Roger Hicks
Veteran
I don't blame you - I don't want to look at them either.
Dear Bill,
You could have phrased it more tactfully. I don't think my pictures are THAT bad...
At least, not all of them.
Cheers,
R.
ampguy
Veteran
I'd guess that it is
I'd guess that it is
"the place" to learn about photoshop hacks ...
I'd guess that it is
"the place" to learn about photoshop hacks ...
Well articulated Roger.
So to pose a question:
What's the purpose of being critiqued in a photography class? A lot of the feedback being thrown around seems to be ambiguous; i.e. - "bump up the creativity".
Athos6
Tao Master
Roger Hicks
Veteran
So to pose a question:
What's the purpose of being critiqued in a photography class? A lot of the feedback being thrown around seems to be ambiguous; i.e. - "bump up the creativity".
Good question. This is the interface between learning and teaching. In a sense, ALL learning is self-taught, in that you have to be willing to learn. If you are willing to learn, you can learn from anyone (books, magazines, other photographers, practice...). If you are not, the quality of the teaching or the teacher is irrelevant.
This especially true of university when it is treated as a 'passport to the middle class'. I was much happier with jurisprudence, criminology and (above all) legal history than I was with criminal law or (worst of all) contract, but I was studying law for the wrong reasons, i.e. not out of interest but because 'everyone' goes to university and I might as well do something mildly challenging.
But in photography classes, I have something of a problem with many teachers, because the less they know, the more they tend to be on a power trip. I know more about most aspects of photography (technical or aesthetic) than most photography lecturers I have met, and I don't know anything like as much as some of the great photographers and theoreticians I have met -- who are seldom lecturers. And the ones I know, who know the most, are generally the quickest to say, "But I could be wrong."
You might find the following interesting:
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps critique.html (about picture critiques)
http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps ignore gurus.html (about photo-gurus)
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
Just a little Friday afternoon tease, Roger. I'm sure that one or two of your photographs are quite nice (another tease).
Sparrow
Veteran
Well articulated Roger.
So to pose a question:
What's the purpose of being critiqued in a photography class? A lot of the feedback being thrown around seems to be ambiguous; i.e. - "bump up the creativity".
that's because the critics are self taught?.......... Mmmmm now there's a flaw in one of the arguments; but which?
Arthur
Established
My dictionary definition of "artist" is ambiguous, at best.
My wife recounted an exchange with a friend. I had been recognized for a couple of photos.
Her friend said, "You are married to an artist."
Me!? An artist!?
I went to college...
Arthur
My wife recounted an exchange with a friend. I had been recognized for a couple of photos.
Her friend said, "You are married to an artist."
Me!? An artist!?
I went to college...
Arthur
Last edited:
Arthur
Established
I have seen this 'behavior' before.
It makes me sad.
It makes me sad.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
I think the single best reason for a MFA is so chicks dig you as an "artiste," but, since my wife will no longer let me dig chicks back, the whole exercise would be pointless in my case.
(Please, no offense to actual MFA folks out there...or "chicks," or anyone else possibly offended due to my inability to adequately convey sarcasm through the written word.)
(Please, no offense to actual MFA folks out there...or "chicks," or anyone else possibly offended due to my inability to adequately convey sarcasm through the written word.)
BillP
Rangefinder General
How true. And of course the wiser the "teacher", the more they realise that they have much to learn from the "student".
The best (for which read "most effective") teachers are those who can relate both to the subject and to the student, and act as a guide, rather than a pedantic and narrow-minded didact.
Enlightenment requires co-operation from all concerned, and cannot come by rote.
Regards,
Bill
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Richard,
Very true, but slightly dangerous. Some educationalists -- not teachers -- lose sight of the fact that you have to know the subject as well as inspiring people to want to learn. When the subject is inadequately addressed, 'child centred teaching' (generally a good thing) becomes indistinguishable from 'mucking about'.
There are also some pupils who never want to learn, or at least, never want to learn certain subjects. All you can do with them is to stop them getting in the way of those who do want to learn. I do not subscriobe to the view that they are 'equally valuable members of the class' (another piece of educationalist waffle). Equally valuable human beings, maybe. With equal rights, certainly. But not equally valuable members of any class where others are tring to learn something.
I was a teacher, on and off, for about 3 years in the 70s, when incompetent educationalists were perhaps at their zenith. Look at the school buildings of the period, and at such concepts as 'team teaching' (= the teacher with the loudest voice, or the best ability to impose discipline, or both, is responsible for 100 children while the other two fuss about doing very little).
Cheers,
R.
and the world hasn't changed since then ,-)
sorry eugene to be picking on your posts.... -)
what about the instances where people feel the need to point out that they are self tought? wonder why ... is it just a function of the excessive cv-ism we're living in, or a feeling of inferiority (if that's a word) of some sort for not having the formal training??
what about the instances where people feel the need to point out that they are self tought? wonder why ... is it just a function of the excessive cv-ism we're living in, or a feeling of inferiority (if that's a word) of some sort for not having the formal training??
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Perhaps it's exasperation at those who think that everything can be taught, let alone that everything has to be taught. There is also the way that people confuse education and training: the former is for life in general, while the latter is for performing specific tasks. Thus I was educated in the English language, but trained to strip and reassemble a Bren gun.
Few if any of the ways in which I have earned a living owe much to formal qualifications; I have a 1st MB exemption (medicine) but then read law at university. Here are most of the ways I've found paid employment, working backwards:
Journalism and photography
Writing books
Technical copywriting
Writing, shooting and producing instructional audio-visuals
Advertising photography
Accountancy
Teaching
Truck driving
Ditch digging
Lifeguard
Accountancy was the only one where I received any significant training. I left after 6 months (couldn't take the excitement). For all the others together, I doubt I have received a week's formal, classroom training in my life.
I am/was quite good at most of the above, except accountancy -- I even rescued a child once as a lifeguard, a feat which impressed the parents more than it did me -- so I tend to be deeply suspicious of those who think you need formal qualifications. This especially true for such things as teaching, photography or journalism.
Cheers,
Roger
tripod
Well-known
Art degrees are a form of safety net for galleries and buyers in these days of highly questionable art.
The concept of legitimacy is found in the guilds from medieval times that required thorough training through apprenticeship before being given the title master and the freedom to practice your craft independently. That makes some sense.
I wonder if the tailors who made the emporer's new clothes had their certificates.
The concept of legitimacy is found in the guilds from medieval times that required thorough training through apprenticeship before being given the title master and the freedom to practice your craft independently. That makes some sense.
I wonder if the tailors who made the emporer's new clothes had their certificates.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Of course. Written in invisible ink...
Seriously, good point: an illustration that 'art' has ceased to have any meaning whatsoever as a concept independent of external qualifiers that have nothing to do with art.
Cheers,
R.
Larky
Well-known
"There are also some pupils who never want to learn, or at least, never want to learn certain subjects. All you can do with them is to stop them getting in the way of those who do want to learn."
Err, no. That's a teaching method that is killing education. You find out what type of learner they are and alter your teaching method to suit.
"I do not subscriobe to the view that they are 'equally valuable members of the class' (another piece of educationalist waffle). Equally valuable human beings, maybe. With equal rights, certainly. But not equally valuable members of any class where others are tring to learn something."
Again, about as wrong as I can think of. That's like saying 3 multiplied by itself is 482. Again, it's all about finding out what type of brain they were born with and altering how you deliver what you are trying to teach. Are they Surface learners naturally, and if so is that OK for this specific part of the subject? If so, they are fine, if not, how can you help them adapt to a deeper approach?
"I was a teacher, on and off, for about 3 years in the 70s, when incompetent educationalists were perhaps at their zenith. Look at the school buildings of the period, and at such concepts as 'team teaching' (= the teacher with the loudest voice, or the best ability to impose discipline, or both, is responsible for 100 children while the other two fuss about doing very little)."
So, you are basing your teaching method on almost 40 year old theory and you only did it on and off for 3 years. Sorry to sound like a git, but that does not make you a teacher.
Teaching theory can be waffle, but it can also be interesting and change people's lives (including your own).
Err, no. That's a teaching method that is killing education. You find out what type of learner they are and alter your teaching method to suit.
"I do not subscriobe to the view that they are 'equally valuable members of the class' (another piece of educationalist waffle). Equally valuable human beings, maybe. With equal rights, certainly. But not equally valuable members of any class where others are tring to learn something."
Again, about as wrong as I can think of. That's like saying 3 multiplied by itself is 482. Again, it's all about finding out what type of brain they were born with and altering how you deliver what you are trying to teach. Are they Surface learners naturally, and if so is that OK for this specific part of the subject? If so, they are fine, if not, how can you help them adapt to a deeper approach?
"I was a teacher, on and off, for about 3 years in the 70s, when incompetent educationalists were perhaps at their zenith. Look at the school buildings of the period, and at such concepts as 'team teaching' (= the teacher with the loudest voice, or the best ability to impose discipline, or both, is responsible for 100 children while the other two fuss about doing very little)."
So, you are basing your teaching method on almost 40 year old theory and you only did it on and off for 3 years. Sorry to sound like a git, but that does not make you a teacher.
Teaching theory can be waffle, but it can also be interesting and change people's lives (including your own).
tripod
Well-known
Certainly skills and concepts can be taught, but tallent can only be nurtured.
Larky
Well-known
Talent can be nurtured through good teaching! Talent can increase by helping to develop a deeper understanding of the subject, which is what a good teacher does. Raw talent can very easily be misguided by a bad teacher. Sadly, most of us knew only bad teachers!
tripod
Well-known
MOST know ONLY bad teachers? No good ones? That's sad and unfortunate. I've had several good ones. Often it is whether a personal connection is made or not, that generates the feeling that a teacher was good or bad. (Not counting those truly bad teachers who should not be in classrooms, the ones who damage, not just not teach.)