What Makes a Good Photographer?

Is the good photographer the person that can discover a unique perspective or scene in any environment? That can create a piece of art in an instant? Or go out on a jaunt and come back with something inspiring? Or easily delete or discard any photos they determine as unsuccessful in a quick glance (be able to cull their work efficiently)?

Does one’s proficiency in their craft make them any more talented or artistic?

Not necessarily.

Or does it?

If you are able to create that one Mona Lisa equivalent photograph in your lifetime, will it define you as a good photographer? (Eg. Henri Cartier-Bresson’s prositute in a door panel or Bruce Davidson’s photo of a boy and carriage in Wales or any Saul Leiter NYC street photo). Chances are yes, since the law of averages says that the remaining photos you take would most likely be better than worthless digital bits and remnants to be lost to obsolete technology in a few decades. Creating a Bresson photo is no accident, we would like to believe anyway; and if it happens to be a fortuitous accident, it most likely required a plethora of photographs be taken before reaching such heights.

Perhaps naively, I have always thought that the ability to pick up a camera and start being creative as a sign of a good photographer. Accompanying this naiveté is Malcom Gladwell’s 10,000 hour rule. If should I put in my 10,000 hours of “training” as he called it, should I expect the improved artistic results? What exactly defines expertise, if indeed, Gladwell’s assertion is that so many hours of “training” result in a level of expertise?

The ability to develop a craft with its unique skills and apply critical judgement during the process make someone an expert. The artist may be an expert at applying skill, critical judgement and exploring/developing a particular craft, but how does expertise relate to artistry or proficiency? Honing artistic qualities to be proficient and consistent is what makes someone a professional in their field. An artistic endeavor may have a meaning or value more than the product of the art itself.

It soon becomes clear, when thinking about the 10,000 hour rule, statistically, the actual artistic pieces which bring something to the table would most likely be few and far between. It isn’t as if at the 10,000th hour, everything from that moment on is a top level work of art. But is proficiency defined by the quality of the result or a measure of consistent results? I think to be proficient is to regularly employ one’s learned expertise, often characterized by a high level of quality and consistency. There must be some measure of artistry, along with consistency, to be an “expert.”

But what about a photographer’s prolificacy? Whether a photographer has a portfolio of 20 exceptional photos or 200, is it important?

I have already defined proficiency as the ability to apply a skill (or skills) with a regularity which results in a product perceived as the mastery of that skill.

Now let’s take a more philosophical approach. Wendell Berry*, based on his theories of human development, consumerism, education, and teleology, divided man’s thoughts into two different trajectories of existence which constantly fought each other for man’s attention. Berry’s thoughts of life as an ever changing loop in a pattern were always competing with the separate thoughts of life as occurring and being contemplated as a linear development. In many ways, I think this is true, revealing itself in such hobbies as photography, music…and the rest of the arts.

“The linear visions tends to look upon everything as a cause, and to require that it proceed directly and immediately and obviously to its effect. What is it good for? If it proves immediately to be good for something are we ready to raise the question of value: How much is it worth? But we mean how much money, for if it can only be good for something else then obviously it can only be worth (italics Berry) something else. Education becomes training (italics mine) as soon as we demand, in this spirit, that it serve some immediate purpose and that it be worth a predetermined amount.”

Berry raises the question of “value” and hints at where it may be obtained. To ask, “what is the value of photography?” which seems to be the ever present argument by those that have written of it, is to fall into the trap of estimating its worth. Tim Carpenter makes the argument that it presents something entirely different in value from the photographs themselves, the process teaches us to learn to die: to accept our eventual fate, to find our place in the world, acknowledge our limitations, and seek meaning. A photographer that sees themself as proficient may mean something very different to the art curator; depending on the purpose for which the photographer has “trained” his work in the craft.

According to Berry, when thinking linearly (a view he does not think healthy, productive, enlightening or worthy of constant pursuit) we are “trained” to create products of value determined by their immediate purpose. To what purpose is photographic art, or any art, being created? Warhol would have thought, perhaps, that art it is created for its own sake and its own value. Carpenter would perhaps argue that it is the process of the creation/de-creation required to make art that prepares the artist for death…and perhaps this can be transferred through the photograph to the art patron. (I may be inferring too much here)

A professional (even an artist) can be HIRED/commissioned to provide a product of some value to someone else, a part of the “consumerism” to which Berry is so critical and which robs us of sharing in the appreciation and need for preserving (action) all of the circular workings (cycles) inherent in associations between man and his environment . While stuck in the trappings of creating value, we are, in Berry’s world, prevented from actually creating anything of human value at all except for a commodity to be developed at the expense or abuse of our environment. Monetary value and humanistic value are separated in his world. The theme of this separation may not be a coincidence.

During a recent dinner conversation about the value of one’s worth in a profession and the notions of compensation unaligned with responsibility, I was asked why I am not also a Contractor in addition to an Architect (the presumption being that a Contractor’s compensation is more aligned to the responsibility for his work). I hear this asked often, as if contracting is a natural offshoot of architecture (rather than its second cousin); the act of changing livelihoods seen as a simple and natural transition. I responded very simply that it provides me little to no satisfaction to undertake such work (nothing to disparage such a discipline, contractors are a special breed, able to bring something very real and valuable to the world. I think of them as the movie directors and cinematographers of the construction industry). It appears this third rail of satisfaction squelched the discussion of my participation in an industry in which all attempts are made to have the architect responsible for 90% of a project’s success, cost and problems; all for just a fraction of project’s financial interest (in the form of services and fees).

The concept of satisfaction, as opposed to utility, is where the difference is made between our emotional investment in our work (or hobby) and our development in that work. Berry argued that the agrarian economy was one which tied humans to land, made us aware of a cyclic universe and resulted in a “satisfaction” (my word) which brought with it, a certain health required for our well being as stewards of the planet and meaning in our lives. Unfortunately, it also brought with it an economy of racism, which while he had the privilege to view from hindsight, I’m not so sure wasn’t part and parcel as indelible to the agrarian way of life as was the respect bestowed upon that which could not be controlled (a certain humility).

Ok enough. Photography, as a hobby, should bring about some sort of human responsibility and personal satisfaction. If photography is being accomplished for a higher purpose, that purpose is usually to bring meaning to a photograph.

If an artist’s intent is to create value, such intent can’t be ignored, rather, it must be judged, evaluated and valued based upon a market’s determination. Value is linked closely to a “linear” form of thinking which has predominated Western culture and capitalism, which in some way, seeks to define an intrinsic value derived from art.

Proficiency may just be the ability to regularly provide highly executed work which brings a market value of an item irregardless of any other meaningful qualities it may possess. Being proficient with a camera has its benefits, but may MEAN very little in the ultimate determination of a photo’s non-intrinsic value.

*Wendell Berry, talented author, philosopher, farmer, lover of nature and humanist whose early writings applied his anecdotal experiences with the tenants of Libertarianism and Progressivism – my interpretation of his works, anyway.