Choosing a school: art or technology?
Matt Clara
there is a difference among schools that may be most easily deliniated as
between art and technology. For instance, if you look at the classes
offered by the Rochester Institute of Technology (rated #4 by US News &
World Report), they are quite technical. Same goes for the Brooks
Institute. However, if you look at the classes offered by some other
schools, such as the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (number one in
the US for photo grad school according to US News & World Report), it's much
more focused on composition found through drawing and art history.
In your mind, is one more valid than the other, and why?
Mark˛
If it were me, I'd probably choose the side that I feel needs more work.
Are you highly advanced technically or are you overwhelmed by the tech side?
Are you artsy fartsy already, or do you need to devolop artistic vision?
I'm not great at either, but I'm technically OK compared to what I see as an
artistic funk for my photography. I'd probably want to enroll in the area
that I perceive as the area with the greatest need of development.
-Mark²
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> I've been looking at schools of photography, and it has become apparent that
> there is a difference among schools that may be most easily deliniated as
> between art and technology.
> In your mind, is one more valid than the other, and why?
Photgraphy, started out as a science. You needed to understand chemistry
to make the photgraphic materials and physics to get an image on them.
As time progressed, cameras became less and less technical. The Kodak was
the first widely available camera where you could go into a store, and
buy 100 photographs already done. All you had to do is point the camera
and push the button. You returned the camera and a few days later you
were handed your photographs.
A landmark invention in photography since then was the APS camera.
While APS was never a commercial success, the technology behind was a
great leap forward.
APS was a cmbination of two things. "Smart" cameras that made descisions
on exposure with more than a simple photocell and smart printing machines
that used the information recorded magneticly on the film to produce
prints. One of the reasons that APS never took off was that the same
technology was easily applied to 35mm (or any size) film,
The cameras could make better exposures based on more sensors, and the smart
printing machines could make better prints by scanning the negative, without
needing the exposure information.
While the technology to produce useful photographs has improved to the point
that in almost all situations you don't really need a lot of technical
skill, artistic ability has not increased. Predictions of self composing
cameras (beyond compensating for shaking) have never been fullfilled.
As an example, a person relocated here recently and started a photography
business. They had little money and blew it all on a Nikon Digital SLR.
In order to drum up business they started a web site figuring it would
attract customers. They solicited comments from other locals intending
to create word of mouth advertising.
I looked at the web site and could not say a word. The best photograph on
the page was disgusting. If you looked closely it was an out of place
strand of hair on a portrat, if you glanced at it, it looked like an
axe wound.
The rest of the pictures were combined and recolored in ways to make
them undesireable. If the person had any photgraphic talent, it was
not evident in the photographs.
I was trying to come up with a polite way of saying something when I noticed
that the bottom half of "home" page was devoted to providing your credit
card details for the $150 (a lot of money here) fee for them to
show up, time and materials extra.
I said nothing.
You can draw your own conclusions.
Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel g...@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/
ASAAR
They're both valid, but not necessarily for the same people since
the forces that drive them will be different. And if you just look
at those interested in art for its own sake, some may find technical
institutes more valuable whereas others would find it stifling. If
I wanted a good assessment of schools focusing on photography, I
don't think that I'd rely too much on what US News & World Report
had to say unless I was primarily interested in the business aspects
of photography. Did USN&WR mention the Parsons School of Design,
which has undergrad and grad classes? It's not very far from B&H,
Adorama, J&R, etc., ya know! <g>
> Parsons' BFA in Photography educates students about the evolving
> creative position of the photographer today. The program provides a
> rigorous technical training marked by conceptual and critical thinking
> about photography's place in the global art and design world. Graduates
> enter the photographic industry fully prepared to be leaders in a rapidly
> changing work environment. The department also hosts visiting artists
> throughout the year.
>
> Degrees Offered:
> BFA
>
> Number of Students:
> 200
>
> Application Deadline:
> 2/1/2007
http://www.parsons.edu/departments/department.aspx?dID=76&sdID=101&ptype=1
Oops, too late. Better luck next semester. :)
Laurence Payne
wrote:
The technical side is easy to teach. But there's not nearly as much
technical stuff needed as there used to be (though the older teachers
may be in denial :-)
tomm42
I'm in a technical field of photography, ophthalmic (eye) photography.
I see a lot of RIT grads here, most are smart and talented. Their
facilities are first rate (to the extreme), had an assistant once from
RIT, the only problem he had was he was used to such good equipment he
didn't know how to improvise. We had expensive medical equipment but
are asked to do artistic work with the bare minimum.
Are you looking for grad school, undergrad or what? RIT puts graduates
out in the techincal photographic fields. Their classes in the 1950
produced the whos who of pro photography. Art Institute of
Chicago,Rhode Island School of Design or other schools art schools
give graduates that are more artisicly trained, often don't have the
facilities RIT does, in their grad schools the graduates often go
into teaching photography on the college level. What is also important
is who is teaching at the school, check their images, they will
influence you.
Tom
Jan Böhme
wrote:
> The technical side is easy to teach. But there's not nearly as much
> technical stuff needed as there used to be (though the older teachers
> may be in denial :-)
Depends on your level of ambition. If you want your class to reach
Lennart Nilsson level of technical proficiency, you might have to work
for a while...
Jan Böhme
David Nebenzahl
Well, there is, for Real Photography (the wet stuff, "analog",
silver-based, whatever you want to call it) as opposed to digital ...
--
Don't talk to me, those of you who must need to be slammed in the
forehead with a maul before you'll GET IT that Wikipedia is a
time-wasting, totality of CRAP...don't talk to me, don't keep bleating
like naifs, that we should somehow waste MORE of our lives writing a
variorum text that would be put up on that site.
It is a WASTE OF TIME.
- Harlan Ellison, writing on the "talk page" of his Wikipedia article
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harlan_Ellison)
JJ
"Matt Clara" <hey.w...@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:jPGdnWiW-MLlRE7Y...@comcast.com...
If you wish to be an Artiste, go to the Art Institute. Among such
institutions that teach Art, there are two general types of school - one
trains you how to behave like an artist, the discourse beyond the works
themselves, how to defend and promote work, and so forth while others are
more free-wheeling. To contrast the Chicago Art Institute, just cross the
street to Columbia College for the later.
Technical institutes can still have a strong Art program and are to be
seriously considered on a case-by-case basis.
To become a Professional Photographer (studio, fashion, etc), Brooks is the
kind of place to go. Nuts and bolts all the way. No affectations to speak
of, just plain work.
Photojournalism? Missouri School of Journalism where you will learn news
work, reporting, the overall field, how to write - the whole cookie.
JJ
news:2sf8t2tjg1a2c5gga...@4ax.com...
> The technical side is easy to teach. But there's not nearly as much
> technical stuff needed as there used to be (though the older teachers
> may be in denial :-)
I strongly disagree. I occasionally co-teach photography at the university
level and have noted one significant change among students today compared to
15 years ago - they think like you that the camera takes care of the hard
parts. Their work is the worst I've seen in my 40+ years in this business.
Laurence Payne
<nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>> The technical side is easy to teach. But there's not nearly as much
>> technical stuff needed as there used to be (though the older teachers
>> may be in denial :-)
>
>Well, there is, for Real Photography (the wet stuff, "analog",
>silver-based, whatever you want to call it) as opposed to digital ...
My point precisely. There isn't much of that anymore. Some, but not
much.
Matt Clara
news:12t9k60...@news.supernews.com...
>
> "Matt Clara" <hey.w...@buzz.off> wrote in message
> news:jPGdnWiW-MLlRE7Y...@comcast.com...
>> I've been looking at schools of photography, and it has become apparent
>> that there is a difference among schools that may be most easily
>> deliniated as between art and technology. For instance, if you look at
>> the classes offered by the Rochester Institute of Technology (rated #4 by
>> US News & World Report), they are quite technical. Same goes for the
>> Brooks Institute. However, if you look at the classes offered by some
>> other schools, such as the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (number
>> one in the US for photo grad school according to US News & World Report),
>> it's much more focused on composition found through drawing and art
>> history.
>>
>> In your mind, is one more valid than the other, and why?
>
> If you wish to be an Artiste, go to the Art Institute. Among such
> institutions that teach Art, there are two general types of school - one
> trains you how to behave like an artist, the discourse beyond the works
> themselves, how to defend and promote work, and so forth while others are
> more free-wheeling. To contrast the Chicago Art Institute, just cross the
> street to Columbia College for the later.
>
John, is that you? Last time I posted about art school you ridiculed me.
Thanks for the info, though--I do appreciate it. I doubt that I would get
accepted at SAIC, at least not in the grad program. I'll probably apply
anyway. As my dad always said, shoot for higher than you think you can
reach.
> Technical institutes can still have a strong Art program and are to be
> seriously considered on a case-by-case basis.
>
> To become a Professional Photographer (studio, fashion, etc), Brooks is
> the kind of place to go. Nuts and bolts all the way. No affectations to
> speak of, just plain work.
>
That's definitely the approach at Rochester IT. Just take a look at their
class listings--nothing vague about those.
> Photojournalism? Missouri School of Journalism where you will learn news
> work, reporting, the overall field, how to write - the whole cookie.
Yeah, I don't know what I want to be when I grow up. All I know is I love
photography, and I'm tired of my cubicle. My wife's just started a Ph.D.
program, so I've got a few years to build a portfolio and make up my mind.
Best regards,
Matt Clara
Matt Clara
news:1171555880....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 14, 10:56 pm, "Matt Clara" <hey.woo...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> I've been looking at schools of photography, and it has become apparent
>> that
>> there is a difference among schools that may be most easily deliniated as
>> between art and technology. For instance, if you look at the classes
>> offered by the Rochester Institute of Technology (rated #4 by US News &
>> World Report), they are quite technical. Same goes for the Brooks
>> Institute. However, if you look at the classes offered by some other
>> schools, such as the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (number one
>> in
>> the US for photo grad school according to US News & World Report), it's
>> much
>> more focused on composition found through drawing and art history.
>>
>> In your mind, is one more valid than the other, and why?
>>
>
>
> I see a lot of RIT grads here, most are smart and talented. Their
> facilities are first rate (to the extreme), had an assistant once from
> RIT, the only problem he had was he was used to such good equipment he
> didn't know how to improvise. We had expensive medical equipment but
> are asked to do artistic work with the bare minimum.
> Are you looking for grad school, undergrad or what? RIT puts graduates
> out in the techincal photographic fields. Their classes in the 1950
> produced the whos who of pro photography. Art Institute of
> Chicago,Rhode Island School of Design or other schools art schools
> give graduates that are more artisicly trained, often don't have the
> facilities RIT does, in their grad schools the graduates often go
> into teaching photography on the college level. What is also important
> is who is teaching at the school, check their images, they will
> influence you.
>
> Tom
>
>
Thanks Tom, that's good stuff.
Matt Clara
news:2sf8t2tjg1a2c5gga...@4ax.com...
I'm of the mind that I could easily, though not without effort, be a fine
technician. I'm not so sure about the artist part. Makes me think that's
the one I should pursue--the one that seems more of a challenge.
David Nebenzahl
Sure, so long as it's not, as others have suggested, just a way for them
to fix you up with a lot of "artist's attitude". You know, how to wear
black clothing, learning to schmooze at gallery openings, etc.
Matt Clara
news:5ySAh.18621$c%2.1...@newsfe12.phx...
Thanks Mark,
Good points I hadn't considered.
Pudentame
To some extent it depends on what your goal is when you graduate; and on
your own "style" of learning. Are you going to be a photojournalist,
paparazzi, commercial studio pro or wedding photographer?
OTOH, you could look for a school that offers a balanced curriculum
including both.
Pudentame
> I'm of the mind that I could easily, though not without effort, be a fine
> technician. I'm not so sure about the artist part. Makes me think that's
> the one I should pursue--the one that seems more of a challenge.
Or work on both, concentrating on the harder.
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> Yeah, I don't know what I want to be when I grow up. All I know is I love
> photography, and I'm tired of my cubicle. My wife's just started a Ph.D.
> program, so I've got a few years to build a portfolio and make up my mind.
Personally I would expand upon what some-else said and if you are looking
to be a successfull photgrapher, go get an MBA. Take classes on the side
in the art deparment on composition, portriature, etc.
You'll do better in life as a lousy photgrapher with good business skills,
than the best photographer in the world with lousy or no business skills.
Besides, once you are making a living as a photogrpaher, it's easier to
improve your skills than it is getting a degree in fine arts and making
minimum wage at "one hour photo" or the kid's portrait booth at the mall.
Geoff
Matt Clara
news:slrnetb0...@cable.mendelson.com...
> Matt Clara wrote:
>> Yeah, I don't know what I want to be when I grow up. All I know is I
>> love
>> photography, and I'm tired of my cubicle. My wife's just started a Ph.D.
>> program, so I've got a few years to build a portfolio and make up my
>> mind.
>
> Personally I would expand upon what some-else said and if you are looking
> to be a successfull photgrapher, go get an MBA. Take classes on the side
> in the art deparment on composition, portriature, etc.
>
> You'll do better in life as a lousy photgrapher with good business skills,
> than the best photographer in the world with lousy or no business skills.
>
> Besides, once you are making a living as a photogrpaher, it's easier to
> improve your skills than it is getting a degree in fine arts and making
> minimum wage at "one hour photo" or the kid's portrait booth at the mall.
>
> Geoff
>
Except I think I'd rather take a bullet than spend two years studying
business.
Geoffrey S. Mendelson
> Except I think I'd rather take a bullet than spend two years studying
> business.
Well, if you are talking about two years studing "good accounting practices",
or finance, I'd say you're "right on the money". If it were two years learning
things that are needed in starting and running a small business such as
team building (finding and hiring the people that work for you, including
lawyers, accountants etc), marketing (finding out what people want and getting
your message out), learning public speaking and motivation and so on, it
could be fun.
It would also make your photography studio a fun place to work, instead
of something you do because you gave up your day job, but still need
to pay the bills.
It would for example, be a lot more fun than studying the mathematics of
physics, applied optics, modulation transfer functions, bayer filter design
and so on, if you don't ever plan to design lenses, camera sensors, film,
etc.
IMHO the optics necessary to use and operate a camera were pretty much figured
out 100 years ago. While studying them would yield better photographs, they
are much likely to be taught in an art school instead of a technical
insititute.
For example, I don't have to know the difference between the manufacturing
and interal structure of KB-25 verus T-Max 400, to know how they react
to light and the negatives they produce. Nor do I have to know the difference
between the chemical formulas of FG-7, HC-110, Rodinal, D-76 etc, to
know how each one will effect the film I devlop in it.
Although I know the difference between Kodachrome and Ektachrome type films,
in their design, manufacture and processing, it does not help me take better
pictures. Knowing that Kodachrome is slower, redder, and has more contrast
does.
You also don't have to know how a Bayer filter works to know the limitations
of a particular digital camera, how to calculate MTF to determine best
print size, etc.
Without discussing the merit of digital photgraphy, if you plan to be anything
but a fine art photographer, you should spend some of your time studying
it. The ability to use digital cameras, the manual systems behind data
archiving and storage, and the use of image manipulation programs such
as photoshop will be demanded by your customers.
If you don't provide it, they won't patronize you.
On the other hand, if you want to drag an 8x10 camera out to the wilderness,
and produce 16x20 paper prints to exhibit and sell as a way of making a
living, I would not waste my time and money.
Note that Weston made his living with a portrait studio, not from his
fine art.
Geoff.
Tony Polson
S. Mendelson) wrote:
>Matt Clara wrote:
>> Yeah, I don't know what I want to be when I grow up. All I know is I love
>> photography, and I'm tired of my cubicle. My wife's just started a Ph.D.
>> program, so I've got a few years to build a portfolio and make up my mind.
>
>Personally I would expand upon what some-else said and if you are looking
>to be a successfull photgrapher, go get an MBA. Take classes on the side
>in the art deparment on composition, portriature, etc.
>
>You'll do better in life as a lousy photgrapher with good business skills,
>than the best photographer in the world with lousy or no business skills.
If you learned about business, surely you would *never* choose
professional photography as a business.
It was reported a a coule of years ago that the average income of
people in the USA whose main income came from photography was around
the $20,000 mark.
J. Clarke
wrote:
>"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <g...@mendelson.com> wrote in message
Does one develop "good business skills" from studying business in
school? I've seen plenty of business professors who drive old
klunkers that won't reliably get them to work and wear worn out suits
20 years out of style--if they in fact had "good business skills"
rather than "good publishing papers so they can hang onto their crummy
job skills" one would expect them to at least be driving a somewhat
newer klunker that would start dependably and to have someone sew up
the holes in their clothing.
tomm42
> "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <g...@mendelson.com> wrote in messagenews:slrnetb0...@cable.mendelson.com...
Matt,
Business is an unfortunate aspect to freelance, there are so many good
photographers out there, having good business practices helps a lot.
I graduated from Rhode Island School of Design and worked for a small
photochemical company for 2 years, mixing chemicals and driving their
truck. Such things happen, had a few shows during that time. Got into
a medical photography program a t a large metro hospital and have been
working in that field ever since. Medical photgraphy as such doesn't
exist any more, only specialists, I do eye photography, have
survived.
Brooks and RIT have business courses for photographers, sales is the
other big one that isn't discussed, and is oh so important.
Good luck
Tom
J. Clarke
But that includes all the ones who don't have good business skills.
Lot of starving software developers out there too.
Paul Furman
> "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <g...@mendelson.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnetb0...@cable.mendelson.com...
>
>>Matt Clara wrote:
>>
>>>Yeah, I don't know what I want to be when I grow up. All I know is I
>>>love
>>>photography, and I'm tired of my cubicle. My wife's just started a Ph.D.
>>>program, so I've got a few years to build a portfolio and make up my
>>>mind.
>>
>>Personally I would expand upon what some-else said and if you are looking
>>to be a successfull photgrapher, go get an MBA. Take classes on the side
>>in the art deparment on composition, portriature, etc....
>
> Except I think I'd rather take a bullet than spend two years studying
> business.
You might seriously consider whether that means you wouldnt be happy
running a small business. I don't know what sort of full time positions
are available in a firm as staph photographer of some sort. Not many.
Paul Furman
> staph
STAFF!
John McWilliams
> "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <g...@mendelson.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Besides, once you are making a living as a photogrpaher, it's easier to
>> improve your skills than it is getting a degree in fine arts and making
>> minimum wage at "one hour photo" or the kid's portrait booth at the mall.
> Except I think I'd rather take a bullet than spend two years studying
> business.
There's an old saying, "Live by the lens, die by the lens".
--
john mcwilliams
J. Clarke
An admonition to ants living in the vicinity of houses containing
small boys with magnifiers?
John McWilliams
Yeah, something like that! But it's the "big boys" that they need to
watch out for. <s>
--
john mcwilliams
Tony Polson
wrote:
>>If you learned about business, surely you would *never* choose
>>professional photography as a business.
>>
>>It was reported a a coule of years ago that the average income of
>>people in the USA whose main income came from photography was around
>>the $20,000 mark.
>
>But that includes all the ones who don't have good business skills.
Name one business school that runs courses that are specifically
tailored and relevant to running a photography business.
Rebecca Ore
"tomm42" <tmo...@wildblue.net> wrote:
> sales is the
> other big one that isn't discussed, and is oh so important.
My brother is making a living as a fine arts painter these days. He's
got an MBA. His art training was by apprenticing to a retired
Pennsylvania Academia of Fine Arts prof and some course work. I think
anyone who can work with or for a first rate photographer would learn
more that way than taking courses.
My next door neighbor got a 2 year certificate in Photography from the
Art Institute of Philadelphia (a chain that uses city locations in its
names). She got a low-paying digital file administration job after she
finished, left that, and is now working as a carpenter last I heard.
Any gig in the arts is half sales unless you're splitting the money with
someone who's handling the sales for you. Running a small business is a
third sales, a third accounting, and a third whatever the business is
selling.
Rebecca Ore
Tony Polson <t...@nospam.net> wrote:
> It was reported a a coule of years ago that the average income of
> people in the USA whose main income came from photography was around
> the $20,000 mark.
Beats the average for Poets, Essayists, and Novelists (PEN) members who
tend to report incomes from books at $5K per year (though they tend to
actually teach for their livings).
Averages are hard to judge by. Some of those would be people working
while a spouse supported them; some of those would be exaggerating to
keep from being embarrassed; some of those could be lying just in case
the Feds are thinking about auditing them. The percentage in each
bracket would be useful to know.
John McWilliams
I seriously doubt there's such an animal. But when I got my degree, the
school didn't tailor it to any specific industry, much less vocation.
Nothing in the foregoing should be construed to mean I endorse, or
oppose, attending b school for any purpose whatsoever, including, but
not limited to: photography and professional skateboarding.
--
John McWilliams
J. Clarke
Name one that runs courses that are specifically tailored to running,
say, an aircraft manufacturing business.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand why you are asking the question.
Business schools do not in general teach skills specific to a
particular kind of business.
If you don't know how to market your services, close sales, and keep
track of your money then you're going to lose your shirt in _any_
business.
Matt Clara
news:jPGdnWiW-MLlRE7Y...@comcast.com...
> that there is a difference among schools that may be most easily
> deliniated as between art and technology. For instance, if you look at
> the classes offered by the Rochester Institute of Technology (rated #4 by
> US News & World Report), they are quite technical. Same goes for the
> Brooks Institute. However, if you look at the classes offered by some
> other schools, such as the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (number
> one in the US for photo grad school according to US News & World Report),
> it's much more focused on composition found through drawing and art
> history.
>
> In your mind, is one more valid than the other, and why?
>
>
Having a good paying job is not a problem, I have one already and am
reasonably assured I could get another if need be. I have two degrees, and
my wife--always seeking to one up me--is working on her third, and should be
well compensated when she completes it.
You guys have answered my question, though. I should go to art school, and
damn the torpedos.
Tony Polson
wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 23:08:40 +0000, Tony Polson <t...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:42:39 -0500, J. Clarke <jclarke...@cox.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>If you learned about business, surely you would *never* choose
>>>>professional photography as a business.
>>>>
>>>>It was reported a a coule of years ago that the average income of
>>>>people in the USA whose main income came from photography was around
>>>>the $20,000 mark.
>>>
>>>But that includes all the ones who don't have good business skills.
>>
>>
>>Name one business school that runs courses that are specifically
>>tailored and relevant to running a photography business.
>
>Name one that
<snip many wasted lines of text>
In other words, there isn't one.
Why not just say that, rather than blather on, and on, and on?
Alan Browne
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 23:08:40 +0000, Tony Polson <t...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:42:39 -0500, J. Clarke <jclarke...@cox.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>If you learned about business, surely you would *never* choose
>>>>professional photography as a business.
>>>>
>>>>It was reported a a coule of years ago that the average income of
>>>>people in the USA whose main income came from photography was around
>>>>the $20,000 mark.
>>>
>>>But that includes all the ones who don't have good business skills.
>>
>>
>>Name one business school that runs courses that are specifically
>>tailored and relevant to running a photography business.
>
>
> Name one that runs courses that are specifically tailored to running,
> say, an aircraft manufacturing business.
Embry Riddle (Florida, AZ and others)
John Molson B. School (Concordia U.) Aviation MBA
to name 2. (Note: above are not U's aimed solely at pilots, but for
operations and manufacturing)
> I'm sorry, but I don't understand why you are asking the question.
> Business schools do not in general teach skills specific to a
> particular kind of business.
Many BA and MBA programs are specialized towards specific industries.
Photography, in the "one man adventure" context above, can be covered in
a good community college business program with the "usual" (Marketing,
admin, accounting, etc.) classes which apply to any small business.
But having an arts background certainly would not hurt at all, quite the
contrary, to anyone in an image oriented business.
Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Tony Polson
wrote:
>In article <nomdt2p7hcmiepi89...@4ax.com>,
> Tony Polson <t...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> <snip many wasted lines of text>
>>
>>
>> In other words, there isn't one.
>>
>> Why not just say that, rather than blather on, and on, and on?
>
>specific business courses for so specific a field as photography. It's
>not that hard to grasp.
Funny, that was *precisely* my point.
el...@no.spam
Matt Clara <hey.w...@buzz.off> wrote:
>between art and technology. For instance, if you look at the
>classes offered by the Rochester Institute of Technology (rated
>#4 by US News & World Report), they are quite technical. Same
>goes for the Brooks Institute. However, if you look at the
>classes offered by some other schools, such as the School of
>the Art Institute of Chicago (number one in the US for photo
>grad school according to US News & World Report), it's much more
>focused on composition found through drawing and art history.
You need to know the technology. Otherwise your "art" is nothing
but accidents. Besides, how you you teach the art?
Charles Gillen
> You need to know the technology. Otherwise your "art" is nothing
> but accidents. Besides, how you you teach the art?
You have the above backward... how much technology does using a pencil
require? A 10-second sketch by a Picasso is worth $$$ for the art, not the
technology.
How does one teach art? The same way languages are taught: by exposure (no
pun) and practice... Some people catch on, others remain tone-deaf.
Without proper art training, how can you know which of your "accidents" are
keepers, and which are trash?
ray
> I've been looking at schools of photography, and it has become apparent that
> there is a difference among schools that may be most easily deliniated as
> between art and technology. For instance, if you look at the classes
> offered by the Rochester Institute of Technology (rated #4 by US News &
> World Report), they are quite technical. Same goes for the Brooks
> Institute. However, if you look at the classes offered by some other
> schools, such as the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (number one in
> the US for photo grad school according to US News & World Report), it's much
> more focused on composition found through drawing and art history.
>
> In your mind, is one more valid than the other, and why?
I should think that would depend a little on orientation. Are you more
interested in 'graphic art' i.e. advertising, etc. or 'artistic'
photography (creating works of art)? I should think you could tell which
would relate to which.
el...@no.spam
Charles Gillen <see-m...@below.com> wrote:
>>You need to know the technology. Otherwise your "art" is nothing
>>but accidents. Besides, how you you teach the art?
>You have the above backward...
No, I don't.
>how much technology does using a pencil require?
How relevant is that to this subject? Besides, if you don't
understand how to control the pencil, you're right back at what I
said.
J. Clarke
wrote:
>el...@no.spam () wrote:
>
>> You need to know the technology. Otherwise your "art" is nothing
>> but accidents. Besides, how you you teach the art?
>
>You have the above backward... how much technology does using a pencil
>require? A 10-second sketch by a Picasso is worth $$$ for the art, not the
>technology.
That's fine if you're drawing with a pencil (even there though you
might be surprised) but that is not what photographers do.
Nicholas O. Lindan
They also mixed discipline degrees:
Graphic media marketing:
http://www.rit.edu/~932www/ugrad_bulletin/colleges/cob/graphic.html
Somewhere they have courses in studio management etc.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com
JJ
"Matt Clara" <hey.w...@buzz.off> wrote in message
> Yeah, I don't know what I want to be when I grow up. All I know is I love
> photography, and I'm tired of my cubicle. My wife's just started a Ph.D.
> program, so I've got a few years to build a portfolio and make up my mind.
Oh, does that bring back heartbreaks. So many relationships fail just after
the mate gets the PhD. I supported my ex as she got hers. There was a 100%
relationship failure among her peers, ours was no exception. Now she's a
millionaire and I'm a broke photographer. :)
Best of luck,
jj
JJ
> You'll do better in life as a lousy photgrapher with good business skills,
> than the best photographer in the world with lousy or no business skills.
That should be engraved in stone.
JJ
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:vs9bt2lv7ibmd8s1n...@4ax.com...
> Does one develop "good business skills" from studying business in
> school? I've seen plenty of business professors who drive old
> klunkers that won't reliably get them to work and wear worn out suits
"Those who can, do and those who can't..."
David Nebenzahl
> In article <12tjl8s...@news.supernews.com>, "JJ" <A...@nowhere.com>
> Interesting. Any idea why the PhD contributed/caused the marriage
> failures?
I'll take a wild guess that it distorted the power relationship beyond
the breaking point.
--
Don't talk to me, those of you who must need to be slammed in the
forehead with a maul before you'll GET IT that Wikipedia is a
time-wasting, totality of CRAP...don't talk to me, don't keep bleating
like naifs, that we should somehow waste MORE of our lives writing a
variorum text that would be put up on that site.
It is a WASTE OF TIME.
- Harlan Ellison, writing on the "talk page" of his Wikipedia article
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harlan_Ellison)
JJ
"THO" <t...@tho.tho.23.invalid> wrote in message
news:tho-431652.1...@news.giganews.com...
> Interesting. Any idea why the PhD contributed/caused the marriage
> failures?
She was rarely home, three years of super-intense work, resentment of being
supported, fear of having to pay-back, and hell, men are only stepping
stones; why should a new PhD continue to associate with a lowly artist?
Bandicoot
news:08m9t21ujuk2mf0bt...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:25:54 -0800, David Nebenzahl
> <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>
> >> The technical side is easy to teach. But there's not nearly as
> >> much technical stuff needed as there used to be (though the
> >> older teachers may be in denial :-)
> >
> >Well, there is, for Real Photography (the wet stuff, "analog",
> >silver-based, whatever you want to call it) as opposed to digital ...
>
> My point precisely. There isn't much of that anymore. Some, but
> not much.
Digital only makes people think they don't need technical knowledge - it
makes it easier to get pictures that are 'OK', but it is just as demanding
as ever to make pictures that are truly outstanding, whatever technology one
uses.
Peter
Bandicoot
> "Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message
> > On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:56:33 -0500, "Matt Clara" <hey.w...@buzz.off>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>I've been looking at schools of photography, and it has become
> >>apparent that there is a difference among schools that may be
> >>most easily deliniated as between art and technology. For
> >>instance, if you look at the classes offered by the Rochester
> >>Institute of Technology (rated #4 by US News & World
> >>Report), they are quite technical. Same goes for the Brooks
> >>Institute. However, if you look at the classes offered by some
> >>other schools, such as the School of the Art Institute of Chicago
> >>(number one in the US for photo grad school according to US
> >>News & World Report), it's much more focused on composition
> >>found through drawing and art history.
> >>
> >>In your mind, is one more valid than the other, and why?
> >
> >
> > much technical stuff needed as there used to be (though the older
> > teachers may be in denial :-)
>
> fine technician. I'm not so sure about the artist part. Makes me
> think that's the one I should pursue--the one that seems more of a
> challenge.
>
More of a challenge to teach, and to learn.
Any art is a combination of having the idea (the so called fine art part)
and being able to communicate it to your audience (the so called craft or
technique part). Neither is sufficient in itself. However, some good
ideas, but not all, can be communicated with limited technique, but the
finest technique in the world won't make a boring idea into something anyone
wants to look at.
So I'd say get some technique first (Matt, I know you have this already, and
some) and then get on with the artistic/creative/whatever you want to call
it aspects. Then expand whichever parts of technique you need to develop in
order better to communicate your particular sort of artistic vision.
But that's just my approach...
Peter
Bandicoot
[SNIP]
>
> Note that Weston made his living with a portrait studio, not from his
> fine art.
>
And so did Adams (with some advertising and industrial work thrown in) until
quite late in his career.
Peter
el...@no.spam
>"Those who can, do and those who can't..."
and those that can't teach, teach P.E.
Peter Chant
> Digital only makes people think they don't need technical knowledge - it
> makes it easier to get pictures that are 'OK', but it is just as demanding
> as ever to make pictures that are truly outstanding, whatever technology
> one uses.
Certainly my digital 'darkroom' skills improved greatly after reading up on
traditional darkroom printing techniques.
Pete
--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk
mike odonoghue
Rebecca Ore
mike odonoghue <odon...@tele2.at> wrote:
> And those who can't teach ã manage ....
And those who want to pretend go to art school.
I'd suggest that anyone who wants to be a photographer put together a
portfolio and start trying to get a job. My brother the artist with an
MBA had a housemate who was a photographer who had no official training,
but his portfolio got him work.
Pudentame
> Paul Furman wrote:
>
>> staph
>
> STAFF!
I dunno. Some of what I've had to deal with lately ...
Pudentame
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:42:39 -0500, J. Clarke <jclarke...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> If you learned about business, surely you would *never* choose
>>> professional photography as a business.
>>>
>>> It was reported a a coule of years ago that the average income of
>>> people in the USA whose main income came from photography was around
>>> the $20,000 mark.
>> But that includes all the ones who don't have good business skills.
>
>
> Name one business school that runs courses that are specifically
> tailored and relevant to running a photography business.
>
Well, a good photography school should at least offer some business courses.
Pudentame
Ya should have at least demanded alimony.
Rebecca Ore
Pudentame <no....@no.were.invalid> wrote:
I suspect that photography schools, like journalism schools, graduate
each year more aspirants than there are openings in photography in the
country. I live next door to someone who can't afford to open a leaking
place in the alleyway on her side to see where it's coming from. She's
working as a carpenter/house cleaner.
My advice to her before she went into debt for a two year certificate
was to get a job shooting babies. For writers, a year working on a
weekly newspaper is better than an MFA they'd pay for (getting full ride
on an MFA is a different matter).
Never, ever, pay for an MFA. If you can't get full scholarship from
your portfolio, you're probably not good enough to get a job later.
Take classes in what you're deficient in, preferably one on one, and
find someone you'd like to learn from.
JJ
news:45e3c267$0$28083$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> JJ wrote:
>> She was rarely home, three years of super-intense work, resentment of
>> being supported, fear of having to pay-back, and hell, men are only
>> stepping stones; why should a new PhD continue to associate with a lowly
>> artist?
> Ya should have at least demanded alimony.
Man, she got the car, furniture and everything but my cameras, computer and
Harley. But what more does a guy need?
David Nebenzahl
Reminds me of the great song, "Alimoney" by the inestimable Shel
Silverstein:
Alimony, alimony, I work 'til my fingers are bloody and bony,
Me oh my, oh goodness sake, I'm paying for my mistake.
She calls it "alimoney, alimoney",
you single men may think it's funny,
'Til one of these days you're gonna wake
and find you're payin' for your mistake.
I walk around ragged like a low-down bum,
I can't afford to weigh myself or buy a stick of gum,
It's the same old story with a little more blues in it,
I'm payin' for it while someone else is usin' it!
Alimony, alimony, I thought I bought steak and it was all baloney,
My heart and back are both about to break from payin' for my mistake.
J. Clarke
A dry place with power to plug in the computer and charge the cameras?
JJ
My Harley has a Power Take-off (PTO), and the cameras aren't electric. Got
to find a picture of that. Really, the belt drive is exposed and has an
extra spool. I've got it made... if I could only find some shade. Say,
lookie at all those people livin under the bridge.
Pudentame
I dunno. Mine got nothin'! And did it all to herself.
The short version:
She left me for another guy. I offered her a 50/50 split - house, cars,
bills.
HER IDEA, I was gonna sell the house, she was going to get *ALL* the
money and the cars, while I was going to get stuck with the bills &
paying off the mortgage out of pocket.
So I told not to bother calling me; just have her lawyer talk to my lawyer.
It dragged out 8 years until she calls up in the middle of the night,
"Don't hang up. I'm tired of it and I just want it over. I'll sign a
quit claim."
Her lawyer gave the quit claim deed to my lawyer and I was divorced
within 48 hours.
Two weeks later, I run into her old college roommate who asked me if I
was going to my ex-wife's wedding? The roommate already had her
invitation several weeks prior to our divorce.
And as it turns out ... several years later, I learned the guy literally
left her at the altar. Didn't show up at the church for the wedding.
Bad Karma will come back and get ya.