Directions in Photography

[rbiemer]

For me, the biggest single giveaway is 'good schools' -- where, of course, the agenda-bearers can inculcate their pitiable beliefs en bloc, without having to worry about either the talent or the commitment of those who attend, because their students mostly want A Qualification, a piece of paper, rather than to study for its own sake.

As for professionalism, I completely agree with kiev4a about the value of marketing -- which is why I'm happier as an amateur, rather than a photographic one-trick pony who is good at selling himself. That may sound harsh but it's true of an awful lot (not all) of successful professionals.

Cheers,

Roger

The local college here offers a "photo 101" class only once a year(next spring this school year) and I am trying to work out my work schedule so that i can take the class.
This isn't about anything other than refreshing my 30 year past darkrom experience. And hopefully meeting some young women to model for me. 😀
I own most of a darkroom--but it's all packed up right now as I don't have the space to set it up.
And I am unabashedly an amateur photographer. I honestly have no desire to be anything other. I've got a career(and a good one)--what I get from photography is entirely selfish and were I to try to do this for a living I would have to answer to too many other people's desires. No, thank you.
Rob

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Rob,

I don't think he was talking about that sort of thing -- more the 4-year college sort of thing.

As for 'all generalizations are dangerous', I take it you are aware that there are two kinds of people: those who divide things into two kinds, and those who don't.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[zpuskas]

Lots of good comments here. My definition of a professional has nothing to do with talent; it's simply someone who gets paid (makes a living) doing a job/assignment, etc. Are there marginally good professionals? Of course. Are there very good amatuers? Of course.
Can someone make a technically good photograph with minimal skill? Of course. Can they do it consistently? Probably not.
One still needs the soul of the photographer to create good images. The invention of the Kodak Brownie Box camera did not create a wealth of artistic images and put (good) professionals out of business; neither will digital.

 

[Poptart]

I doubt whether the motives of the various students attending colleges has that much to do with the professors' ego problems (or indoctrination) as a general rule. Professors are good or bad largely on their own.
The only really unforgivable notion afoot at the uni level is that conceptual art is still relevant and should structure discourse; when, in fact, it's more of a convenient way for instructors to critique and evaluate students' work.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I'd say that the real question is whether photography is a fit subject for teaching at university at all. I suspect I learned more, faster, in an (informal) apprenticeship to the late Colin Glanfield than I could have at college.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Stephan]

I'd say that the real question is whether photography is a fit subject for teaching at university at all.

Probably not, but a "bachelor's degree in visual communication" ( 🙄 ) is something that might just help me get a job.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Stephan,

A bachelor's degree in visual communication should be something you get with a letter of application and a small portfolio. Not 3-4 years college.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Stephan]

Dear Stephan,

A bachelor's degree in visual communication should be something you get with a letter of application and a small portfolio. Not 3-4 years college.

Cheers,

Roger

Ha.... I dream of that day...

Incidentally, I noticed you write for amateur photographer the other day. Not that that has anything ot do with the topic but it might make you feel famous 😀 😉

 

[jlw]

Dear Stephan,

A bachelor's degree in visual communication should be something you get with a letter of application and a small portfolio. Not 3-4 years college.

Okay, but how do you get the small portfolio of decent work if you haven't received some sort of education that develops your standards? That's what the 3-4 years in college are for.

Every art form has a technical as well as an aesthetic component, and nobody is born knowing the technical part. Also, knowing the history of what other people have done in the medium helps ward off the tendency to re-invent the wheel, which otherwise makes looking at pictures very tedious for people who already have seen a lot of them.

The contemporary-dance field goes through periodic outbursts of this notion that education just quashes self-expression and stifles the Innate Genius That Is In All Of Us, and believe me, the results aren't pretty. It leads to long, tedious evenings in theaters sitting through pretentious programs of unformed crap.

That sort of thing is OK if you really ARE a genius, like, say, Isadora Duncan (who also turned out a lot of crap after she got full of herself) but 99.99% of people are not, and those are the people who can benefit by an educational process. At least it forces you to see enough of other people's mistakes to inspire you to want to make your OWN mistakes!

 

[Poptart]

I have to agree. My undergraduate experience was invaluable in terms of gaining confidence and just generally being in the soup, so to speak, with other artistic types. It really helps, too, to see just how untalented most students are at the subject matter they're attempting, and how staid their thinking. I can't count how many critiques I sat through with some kid pontificating about how she has "problems with organized religion" that she needed to "express though her work" or such nonsense. And her photos had all the impact of a fly on a screen door.

 

[ddunn]

As for billboards, well, the best art prints I've seen of late were 4x5 contact prints 😛 I aspire to making some of those someday.

William

Some of my favorite Stieglitz' are 3 1/4 X 4 1/4 contacts he developed and printed in a makeshift under a stairway closet darkroom with no running water. To my mind, a 5 X 7 print is big enough.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Reply to several people:

I fully accept the value of being at university, but not the value of studying photograpy. Some 36 years ago I had the choice of a BA in Fine Art (Photography) or an LL.B. I chose the LL.B. as an invaluable degree in B.S. I have never regretted the decision. Photography just ain't that difficult. The theory you can learn from books, and the practice from taking pictures. By all means go to university, even if you want to be a photographer, but don't waste time learning something you can do with minimal effort in your spare time.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Poptart]

I don't think of photography as not-that-difficult. I've been at it for decades and I'm still learning. Partly, it's because I've found that the uses that photography can be put to are more varied and suprising than I had ever guessed. Aside from a kind of snapshot/memory function, photography can be theraputic, communicative, decorative, spiritual, and documentary--just to name a few. This helps account for its popularity; but is it simple?

 

[kiev4a]

The problem today is that no matter how much talent you have, you have to have a degree to even get someone to look at your resume. During my career as a journalist (25 plus years) some of the best writers I knew were people with no degree who had worked their way up through the ranks, learning from experienced writers and editors. Today, writers like that, even with 10 years experience often don't qualify for an interview while a recent college grad with no real wold experience, will be considered.

 

[Poptart]

Even people with degrees are treated like ninnies by an unfeeling corporate culture. Yippie!