PRJ
Another Day in Paradise
The advice for the most part in this thread is akin to someone asking "how far is the fall off the cliff?" "I don't know, but why don't you jump and find out? The fall should be spectacular!"
ornate_wrasse
Moderator
My daughter attends a "half-assed regional school" called the University of Oregon. But she isn't majoring in Visual Design. She is majoring in architecture. Hopefully her degree won't be as worthless as going to school for photography
BTW, those Ducks are doing pretty good at football right now. Like # 1 in the nation
I'm headed down there for Thanksgiving and if I can buy tickets to the game against Arizona on the day after Thanksgiving without spending a zillion dollars I'll be happy.
Ellen
Freakscene
Obscure member
I agree that a business or other additional qualification is a great idea. I really think that a mobile profession like commercial diving, trades like plumbing or electrical work, or nursing, law or teaching are a good addition. You can really stimulate your creativity by being mobile. I've done that with my photography with a career in science but that's just as difficult to access as a career in photography.
Marty
Marty
Last edited by a moderator:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Highlight 1: Yes, but there are LOTS of writers, from all over time and space: I'm just re-reading Thorne Smith. Students and teachers in one place at one time must inevitably have a much more limited perspective. Besides, I discuss books with friends and family.
Highlight 2: Only sort of -- and a lot LESS so, as far as I am concerned, than writing.
Highlight 3: Yes, but what do they facilitate? I had some excellent professors too (see below) but all they facilitated was what they taught. Generalized intellectual curiosity is stimulated by any half-decent teacher.
I have no interest in (for example) magical realism, and only a limited interest in modern American literature. I don't know what I'm interested in, until I find it. And the only way I find it is by reading...
There are several things you need to learn in order to write. Exposure to others' writing, obviously. An ear for the demotic. Research skills (a law degree is very good for that). Imagination. And experience, watching how you and others react to real life, not just to books, which takes me back to the first highlight.
Highlight 4: That's why I read law. I failed to get into medical school (a long story), so I decided to read a so-called 'difficult' degree at one of the better law schools in the UK, just to show that I could. I might have been happier at art school (I had a choice of two law schools and one art school), but then, I might not. I'd certainly have had far less choice of more and less enjoyable jobs before I went completely freelance at 30.
In other words, the ways in which studying writing helped you would not, I suspect, have helped me; and my approach, equally, might not have been at all suitable for you. Which is in itself interesting and may be of use to the OP. I'm certainly grateful for your views; I hope he may be too.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear John,
They elude me too, because I'm not defensive. Actually I'm quite proud of it. Most of the successful photographers I know had no formal education in the subject, though this may be generational: I am assured that more employers nowadays demand 'qualifications'. And equally, most of the people I know who studied photography formally are not now working in 'creative' fields: there are just too damn' many graduates, and not enough jobs.
My advice to the OP, therefore, is by all means, study something that amuses and entertains you, because, as I say, by the time you're 40, your degree is rarely going to matter. But equally, if you want an easier life in the rest of your 20s and early 30s, study something that will help you earn a living while you are pursuing what you want to do.
I may not have studied photography formally at university, but I spent a hell of a lot of time (while I was nominally reading law) 'studying by doing' and reading books, magazines and whatever I could get my hands on. In my mid-20s I alternated for a couple of years between working as a supply teacher and as an assistant in a London advertising and hire studio. I am absolutely confident that I enjoyed that a LOT more than I'd have enjoyed working on a master's degree. I also learned a hell of a lot more: as well as my 'gaffer', the late Colin Glanfield, my teachers were all the photographers I worked with, on car shoots, model shoots, pharmaceutical advertising, furniture, glassware...
Working as an assistant is not regarded as 'formal education', but then, I do not regard any of the arts (or indeed, most practical activities) as fitting or meet for academic study. The route into most careers has always been 'sitting next to Nellie' as an apprentice, and a degree has until very recently been optional. Indeed, when I (briefly) studied accountancy, there were still plenty my age who had started as articled clerks, without a degree. The same was true of lawyers.
In other words, it is a major error to imagine that formallystudying something other than photography, or earning your living at something other than photography, automatically relegates photography to the status of a hobby.
Finally, if you're passionate enough about anything, and reasonably competent at it, and prepared to make the necessary sacrifices, you'll probably end up doing it. But if you take an easy/enjoyable option at university, or read a non-subject such as 'Media Studies', you may have a good time at for a few years at university but a considerably less enjoyable time for a decade or two afterwards, until you've established yourself at what you want to do.
Cheers,
R.
dogbunny
Registered Boozer
Fair enough, but
Fair enough, but
Just a few responses.
1) I'll just respectfully disagree that one person rereading an author down the line has a more enhanced perspective than a small group of students with an extremely well-read professor (one who probably spent years becoming an expert on the subject). A temporal argument doesn't really hold weight with me, because all of those students would be free to revisit the same writings down the line with arguably a better foundation than a casual reader. (I'm speaking generally so please don't take offense)
2) Sitting down and having a conversation with your professor about the summer he spent living with John Paul Sartre, or another professor about how she floated over to America on a raft from Cuba for me was just as important as anything they could have "taught" me from a book.
3) The two subjects I mentioned were ment to be self-deprecating more than anything else. I studied many more Lit. based subjects than that. "I don't know what I'm interested until I find it." I would say that is true for everyone, regardless if you've pursued a higher education. I didn't go to Uni to be told what to read or what to think.
4) All aside, I would have gone to Uni no matter what. People study Philosophy and Political Science and do not become philosophers or political scientists--those people become lawyers. Most of the people/artists I respect more in this world are self-made, non-traditionally trained types that just had a fire in their gut. (Alan Moore, C. Bukowski, My Uncle Danny) :angel:
I'm sorry if I gave the impression that Uni is the end all be all. My intent was more to say "it is a pretty good ride."
Fair enough, but
Just a few responses.
1) I'll just respectfully disagree that one person rereading an author down the line has a more enhanced perspective than a small group of students with an extremely well-read professor (one who probably spent years becoming an expert on the subject). A temporal argument doesn't really hold weight with me, because all of those students would be free to revisit the same writings down the line with arguably a better foundation than a casual reader. (I'm speaking generally so please don't take offense)
2) Sitting down and having a conversation with your professor about the summer he spent living with John Paul Sartre, or another professor about how she floated over to America on a raft from Cuba for me was just as important as anything they could have "taught" me from a book.
3) The two subjects I mentioned were ment to be self-deprecating more than anything else. I studied many more Lit. based subjects than that. "I don't know what I'm interested until I find it." I would say that is true for everyone, regardless if you've pursued a higher education. I didn't go to Uni to be told what to read or what to think.
4) All aside, I would have gone to Uni no matter what. People study Philosophy and Political Science and do not become philosophers or political scientists--those people become lawyers.
Most of the people/artists I respect more in this world are self-made, non-traditionally trained types that just had a fire in their gut. (Alan Moore, C. Bukowski, My Uncle Danny) :angel:I'm sorry if I gave the impression that Uni is the end all be all. My intent was more to say "it is a pretty good ride."
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Just a few responses.
1) I'll just respectfully disagree that one person rereading an author down the line has a more enhanced perspective than a small group of students with an extremely well-read professor (one who probably spent years becoming an expert on the subject). A temporal argument doesn't really hold weight with me, because all of those students would be free to revisit the same writings down the line with arguably a better foundation than a casual reader. (I'm speaking generally so please don't take offense)
2) Sitting down and having a conversation with your professor about the summer he spent living with John Paul Sartre, or another professor about how she floated over to America on a raft from Cuba for me was just as important as anything they could have "taught" me from a book.
3) The two subjects I mentioned were ment to be self-deprecating more than anything else. I studied many more Lit. based subjects than that. "I don't know what I'm interested until I find it." I would say that is true for everyone, regardless if you've pursued a higher education. I didn't go to Uni to be told what to read or what to think.
4) All aside, I would have gone to Uni no matter what. People study Philosophy and Political Science and do not become philosophers or political scientists--those people become lawyers.
I'm sorry if I gave the impression that Uni is the end all be all. My intent was more to say "it is a pretty good ride."[/QUOTE]
No, no, you didn't do that at all, and yes, I agree, it's a good ride. But you don't need professors for the Sartre and Cuba stories. That's what family and friends are for. My great-grandmother, a rich kid whose father lost all his money before World War One; who joined the Party in her teens; who was once arrested for sedition when addressing a Dockyard meeting.The friend of my father who was given 6 months to live in 1948; bought a boat, to sail around the world until he died; and by the late 50s thought it was time for a second diagnosis (I met him in Bermuda in the 60s, by which time he had two teenage daughters, and he was finally shipwrecked in the 80s). My Polish girlfriend whose parents were married in 1939; who were transported (separately) to Siberia by the Russians; and who each thought the other was dead until, in 1947, one was getting on a bus in London, and the other was getting off.
As for the 'extremely well-read professor' who 'spent years becoming a expert', well, becoming 'extremely well read' is something anyone can do, and when I've been accused of being an expert I tend to remind people of the etymology I learned at a school speech day: it comes from 'ex' meaning 'a has-been' and 'spurt' meaning 'a drip under pressure'.
The temporal argument is simply that one's fellow students and teachers are in one place at one time, and that their discussion of the subject will reflect this relative lack of diversity. I'll get more from reading either six different books or six different 'takes' on the same book from people writing in different places at different times. Or indeed from talking to those who aren't in a formal setting.
Which brings me to the books your friends and family like, and you don't. In the late 60s or early 70s my fiancée and my father both raved about Solzhenitsyn. Never could see it myself. And my fiancée (who was reading geography) was addicted to ancient Icelandic sagas (in translation, admittedly). Again, I tried reading 'em...
Obviously I'm enjoying your responses, and they're making me think, but I think they're also reinforcing the argument that what works for one will not necessarily work for another.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Jamie123
Veteran
Roger,
I agree with your assessment that an academic education might not be the best and certainly not the only way to become a photographer. I would, however, make an exception. If you have a desire to be an "artist'' photographer, i.e. make it in the art world, then art school is definitely a good way to start. Art photography is very academic and no matter how many people on internet forums might regard ''art speak'' as BS, it's still a game that has to be played and if you want to make it in that world you need to know how it works.
(I use ''art'' in this context in a somewhat circular sense, i.e. meaning that which is dealt in the art world. Whether that kind of photography has any merit is beside the point.)
Roger Hicks
Veteran
You are very probably 100% right, and the only rider I'd add is that it is only ever a start. In other words, a determined non-art-school-graduate will have more of a chance than someone who relies on the jargon they picked up at art school, or even on the contacts they made.
Cheers,
R.
dave lackey
Veteran
There is more than a grain of truth in that statement, Frank. After years of pouring my soul into my classes for my students at Georgia Tech, I finally had to stop teaching because my net income after expenses was less than minimum wage and I had nothing left to pay the doctor bills for the stess related problems from 80 hour weeks (Teaching + Full-time Engineering job). Now, they are both gone.:angel:
Jamie123
Veteran
Sure, as with most things, school is only a start. You still need talent, determination, hard work and a bit of luck in order to 'make it'.
I want to make one more argument for art school, though. There seems to be this notion that art school is full of failed artists who teach because they can't do. But this is not necessarily the case. Many accomplished photographers teach at academic institutions. Stephen Shore teaches at Bard, Joel Sternfeld at Sarah Lawrence (two of my favourites) and let's not forget the whole generation of art photographers Bernd Becher has brought forth at the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf.
So art school, depending on where you go, might be a very good way to learn directly from someone you greatly respect.
dave lackey
Veteran
Well, yes, in a broad sense, it is only ever a start. However, formal education is quite necessary for some industries like architecture, engineering, and such, without it, licenses cannot be obtained.
The sad thing these days is that formal education is not treated the same as it was in the not too distant past. Most students seem to think a college degree is a must for getting rich, or at the least, a guarantee to get a decent paying job. As with most things, there are no absolutes, it is very complex as we are all unique individuals. The current recession makes it even more complex.
The sad thing these days is that formal education is not treated the same as it was in the not too distant past. Most students seem to think a college degree is a must for getting rich, or at the least, a guarantee to get a decent paying job. As with most things, there are no absolutes, it is very complex as we are all unique individuals. The current recession makes it even more complex.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Indeed. But I think that many people have a flawed idea of what a 'failed artist' is. An artist is a artist, good or bad, rich or poor. But there are two things that are attractive about teaching. First, there's not much money in art (because there's rarely much money in doing something people would do whether they were paid or not) and it's not regular. A steady income is good. Second, teaching people who want to learn, and being surrounded by fellow artists, is enjoyable in its own right, whether you're being paid or not, so you might as well be paid for it.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Dave,
Which may merely mean that the licenses are a fraud. There are many reasons for licensing a particular trade, profession or calling, and only one of them is to ensure professional competence (of which a degree is in any case no guarantee). Others include 'closed shops' (controlling competition), a desire for prestige (an 'all-graduate profession' sounds better than one that isn't), and youth unemployment (tie the little buggers up in school and keep 'em off the jobs market).
Decades ago, universities ceased to be purely institutions of learning and became training colleges. Once, in a tutorial at university, the tutor asked "Why do we study jurisprudence?" My fellow students were shocked when I answered "In order to maintain the illusion that this is a university and not a trade school." The lecturer agreed with me...
Cheers,
R.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
I still like the University of Oregon a lot and their architecture program is quite good, I haven't kept up but in the mid-1980s they were philosophically in the Christopher Alexander "Human Scale" camp in spite of the onslaught of all that Po-Mo crap.
So I ultimately become an architectural photographer (amongst other "specialties" as photographers do) and who do I end up working for?
Michael Graves
If you don't get the joke, an architect will ;-)
So I ultimately become an architectural photographer (amongst other "specialties" as photographers do) and who do I end up working for?
Michael Graves
If you don't get the joke, an architect will ;-)
Attachments
dave lackey
Veteran
Ha ha! Love it...you're preaching to the choir!
There is however the responsibility of the government to provide safeguards in relation to health, safety and welfare so I don't have a real problem with examinations and such...
Last edited:
dave lackey
Veteran
No truer words spoken. The reason I enjoyed teaching as long as I did with very little income was the reward of teaching graduate students who were there to learn, not just to get an under-grad degree. Having taught both post-graduate and under-grads, there is a world of difference in the students and motives for sitting in front of you. Which, of course, translates, for me, into a much different degree of satisfaction.
The only problem with working without tenure is it is more of a prostitution of your knowledge with nothing much to show for it and you really have no input into the curriculum or specific courses you teach. Tenure takes so long to get here that only a few will work for minimal income for 30 years in order to get tenure.
A real pity.
But, back to the OP... education is, IMO, critically important and each individual varies in the best way to obtain education. My biggest concern is the huge debt that some incur while doing so.
Last edited:
Jamie123
Veteran
There's actually quite a lot of money in art. But like most careers, there's only money in it if you're successful. And like with most careers, if it doesn't go as expected you need to get a job.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Yes, but it's not very evenly distributed: a few make LOTS of money, and most welcome or need the income from teaching, quite apart from the congeniality of the art school environment. There's certainly a lot less money in being an indifferent artist than in being a indifferent teacher, civil servant or bus driver.
Cheers,
R.
dogbunny
Registered Boozer
ok one more before I hit the door. time to sleep
ok one more before I hit the door. time to sleep
ok one more before I hit the door. time to sleep
Not all people have stories or a wealth of information from which to delve at a familial level. Everyone doesn’t have the luxury of being surrounded by others to discuss books and or experiences with. People come from semiliterate families, abusive families, families without fathers, without mothers, families riddled with addiction or mental illness—less dramatically, sometimes your family does read.
Etymology is rather mundane because all it requires is a dictionary and an excessive amount of time, and the origin of words bears little relation to their current usage. Semantic change is interesting, but it doesn’t prove or disprove a validity of ideas. It may be interesting in a sort of pub-wisdom sense, but that’s about it. I would much rather have discussions with someone who has “been there done that” that someone who hasn’t--regardless of the subject.
I understood your temporal argument completely, but I still reject it because you are presupposing a great deal. i.e. those people have never read the book before, those people are at the same stage of understanding as the rest of the people involved, those people are all heterosexual white people born in North Hampshire, England or are at the same stage in their life etc etc etc. Also it is odd that a person would embrace the knowledge of Aunt Nelly, while rejecting the knowledge of Professor Whoever. It makes more sense, to me, to take everyone for what they are worth.
ok,
off to bed. Thanks for the discussion
- Status
- Not open for further replies.