Technical and Artistic Approaches

I am both. I'm logic-driven and not very emotional, but tech is not of any particular interest to me except for what it can help me do. I am occasionally curious to know how a particular thing works but I am glad for someone else to have the enjoyment of quibbling over the details. My camera gear is quite minimal. I use the smallest/cheapest/best solution for taking the photos I'm inclined to take. That means compromises of course but it is sometimes a fun challenge to see how far I can go. Once taken, the photos may be minimally edited in LR or massively reimagined in PS. Or they may end up being painted. Or anything in between.

In the '60s and '70s, the US Air Force recruited musicians to be computer programmers, based on studies that identified similar aptitudes were required for proficiency in each...

There's a school of thought that technical understanding of the medium is needed to effectively weild it artistically. I ascribe to that...

One of our well-respected members produces what is obviously Art but only with the use of Technology which he understands well enough.

The idea that people can be neatly divided into the artistic or the analytical is simplistic to the point of being meaningless. We all of us have both characteristics in us, and many more. And it also varies with mood, circumstance etc. Etc.
Oh, and the whole right brain - left brain thing was debunked years ago.
Other than that, an interesting thread. 😊

Perhaps take a look at the Wednesday Critique thread. Participants are encouraged to dig deeper than simple "like"s. How deep is up to you but at whatever level you wish, you'll find people who will converse with you. The Wednesday thread is an "old" endeavor that survived in a hidden corner of DPR for 15 years, for folks who thrive on talking about artistic as well as technical merit of images. It looks a bit messy over here without threaded view but we're making it work.

That is one of the reasons I tried to be a bit more specific mentioning personality, training, career choices. In my case the analytical has been overpowering. I analyze everything and strive for facts and logical analysis. My training has been almost exclusively in the sciences and my career choice involved working in a state of the art laboratory and trying to further advance and utilize technology. I know a great many others also with strong technical backgrounds who were attracted to photography due to the technology. I was initially interested in making technically good photographs without even a vague understanding of creating photographs as an artistic endeveor.

Music has it's "sub-cultures", so to speak. My son learned on his own every horn he picked up. However, when the band director gave him an oboe, all he could do was make it into the world's biggest duck call... 😆

Piano is a tough one, requires you to read and play a bunch of notes simultaneously. Can't concentrate on making just one note exquisite, like with other instruments.

Now, I think programming is hard to lose track of. Most languages in widespread use look in some way like good 'ole K&R C; once you've learned a for loop, they look pretty similar, sometimes identical, in other languages...

But not every one. Some polarizing filters are gels.

A long time ago, I took a great liking to FORTH with it's Reverse Polish Notation e.g.

<condition> IF <action> THEN

instead of IF <condition> THEN <action>

and it's exclusive use of a LIFO stack, IIRC.

It is interesting to me that the poll shows not a single entry for photographers with an artistic background. More than interesting, surprising.

I posted the poll because I have worked really hard to develop my artistic side. That has included quite a few University level courses on photography, art, art history and related studies. I have even been learning and working on painting. I have always been acutely aware that my technical side has been a detriment to my growth. Sure it was helpful when I first started with photography and needed to learn about the basic technical aspects.

Another reason was something I realized by chance. I saw a listing of the "100 greatest photographers". I forgot who put the list together but out of curiosity I did some research on the background and training of those GOATS. With very few exceptions (Ansel Adams for example), almost every one of those individuals had spent years in art school, worked as an apprentice, and typically both.

I've been a computer geek since my childhood, including being professionally a software developer for the last about 20 years. I don't mind knowing some math or playing with tools that aren't developed with user-friendliness as a priority vs. technology (a lot of tools I use while working aren't exactly done with casual end users in mind). But while taking photos, besides trying to get a good exposure I'm not looking for strictly rule-based results, but whatever feels right, and I enjoy photography as a partial break from technology even if I try to get a sane exposure and don't mind occasional esoteric processing tools. So make what you will out of that.

I didn't vote because my idea of artistic background is very different from yours.

Don't know, not really concerned about it too much to be honest. Art is such a subjective thing -someone gives a paintbrush to a Chimp, it slaps paint on a canvas, and people call that art.
So yeah, give me a camera as I wander through life, certain people would call that art. I certainly don't follow the "rules", that seems to be a big part of what makes an artist. Rather than a live scene photocopier.

@camperjimk

With respect, you cannot do an art course or two and then all of a sudden “see the light" emotionally.

Artists are born with the ability to create art, and even if you cannot draw a stickman, you can still have a deep appreciation for art in its many forms.

I was completely overcome with emotion when I saw my first Mark Rothko exhibition at the Tate Modern many years ago.

Every artist is a technician, and many technicians are not artists.

Sorry, I have no idea what a GOAT is! Must be too old in the burgeoning work of acronyms ...

GOAT
Greatest of all time, just like Serena Williams. lol

Sorry, I tried to be as comprehensive as possible and included more description, which was truncated down to a few characters. It is your definition that matters, not mine.