A very interesting point of view, E_Dawg, and well expressed as ever. But no, I don't actually agree with it in this context.
one popular model includes 4 phases of learning:
1. Unconscious Incompetence (you don't know what you don't know)
2. Conscious Incompetence (you know that there's a lot of stuff you don't know... yet)
3. Conscious Competence (you know what you are supposed to do, what rules to follow, etc. but you have to think about all the steps, rules, and how to do things before or while you're doing them)
4. Unconscious Competence (you have attained a level of mastery that you don't need to think about the various steps, rules, and options on how to do things... you just do it effortlessly, and are freed up to focus on the creative aspects not having to think about the mechanics and the process)
(but you are) overlooking the time spent paying ones' dues in phase 3. One does need to go through the checklists, rules, follow the process, practice the mechanics, etc. before one can just focus on creating and communicating.
Nice model! Let's call it, for the sake of convence,
the E Model. But let me put an alternative model to you, which I'll call
the T Model.
The T Model is less structured. It has three stages.
1: Do what you do. Look at your results. Think about them. Work out what you like and what you don't like, and (very important!)
why you like it or don't like it. Then do it again, only this time you are conscious of what worked for you last time and what didn't, and you try to do more of the stuff you liked, and less of the stuff you didn't liked. (As Tea would put it.)
2: See (1).
3: After doing (2) many, many times over, you may eventually feel two things (i) that you have started to reach the limits of what you
can do, that your progress has slowed and you are at risk of stagnating; and (ii) that you have been doing what you do for a long enough period to be pretty firmly fixed in your ideas - I don't mean by this that your thinking has become ossified (though it may have done), but rather that you have strongly developed traits and preferences, and that these are so much a part of you now when you do what you do that there is no question of them ever being at risk. This is an appropriate time to look at what other people do, to learn the rules they operate by, and adopt those parts of those things that fit in with and strengthen the rules that
you have developed for yourself. (And, of course, to consider and reject the ones that do not meet with your internal rules.)
Which of these models is superior? Neither one, of course: they are good for different tasks and different purposes. You can use either model to achieve any goal in any field, but in general, I suggest to you that:
The E Model is good for:
- Semiconductor research
- Engineering
- Psychological counselling
- Accounting
- Warfare
- Computer programming
- Technical journalism
- (lots of others)
The T Model is good for:
- Painting
- Writing poetry
- Musical composition
- Musical performance
- Sculpture
- Photography
Are we starting to see a pattern here? Yes, you can use either method to achieve any goal, but the T Method really isn't very effective if you want to design semi-conductors or fight a war. You wind up repeating a vast number of old mistakes, and when you eventually arrive at Stage 3, you have a lot of un-learning to do. Similarly, the E Method tends to produce stilted, conservative artists who are technically competent and as alike as peas in a pod. The T Model is good for art; the E Model is good for wallpaper.
Note that my categories above are highly fungible! For example, while it is perfectly normal to use the T Method to learn to play rock or folk music, it is normal to learn classical music using the E Method - and in fact, you generally get better results in each of these genres by following the appropriate learning method. There are very few (if any) self-taught concert violinists; there are very few (if any) rock musicians of outstanding and lasting influence who were
not self-taught.
Great art is more likely to blossom where the artist is very much his own man with his own ideas. If it happens to be technically well-executed, so much the better.
Finally, I should draw a very clear distinction here between
technical rules and
artistic rules. In deciding what exposure settings to use and how far to twist the focus ring, I am making technical decisions; in deciding how to frame the subject, how much depth of field I want, and which exact moment is best to press the shutter, I am making artistic decisions - still more when I decide what subject to shoot.
I am all in favour of learning technical rules as soon as possible. In general these are objective, and apply equally to any photographer. I am very much against learning artistic "rules" at any time early in the learning cycle, indeed, I am yet to be convinced that these "rules" of composition are rules at all, and not merely codifications of groupthink and fashion. Is it good to know them? Well, it does no harm -
if you have already spent long enough doing what you do, and thinking about what you do, to have immediate clear feelings about them.
