what you want the photograph to say before pressing the shutter. Kudos!
See David, this is where I think you went wrong with your mantra! You should teach palpable, tangible things: GEAR!! It’s all about the gear and nothing but the gear…plus I think it’s a lot easier to get Canon and Nikon on your side if you do so
.
Kidding aside, as you said, you can take people along with you on the “vision journey”, but to develop personal vision, well, you have to put your personal touch on it. Talent and innate creativity sure help, but one has to know how to harness them and use them, and that, like everything else, is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration…you work at it, work at it some more, and when you think you’re there, work at it even more! It’s quite fascinating that the more you try to see, the more you actually do see…see things you didn’t even think were there, see things…All of this to say, that no creativity cannot be taught, but you can certainly help unleash it by working at it and have some one sort of show you the way…
I totally agree, David!
(and for once that’s all I have to say!)
David,
I think in your last paragraph on this blog you explained vision perfectly. I also think you did a damn good job of explaining it in Within The Frame.
I think that perhaps vision can be guided, nurtured and encouraged, but even these aspects couldn’t possibly come from a book. Our visions are summations of our beings. We have our own cultures, educations and experiences – all which impact our visions. I can’t learn to have the vision of Chinese man who grew up reading Spanish literature in Tanzania. I just can’t. I can read Spanish literature. I can visit – even live in – Tanzania, but the totality of each our lives are our own.
We simply can’t view the world in the way of another for we are not that other.
I am trained as an architect. I started my college career with 60 students. We ended up with about 18 after 5 years. I think it relates to teaching vision. I think teachers can help bring out your own vision and talent and help guide it. And it seems to me that those who read your book, looking for their vision don’t have one. They like the idea of vision.
Vision cannot be taught, only learned.
David,
I am afraid that the writer of that review was perhaps hoping to have all the answers upon finishing the book. Exposure, and off-camera flash can be taught, those are purely technical, although the end result will depend entirely on the photographer. You might want to under expose an image on purpose to create a mood, and the way you manipulate the light from your flash will also affect the final image. But, for the most part those are technical considerations. Vision, on the other hand, while, it still requires the tools of the trade, is something we all need to seek. A book can only guide us, give us advice, and even help us avoid making certain mistakes. But, ultimately, a photographer can only write about his experiences, HIS vision.
I guess my instinctive reaction is that if vision can’t be taught, what’s the point in writing about it?
I equate this to jazz, the art form I was most deeply exposed to in my formative years. There are rules and structures and freedoms and expressions all held in a weird tension. I had a teacher explain them to me, introduce me to the ‘cats’ who really got it, and even jam with me. I’m not the next Sonny Rollins, but I enjoy the rare op I get to play with people. (My favourite advice from him: “When you get a chance to play, you know, preach!”)
Chase Jarvis posted a trailer for a cool-looking movie on advertising, called Art and Copy. This is the line the clip starts with:
“The frightening and most difficult thing about being what somebody calls a creative person is that you have absolutely no idea where any of your thoughts come from…”
Right. So, that’s scary. Especially when you put yourself in a place of pressure, deadlines, etc. But with increased familiarity to the rhythms, the scales and how to step right out of them at the right moment, then you can really start to play.
Touché, Phillip — that’s an important distinction.
Vision can’t be taught, but it can be taught about. When we learn the elements, and observe the vision of the masters, we are learning about vision. When we see that vision, and say “But what if I do this instead?” we are beginning to learn our own vision. Excellent topic.
[...] this same spot in the road some 30 years later. But so is life. I read an interesting article by David duChemin ( a brilliant writer and photographer) a few days ago regarding vision. Can it be taught or is it [...]
Here’s my two cents for what its worth. I think the word ‘taught’ is problematic. It alludes to a very linear form of education, like that in a class room or self help book. In that sense I don’t think vision can be taught, which is kind of beautiful because that means it can’t be exploited.
However, I do believe vision can be ‘learned’. We wont learn the majesty of a mountain range by reading about it, we learn by climbing. We don’t learn about injustice by watching the news, we learn by feeding the hungry, and standing with the oppressed. In the same way, I don’t believe we learn creative vision in class room, blog or book. We learn by going out into the world, engaging it, and experiencing it.
Our experiences shape us… who shape our photography? I pose that as a questions cause I’m really just thinking out loud now…
I guess it not the question of teaching….it is more of showing the path…how to tread that path depends on individuals…and many thanks to u for showing the path…just keep it going…people like me need that
[...] missed the comments left in Friday’s post, Can Vision Be Taught, be sure to check them out HERE. I’m still unpacking it and trying to wrap my brain around some of the words we use in these [...]
Well I’m an amateur in photography and sometimes I know my vision but I try to be more creative and find another way to express vision.. the same message but two different POV.
I don’t think it is possible to teach people how to view things differently but it can definitely be learnt. It’s by looking to other artists work that we can understand what works and what doesn’t work in photography. It is also by experimenting different settings and subjects that we can come to build a vision that conveys a message.
I remember an exercise that helped me understand what was vision and how to express it: just take an object that means a lot to you and shoot it in every possible way you can imagine; different lenses, apertures, speeds, close shots, far away shots..
David, you have quoted Lao Tze saying “What’s in the way is the way” several times. I am fond of Lao Tze since my twenties but I cannot remember where this quote is from. Please tell me the chapter! Thanks in advance!
(I hope a comment on such an old posting will be noticed.)
Hm, it seams nobody cares about old posts. But I investigated further and an friend of mine, a philosopher, came up with the idea that this saying of “What’s in the way, is the way” might be an other translation of the very first sentence of the Tao Te King: “The way that can be spoken about is not the eternal way”. Translation from old Chinese to English or German is very complex and I can imagine that he is right.
Maybe someone is interested in this topic and reads this.