zumbido
-
It's so bizarre that the only person in this thread who is actually making his entire living as an artist, is also the one people keep talking about being "doom and gloom".
You can make a living as an artist, but despite what the art TEACHERS may say in pep talks it is exceptionally rare. And despite the fools who say this about everything in the universe, you won't make it work just by hard work. Sorry. Them's the facts. By all means do it, but don't do it blindly. That's a recipe for disaster.
-doomed-
film is exciting
Agreed.
I also didn't say that hard work alone will get you there.
Talent has to exist, otherwise the hard work is just that -- hard work.
I'm not a photographer for a living.
I help layout a tabloid, write filler pieces, and stick headlines on articles.
I also work a crappy job in retail to pay bills while I hone various skills.
I turned wrenches for six years and I've always got something to fall back on.
I have earned money doing every one of these things.
I can run presses, do various graphic design work and have friends who earn a solid living doing it.
Last edited:
dogbunny
Registered Boozer
taking the bait
taking the bait
Okay, I'll bite. You are making an awful lot of assumptions, so I will clarify. First off, I am American born, raised and educated. I'm only a year older than you, so the world/economic conditions I grew up in are perhaps similar to yours. I live and work different places depending on what contract I'm on. Sometimes in the States and sometimes other places.
No offense, but you are way off base. I directed my comments specifically to the OP because things had kind of run off on a tangent that was more about what people would have done differently, rather than what a 17-year-old could expect by choosing this path.
My comments about lack of creativity and resourcefulness had nothing to do with someone's art, but rather someone's life. And the resources I were referring to are those found in one's mind, not a trust fund. You seem, through your writing, to be pretty bitter about the haves and have-nots. If it helps the discourse, my background falls squarely in the have-not category. A BFA or an MFA is not a kiss of death. Plenty of people make art without having to live in an abandoned house or dumpster dive for food. I think Freakscene, Altcruiser and others have demonstrated pretty clearly the point I was trying to make. Choosing what to do in school is an important choice, but not the only choice that will determine a person's success or failure. College is a good place to learn critical thinking skills, be exposed to interesting ideas and people and discover new interests and talents.
Again in the context of the OP, he said he was thinking about getting a BFA and then later down the line maybe doing some teaching. He seems fairly realistic about what he can and can't do. Since I have specifically done this (gotten a BFA, then done some teaching) I thought I would comment. There was no talk about becoming a famous photographer. What exactly are you educating him to? Your comments seem to digress from the original context.
You accusing me of lying to him, but I am being as honest as possible based on my own experiences, which are different than yours. And I'm of the opinion that the scenario you have described for the OP is more about the narrative you have painted for yourself than anything else. But that is just an opinion and I wouldn't go so far as to call you a liar because your experiences have lead you to different conclusions and a different world outlook.
And for risk of sounding like part of the hippy crowd, I agree with what was said by another poster "buy the ticket. take the ride." Make a choice and put all of your energy behind that choice.
taking the bait
Okay, I'll bite. You are making an awful lot of assumptions, so I will clarify. First off, I am American born, raised and educated. I'm only a year older than you, so the world/economic conditions I grew up in are perhaps similar to yours. I live and work different places depending on what contract I'm on. Sometimes in the States and sometimes other places.
No offense, but you are way off base. I directed my comments specifically to the OP because things had kind of run off on a tangent that was more about what people would have done differently, rather than what a 17-year-old could expect by choosing this path.
My comments about lack of creativity and resourcefulness had nothing to do with someone's art, but rather someone's life. And the resources I were referring to are those found in one's mind, not a trust fund. You seem, through your writing, to be pretty bitter about the haves and have-nots. If it helps the discourse, my background falls squarely in the have-not category. A BFA or an MFA is not a kiss of death. Plenty of people make art without having to live in an abandoned house or dumpster dive for food. I think Freakscene, Altcruiser and others have demonstrated pretty clearly the point I was trying to make. Choosing what to do in school is an important choice, but not the only choice that will determine a person's success or failure. College is a good place to learn critical thinking skills, be exposed to interesting ideas and people and discover new interests and talents.
Again in the context of the OP, he said he was thinking about getting a BFA and then later down the line maybe doing some teaching. He seems fairly realistic about what he can and can't do. Since I have specifically done this (gotten a BFA, then done some teaching) I thought I would comment. There was no talk about becoming a famous photographer. What exactly are you educating him to? Your comments seem to digress from the original context.
You accusing me of lying to him, but I am being as honest as possible based on my own experiences, which are different than yours. And I'm of the opinion that the scenario you have described for the OP is more about the narrative you have painted for yourself than anything else. But that is just an opinion and I wouldn't go so far as to call you a liar because your experiences have lead you to different conclusions and a different world outlook.
And for risk of sounding like part of the hippy crowd, I agree with what was said by another poster "buy the ticket. take the ride." Make a choice and put all of your energy behind that choice.
Last edited:
dogbunny
Registered Boozer
experiences
experiences
Hey Roger,
I went to a pretty good school and they allowed me to take about half writing and half Lit. courses. At the time I wanted to read and write more than anything else. I learned to write sonnets in various meters. I'm fairly well informed when it comes to Magical realism and modern American Lit. I write, I think, fairly well. Did it do anything for my marketability? Hehe, what do you think?
However, I went to a great school, had some amazing professors, and learned a great deal about life and the kind of life I want to lead. I graduated with some debt because I had to do it all on my own, but I wouldn't change it for the world. Was it worth it? You bet.
Maybe I run with a weird crowd, but I run into people all the time that are now employed doing something that has very little to do with what they "learned" in college.
experiences
Hey Roger,
I went to a pretty good school and they allowed me to take about half writing and half Lit. courses. At the time I wanted to read and write more than anything else. I learned to write sonnets in various meters. I'm fairly well informed when it comes to Magical realism and modern American Lit. I write, I think, fairly well. Did it do anything for my marketability? Hehe, what do you think?
However, I went to a great school, had some amazing professors, and learned a great deal about life and the kind of life I want to lead. I graduated with some debt because I had to do it all on my own, but I wouldn't change it for the world. Was it worth it? You bet.
Maybe I run with a weird crowd, but I run into people all the time that are now employed doing something that has very little to do with what they "learned" in college.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Mike,
It would indeed be interesting to know how many respondents to the OP have done the following:
(a) Considered art school
(b) Applied
(c) Been accepted
(d) Started art school
(e) Finished art school
(f) Are now working in an 'art' or 'creative' field
to which one might add
(g) Have any good friends who have done (d), (e) and (f)
A lot of people seem to be projecting their personal fantasies/ failures/ successes onto the OP. I can put my hand up for (a) to (c), plus (f) and (g).
Of course a first degree (or indeed Master's) is likely to be irrelevant by the time you're (say) 40, unless it's a professional qualification and you are working in that profession, but in your 20s and early 30s it can be very important indeed, especially in today's society which often cares more about 'qualifications' (which often aren't, except on paper) than about skill and application. Ask my wife, whose BA and MA are in theatre, and who was repeatedly told in her 20s that she was unemployable. There were not enough jobs in her chosen field, and she was either overqualified or unqualified for everything else.
In theatre, to make life still more interesting, the unions operate the fine old catch-22 of 'no union ticket, no job in theatre' BUT 'no job in theatre, no union ticket'. At least photographers, painters, etc., are spared that.
Cheers,
R.
deirdre
Well-known
If you include creative writing: a-e, have done some of f at various times (having sold over a million words of fiction and non-fiction over the years), but actually prefer to work in my technical field. I still write, and god willing, I may even sell more.
Sparrow
Veteran
Yep, that would be me Roger ... trained in graphics, worked in textile design almost 40 years ... but yes you are correct to be cynical, I think I'm the only one from my year
RichC
Well-known
Hmm... this thread leads me to a single conclusion: don't move to Indiana!
I make a large part of my living from photography and art - albeit it's applied art: graphic design, illustration, typesetting/design. I actually have an honours degree in chemistry - gave up chemistry a few months after graduating, after spending countless tedious days checking the thickness and colour of loo cleaner...!
(I was accepted at St Martins (for graphic design) after starting my chemistry degree, but as I'd already started my course, I was told my grant would be stopped if I changed colleges - so I kept with chemistry... Anyway, I guess that's not relevant.)
Despite not having an arts degree, I have some thoughts that Sam (the OP) might find useful.
Can't say not having arts degree held me back in making a living from my chosen career. (Perversely, my science degree helps - technical savvy and an analytical mind have both proved extremely useful.)
As to doing a photography degree, I have two observations.
(1) It's certainly possible to make a living from photography (not doing weddings!), but it's hard work, and requires dedication and an entrepreneurial approach. Photography's used by businesses and organisations more than ever before - look around, it's everywhere. And note that most of these photographs aren't snaps - they're obviously taken by people with photographic training/experience.
Sam (the OP) didn't say what type of photographic career he'd like, except to say "not weddings". Certain areas rely far too much on things largely outside of your control: fine art and journalism spring to mind - to be successful, you really need a lucky break to start the ball rolling and/or be exceptionally talented (Simon Roberts, who lives down the road, is the only successful photojournalist I know personally). Other areas are easier, and rely more on hard work and promoting yourself, e.g. event photography, product photography and the like: these are the areas to concentrate on to make photography pay.
(2) A degree in photography is only useful for the training (both photographic and non-photographic) it gives you: there are very few jobs that specifically require a qualification in photography. It also gives you a few years to plan for what you will do once you graduate: a "breathing space".
CASE STUDY. A couple of years ago a close friend gave up a very well paying job in PR to become a photographer. She had a degree in business studies but no photographic qualifications, and only became interested in photography about five years ago. It's been a hard slog, but she's now earning a liveable wage (which increases as the months pass and she gains more clients). She spends a lot of time finding clients and promoting her business, and will photograph pretty much anything she's asked to, including weddings, but her bread and butter is event photography (esp. music festivals) and commercial (products, catalogues, websites). She did the photography for this website recently, and was paid well for it: http://www.rickardsmedia.com/about-us/ - it was varied and enjoyable work, and involved studio work, portraits at the company's headquarters, and photographs out and about (including lugging a TV to the local park, and photographing the company's billboard poster in London). She's now doing an MA in photography, more for the industry contacts it will provide than for the education.
Although Chris Crawford paints a bleak picture (which from my perspective applies only to Indiana - I don't recognise it, nor does my US friend who lives in New York state), he's right about one thing: business studies is a good fit with a photography degree. All decent degree courses in the UK include aspects of business studies anyway (I had to spend a year going to lectures and pass an exam in "organisational theory and business studies" despite studying pure chemistry), and I'd imagine the same holds true in other countries, including the US.
Lastly, I don't get Chris Crawford's downer on degrees. Even if an employer isn't looking for someone with specialist knowledge, graduates are employed over non-graduates because a degree is an indicator of commitment, intelligence, initiative, the ability to learn, and the like. At worst, a degree is used as a crude screen for job applicants: those with degrees - in any subject - are more likely to have the aforementioned general skills than those without degrees, so many job vacancies require, rightly or wrongly, graduates.
Like the US, the UK is having a pretty crappy time with the recession and unemployment. Despite this, 89.9% of all those graduating in 2008-2009 with a first degree are now employed (NB: in the UK a first degree is a BA or BSc - we don't distinguish further, so a BA is any non-science). The mode is 91.2% - i.e. most universities have an employment rate over this figure. These figures are official, accurate and trustworthy: see Higher Education Statistics Agency.
I can't imagine that the situation for those with degrees is that different between the US and UK (except in Indiana, apparently...), unless the US education system is completely broken, so a photography degree will be useful even if you don't pursue a photography career.
Lastly, a first degree means it's quite easy to be accepted on a post-graduate degree course such as an MA. A post-graduate degree, if carefully chosen, will most definitely make you more employable. An ex-girlfriend has a BA in sculpture, but decided on a career in computing, so she did an MA in information technology shortly after graduating. I'm starting my MA Photography next year (just because I want to) - it's part time (1 day university attendance plus 1 day self-study per week, over 2 years) and costs about $5000 (which is pretty reasonable).
I make a large part of my living from photography and art - albeit it's applied art: graphic design, illustration, typesetting/design. I actually have an honours degree in chemistry - gave up chemistry a few months after graduating, after spending countless tedious days checking the thickness and colour of loo cleaner...!
(I was accepted at St Martins (for graphic design) after starting my chemistry degree, but as I'd already started my course, I was told my grant would be stopped if I changed colleges - so I kept with chemistry... Anyway, I guess that's not relevant.)
Despite not having an arts degree, I have some thoughts that Sam (the OP) might find useful.
Can't say not having arts degree held me back in making a living from my chosen career. (Perversely, my science degree helps - technical savvy and an analytical mind have both proved extremely useful.)
As to doing a photography degree, I have two observations.
(1) It's certainly possible to make a living from photography (not doing weddings!), but it's hard work, and requires dedication and an entrepreneurial approach. Photography's used by businesses and organisations more than ever before - look around, it's everywhere. And note that most of these photographs aren't snaps - they're obviously taken by people with photographic training/experience.
Sam (the OP) didn't say what type of photographic career he'd like, except to say "not weddings". Certain areas rely far too much on things largely outside of your control: fine art and journalism spring to mind - to be successful, you really need a lucky break to start the ball rolling and/or be exceptionally talented (Simon Roberts, who lives down the road, is the only successful photojournalist I know personally). Other areas are easier, and rely more on hard work and promoting yourself, e.g. event photography, product photography and the like: these are the areas to concentrate on to make photography pay.
(2) A degree in photography is only useful for the training (both photographic and non-photographic) it gives you: there are very few jobs that specifically require a qualification in photography. It also gives you a few years to plan for what you will do once you graduate: a "breathing space".
CASE STUDY. A couple of years ago a close friend gave up a very well paying job in PR to become a photographer. She had a degree in business studies but no photographic qualifications, and only became interested in photography about five years ago. It's been a hard slog, but she's now earning a liveable wage (which increases as the months pass and she gains more clients). She spends a lot of time finding clients and promoting her business, and will photograph pretty much anything she's asked to, including weddings, but her bread and butter is event photography (esp. music festivals) and commercial (products, catalogues, websites). She did the photography for this website recently, and was paid well for it: http://www.rickardsmedia.com/about-us/ - it was varied and enjoyable work, and involved studio work, portraits at the company's headquarters, and photographs out and about (including lugging a TV to the local park, and photographing the company's billboard poster in London). She's now doing an MA in photography, more for the industry contacts it will provide than for the education.
Although Chris Crawford paints a bleak picture (which from my perspective applies only to Indiana - I don't recognise it, nor does my US friend who lives in New York state), he's right about one thing: business studies is a good fit with a photography degree. All decent degree courses in the UK include aspects of business studies anyway (I had to spend a year going to lectures and pass an exam in "organisational theory and business studies" despite studying pure chemistry), and I'd imagine the same holds true in other countries, including the US.
Lastly, I don't get Chris Crawford's downer on degrees. Even if an employer isn't looking for someone with specialist knowledge, graduates are employed over non-graduates because a degree is an indicator of commitment, intelligence, initiative, the ability to learn, and the like. At worst, a degree is used as a crude screen for job applicants: those with degrees - in any subject - are more likely to have the aforementioned general skills than those without degrees, so many job vacancies require, rightly or wrongly, graduates.
Like the US, the UK is having a pretty crappy time with the recession and unemployment. Despite this, 89.9% of all those graduating in 2008-2009 with a first degree are now employed (NB: in the UK a first degree is a BA or BSc - we don't distinguish further, so a BA is any non-science). The mode is 91.2% - i.e. most universities have an employment rate over this figure. These figures are official, accurate and trustworthy: see Higher Education Statistics Agency.
I can't imagine that the situation for those with degrees is that different between the US and UK (except in Indiana, apparently...), unless the US education system is completely broken, so a photography degree will be useful even if you don't pursue a photography career.
Lastly, a first degree means it's quite easy to be accepted on a post-graduate degree course such as an MA. A post-graduate degree, if carefully chosen, will most definitely make you more employable. An ex-girlfriend has a BA in sculpture, but decided on a career in computing, so she did an MA in information technology shortly after graduating. I'm starting my MA Photography next year (just because I want to) - it's part time (1 day university attendance plus 1 day self-study per week, over 2 years) and costs about $5000 (which is pretty reasonable).
Last edited:
Tim Gray
Well-known
Good point. Which is why I added I have NOT gone to art school.
However, I think my advice applies. Not because I somehow magically know what a career in art is like, but because I think it applies to *all* education and careers.
Don't go in too much debt. Do something you like. It's ok not to have a hobby that you like more than your job. Your degree isn't magically going to give you a job/career. Work hard. Etc.
dogbunny
Registered Boozer
everybody's lil paradise
everybody's lil paradise
I may be a simpleton, but I couldn't ask for more than this. Sounds like a great gig.
everybody's lil paradise
I may be a simpleton, but I couldn't ask for more than this. Sounds like a great gig.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I may be a simpleton, but I couldn't ask for more than this. Sounds like a great gig.
I ain't complaining. Well, actually, there are two things I complain about. One is the way people say (often of bankers and CEOs) "He earned £1.6 million last year, when they mean, "He was paid £1.6 million last year". The other is the "Rocky VI" syndrome, where publishers, producers, etc. are totally risk-averse and want more of the same, rather than commissioning anything new. Once the brand is established, some people will buy anything, by anyone, as long as it's branded with what they know and 'understand'. Conan the Barbarian novels are a good example -- I happen to now because one of my friends wrote a couple, as part of the franchise.
I believe that the 'branding' approach to art is similarly deleterious.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dektol Dan
Well-known
A Frozen Bucket of Pee
A Frozen Bucket of Pee
I think I am guilty of letting this thread go astray. In my previous post I assumed the goal of getting a formal education in photography was to gain skills in the craft as well as an artistic expression background. It seems that the later is of little importance and of the mark for this thread.
Nevertheless, I would still like to point out that there is more to gaining a degree in photography than say, a social science, or even many of the sciences or the more bookish majors.
Although my parents contributed financially to my education, I still had to work and I did depend on scholarships as well.
I was very shocked to learn how unprepared I was financially for an education in the arts. Paint and canvas, as well as materials for a film class (pre video days) and photography (those days one’s beginning class camera was a 4x5), left me with no money for rent. I found myself in winter snow living in my hippie van awaking to a bucket of my frozen urine in the mornings. Buying textbooks seemed like pissing money in dribbles comparatively.
This was good experience for my later life. So consider these questions when laying out time and money for a degree in the arts:
1.) Can you afford your own equipment, i.e. a dark room, professional cameras and all the widgets that attend that equipment such as lenses, lighting, computers, and expensive software?
2.) Do you live in an area that has these items readily available, and do you live in area that can support a photographer, or an artist?
3.) Are you satisfied with being a craftsman (wedding, event photographer, advertising) or are you in it for self-expression?
4.) Are you willing to work at a job that has no benefits or security?
5.) Are you willing to ‘pay to work’, i.e. invest in yourself; leave family and security behind to travel for your craft?
6.) Are you willing to watch your work be pirated or otherwise be not paid for in this world universal computer and network access?
Other than the few workaday craftsmen, it seems to me most of the posters in this thread are either dilatants, have some other means of employment or other non-artists (notice I side stepped the term ‘hobbyist’). That being the case, please ignore this post. If you are into gaining a formal education in photography for the money think twice. If you love it and live it you will do very well to earn the degree. I am not rich or well known for my years of practice, but I have lived where I wanted and still LOVE my work and I will NEVER retire.
As a songwriter I have a favorite unknown artist, Paul Thorn (please check him out), whose publishing moniker is ‘Perpetual Obscurity’. There are a lot of us out there who have paid their dues in obscurity land.
A Frozen Bucket of Pee
I think I am guilty of letting this thread go astray. In my previous post I assumed the goal of getting a formal education in photography was to gain skills in the craft as well as an artistic expression background. It seems that the later is of little importance and of the mark for this thread.
Nevertheless, I would still like to point out that there is more to gaining a degree in photography than say, a social science, or even many of the sciences or the more bookish majors.
Although my parents contributed financially to my education, I still had to work and I did depend on scholarships as well.
I was very shocked to learn how unprepared I was financially for an education in the arts. Paint and canvas, as well as materials for a film class (pre video days) and photography (those days one’s beginning class camera was a 4x5), left me with no money for rent. I found myself in winter snow living in my hippie van awaking to a bucket of my frozen urine in the mornings. Buying textbooks seemed like pissing money in dribbles comparatively.
This was good experience for my later life. So consider these questions when laying out time and money for a degree in the arts:
1.) Can you afford your own equipment, i.e. a dark room, professional cameras and all the widgets that attend that equipment such as lenses, lighting, computers, and expensive software?
2.) Do you live in an area that has these items readily available, and do you live in area that can support a photographer, or an artist?
3.) Are you satisfied with being a craftsman (wedding, event photographer, advertising) or are you in it for self-expression?
4.) Are you willing to work at a job that has no benefits or security?
5.) Are you willing to ‘pay to work’, i.e. invest in yourself; leave family and security behind to travel for your craft?
6.) Are you willing to watch your work be pirated or otherwise be not paid for in this world universal computer and network access?
Other than the few workaday craftsmen, it seems to me most of the posters in this thread are either dilatants, have some other means of employment or other non-artists (notice I side stepped the term ‘hobbyist’). That being the case, please ignore this post. If you are into gaining a formal education in photography for the money think twice. If you love it and live it you will do very well to earn the degree. I am not rich or well known for my years of practice, but I have lived where I wanted and still LOVE my work and I will NEVER retire.
As a songwriter I have a favorite unknown artist, Paul Thorn (please check him out), whose publishing moniker is ‘Perpetual Obscurity’. There are a lot of us out there who have paid their dues in obscurity land.
Jamie123
Veteran
I considered art school for a second but then decided to do something more serious and started studying philosophy and literature
. I'm still quite happy with that choice even though I'm pursuing a career in photography.I can certainly put my hand up for (g), though. One friend of mine who went to art school is now working as an assistant for a pretty well known fashion photographer. He hasn't quite 'made it' yet but he isn't quite starving either and he's travelling all over the place with his 'boss' at an average dayrate of $500.
Also, a girl who started University at the same time as me and who I used to study with put her courses on hold after the first year in order to spend a couple of semesters at a school for creative writing.
This year she placed second in one of the most prestigious German literary awards for her first novel. I haven't read it but it's receiving rave reviews.
When she first told me she wanted to be a writer I admit I was sceptic. Not because I thought she was a bad writer (I had never read anything by her) but because it sounded like someone telling me they want to become an astronaut. Needless to say I was quite astonished when I heard her name in the news.
This just goes to show again that only because something is difficult that doesn't mean it's impossible. And I venture to say that making it as a novellist is quite a bit harder than making it as a photographer.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Hey Roger,
I went to a pretty good school and they allowed me to take about half writing and half Lit. courses. At the time I wanted to read and write more than anything else. I learned to write sonnets in various meters. I'm fairly well informed when it comes to Magical realism and modern American Lit. I write, I think, fairly well. Did it do anything for my marketability? Hehe, what do you think?
However, I went to a great school, had some amazing professors, and learned a great deal about life and the kind of life I want to lead. I graduated with some debt because I had to do it all on my own, but I wouldn't change it for the world. Was it worth it? You bet.
Maybe I run with a weird crowd, but I run into people all the time that are now employed doing something that has very little to do with what they "learned" in college.
What stopped (or stops) you doing that anyway? I've been doing it for about 55 years, since I learned to read.
Sorry, can't guess what it did for your marketablity. Improved it because of good contacts? Or made no difference whatsoever, because talent and luck are more important than academic qualifications?
I think I'd probably rather have knocked about the way I did for a few years, taking life as it came, than lived in something as structured as a 'great school' with 'amazing professors', where they were in control and I wasn't. I'm not denigrating your choice: it's just that I'm still puzzled as to what it did for you.
Cheers,
R.
JayGannon
Well-known
Yes to A, B, C, D however not E because F came along while doing D, and also due to D, G.
As an added bonus managed to get my union ticket too on a grandfathered production!
I left because I was able to make money and didint feel like I was missing much, after a while realized I needed more training in the business and tech sides so did an International Business bachelors in night school and various tech qualifications in my own time. However considering going back and finishing my Photography degree due to having spare time at the moment, possibily as a part time student.
dogbunny
Registered Boozer
different strokes
different strokes
Hmm, I guess I didn't study writing to become a writer. So yeah, I agree with you that once you learn to read and write that is all you really need.
However, sitting alone in a room with a book will largely only expose you to two sets of ideas, the writer's and yours. By sitting down with a bunch of other people, with different experiences and viewing these ideas through the prism of multiple experiences I think you can take away more from the process than otherwise.
The academic setting is typically goal/purpose driven and having that element can lead you to do more than you would have otherwise.
Your image of academic life is quite different than mine. Great professors don't "control" they facilitate and they present ideas/techniques that I might not have come up with on my own.
I'm of the firm belief that being better at one talent can greatly enhance other talents, so even if I never write again nothing was wasted.
And for more egotistical reasons, I went to a school that I was told I could never get into. Setting a goal that others have told you is unobtainable and achieving that goal can do wonders for a person's self-confidence.
Cheers,
DB
different strokes
Hmm, I guess I didn't study writing to become a writer. So yeah, I agree with you that once you learn to read and write that is all you really need.
However, sitting alone in a room with a book will largely only expose you to two sets of ideas, the writer's and yours. By sitting down with a bunch of other people, with different experiences and viewing these ideas through the prism of multiple experiences I think you can take away more from the process than otherwise.
The academic setting is typically goal/purpose driven and having that element can lead you to do more than you would have otherwise.
Your image of academic life is quite different than mine. Great professors don't "control" they facilitate and they present ideas/techniques that I might not have come up with on my own.
I'm of the firm belief that being better at one talent can greatly enhance other talents, so even if I never write again nothing was wasted.
And for more egotistical reasons, I went to a school that I was told I could never get into. Setting a goal that others have told you is unobtainable and achieving that goal can do wonders for a person's self-confidence.
Cheers,
DB
Last edited:
John Elder
Well-known
The vast majority of the post ignore the questions of the OP. More than 90% of the posts are concerned with whether the OP will be able to get a job in photography. The OP does not ever address that as an issue. Most people I know with any kind of undergraduate degree are not working in the field of their degree 10 years to 40 years after they graduate. Given that fact I have concluded that a person getting a degree should study what they want to learn and not what they think will make them money. Dekto Dan is and was on the right track. Hicks seems way to defensive about not haveing a photo education, for reasons that totally elude me since he has a very good photography career: reviewing equipment, writing photography books, and doing travel photography among many other photography jobs. The OP wants to know how to get into a photography school. As far as a portfolio is concerned, I submitted a portfolio to RIT and was given a years photography credits (first year photography) based on the quality of my portfolio. I began as a second year photography student. My portfolio consisted only of photographs. I suggest that the OP contact any school he is interested in and ask for the application requirements. Don't tell a young person to not pursue a field of knowledge because he might not be successful financially in that field. That kind of discouragement is not warranted. When you are young you should spend you time in school studying what you want to. Get the degree you desire, study your paasion if you are lucky enough to have one.
mgd711
Medium Format Baby!!
Does anybody here have any experience with the Open College of Art in the UK?
http://www.oca-uk.com/
All this talk off formal qualifications has got me thinking...
They offer a BA (Hon) in Photography.
http://www.oca-uk.com/about/ba-hons-photography-degree
http://www.oca-uk.com/
All this talk off formal qualifications has got me thinking...
They offer a BA (Hon) in Photography.
http://www.oca-uk.com/about/ba-hons-photography-degree
dogbunny
Registered Boozer
I don't get it either. Being 17 years old is the perfect time for being optimistic and pursuing something for the pure passion of it. One might even surprise oneself. Why not inspire someone rather than take the wind out of their sails?
Frank Petronio
Well-known
I grew up on a farm, had excellent grades and aptitude, and was the class artist, the best sketcher and such. But I had no idea that people could work in an art-related field, there was zero exposure to advertising or photography or design. Instead I was groomed to take over the family construction business, I spent three years hating a civil engineering program until I finally had the independence and guts to go off and work on my own for several years. When I got injured I went back to school but, having left engineering school in the middle of term, I had a 0.0 cum and the only program I could get into was art, rather than the more proper architecture that I thought I wanted at the time.
I have a BS in Visual Design from the University of Oregon, where I took about 24 credits of photography classes in 1983-84.
I learned more by reading library books, shooting my own ideas, working in a crude homebuilt darkroom, and later assisting professional photographers. I moved to Rochester to go to RIT for an MFA with the idea of being a fine-art photographer and professor. But they ended tuition waivers for student assistants that same year and I thought Zakia was an ass. The kind people at Visual Studies Workshop let me work in their studio and labs for free. I worked at a camera store and for several lousy commercial photographers, then for some better ones and finally for Kodak and a good annual report tog.
After working as a regional level commercial photographer from 1986 to 92, working my way up to being competitive in a decent market at the time (Fortune 500 annuals, trade magazine covers, regional ads) I morphed into a digital imaging and prepress business because that's where things were moving and I could make $400 per hour making drop shadows. Later I got into the internet thing and wrote more, worked up to a creative director level at ad agencies, blew up my businesses, and am current self-employed as a photographer who rarely gets assignments but is showing work to national accounts.
Going to school for photography, especially at a half-assed regional school like the University of Oregon (bless its heart), is absolutely worthless and more than likely to be detrimental to having a future in the industry. I think a lot of these schools do a disservice by moving kids through these "make busy" majors that aren't that challenging, and a lot of the professors, even at the better schools -- no offense but I sure there will be -- are burnt-out stoners who couldn't work as photographers if their lives depended on it.
One of my model friends went to a private Catholic college and majored in Media Design. At the last term I went into to talk to her class and none of them had a marketable skill or even decent art work. I looked at the curriculum and it was a worthless hodgepodge of video, internet, graphics, and... junk courses. The college hired dozens of adjuncts to teach for peanuts, billed these kids $22K per, and they don't even have a decent liberal arts education out of it, much less any career skills.
I talk children out of majoring in art unless they are so blessed as to be going off to Yale or RISD or someplace that has some meat to it, that will challenge them. And even then I'd be suspicious since I've yet to meet someone from Yale who didn't throw in your face within five minutes of meeting them. Good Old Boys and all that....
For kids without the means or sophistication to be able to get into a truly challenging school, I think the best course of action for them to do is to get a good, well-rounded education in science and humanities. And frankly, in hindsight, I think the best way to do that is to join the military and go kill Islamic terrorists, because if you don't kill those *******s first, there ain't going to be any art to do anyway. But I digress....
I tell them that after you get out of the military, go to school if you want, or continue to educate yourself. Learning a well-paid manual craft trade is a really good idea too. And shoot on your own, a lot. Use the internet, go to some inspiring workshops, save your money up for strange far off trips, take time off to read a lot, shoot a jillion photos of your kids growing up... it's your life.
What's the point of making a lousy living in some art-tangential field that sadly mimics the activity that you love? Shooting copy slides or even shooting eBay table top or Sears portraits or for iStockPhoto for that matter is only a low-paying deadend job that will stifle your photographic passion.
Screw it -- Colleges as a whole are an extortion racket that the Mafia envies -- Only they're run by bleeding heart snobs who have every suburban family suckered into thinking they have to accept the annual 7% tuition hikes and all the hours of PC bull$hit while they screw their own teachers over unless they're part of the tenured elite.
(Ask me what I really think sometime. It feels good to unload.)
I have a BS in Visual Design from the University of Oregon, where I took about 24 credits of photography classes in 1983-84.
I learned more by reading library books, shooting my own ideas, working in a crude homebuilt darkroom, and later assisting professional photographers. I moved to Rochester to go to RIT for an MFA with the idea of being a fine-art photographer and professor. But they ended tuition waivers for student assistants that same year and I thought Zakia was an ass. The kind people at Visual Studies Workshop let me work in their studio and labs for free. I worked at a camera store and for several lousy commercial photographers, then for some better ones and finally for Kodak and a good annual report tog.
After working as a regional level commercial photographer from 1986 to 92, working my way up to being competitive in a decent market at the time (Fortune 500 annuals, trade magazine covers, regional ads) I morphed into a digital imaging and prepress business because that's where things were moving and I could make $400 per hour making drop shadows. Later I got into the internet thing and wrote more, worked up to a creative director level at ad agencies, blew up my businesses, and am current self-employed as a photographer who rarely gets assignments but is showing work to national accounts.
Going to school for photography, especially at a half-assed regional school like the University of Oregon (bless its heart), is absolutely worthless and more than likely to be detrimental to having a future in the industry. I think a lot of these schools do a disservice by moving kids through these "make busy" majors that aren't that challenging, and a lot of the professors, even at the better schools -- no offense but I sure there will be -- are burnt-out stoners who couldn't work as photographers if their lives depended on it.
One of my model friends went to a private Catholic college and majored in Media Design. At the last term I went into to talk to her class and none of them had a marketable skill or even decent art work. I looked at the curriculum and it was a worthless hodgepodge of video, internet, graphics, and... junk courses. The college hired dozens of adjuncts to teach for peanuts, billed these kids $22K per, and they don't even have a decent liberal arts education out of it, much less any career skills.
I talk children out of majoring in art unless they are so blessed as to be going off to Yale or RISD or someplace that has some meat to it, that will challenge them. And even then I'd be suspicious since I've yet to meet someone from Yale who didn't throw in your face within five minutes of meeting them. Good Old Boys and all that....
For kids without the means or sophistication to be able to get into a truly challenging school, I think the best course of action for them to do is to get a good, well-rounded education in science and humanities. And frankly, in hindsight, I think the best way to do that is to join the military and go kill Islamic terrorists, because if you don't kill those *******s first, there ain't going to be any art to do anyway. But I digress....
I tell them that after you get out of the military, go to school if you want, or continue to educate yourself. Learning a well-paid manual craft trade is a really good idea too. And shoot on your own, a lot. Use the internet, go to some inspiring workshops, save your money up for strange far off trips, take time off to read a lot, shoot a jillion photos of your kids growing up... it's your life.
What's the point of making a lousy living in some art-tangential field that sadly mimics the activity that you love? Shooting copy slides or even shooting eBay table top or Sears portraits or for iStockPhoto for that matter is only a low-paying deadend job that will stifle your photographic passion.
Screw it -- Colleges as a whole are an extortion racket that the Mafia envies -- Only they're run by bleeding heart snobs who have every suburban family suckered into thinking they have to accept the annual 7% tuition hikes and all the hours of PC bull$hit while they screw their own teachers over unless they're part of the tenured elite.
(Ask me what I really think sometime. It feels good to unload.)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.