Isn't THREE a bit excessive?
Seriously, I don't think 'qualifications' mean anything at all in photography. I went to law school and have earned a living from photography and writing for 80-90% of the time since I left.
Cheers,
R.
I agree. IMHO qualifications are utterly meaningless to the issue to true photographic achievement. For some they give a start and those people go nowhere, but to many they are not needed and some of those go everywhere.
Look at the great names in photographic history. While many ended up teaching courses, not too many sat in on them and got degrees, PhDs etc. Sadly there are too many people who think they do matter (far more in the US than Europe, but the US does have IMHO a fixation in paper qualifications for absolutely everything), but I think this generally more of an issue for those who don't have the talent than do. There tends to be a pack of protective types who look to include or exclude others based on their photography education and 'who they know.'
I do see a correlation between credentials and those who have tried to stamp their intellectual authority on photography, particularly in the current conceptual fine art mould. In this area I feel it gives control to the critics and managers of the field, both in the form of 'entry requirements' and 'rites of passage'. Call me cynical but the same happens whenever humans have long enough on something. A friendly club meeting of like minded enthusiasts of (anything) ten years down the road with 10000 X the membership can become all about rules that would indeed have prevented the founders being able to join (without anyone thinking what this means for the validity of the entry requirements...). Not too oddly enough, it tends to be those without the talent that end up setting the rules (because they need them as a crutch for themselves and a hindrance for others). Those without too much by way of talent end up vetting their peers to thin the competition. Those with real talent dont care.
Outside the photographic field I see a significant number of inept people being employed based on paper qualifications (and remaining employed despite gross incompetence), while demonstrably far more capable individuals are excluded for lack of them. Its a game everyone plays and everyone gets to decide how far and for how long they will play and the cost benefit balance.
PS I am educated and support education, but I am also a supporter of common sense (i.e. employ the sharp cookie without the quals and not the numpty with the file full of paperwork who is wearing his trousers back to front). Clearly where certifications are required its another story altogether, but what shocks me is how some disregard or disbelieve evident ability due to a lack of qualifications while some assume ability because of them even when the incompetence of the individual is staring them in the face (and continue refusing to see it). I think excessive rigidity on qualifications can be a complete cop out on the part of the employer. It can mean they dont have to bother interviewing many people or making decisions of their own. It seems there are a lot of people afraid of exercising judgment - they'd rather have the decision pre-formed for them requiring them to only compare facts (qualifications). this way they cannot be criticised even if they end up with a fool (well, his CV said he had a triple PhD in XYZ)
As for equipment, its personal and there is no generalization to be made other than that. Its only ever about satisfying your own nagging doubts and releasing yourself to the creative task at hand. If you dont care about the technical quality, odds are it does not matter. If you do care, odds on it does.
