Formal photographic qualifications - any value?

[climbing_vine]

So I'll repeat the questions: how and why, in your opinion, is an academic, college-based approach to art, taught by worthy professors, superior to learning on one's own? How will it improve your creativity? And does 'Art' need to be sanctified by academia?

I won't presume to speak for Fred. But here's my take, and I won't claim it's an original one--it's one I find persuasive based on my life experience.

If we're talking about the "creativity" of people who do what's already been done, at a level somewhat above average but not near the best, then we're talking about hobbyists and that is not part of this discussion. Taking macro pictures of flowers is definitely not "creative" nor "art" for any meaningful definition of the words.

Creativity means, at least in some small way, doing something different. Stretching a boundary. Some people manage this purely from their interior, but it's exceedingly rare. This is not a surprise. It's been shown that people share a surprising amount of memory, instinct, patterns of thought and construction. If you've thought of it all on your own, the chances are thousands or millions of others also have.

If you grant that (and if you don't it's impossible to talk about these things at all)...

A person who is a truly capable autodidact (which is an immeasurably smaller portion of the population that those who think they are), and is exceptionally sensitive to the world around them, and surrounds himself meaningfully (not passively) with people doing interesting things, may indeed be able to be a creative artist. But that description fits, possibly, three people in the recorded history of man.

For most, an education--whether it comes from a good university program, or from working in a master's studio and being involved in "a salon"--is necessary. You get the combination of intensive learning; constant exposure to an environment that forces you not just to "think" about something, but actually be aware of what is happening around you. You get motivated by learning and awareness, but even more so by a sense of competition with the actives around you, to actually work on a consistent basis, which is the hardest part for even some great artists.

You also get, and this is critical, a foundation in what has come before you. Unless you're one of the true autodidacts, you simply cannot get this on your own. Reading doesn't give you the same internalization and examination as an ongoing dialogue with people who know more than you do (even if only about a small area). Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. You may be "creative" in terms of your own mind without knowing what other people have done... but if this turns out to be a painting of soup cans, because you aren't aware of Andy Warhol, you're not creative in a meaningful larger sense. You're not increasing anyone's awareness of what a person can do or think, except possibly your own--which is valuable, but is not the same as "creativity" or "art" if we define those words in such a way as to give them any meaning at all.

Does "art" need to be sanctified by the Academy? No, but it needs to be something more than "anything anyone produces", because then it is simply an artifact and we don't need this word "art".

Yes, yes, this is a whole ball of assertions. If you have contra-examples, I'd be interested in seeing them. What evidence makes you believe that a formal education in art is not necessary to be an artist? Cite some of these people and their works.

Edit to add: I was allowed special permission to take a number of MFA classes as an undergrad. I've had a number of friends come out of MFA programs. I think most of it is a big joke, a jobs program for failed artists and writers. But that doesn't change the fact that for those few who really can be good, a good education is an immense assistance.

 

[mh2000]

I studied photography as part of a fine art degree... and honestly, the best part of the classes was the level of critiquing that forced you to assess and defend your work... it forced a certain level of awareness that is hard to get otherwise... technically etc. I've learned all my best habits after art school... and the birth of the Internet and forums like this was the most influential... sadly, I've never found a good Internet "photo critique" forum (yet)... all too inbred or nice or nasty to truly be useful...

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger, why do you run a "photo school" on your web site?

Dear Richard,

A very fair question, but I think I can answer it. It wil be a long reply, for which I apologize, but there is quite a bit to say.

It is for the same reason I read (and write) books and magazine articles.

Those who want to teach themselves need resources for doing so.

There are better resources than mine, and worse.

Enough people find my work useful enough that I earn a modest living from it. Surprisingly many are quite embarrassingly kind about I write. A few are equally embarassingly unkind.

I make no claims for High Art; I offer no paper qualifications. All I offer is the possibility that some people, who like the way I think and who take such of my advice as they find useful, may end up as better photographers as a result. Many have said that this has been the case. Some are now earning a living as photographers as a result. Others: well, most of the site is free, and if you don't like what you see, there is very little investment of time and none of money. Likewise, you can look at my books in a bookstore, and decide to buy them or not. In a magazine, if you like what I write, it's a bonus, and if you don't, presumably you like the rest of the magazine enough to buy it.

It's casualness, I think. Everyone has some degree of creativity. They can work on it in the way that suits them best -- or not. I've already said that if others want to go to art school, the very best of luck to them. And if they don't: well, it can't be that they have to, or there would be no self-taught photographers.

Finally, I also have a major problem with the distinction between non-Art and Art photography, and with the denigration of those who don't buy into the academic Art model: cf Fred's comment that while Sanders was better than many professional photographers, he wasn't better than most artists. The only way to justify such a statement is to set oneself up as a judge of what is and isn't Art, and cover your arse by automatically admitting people you can't ignore. I've seen brilliant photographs by amateurs; I've seen brilliant work by professionals; I've seen brilliant work by self-proclaimed or academically-proclaimed Artists-with-a-capital-A. I've also seen complete rubbish by all three. Haven't you?

Your avatars are often brilliant. Ah: wait. Am I wrong, because you're not an academically-approved Artist? Or are you academically approved, except that I was as unaware of it as I was of Fred's trade, profession or calling? This may illustrate the core of my dispute with Fred. I know very little about your antecedents: all I see is your pictures -- which could, I think, justify an exhibition at Arles -- and I strongly suspect (correct me if I'm wrong) that you are not exactly 'immersed in academic thought' in quite the same way as Fred.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . (1) If you've thought of it all on your own, the chances are thousands or millions of others also have.

If you grant that (and if you don't it's impossible to talk about these things at all)...

A person who is a truly capable autodidact (which is an immeasurably smaller portion of the population that those who think they are), and is exceptionally sensitive to the world around them, and surrounds himself meaningfully (not passively) with people doing interesting things, may indeed be able to be a creative artist. (2) But that description fits, possibly, three people in the recorded history of man.

For most, an education--(3) whether it comes from a good university program, or from working in a master's studio and being involved in "a salon"--is necessary. You get the combination of intensive learning; constant exposure to an environment that forces you not just to "think" about something, but actually be aware of what is happening around you. You get motivated by learning and awareness, but (4) even more so by a sense of competition with the actives around you, to actually (5) work on a consistent basis, which is the hardest part for even some great artists.

You also get, and this is critical, a foundation in what has come before you. Unless you're one of the true autodidacts, you simply cannot get this on your own. Reading doesn't give you the same internalization and examination as an ongoing dialogue with people who know more than you do (even if only about a small area). Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. You may be "creative" in terms of your own mind without knowing what other people have done... but if this turns out to be a painting of soup cans, because you aren't aware of Andy Warhol, you're not creative in a meaningful larger sense. You're not increasing anyone's awareness of what a person can do or think, except possibly your own--which is valuable, but is not the same as "creativity" or "art" if we define those words in such a way as to give them any meaning at all.

(6) Does "art" need to be sanctified by the Academy? No, but it needs to be something more than "anything anyone produces", because then it is simply an artifact and we don't need this word "art".

Yes, yes, this is a whole ball of assertions. If you have contra-examples, I'd be interested in seeing them. What evidence makes you believe that a formal education in art is not necessary to be an artist? (7) Cite some of these people and their works.

Edit to add: I was allowed special permission to take a number of MFA classes as an undergrad. (8) I've had a number of friends come out of MFA programs. I think most of it is a big joke, a jobs program for failed artists and writers. But that doesn't change the fact that for those few who really can be good, (9) a good education is an immense assistance.

(1) Yes, but have they done anything with it?

(2) Something of an overstatement

(3) You will note that I have already noted the advantages of 'sitting next to Nellie' (apprenticeship, formal or informal) and of hanging out with the right crowd. Fred's examples above is a good example of hanging out with the right crowd, in his case at university. This is not quite the same thing as a 'qualification'.

(4) I'm not so sure about this. What is the nature of this competition? The struggle to sell? The struggle to produce YOUR art? Because if it's the latter, there's not much in the way of competition, on your own admission: you're not being creative, you're trying to do their art.

(5) Yes. Even great artists have off days. The best of them have fewer than most.

(6) At least we agree fully here, that it does not need to be sanctified by the Academy. Your argument is, however, an omitted middle that I never claimed. Not all art is sanctified by the Acadamy. This does not mean that everything that is not sanctified by the Academy ('anything anyone produces') is automatically art.

(7) The list is long enough hardly to need enumeration, especially in light of the apprenticeships mentioned in (3) above, which includes most artists throughout human history. But if you'd like a recent example of someone who did not, as far as I know, even take any form of photographic apprenticeship, how about Salgado?

(8) We are of one mind here.

(9) Yes, but need it be in photography?

Thanks, at least, for presenting arguments. Perhaps Fred will do the same.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

A further thought. Until post 55, I used only the word 'qualification'.

Nothing that anyone has said has led me to suspect for one instant that a qualification -- a piece of paper saying 'This person is a qualified photographer' is worth the paper it is written on, except in those situations where an employer demands it; there is no correlation between it and your creativity.

I then allowed myself to be dragged sideways into conflating qualification and education.

Education is a wonderful thing, whether it's self-education or formal. It may be (though I am not convinced) that an art education is more useful to some photographers than (let us say) theology or social science. I make this concession willingly in the light of the arguments presented by Climbing Vine and mh2000. I might even have been swayed further and earlier by Fred's arguments, had he deigned to produce them before the post in which he attempted to interdict anyone's quoting him. Perhaps needless to say, I was tempted to quote the entire passage, simply because I could, but it didn't seem worth the effort.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[climbing_vine]

(1) Yes, but have they done anything with it?

That is an important question, no doubt.

(2) Something of an overstatement

I honestly don't believe it's much of one, but as long as people agree it's "rare" for some value of "rare", it's not much use trying to buff the distinction any finer. It depends on too many arguable definitions, which is why people have argued it for three thousand years.

(4) I'm not so sure about this. What is the nature of this competition? The struggle to sell? The struggle to produce YOUR art? Because if it's the latter, there's not much in the way of competition, on your own admission: you're not being creative, you're trying to do their art.

I was using "competition" crudely to encompass the range from "we have listen to this prat at the commune drone on and on all the time--I'll do it better and shut him up!" to the comradeship of friendly "competition". I don't think this can be understated, for many of not most. It's not just that one is inspired to work by being around those who are working; it also fires up the sense that you can do better, and maybe everyone can do better; better than what? Well, the "what" changes all the time.

(7) The list is long enough hardly to need enumeration, especially in light of the apprenticeships mentioned in (3) above, which includes most artists throughout human history. But if you'd like a recent example of someone who did not, as far as I know, even take any form of photographic apprenticeship, how about Salgado?

I'm not sure in what meaningful sense an apprenticeship is not a "formal" education as you've discussed here. Every artistic apprenticeship I've ever read of or seen first hand involved more than a pure technique workshop, and the academic/historical portions are just as critical as the other; if this weren't true, every exquisite apprenticeship would turn out an artist who executes perfect counterfeits Thomas Kinkade and little else. This seems self-evident, but it's always possible I have a blind spot.

As for Salgado, he is extremely educated (a world-traveling Master of Economics), and spent a number of years perfecting his craft while having other World Bank/UNICEF/UN/Magnum/etc photogs as learning resources--basically, a classical apprenticeship, complete with the academic and historical portion courtesy of experts in the field.

He is also largely edited and collected by his wife who does have a (very) formal fine arts education in music and architecture. I'd also point out that he doesn't claim to be an artist, but an activist and documentarian.

(9) Yes, but need it be in photography?

Not precisely. But it can certainly help. I'd agree that if you've already been immersed in these various "lifelong learning" processes, you may not need a formal education in the specific field, but you should hope that you've picked up the necessary skills--and make yourself a part of the necessary environment--to be one of those truly effective autodidacts.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . (1) I was using "competition" crudely to encompass the range from "we have listen to this prat at the commune drone on and on all the time--I'll do it better and shut him up!" to the comradeship of friendly "competition". I don't think this can be understated, for many of not most. It's not just that one is inspired to work by being around those who are working; it also fires up the sense that you can do better, and maybe everyone can do better; better than what? Well, the "what" changes all the time.

(2) I'm not sure in what meaningful sense an apprenticeship is not a "formal" education as you've discussed here. Every artistic apprenticeship I've ever read of or seen first hand involved more than a pure technique workshop, and the academic/historical portions are just as critical as the other; if this weren't true, every exquisite apprenticeship would turn out an artist who executes perfect counterfeits Thomas Kinkade and little else. This seems self-evident, but it's always possible I have a blind spot.

(3) As for Salgado, he is extremely educated (a world-traveling Master of Economics), and spent a number of years perfecting his craft while having other World Bank/UNICEF/UN/Magnum/etc photogs as learning resources--basically, a classical apprenticeship, complete with the academic and historical portion courtesy of experts in the field.

(4) I'd also point out that he doesn't claim to be an artist, but an activist and documentarian.

('Need it be in photography') (5)Not precisely. But it can certainly help. I'd agree that if you've already been immersed in these various "lifelong learning" processes, you may not need a formal education in the specific field, but you should hope that you've picked up the necessary skills--and make yourself a part of the necessary environment--to be one of those truly effective autodidacts.

(1) Possibly, though I am still not convinced.

(2) I've just been trying to find Fred's references to art-critical education, or some such, but he had deleted so many of his posts (or corrected them to 'Posted in Error') that I can't. Perhaps this is why he made the extraordinary request not to be quoted: it's hard to argue with anyone if they conceal what they said before. Edit I've just noticed that my own post at the top of this page does however refer to 'academic college-based' education.

(3) Stretching it, and besides, as I've constantly agreed the value of apprenticeship, hardly worth pursuing.

(4) Wise man. Many of the greatest artists (though far from all) prefer to receive the accolade from others.

(5) Point already conceded in an earlier post. You say 'not necessarily in photography'; so do I. We differ only in the extent to which a photography course is or is not desirable.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[climbing_vine]

(1) Possibly, though I am still not convinced.

I have seen no exceptions in my contact with artists here in the states. It's also been a universal (I'd contend from what I've read) among recognized painters of Europe and American since at least 1800. I'm willing to believe that it's an element of time and place rather than something essential, however, lacking broader evidence. And given the possibility of bias in that the careers that are noted and recorded may tend to be those with "good" stories--an element of "good" in this age being "full of names both famous and insidery".

(3) Stretching it, and besides, as I've constantly agreed the value of apprenticeship, hardly worth pursuing.

Fair enough, but I can't see how there's a stretch--he's extremely well educated, including both formal and "apprentice" education in the arts. I also have to agree with Fred that you can't prove much by an exception either way, and while I think the "production values" of a lot of Salgado's later work will not age well, his basic eye for proportion is that of the exceptional "true artist". The Rembrandt or van Dyck.

All of this, again, is just to say that while a "qualification" or "certification" or "MFA" (I thought I'd quote that one too for fun) may be helpful or requisite for specific jobs with specific people, an immersion in the past and present of the field is invaluable if you want to move beyond vocation or hobby and try to do something, for lack of a better word, "interesting".

My own experience: I stayed away from an MFA program or graduate work in what passes for "literary criticism" these days in favor of continuing on my own with my education in literature, and "getting a real job". Call it the Wallace Stevens path. While it's initially cost me the generally self-limiting "opportunities" that those grad students get, I had a solid base in the thing itself and continued to build on that. Now, I beat those grad students out for writing prizes where respected working voices overrule the academicians on the juries on my behalf. That is: I'm less than invested in the idea of these sorts of formal qualifications. But the education that is behind them, in the ideal case, can be exactly the trick.

 

[yanidel]

... Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

Climbing_wine, this was a very interesting post and I agree in many ways. Yet this sentence bothers me as IMO and unless many form or art, the material of photography is in constant evolution. Today, I took a few snaps, today 23rd of November 2008. Though the style might be assimilated to others and pictures already been taken, none represent today's people, habits, dresses, cars, social phenomenas and so on. I see photography as a documentary exercise, with some creativity thrown in when possible. This is my little contribution to documenting the unrepeatable history.

 

[climbing_vine]

Climbing_wine, this was a very interesting post and I agree in many ways. Yet this sentence bothers me as IMO and unless many form or art, the material of photography is in constant evolution. Today, I took a few snaps, today 23rd of November 2008. Though the style might be assimilated to others and pictures already been taken, none represent today's people, habits, dresses, cars, social phenomenas and so on. I see photography as a documentary exercise, with some creativity thrown in when possible. This is my little contribution to documenting the unrepeatable history.

I agree. To the extent that photography is (almost entirely, by volume) a documentary exercise, I get nervous about even talking about this stuff in our context. My reference to "repeating the past" was meant in a different sense--like someone taking a macro of a bee and thinking it is artistic. It can be interesting and it can be good practice and many other things, but in the context of "artistic creativity", it doesn't rate unless you give us a truly new look at that bee in either text or context. Which isn't bad, unless that's what you're going for and you think you've succeeded--at that point you may be doing yourself a disservice. That's what I was getting at.

Edit to add: I see photography, mostly, in the same way you do. I have other interests that I think of as being more "artistic", and photography is for me a way of keeping track of the things going on around me, and forcing myself to try to find a different way to look at them. I think there are precious few people in photography or painting or any visual medium who have the vision to elevate it to "art", which for me is more or less the act of waking people up for at least a few minutes to think about what's around them. My own bias thinks it's done more often in writing and music, but that's almost certainly just that--just a personal bias. 🙂

 

[yanidel]

I think there are precious few people in photography or painting or any visual medium who have the vision to elevate it to "art", which for me is more or less the act of waking people up for at least a few minutes to think about what's around them.

Agree yet I think there are more than you believe and it is where education, ambition, luck or gravitating in certain circles make a difference. I read Capa and HCB biographies this summer, apart from great photographers both were just social animals, knowing anybody that mattered in the art/photography business. Would Capa's work be known or even exist if it wasn't for his charming ways ? 😉 I find their work to be even more powerful when you know who they are and the why's of the pictures. Creativity almost becomes accessory in their cases when you read about their fascinating lives.
Note that Capa started as an apprentice with no education other than public school.

 

[mh2000]

Greater knowledge and understanding is a great basis for creating artwork. Knowledge and understanding is good for everything. Many people have some romantic idea that if you lock yourself in a room with no outside influences that you will somehom create better artwork, but we are social creatures and our artwork is purely a social endeavor, so understanding current social thought on your art is invaluable (left to your own devices you may end up producing Picasso-like paintings in ignorance, how would that help you?).

Should you go to a school/university and buy into what your teachers tell you as ultimate truth? (hell no!)... but very few art students I have met have fallen into this trap. Artists are usually by nature very much rebels... and rebeling against current thought is a good springboard for creating relavant new work.

Ok, there is the nasty saying, "those who can do do, those that can't teach," but usually those that teach follow what is important and is new and having devoted their life to art usually have insightful thoughts, even if they themselves never "made it big," but making it big doesn't nessacarily mean *that* much... came from a well connected family etc...

Do you need an art school education to produce creative and important work? Certainly not, but it definitely helps...

>>...interested to hear your reasons why you think that an academic approach to art is valuable in creating art. And how do you respond to hard questions? Do you not get any?

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

I once looked over a house (with a view to purchase) in Britain which had a blue heritage plaque on it saying that Vincent van Gogh had worked there as a teacher when it was formerly a school. Very nice.

Mind you I also saw another house nearby which had a somewhat similar plaque saying that Karl Marx had lived there. Wouldn't that be wonderful come election time and deciding which political party's poster to display!

I couldn't afford both houses, I couldn't decide, and I chose another, more discreet, house altogether.

 

[Gumby]

That was interesting, Fred. (too bad is was deleted.) It made a good point... nothing is absolute except the absolute frustration of this impossible discussion. Every time I come back to this thread I wonder what it would be like to be having this discussion face-to-face with a cocktail in hand.

 

[climbing_vine]

That was interesting, Fred. It made a good point... nothing is absolute except the absolute frustration of this impossible discussion. Every time I come back to this thread I wonder what it would be like to be having this discussion face-to-face with a cocktail in hand.

Cocktail in face? 😉

 

[Gumby]

... and canapes shoved up each others noses, I fear.

 

[Gumby]

... followed by vague smiles and a quick change of topic to the weather.

 

[Gumby]

"How 'bout those Cubbies?"

 

[climbing_vine]

"How 'bout those Cubbies?"

Now you're just ripping band-aids off open wounds, Gumby. 😉

 

[climbing_vine]

It's a lonely game, without anyone cheering from the bleachers. Problem is, with one hand pitching and one hand swinging, you don't have a third for one hand clapping.