The 'self taught' photographer

[PJRiley]

I recently read an article about an artist who scorned 'self taught' artists. Her opinion was that you should have educational 'backup' i.e. a college degree before you call yourself an artist and expect people to pay for your work.
I don't agree. Aside from a correspondence course, I am self taught. I have a huge photography book library, and I study the work of other photographers I admire.
I learned my craft the hard way and I still do. When my work sells, I'm not the least bit uncomfortable, because I know the effort I've invested in my photography. (Money too!!😱)
How did you learn the craft, and what do you think of the artist's statement?

 

[varjag]

Leonardo did not attend a college.

 

[marke]

Sounds like she might be bitter for spending so much to get her degree and still can't make a go of it. Why else would anyone care?

 

[hans voralberg]

Dont think Man Ray did, nor Robert Capa IIRC, so yeah no need to concern about educational background, I'm self-taught and I teach art college students about photography more than they learn in class

 

[dcsang]

I picked up a kodak instamatic camera, looked through the viewfinder, pressed the shutter button and voila... that was it.

My concerns with her statement (whomever "she" is) is the word "artist".
Same goes for photographers who deem themselves "artists".

But that's just my thoughts on the whole shebang..

Dave

 

[varjag]

If one has to claim that you can't be self-taught practitioner in some discipline, it is most likely false. Where it is true, it is sorta obvious. You can't do serious chemistry without formal training, and chances that one can be self-taught in physics or mathematics to any remarkable degree while exist are very slim. You can certainly be self-taught in computer programming for instance.

As for art, am not convinced that anyone is being taught it for real at all. Maybe techniques, but there's only so much of it. Reading Sontag doesn't count as studies 🙂

 

[kshapero]

You might do better to assist an artist as an education then listening to a bunch of professors warble. Yet again that's the route I took. Degree in English was great.

 

[Jonathan R]

Of course it's perfectly possible to teach a range of art skills (drawing, perspective, composition, colour handling, technological processes, expression, criticism, self-criticism,...) and many of these are also relevant to photography. I don't doubt that for a receptive student, a first-class education in these things is quicker, less painful and more certain than learning for oneself. Maybe that's where your scornful artist lady was coming from? After all, most self-taught photographers never learn much at all. Personally I often regret that I only have the one life and that I couldn't have an art training as well as a career in science.

I don't know what proportion of colleges produce a really useful art training these days. Clearly (from that statement) I have my doubts! I also think that there's no point being a well-trained and talented artist unless you have something to express, so a degree in life is also essential. Now that can be self-taught...

 

[tripod]

Sour grapes, methinks.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Pure garbage. I suspect Mark E has it. She thinks the world owes her a living because she has a degree? Oh, dear... And that artists that didn't attend college aren't worthy? Worthy of what? If they can't sell their work, the degree is irrelevant, and plenty who do sell their work are self taught.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Jonathan R]

But Roger, there must be people out there who don't know whether they are looking at a work of art or not...? Wouldn't it be awful if they bought something they liked and it wasn't actually art? 🙂

 

[rxmd]

It would be interesting to know why she thinks you need to have formal education to be an artist. What about art requires formal study in her opinion? Presented as it is, her opinion makes little sense, of course, but she probably did present some kind of argument to support her point.

Also note that her position actually has quite a bit of tradition in the art world. Everybody can take a camera and shoot away, but not everybody can take up a brush and produce a 19th century academy painting.

 

[RF-Addict]

I am self taught as well - never attended any workshops or classes - I read a lot and much of what I know is through trial and error. Nevertheless, I think she does have a point - I often wish I knew more about a specific area in photography - like better lighting techniques, studio photography, etc.

Education and knowledge never hurt anyone and there is something to be said about a professional learning his/her craft through classical education.

I am not a professional and don't consider myself an artist, so I don't have to care:angel:🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

But Roger, there must be people out there who don't know whether they are looking at a work of art or not...? Wouldn't it be awful if they bought something they liked and it wasn't actually art? 🙂

Dear Jonathan,

An excellent point. A friend of my wife's refused to speek to me for months when I pointed out that you can't forge art; you can only forge a signature.

There's a lovely story about Picasso being asked to authenticate an unsigned drawing. He said, "It's a fake."

The owner was horrified: "But I saw you do it."

Picasso replied, "Yes. I often fake Picassos."

Dunno if it's true or not, but it should be.

Further thought: there's an enormous difference between being self taight, and calling yourself an artist without any basis whatsoever, i.e. without teaching yourself or formal study or indeed talent.

Cheers,

R.

 

[PaulDalex]

Excellent Varjag. Leonardo was a ******* son. That's why his father didn't care.
And he was a giant both in Art and Science.

 

[PaulDalex]

Ach.
Edit: he was born out of marriage. I am sorry, I did not know that that word was bad in its technical sense, not as an insult

 

[Spider67]

I once in my tender teens asked a photographer at a party " Is the degree really so important?" He was already a bit drunk and gave me this pearl of rare honesty :" Of course it is! Nowadays (the eighties)the people are so creative that too many can make great pics. It's to only way to keep it regulated!"
We should not forget that Leonardo became an apprentice of Andrea del Verrocchio. As painting and sculpting was much closer to craft this was considered a formal training.
When I considered some kind of training I did so because i was interested in creative exchange of opinions not specially in technical training

 

[gregg]

The same sentiments run through many professions...

Look at whiz kid programmers and software designers who never took a college course or those who never graduated like Bill Gates. I personally know a bunch of "real programmers" with their Masters degrees who somewhat resent (more likely envy) those who are naturally gifted.

Or my current profession/calling as a pastor. I happen to be seminary trained but recognize the amazing abilities of many who were not. A different generation or disposition of pastors would call these people "untrained" - I call them gifted.

It is a protectionist attitude, just like the guilds of another era. You weren't qualified to be a "master" until you had worked your way through being an apprentice, tradesman, craftsman, and then after many years the guild could vote on one's status as a master. (Sorry for the male biased language.)

Most guilds protected these classifications strongly - people knew (under threat of violence or blacklisting) not to claim a title that had not been granted to them by the guild.

IMNSHO: a real artist is someone who creates from within... For many of us it takes a lifetime of practice to figure out what is inside of us that needs to come out.

 

[Nh3]

You don't learn photography, you do it.

 

[Nikon Bob]

I didn't know you couldn't be creative without having a degree. Live and learn I guess.

Bob