What degree should I get??
gmc...@charm.net
This is a good post, and made me think.
I'm about to enter an MFA Photography program at Wash. U. St. Louis.
But here's my degree history: I have an AA in Business Admin from a
junior college, and a BA in English from a 4-year univ. I've spent over
6 years in various schools. But I had to pursue the MFA degree cause
it's what I truly love, and I want to teach photography.
If you want it go for it, but I personally don't believe you need a
degree to pursue a life of art. Depends on what you want to do with
photography really. You're right, it's up to you. Personally, I love
being in school. :)
gmc
Allen G
If you wish to make a living in photography, and love the subject, let me dump
some advice to you, and this is serious. Don't bother studying photography in
college. Take up a boring profession like accounting or engineering.
to study photography, take week long seminars from Santa Fe Workshops, Yosemite, I
think there is some in New Hampshire, There is the PPA Winona school for top
quality portrait work.
It is my sworn statement. You will learn more in one week with someone who is at
the top of the profession, who really knows, loves and can demonstrate, than you
will possibly be exposed to in seveal years of photo school.
Learning a boring profession will give you a professional workexperience to set
your business life on the right track. This is far more important than most
people realize. Just as children of abusive homes grow up to be abusive parents,
abused employees become abused self employees (that sounds like a joke, but there
is much truth there, trust me.) Just learning to feel professional wages are your
due for your job will give you a leg up on the self esteem scale and that is the
only one that counts.
If you have to take the same classes over again, it doesn't matter, I take the
same classes over again in seminars with the PPA affiliate I belong to. Different
people have different insights and techinques. EG: Rembrandt takes a workshop
with Monet or Picasso. (different strokes no.)
I took a workshop through the Golden Gate School, an affliate with my professiona
association and learned more in that one week than I ever did in two years of Jr
college photography programs. What an eye openner.
> I am a photography student in Atlanta. Right now I am having
> a little trouble deciding what path to take in photography. At this
> time, I am attending a two year technical school, where I intend to
> get a associaties degree in applied technology in photography. I have
> just found out that all the photography classes that I take at this
> school will not transfer to a 4 year college even though they are the
> same classes. So if I ever decide to get a four year degree, I will
> have to go back to school for four more years and re-take all these
> classes! I can't decide if I want to just get the two year degree and
> forget ever getting the four year degree (I just don't see a reason to
> "waste" four years retaking classes) or to take the plunge and get a
> four year degree. If I had a four year degree, of course, I could go
> on and get a masters with only two more years of school. In other
> words, the only difference is the name of the degree and the number of
> core classes required. Does anyone have any insight to this? Which
> degree would be recommened? I know that it is a choice I will have to
> make within myself, I really need some guidence. Thanks in advance!!
>
> Figaro
> (Btw, the babies haven't come yet...)
Figaro
Greetings!
corey
>get a associaties degree in applied technology in photography. I have
>just found out that all the photography classes that I take at this
>school will not transfer to a 4 year college even though they are the
>same classes. So if I ever decide to get a four year degree, I will
Have you applied to more than four year school to see if another
school will accept the credits?
Decide what you want to do with photo. If you want to teach, you'll
need a bachalors and masters. If you plan on assiting, working in an
urelated field, etc, then the best kind of education is on the job.
good luck
corey
Jean-David Beyer
Figaro wrote:
>
> Greetings!
> I am a photography student in Atlanta. Right now I am having
> a little trouble deciding what path to take in photography. At this
> time, I am attending a two year technical school, where I intend to
> just found out that all the photography classes that I take at this
> school will not transfer to a 4 year college even though they are the
> same classes. So if I ever decide to get a four year degree, I will
> classes! I can't decide if I want to just get the two year degree and
> forget ever getting the four year degree (I just don't see a reason to
> "waste" four years retaking classes) or to take the plunge and get a
> four year degree. If I had a four year degree, of course, I could go
> on and get a masters with only two more years of school. In other
> words, the only difference is the name of the degree and the number of
> core classes required. Does anyone have any insight to this? Which
> degree would be recommened? I know that it is a choice I will have to
> make within myself, I really need some guidence. Thanks in advance!!
>
if your 2-year photography credits carry over or not. What most
photographers need to improve their work is a liberal education; most have
picked up the technique they need. If you still need more work on your
technique, you could read the Ansel Adams Basic Photo Series ("The Camera",
"The Negative", and "The Print"), Leslie Strobel's "View Camera Technique",
and such, and practicing a lot.
Take courses in Art, English Literature, History, Philosophy, Psychology,
Science, Mathematics, Music, ... . To run a business, you might take an
accounting or business administration class, but do not take too many
unless it turns out you have a consuming interest in it. Getting an
education is far more important than merely learning a trade.
If a potential employer needs to see a degree, (s)he is probably not
the one for you anyhow. Most would be more interested in a portfolio.
--
Jean-David Beyer
Shrewsbury, New Jersey
Dale Austin
Jean-David Beyer wrote:
> I suggest you get a liberal arts degree. For that, it will not matter
> if your 2-year photography credits carry over or not. What most
> photographers need to improve their work is a liberal education; most have
> picked up the technique they need. If you still need more work on your
> technique, you could read the Ansel Adams Basic Photo Series ("The Camera",
> "The Negative", and "The Print"), Leslie Strobel's "View Camera Technique",
> and such, and practicing a lot.
I second the motion. Presumably you are contemplating a degree through
the art school of a full-blown university. If this school follows the
pattern I'm familiar with you are in for a shock. Your two-year
technical skills will be way past what is taught in the art school. So,
why have to take the courses again? Tuition dollars, of course. Except
in some rare cases, 4-year art schools are mostly art history schools
with a lab course requirement. If you can get the deans drunk enough,
they'll usually cop to the problem-and deny it like hell in broad
daylight. I remember a conversation with a now-retired faculty member
who explained to me that in an art school of 200 students, at any one
time there might be a single "ARTIST" enrolled. Two would be unusual.
What were the rest there for? To pay for the facility to produce that
one real artist. I can't speak for other schools, but the worst part of
all of this is that they knowingly took money from people who were never
going to make it as artists, _and_ failed to give them job
skills-something most community colleges do rather well.
mrwi...@umich.edu
(yes. I've just bad-mouthed my employer)
P. Eric Chi
In article <33a5ed80...@news.onramp.net>, gs0...@panther.gsu.edu (Figaro) wrote:
>Greetings!
> I am a photography student in Atlanta. Right now I am having
>a little trouble deciding what path to take in photography. At this
>time, I am attending a two year technical school, where I intend to
>get a associaties degree in applied technology in photography. I have
>just found out that all the photography classes that I take at this
>school will not transfer to a 4 year college even though they are the
>same classes. So if I ever decide to get a four year degree, I will
>have to go back to school for four more years and re-take all these
>classes! I can't decide if I want to just get the two year degree and
>forget ever getting the four year degree (I just don't see a reason to
>"waste" four years retaking classes) or to take the plunge and get a
>four year degree. If I had a four year degree, of course, I could go
>on and get a masters with only two more years of school. In other
>words, the only difference is the name of the degree and the number of
>core classes required. Does anyone have any insight to this? Which
>degree would be recommened? I know that it is a choice I will have to
>make within myself, I really need some guidence. Thanks in advance!!
>
>(Btw, the babies haven't come yet...)
Only you can decide whether a degree is important to you. Personally I'd
recommend you to take a 4 year degree. There are lots of things to learn and I
believe they will all contribute to your career (and life) later. It's also a
lot of fun in the university.
Regarding the major, you'll need to find out what you like about photography.
For example, shooting natural photo, portraits, or doing darkroom works? If
you can identify the focus, you need to study the related fields too. I
believe the more you know about the subjects, the better you will appreciate
them , and thus the better pictures you can take.
Lastly, unless money is a big concern, don't let the 2yr vs. 4 yr issue bother
you. There is no short-cut.
Eric.
Eric.
Gary Gaugler
On Tue, 17 Jun 1997 01:57:32 GMT, gs0...@panther.gsu.edu (Figaro) wrote:
>Greetings!
> I am a photography student in Atlanta. Right now I am having
>a little trouble deciding what path to take in photography. At this
>time, I am attending a two year technical school, where I intend to
>get a associaties degree in applied technology in photography. I have
>just found out that all the photography classes that I take at this
>school will not transfer to a 4 year college even though they are the
>same classes. So if I ever decide to get a four year degree, I will
>have to go back to school for four more years and re-take all these
>classes! I can't decide if I want to just get the two year degree and
>forget ever getting the four year degree (I just don't see a reason to
>"waste" four years retaking classes) or to take the plunge and get a
>four year degree. If I had a four year degree, of course, I could go
>on and get a masters with only two more years of school. In other
>words, the only difference is the name of the degree and the number of
>core classes required. Does anyone have any insight to this? Which
>degree would be recommened? I know that it is a choice I will have to
>make within myself, I really need some guidence. Thanks in advance!!
>
> Figaro
>(Btw, the babies haven't come yet...)
This "school" is probably not accredited. Thus, you cannot transfer credits.
Legitimate schools which are recognized by 4-year institutions will accept work
done at other schools. Watch out where you spend your money.
Gary Gaugler
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Modern surfers use PC boards. You can too at
e-mail: gaugler @ calweb dot com (foils bulk e-mailers)
Note: all aol.com and prodigy.com domains are filtered out by mail reader
Mark Peterson
Gary Gaugler wrote:
> This "school" is probably not accredited. Thus, you cannot transfer credits.
> Legitimate schools which are recognized by 4-year institutions will accept work
> done at other schools. Watch out where you spend your money.
Actually, the school may well be accredited. What's more likely the case
here is the fact that most courses included in curricula for "applied
technology" degrees (which include the photography degrees at most 2-year
schools that have them) are considered to be vocational-technical courses;
like courses in diesel mechanics, secretarial "science", HVAC-type things,
and even computer programming, vocational-technical courses are not
accepted by 4-year universities as transfer credit, even from accredited
2-year colleges.
Mark Peterson
mathison
I think it is a question of what you want to do with your education. If
you already feel you are developing a good portfolio having a good technical
background may get you into a job as an assisent or in a good professioal
lab. That is one way to get into the industry. Once you have established
yourself in the industry nobody will ever care about the lack of a 4 year
degree. On the other hand a 4 year degree from a good school will help you
later if you want to teach. not to mention the contacts you will make.
j
Gary Gaugler
On Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:37:30 -0500, Mark Peterson <mark-s-...@uiowa.edu>
wrote:
This would be true as well. If there is a [liberal arts] core, as he mentioned,
then it is not purely a tech/vocational school. Sounds more like a junior
college that is not regionally accredited.
Figaro
>>Gary Gaugler wrote:
>>
>>> This "school" is probably not accredited. Thus, you cannot transfer credits.
>>> Legitimate schools which are recognized by 4-year institutions will accept work
>>> done at other schools. Watch out where you spend your money.
Mark Peterson wrote:
>>Actually, the school may well be accredited. What's more likely the case
>>here is the fact that most courses included in curricula for "applied
>>technology" degrees (which include the photography degrees at most 2-year
>>schools that have them) are considered to be vocational-technical courses;
>>like courses in diesel mechanics, secretarial "science", HVAC-type things,
>>and even computer programming, vocational-technical courses are not
>>accepted by 4-year universities as transfer credit, even from accredited
>>2-year colleges.
>>
>>Mark Peterson
Gary Gaugler wrote:
>This would be true as well. If there is a [liberal arts] core, as he mentioned,
>then it is not purely a tech/vocational school. Sounds more like a junior
>college that is not regionally accredited.
>
>
>
>Gary Gaugler
Actually the school I'm attending now is known for it's photography
program, therefore it is an accredited school (not only in
photography, but in automotive and other fields). Like Mark said, the
universities simply don't take credits from any voc/tech schools.
It's not that the quality of the education is any different. Btw,
this is purely a voc/tech school, not a junior college, and there
aren't many liberal arts majors to speak of at the college, so I
wouldn't say it has a liberal arts core. Actually the most popular
major at my school is automotive. Anyway, as I have mentioned in a
few e-mails the real reason the university doesn't accept the classes
is because my school isn't part of a particular Southern Bureau of ???
which from what I understand isn't open to voc/tech schools anyway,
nothing to do with the quality of the school as i said before. Hope
this clears things up a little. Figaro
:)
Lee Carmichael
Figaro:
As a balding overweight middleaged man without a four year degree, I can
tell you that I really screwed up in my twenties and thirties. Do the
four year degree in anything and then go find a job. I am not
interested in commercial photography in the least. Art is my deal. Now
the finer galleries and museums really take their time before getting
excited about my stuff. No degree!!! I have to make a living now and
raise my kids. My job keeps me on the road all the time and there is
now time for school now. Don't let this be your story.
As usual,
Lee Carmichael
Peter Marshall
I have to say that this seems to me to be very good advice in many ways, BUT I
think it may be important for some possible future careers to have a degree
that is in some way obviously related to photography. So I would make sure you
can include a course in some aspect of photography within a liberal arts
course.
Peter Marshall
On Fixing Shadows and elsewhere:
http://faraday.clas.virginia.edu/~ds8s/
Family Pictures, German Indications, London demonstrations &
The Buildings of London etc: http://www.spelthorne.ac.uk/pm/
> I suggest you get a liberal arts degree. For that, it will not matter
> if your 2-year photography credits carry over or not. What most
> photographers need to improve their work is a liberal education; most have
> picked up the technique they need. If you still need more work on your
> technique, you could read the Ansel Adams Basic Photo Series ("The Camera",
> "The Negative", and "The Print"), Leslie Strobel's "View Camera Technique",
> and such, and practicing a lot.
>
> Take courses in Art, English Literature, History, Philosophy, Psychology,
> Science, Mathematics, Music, ... . To run a business, you might take an
> accounting or business administration class, but do not take too many
> unless it turns out you have a consuming interest in it. Getting an
> education is far more important than merely learning a trade.
>
> If a potential employer needs to see a degree, (s)he is probably not
> the one for you anyhow. Most would be more interested in a portfolio.
> --
> Jean-David Beyer
> Shrewsbury, New Jersey
.
Wonders of the Unseen World
I think the best preparation for a career in artistic photography is a
major in Art History along with a number of practical courses in art.
Only after studying the masters of painting, sculpture, and
architecture, and only after learning about color theory and composition
(most photography authors become morons when writing about composition)
will you be prepared to take artistic photographs.
The art schools which have photography programs tend to churn out
photographers who practice a pretentious and recognizable "academic
style" which bores a lot of us silly.
Believe me, you'll learn more about photography from Caravaggio, Rodin,
and Frank Lloyd Wright (among many others) than you'll ever learn in
years of photography courses.
In particular, don't fall into the trap of thinking that artistic
photography is about equipment or technique. A great photographer can
take great photos with a pinhole camera. A talentless photographer takes
good photos only by accident, no matter how "good" his equipment.
Good luck in your career.
Tom
--
*******************************************************************
Afterglow Erotic Photography | http://www.teleport.com/~afterglo
Home of fine erotic photography and booklets for budding nude &
erotic photographers. (503) 274-7131 / afte...@teleport.com
Jean-David Beyer
Wonders of the Unseen World wrote:
>
> I think the best preparation for a career in artistic photography is a
> major in Art History along with a number of practical courses in art.
>
> Only after studying the masters of painting, sculpture, and
> architecture, and only after learning about color theory and composition
> (most photography authors become morons when writing about composition)
> will you be prepared to take artistic photographs.
>
pretty moronic when talking about composition, too. I believe there is
great benefit to be obtained from studying the masters of painting, sculpture,
and architecture, and even from a nodding acquaintance with color theory
and composition, but the books on the subject I have seen are either
completely laughable, or, at best, not much use since each image I wish to
make is different, and following the "rules" results in a mechanical approach
of no artistic value. Peter H. Emerson, IMAO a great photographer, wrote a
book on "Naturalistic Photography" which espouses your point of view, but
it is a little sad, in a way, because he finally decided, though a great
photographer, that photography was not an art. I think a well-rounded liberal
education, including, at least, western civilization, history, philosophy,
psychology, poetry, any foreign language, a good science course in anything
that strikes your fancy, etc., will go further in improving your photography
than most courses in the subject. If your technique is inadequate to your
needs, of course a basic darkroom course by someone who knows how to teach
it (e.g., John Sexton) would be a great help and should take a semester or
less. He could also help your art by making a critique of your portfolio.
I assume he does not do this for free.
> The art schools which have photography programs tend to churn out
> photographers who practice a pretentious and recognizable "academic
> style" which bores a lot of us silly.
All too true! The English seem even worse than the Americans in this respect.
>
> Believe me, you'll learn more about photography from Caravaggio, Rodin,
> and Frank Lloyd Wright (among many others) than you'll ever learn in
> years of photography courses.
True enough, but do not make "copies" of their work with your camera.
You must express your own vision, not theirs, however great theirs may be.
>
> In particular, don't fall into the trap of thinking that artistic
> photography is about equipment or technique. A great photographer can
> take great photos with a pinhole camera. A talentless photographer takes
> good photos only by accident, no matter how "good" his equipment.
--
Steve
Wonders of the Unseen World <afte...@teleport.com> wrote:
>I think the best preparation for a career in artistic photography is a
>major in Art History along with a number of practical courses in art.
>Only after studying the masters of painting, sculpture, and
>architecture, and only after learning about color theory and composition
>(most photography authors become morons when writing about composition)
>will you be prepared to take artistic photographs.
>The art schools which have photography programs tend to churn out
>photographers who practice a pretentious and recognizable "academic
>style" which bores a lot of us silly.
>Believe me, you'll learn more about photography from Caravaggio, Rodin,
>and Frank Lloyd Wright (among many others) than you'll ever learn in
>years of photography courses.
>In particular, don't fall into the trap of thinking that artistic
>photography is about equipment or technique. A great photographer can
>take great photos with a pinhole camera. A talentless photographer takes
>good photos only by accident, no matter how "good" his equipment.
>Good luck in your career.
>Tom
Wow...someone who really thinks of it as an art form.
I for one think you have put it wonderfully.
Steve
>--
>*******************************************************************
>Afterglow Erotic Photography | http://www.teleport.com/~afterglo
>Home of fine erotic photography and booklets for budding nude &
>erotic photographers. (503) 274-7131 / afte...@teleport.com
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/lot/9820/Brandie.html
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/lot/9820/Cindy.html
***************************************************************
Adventures Photo & Modeling
1710 East 10th Street
Jeffersonville, Indiana
47130-6290
***
(812) 949-9086
Mark
>
> Figaro:
> As a balding overweight middleaged man without a four year degree, I can tell you that I really screwed up in my twenties and thirties. Do
the four year degree in anything and then go find a job.
Lee Carmichael
**************
I'd like to second Lee's recommendation to get a College degree (at least
4yr). I am a Professional Commercial Photographer and never had time to
complete my education in college. I went straight into Commercial
Photography after my 4 yrs in the Air Force in the 60's. I did not need
the degree to get a job then and I still feel actual working knowledge is
the best, but things change. A number of years ago I taught photography
part time at a area college and found I loved teaching. I had plenty of
experience and new more than the other teachers with degree's because I
had been working in the real worls so long and also had studied History
of Photography on my own and many of the other teachers didn't teach
that. Unfortunatly school policy chaged and they would not let non-degree
people teach. Later I was offered a full time position at another better
college and when they found out I had no degree even though they new I
could have done the job well, they couldn't give me the job because of
school policy. Years later after owning my own studio for quite a long
time I was offered a good corporate photographer position but in the end
it went to a young kid just out of college with no real experience
because they wanted a college man.
Get the degree! You'll be glad you did. If you can afford it get a
Masters degree thats even better. Take some business courses if you plan
to go in the photo business yourself (self employed). Whatever you do
take classes in digital photography. Thats the future of photography no
matter what anybody says.
Good luck
Mark
Wonders of the Unseen World
Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>
> (P)ainters and art teachers and art critics get
> pretty moronic when talking about composition, too. I believe there is
> great benefit to be obtained from studying the masters of painting, sculpture,
> and architecture, and even from a nodding acquaintance with color theory
> and composition, but the books on the subject I have seen are either
> completely laughable, or, at best, not much use since each image I wish to
> make is different, and following the "rules" results in a mechanical approach
> of no artistic value.
My reply is:
Well, one has to make sure one has a good teacher. Most academic
photography programs churn out students who take photos in a
recognizably academic style. Perhaps I should have recommended against
thinking that taking an academic program make you a photographer, or
even develop. I had a very good teacher who taught, for example, color
theory is a starting point. It gives one a way of analyzing color in a
work of art. Of course, it's a fact that most of the colors in the real
world don't appear on anyone's color wheel. Flesh tone and brown, for
example, do not appear on anyone's color wheel. Even the so-called
"primary" colors almost never appear in pure form in the real world.
You wrote:
> Peter H. Emerson, IMAO a great photographer, wrote a
> book on "Naturalistic Photography" which espouses your point of view, but
> it is a little sad, in a way, because he finally decided, though a great
> photographer, that photography was not an art.
My reply is:
If he concluded that photography is not an art, then you are confused if
you think my view is identical with his.
You wrote:
> I think a well-rounded liberal
> education, including, at least, western civilization, history, philosophy,
> psychology, poetry, any foreign language, a good science course in anything
> that strikes your fancy, etc., will go further in improving your photography
> than most courses in the subject.
My reply is:
I agree to various degrees with what you're saying (I'm not sure how
poetry or speaking Spanish will help my photography). At heart, the
point I was trying to make is that photography is a visual art, and it's
one that's only existed for a bit more than a century. Painting (and
some of it damned good!) was done on cave walls eons ago, when mastodons
were walking the earth.
You wrote:
> If your technique is inadequate to your
> needs, of course a basic darkroom course by someone who knows how to teach
> it (e.g., John Sexton) would be a great help and should take a semester or
> less. He could also help your art by making a critique of your portfolio.
> I assume he does not do this for free.
My reply is:
I deviate from many in feeling that darkroom is an art, and it is an art
allied to photography, but if one is doing realistic photography, it is
an optional art. This allows room for those who have no darkroom access
or the growing ranks of photographers who use digital cameras.
And this is not to minimize the beauty and value of a quality darkroom
print.
You wrote:
>
> > The art schools which have photography programs tend to churn out
> > photographers who practice a pretentious and recognizable "academic
> > style" which bores a lot of us silly.
>
> All too true! The English seem even worse than the Americans in this respect.
My reply is:
We agree on something!
> >
> > Believe me, you'll learn more about photography from Caravaggio, Rodin,
> > and Frank Lloyd Wright (among many others) than you'll ever learn in
> > years of photography courses.
>
> True enough, but do not make "copies" of their work with your camera.
> You must express your own vision, not theirs, however great theirs may be.
My reply is:
Basically, I guess, I feel that photography courses are bogus. Aside
from teaching students about the effects of the instruments and
materials on results, the artistic aspects of photography as visual art
can be taught best in a course that treats all the visual arts as allied
equals.
I certainly would not recommend copying any artist's style, although
there is certainly no harm in figuring out how another artist does what
he does. And there is less risk of copying another photographer when
you're not learning by looking at photography.
SPECTRUM
Wonders of the Unseen World <afte...@teleport.com> wrote in article
<33B34E...@teleport.com>...
> I think the best preparation for a career in artistic photography is a
> major in Art History along with a number of practical courses in art.
>
> Only after studying the masters of painting, sculpture, and
> architecture, and only after learning about color theory and composition
> (most photography authors become morons when writing about composition)
> will you be prepared to take artistic photographs.
Been there, done that. Didn't here word one about Strand, Weston, Adams,
O'Sullivan, White, Stieglitz,O'Keefe, Bresson, Smith etc. Not one
photographer was mentioned ! Old or new. Ad most colleges group photography
in with a visual communications course so you have to take the curriculim
whether you like it or not. And don't try to test out of a subject !
Heavens no ! That would deprive the school of much needed funds. And
wouldn't waste your time !Mostly just a complete waste of time and
effort.Nothing taught that you can't learn on your own in a decent library
with a little initiative.
BTW, one of my friends has an interesting theory that you should avoid as
much influence as possible in your formative years so that yu may develop a
style that is uniquely your own. I don't know if I agree with him
completely. But he is making some really great music now.
>
> The art schools which have photography programs tend to churn out
> photographers who practice a pretentious and recognizable "academic
> style" which bores a lot of us silly.
I have to agree but one note. I saw one of these "art" students from
Brooks in NYC at the Javits giving a seminar . It turns out that she was
paid some astronomical sum to photograph these corporate execs in thier own
personal environment, wherever that might be. So she bounced around in a
corporate plane taking the worst portrait photo's that I've ever seen on
35mm slide ! The moral is that you can sell anything to the American public
if you put a high enough price tag on it and call it art. Then get an agent
! I imagine that's what this girl learned at Brooks !
>
> Believe me, you'll learn more about photography from Caravaggio, Rodin,
> and Frank Lloyd Wright (among many others) than you'll ever learn in
> years of photography courses.
I absolutely agree ! Most teachers are so under qualified that it's a joke
that they're getting payed to teach photography. And they couldn't get a
job in the field if thier financial lives depended on it !
> In particular, don't fall into the trap of thinking that artistic
> photography is about equipment or technique.
It's pretty hard to take a photo without equipment.! And I have and will
always believe that knowledge can only add to the uderstanding of the
process as a whole. And that through understanding we can reach out and
create. And history seems to support this as every great photographer has
also been a master of technique which is simply the melding of personal
inspiration with the knowledge of the tools necessary to create the final
image .
And if you don't know about equipment you can waste a lot of money that
would be better spent on education . There are to many people who'll sell
you something that is just plain rotten as an excellant piece of equipment.
Or it's something that you don't even need ! Or it breaks right after you
get it ! There are a lot of retired "used car salesmen" in the field of
photographic supplies. And some of the equipment is frightfully expensive
and poor in quality.
A great photographer can
> take great photos with a pinhole camera.
Have you ever used a pinhole camera ? Getting a great photo out of one of
these takes more than patience and luck ! The myth is that a "great"
photographer can work with anything that is at hand, presumably as long as
film is available. What a crock of stuff is that ! I don't think I ever saw
a great nature photo taken with a Brownie ! Be a little more reasonable.
Our field of endeavor makes use of some of the most sophisticated processes
the world has ever seen. To deny the knowledge of the equipment and
processes is to deny yourself the tools to exploit the medium.
A talentless photographer takes
> good photos only by accident, no matter how "good" his equipment.
All to true. I once new a little girl who 'created' the most stunning
scenic with a disposable 35mm.She was about 3 or 4 years old ! Of course
someone at the lab also worked on the print, not to mention that Kodak made
the film and camera.
And ,as far as I know, God created the scenery !
In the end I think photography should be approached as most painters
approach thier art. They study. But not in schools ! In galleries. In
parks. in deserts . In the home. In the morning, afternoon and evening.
Some call it art. I prefer to call it living.
--
Regards,
John S. Douglas
Spectrum Photographic Inc.
1- 908 - 505 - 8393
SPECTRUM
Mark,
I absolutely have to disagree with you. Maybe in the major metro areas
such as D.C. , N.Y.C. , Chicago and so on . But out in suburb America
nobody ask for a degree or any credential of any sort. I don't have a
degree and have produced work for some of the governments larger weapons
contractors. Along with them would be L.F.Driscol, The Showboat , Local 54
and several others who never once asked about my credentials. And unless
your willing to lay out $20 K per year for RIT or Brooks , plus living
expenses, then your going to settle for some state institution or technical
school that isn't really geared to handle photography. One of the schools
near me is Stockton State College. It's primarily a science and business
school. They offer a "Visual Communications' degree. Do you think it's
worth investing in something that'll most likely never be used ? Personally
I'd rather put the money into a mutual fund and let it roll untill I new
exactly where I was going in photography and the shortest road to get
there. And if you get a degree from Stockton in photography, who really
cares ? Are you going to get a job in a studio somewhere with that piece of
paper ? Perhaps in NYC but not in Somewhere, USA !
As the song says "I've got a working mans' phd ! " . I'll take it to the
bank every week. That's where my wife works !
--
Regards,
John S. Douglas
Spectrum Photographic Inc.
1- 908 - 505 - 8393
Mark <fs...@i1.net> wrote in article <33B42D...@i1.net>...
Robert Clifton
>
> Wow...someone who really thinks of it as an art form.
>
> I for one think you have put it wonderfully.
>
> Steve
>
> >-
Pick your degree, but remember that you will be in BUSINESS. Take a
few class in accounting, management, marketing and small business
fiancee. If you can read a P\L statement, balance sheet and understand
cash flow, then your chances of making it will increase
Robert Clifton
bob_cl@ gvi.net
124c41
With respect to specific classes, I think you would develop a terrific
eye if you took classes in Design: 2-D and 3-D design, perspective,etc.
In most schools, you'll find these classes in the architecture/landscape
architecture/interior design college. You could put together a strong
minor in Design.