On a popular nature photography message board, a good observation was made by a forum member concerning mistakes and how they lead to learning. Even though he was an accomplished photographer, a recent experience opened a whole new world. He had inadvertently made a mistake while shooting an entire roll of film and produced images that were unique to his own, well developed style. Okay, not all the images were keepers but some sparked interesting insights into his photography and opened up an entirely new direction for him to follow. This gentlemans final observation was he had previously spent extraordinary efforts avoiding mistakes. Through careful analysis of every scene, he had maximized his results and minimized his "mistakes". However, when this unfortunateor was it fortunateincident produced some fairly positive results, he started to question his previous zeal to eliminate mistakes and shoot one particular way.

Readers already familiar with my photography will realize I dont restrict myself to shooting only during the "magic hour". I like using different compositions. Ive even been known to do portrait, wildlife photography using a wide-angle lens. Ive gone out and useddare I say ita telephoto lens to shoot landscape images. The fact that most learning photographers have limited themselves to a few specific tools for very specific situations isnt unexpected. I believe its directly related to our entire western related learning process. Though the process works great initially, I think theres a limit to this "standard" learning technique if its continued past the initial learning stages. Ill talk more on this in a bit. Never the less, our hero who made the fruitful mistake, had his eyes opened to new possibilities where none previous existed. Something unexpected happened and it never wouldve been discovered without making the mistake.

Lets first talk about how we learn. In our society, we teach kids by showing specific techniques and then grade their abilities to duplicate what had been demonstrated. In the most basic sense, we teach how to add, spell, and draw by showing the right way then rewarding those that match what had been taught. I almost hate to say this but its a "monkey see, monkey do" approach to learning. Sure, the techniques are a lot more complicated but essentially we teach things by showing how to exactly accomplish something then apply grades based on success of matching the lesson. I have to ask "when does rote duplication end and independent thought begin?" Lets wait to address this further as it applies to photography.

Okay, at the most basic level in our society, theres a need to understand specific parameters to be able to communicate. I acknowledge this and my discussion is really isnt meant to attack all our learning techniques. Its about opening our eyes when we think we have everything handled. I believe this becomes steadily more important as the subject matter becomes more complex and creative. My experience is that even during advanced stages of learning, teachers still attempt to guide learners to match the approaches and techniques of themselves or their most famous predecessors. "Match this style and you will be rewarded" is their approach. Unfortunately, I dont think this technique supports creativity and it certainly re-enforces students to follow one specific path that was pre-ordained by untold millions of previous followers. Essentially, I think this leads to students that dont think out of the "box", are regulated to mainstream thinking, and routinely march to the same tune thats heard around the world. To me, its a tune of mediocritythe antithesis of nature photography.

The idea here is to bust open the idea our learning techniques are working for anyone beyond basic photography abilities. This idea is unconventional and perhaps even controversial. But, busting open traditional thinking is a required step to truly being creative or avoiding spirals into mediocrity. Theres hope for us. There are tons of examples in history where conventional thinking flowed against what we now take for granted.

Let me use non-photography examples to describe how conventional thinking was so entrenched in society it turned into a kind of psychosis that prevented any contrary thought. If you remember, the world was flat until a few hundred years ago. No amount of thinking could describe it any other way. In fact, sailors were fearful if ever they sailed beyond sight of land. That theory went "bust" soon after Columbus landed in the New World. Once, the western ideal was the earth was the center of the universe. The Catholic Church directly forbade any thought contrary. In fact, Galileo was forced to recant his discoveries and theories of orbital mechanics at the risk at suffering at the hands of the Inquisition. We now know our Earth is a medium sized plant in an average sized solar system, in a normal sized galaxy, somewhere in the universe. Not exactly what the Church was saying several hundred years ago.

A more recent example and less commonly known assumption concerns our basic modeling of our physical world. Its commonly assumed Newtons laws absolutely describe the mechanics of everyday life. "For a given reaction, theres an equal and opposite reaction" as the first Newton Law of physics states. For the second he says, "a body at rest, tends to stay at rest". To quantify these laws, a series of equations were presented that today are used by all basic physic students to describe lifes motion occurring around them. These basic laws introduced in High School are assumed as the ultimate truth and the basis upon which higher forms of physics are developed. The laws are followed blindly. Its an extremely orderly arrangement and it works for most of lifes applications. What if I was to say Newtons formulas were nothing but really good approximations? Newtonian physics begins to lose its relevance when its applied to extremely massive bodies or with extremely tiny particles. His formulas describe everyday life motion well but fail when applied to tiny subjects like sub-atomic particles. How can it be such a basic truth as Newtons laws could actually be less than they appear? How did that happen? The point for us is extremely entrenched assumptions dont mean theyre the ultimate truth.

Hows this work with photography? A new photography student has millions of samples to guide formulating a photography style. The traditional approach is to review thousands of images to gain insight to proper techniques and procedures of photography. At the beginning level, this learning technique results in extremely efficient learning and gaining of photographys basic skills. However, originality isnt one of the skills being taught here. Perhaps good duplication is being re-enforced but techniques for producing truly original images isnt. This approach results in following well-worn paths taken by thousands of predecessors. Still, it is entrenched in our education system that efforts to match or copy the masters will quickly lead to mastery itself. The point here is our belief couldnt be further from the truth and its a pitfall any elementary photographer could fall into. To go exactly where the masters have been. To place your tripod in the same well-worn holes, as Ansel Adams or others will only make poor copies at best, or unflattering knockoffs at worse.

I say this with the knowledge that even if I convince all of you to stop coveting producing images just like the masters, there will be plenty of people out there doing exactly just that. Dont worry, we wouldnt be taking a less traveled road if everyone were doing it. I say all of this with the hope it will open up some possibilities for images that normally wouldve made the "round" file. Some of those mistakes may actually be the gems of your collections. Mistakes such as those experienced by our hero at the beginning may actually herald the beginning of an entirely new level of mastery of photography. I say embrace those unexpected gifts. Think about this when given the opportunity to critique images. Dont automatically dismiss those that may be off the beaten path. Look and see if they have something else to offer that with a little bit of consideration may actually reveal an especially unique quality thats missing from most photography today.

Cheers

Tom

29 Aug 01