Photography College Dilemma

[lilmsmaggie]

I would strongly recommend that you get a Bachelors in business rather than arts. For the good to average photographer a strong understanding of how business and finance (perhaps accounting) work is worth it's weight in gold.

I second this advice. Very, very astute advice I might add.

And to compound the decision more, consider this: John Sexton went to a community college and took all the photography classes he could find. Then assisted Ansel Adams. I don't think Mr. Sexton took anymore "formalized" photography after that (aka BFA) but I could be wrong.

Anyway, another school to add to the list (I know a former Ansel assistant that attended here): Art Center College of Design, Pasadena, Ca. http://www.artcenter.edu/accd/index.jsp

 

[lilmsmaggie]

Oops! -- I stand corrected:

John Sexton Bio:

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH - JULY 2007[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]John Sexton was born in 1953, and resides in Carmel Valley, California. Respected as a photographer, master printmaker, author, and workshop instructor, he is best known for his luminous, quiet, black and white photographs of the natural environment.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]John’s most recent book is Recollections: Three Decades of Photographs, an award-winning retrospective volume, published in late 2006 by Ventana Editions. John’s previous award-winning books include Quiet Light, a monograph representing fifteen years of his work, and Listen to the Trees, which were published by Bulfinch Press/Little, Brown and Company, along with Places of Power: The Aesthetics of Technology published by Ventana Editions.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]He is Director of the John Sexton Photography Workshops program, and teaches numerous photography workshops each year for other programs in the United States and abroad, emphasizing printing technique and mastery of the Zone System. Some of these other programs include: Anderson Ranch Arts Center, The Ansel Adams Gallery, Maine Photographic Workshops, and The Palm Beach Workshops.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]His informed and entertaining lectures for photographic and professional organizations, colleges and universities, discuss the aesthetic and technical aspects of fine black and white photography. He has presented lectures for, among others, George Eastman House, Center for Creative Photography at the University of Arizona, Boston University, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Museum of Photographic Arts, and the Seattle Art Museum. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A recipient of the 2005 North American Nature Photography Association Lifetime Achievement Award, John is a consultant to Eastman Kodak Company and other photographic manufacturers. He worked as both Technical and Photographic Assistant, and then Technical Consultant, to Ansel Adams from 1979 to 1984. He continues to serve as Photographic Special Projects Consultant to The Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust. From 1985 to 1993 he was a member of the Board of Trustees of The Friends of Photography.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]John’s photographs are included in permanent collections, exhibitions, and publications throughout the world. His work has been featured on the CBS Sunday Morning show, and on the MacNeil Lehrer News Hour. Bank of America, General Motors, and Eastman Kodak Company have used his photographs in national advertising campaigns. Sexton’s photographs have been featured in numerous periodicals including: Time, Life, American Photo, Backpacker, Photo Techniques, Darkroom Photography, LensWork Quarterly, View Camera, Black and White, Zoom, Outdoor Photographer, Outside, TWA Ambassador, Southern Accents and Popular Photography.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Education[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• Bachelor of Arts, cum laude, departmental honors, Art – Photography, Chapman University, Orange, California[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• Associate of Arts, with honors, Photography, Cypress College, Cypress, California[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]SELECTED HONORS AND AWARDS[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• North American Nature Photography Association, Lifetime Achievement Award, 2005[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• Kodak Professional Icon, 2004[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• Kodak Professional Legends Online, 2000[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• Cypress College, Thirtieth Anniversary Outstanding Alumnus. 1997[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• Photographic Book of the Year Awards, First Place Monograph: Listen to the Trees, 1994[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• Brooks Institute of Photography, Honorary Master of Science degree, 1990[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• Imogen Cunningham Award, 1981[/FONT]​

 

[Jamie123]

You have (or will have) an AA. How much more formal qualification do you need? Working as an assistant will teach you FAR more, FAR faster, and you'll get a small contribution to living expenses. DON'T take an unpaid 'internship' (except perhaps with a good friend whom you trust) as these devalue the entire business and you will be ripped off/exploited almost by definition.

BUT (sorry for all the caps) you need to assist in a real centre for creative photography -- London, Paris, Milan, NY, Tokyo etc, -- not Bug Tussle, Arizona, Dry Heaves, New Mexico or Power Cable, Nebraska.

I agree with Roger. Consider assisting rather than continuing to study. That is, if you want to work in commercial photography. And if that's the case you should ask yourself what kind of commercial photography you want to do. If it's fashion, go to NY, Paris or Milan. If it's celebrity portrait photography, go to NY or LA. Maybe also London but not so much. And so on...
The reason why you have to do this is a) you'll be able to learn from the most talented people, b) you'll make valuable contacts and c) things tend to happen in those "creative centres". Let's say you want to get into celebrity portraiture so you move to L.A. So maybe you start out photographing a few unknown actors. Then one of them makes it big and - bam - you got your first 'celebrity' in your portfolio. I'm using celeb portraiture as an easy example but it basically works like this in most areas of photography. If you work around and with creative people who all have the goal of 'making it' you can benefit from eachother's success.
Also, I think it's very important to surround yourself with creative people in areas other than your own. If you surround yourself with only other photographers you'll feel a lot of competitiveness (and not necessarily the good kind).
What's also important to keep in mind if you want to work as an assistant is that whatever photographer you work for probably doesn't care about your own photography (at least not at first). What he/she cares about is probably whether or not you are competent, willing to work hard and generally whether or not you're nice to have around. At first you'll likely have to start as 3rd or 2nd assistant (which, again, is mostly something that only exists in the major photography cities) and work your way up.

I'm not sure I fully agree with the 'no unpaid internships' doctrine. You always have to see what works for you and whether you can bear the living expenses. I personally did one at a photographer's agency and it was a good experience. I didn't feel exploited but maybe that's because they weren't technically looking for interns. I just coldcalled them and asked about it. I went by for a talk and because the guy liked my enthusiasm he convinced the people in charge to let me do an internship. I met lots of great people, went to lots of interesting photo shoots (where I learned a lot), learned a bit about how the business worked (how to do estimates, how to talk to clients, how to do production on photoshoots). I didn't get a salary but I got some expenses paid and at the end I got a killer going away party with Champagne, cakes and gifts. If I'd had the chance to stay in the country longer I possibly could've even landed a permanent job there. And I could definitely assisted several established photographers whose acquaintence I've been able to make during that time.

This is all just regarding commercial and/or editorial photography. If you want to pursue fine art photography maybe art school isn't a bad idea as, at least in some schools, you have the chance to be taught by accomplished artists. I know Joel Sternfeld teaches at Sarah Lawrence and Stephen Shore teaches at Bard but I'm not sure how expensive either of those options are.

 

[BillBingham2]

I agree with Jamie on the fact that free labor as long as it's short term and you're learning hand over fist is not a bad thing. Contacts are critical in life and you have to start building somewhere. Also spot on with respect to being an assistant, it's more about helping the photographer capture his/her vision. You do the heavy lifting, shifting and need to think of yourself as Radar O'Reilly, be ready with it before your are asked. Interning, assisting, whatever you call it is a WONDERFUL way to grow contacts not only with more established folk, but also with people at your level. Making friends is critical to see what people are actually like to work for, what new is happening, how did they make something work for someone.

Take a look at PhotoDistrictNews, very cool publication about one of the centers of the known universe.

Think about going double major during the school year, summer intern/assistant for room and board money.

There's an non-degree granting institution in Chicago that might be able to set you with with some classes over seas and then summer inter there after you take classes at the university.

Way back when I looked into Malian as there is a medical school there my ex-wife was thinking about going to. She spoke italian, sadly I still speak COBOL and Assembler better than english so we nixed it. Life would have been very different, perhaps more fun if we had gone that way.

MANY years back I had a photography teacher, Dan Cook who left teaching graphic arts/photography my freshman year in high school to do university teaching out that way. Look around where you can do the double major (Business/Photography (or FineArts)) and do summer internships. Keep your debt low. Think about University of Phoenix for business but do not weight, do it NOW. A heavy debt load will kill you.

B2 (;->

 

[Red Robin]

My nephew got his degree just before the Atlanta Olympics, believe he even got paid to document some of the construction. These days he's part owner(?)of a bar/restaurant in Paris. EVERYTHING changes. Be aware, and beware of the costs. Best of luck, it's a ruff way to make a buck, and remember, there's an awful lot of starving talented photographers out there and only a few, a lucky few make a living using a camera. I may have it wrong but the odds may be better on becoming a pro football quarterback maybe a pro center forward on anybodies team. You any good at sports?

 

[NLewis]

If you decide you need a BA, I would get a "double major." It doesn't take any more work, just more concentration in courses. Since you probably already have a lot of art credit, I'd look for a place in a large city that is a good all-round school. Maybe UCLA, NYU or something like that. Your other major can be history, economics, business or what have you.

As you have already ascertained, the most important thing for photography is industry experience and contacts. Find a place where you can work as a photo assistant part-time for a serious photographer, preferably a commercial photographer like a fashion/advertising/editorial photog. You would learn more carrying lights for Annie Liebowitz for a year than you could learn at a decade at some university course. Plus, you would get paid, at least $8/hour or so.

At the end of the day, the most important thing is industry exposure, and some evidence that you can deliver the goods. This means an impressive portfolio. The industry exposure teaches you about the business side.

Is this the best photo of a girl ever?

Not really, but it sold a lot of jeans, and I bet the photographer made a bundle.

 

[Frank Petronio]

I think there is a difference between an education and a skill but we mix them up. Photography, graphic design, even painting, are skills, not disciplines of study no matter how much the collegiate academics want to gussy them up into pretending to being.

The only reason there are college photography programs is for the schools' and professors' benefit -- the colleges wanted to expand during the Baby Boomer years so they created entirely artificial programs with little practical or educational value. Graphic Design (my profession for many years!) is another such "fake" created by colleges "out of thin air".

Seems to me that people learn skills and call it their education but they are pretty ignorant of the world. A good old-fashioned disciplined "Liberal Arts" program - i.e. not like Hampshire College where my daughter went -- makes the most sense to me. For nearly everyone who is self-aware.

True there are no jobs recruiting Liberal Arts majors but having a well-rounded holistic education prepares one to take on almost any challenge. Including finding a successful and happy career....

Simply learn skills from on-the-job practice (the best way) or blow a few bucks on places like the Maine Photo Workshops or Anderson Ranch or some community-based seminars-workshops-practical courses. Harry Callahan, who later sold out and taught at RISD, said that a photographer should be able to be proficient with about a year's worth of practice and study. That sounds right to me too.

If you are interested photojournalism, study history. Become skillful at photography, languages, geography, and business.

If you are interested in the arts, study literature. Become skillful at photography, art history, and business.

 

[Frank Petronio]

OK, I'll grant you that.

I just live under the shadow of RIT, the largest college photo program in the world. And with the exception of a handful of exceptional top students, I am very unimpressed by the students, professors, and the entire program. My instinct -- heavily clouded as it is -- tells me that those top students would be great no matter where or what they did school-wise.

 

[NLewis]

The benefit of an undergrad education is mostly ephemeral, but nevertheless meaningful. It is a necessary (though not always sufficient) element to enter the professional/thinking class. Most degrees from most higher-end colleges (Yale, Harvard) have no practical value, but their graduates go on to high-ranking positions nevertheless. It is a sort of social convention. The few degrees that are immediately practical tend to be very technical in nature, often as a preliminary to technical grad school (microbiology, computer science, medicine). Most "liberal arts" graduates never get a real education, in terms of learning about the world in a sophisticated way or "learning to think," that is mostly university propoganda and marketing, but it can still be a good stepping stone to some sort of adult life.

I don't think that a liberal arts education "teaches you to deal with almost any challenge." Mostly it just teaches you to get through some arbitrary university courses. However, people understand that the liberal arts education system is what it is, because they were there too, so they will give you a chance even though it might seem like your liberal arts education isn't relevant. That's the point at which you get the education on dealing with new challenges!

Thus, I think it is worthwhile to have an undergraduate degree, but as noted, unless you have a specific technical interest, like computer science, then a good "liberal arts" education is not a bad way to go. For photography in particular, I think a person would be best off studying something "liberal artsy" in a place like New York, Los Angeles or Boston, and practicing photography primarily by interacting with real working photographers and building your own portfolio, mostly on your own time.

If you are interested in fashion photography, for example, you would learn more just by booking a no-name model every weekend for $60 (or heck just find a girl willing to do it), shooting for a couple hours, then spending the week editing, post-processing and making prints, than you would learn in any class. 50 weekends a year X $60 is $3000 a year. You could probably even find some aspiring stylists and hair/makeup people to help you out at no cost. They need the experience and portfolio too.

If you are more into photojournalism, you could do well by inventing a photo project like Sebastiao Salgado, and go shoot it. He spent 18 months in Africa with Doctors Without Borders, documenting a famine occurring at the time. The point is, he just made the project up out of thin air, as a neat idea, then went and did it. His project turned into a huge book and museum exhibition, but even if it didn't amount to anything more than a neat portfolio, it would be the kind of project that would really teach you about taking pictures. 18 months in Africa doesn't cost anything, maybe $10,000. It doesn't have to be 18 months, two weeks or a month is good too.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The benefit of an undergrad education is mostly ephemeral, but nevertheless meaningful. It is a necessary (though not always sufficient) element to enter the professional/thinking class. .

No it isn't. Read novels by Sir Terry Pratchett. Anyone who denies him access to 'the thinking class' is unclear on the meaning of 'thinking'. An undergraduate degree is a cheap (in the worst sense) passport to what Americans call 'the middle class'. The English definition of 'middle class' is more complex and less defensible.

Apart from that, I very substantially agree with you.

Cheers,

R.

 

[NLewis]

By "thinking" I meant someone who makes money with some sort of cognitive behavior, like a doctor, business manager, banker, journalist, marketing or advertising person etc. This might be different than what might be called the "thinking class" in Britain. To be honest, I don't think there are really any thinkers anymore, as a definable social grouping, just people trying to make a buck as an "intellectual."

"Middle Class" in America used to mean, basically, that if you were over 35 you owned your own house. This might be from making cars at GM. I suppose these days the "thinking job class" and the "middle class" are the same, since the "blue collar middle class" is disappearing and actually about gone now.

"Middle class" in Britain at first meant people between the peasants and the aristocrats, which is to say, business owners who weren't landowning nobility. These people would be considered "wealthy" today.

 

[Roger Hicks]

By "thinking" I meant someone who makes money with some sort of cognitive behavior, like a doctor, business manager, banker, journalist, marketing or advertising person etc. This might be different than what might be called the "thinking class" in Britain. To be honest, I don't think there are really any thinkers anymore, as a definable social grouping, just people trying to make a buck as an "intellectual."

"Middle Class" in America used to mean, basically, that if you were over 35 you owned your own house. This might be from making cars at GM. I suppose these days the "thinking job class" and the "middle class" are the same, since the "blue collar middle class" is disappearing and actually about gone now.

"Middle class" in Britain at first meant people between the peasants and the aristocrats, which is to say, business owners who weren't landowning nobility. These people would be considered "wealthy" today.

Again, I'd disagree slightly, while still agreeing with the broad thrust of your argument. There are still (a few) opportunities for journalists without degrees, and indeed photographers if they're good enough. Of course for politicians and novelists (whom one might hope to engage in 'some sort of cognitive behavior') there is no educational requirement at all.

Likewise, the petty bourgeoisie who owned small shops, etc., might be very nearly as poor as their customers: read The Classic Slum. But equally, in the UK, 'middle class' can be tied to education (above all), to accent, to the newspapers you read, and to lots more, which is why I say that the American version is more defensible.

Finally, I'd say that there are plenty of thinkers, and maybe even a 'thinking class'. It's just that thinking seldom pays well, and indeed, often may not pay at all except in the dole queue. Mindless conformity pays better. (Note on the last: I've been both an accountant and a schoolteacher, though not for many years, and lived in the UK, USA and France).

Cheers,

R.