Do you need a degree to enjoy photography?

Ah but what is photography? We got sidetracked into the art side. The Oxford English dictionary defines it as: The art or practice of taking and processing photographs.If we consider that definition then of course the answer is no, you don't need a degree. ;)
 
Ed Sutton said:
It might not teach you to love jazz, but it would probably teach you to understand it and what makes some of it better than the rest.
Click to expand...

I quite like Dave Brubeck, Take 5 and Midnight in Moscow, Kenny Ball. I like what I like, don't think anyone could convince me to like anything else even if I did understand it.

An art student once explained her painting to me and told me in detail about the texture and the structure. It still looked looked like a load of blobs of paint on canvas. I still didn't get it or like it. Her opinion may be objective and mine subjective....
 
Blank_Canvas said:
I quite like Dave Brubeck, Take 5 and Midnight in Moscow, Kenny Ball. I like what I like, don't think anyone could convince me to like anything else even if I did understand it.

An art student once explained her painting to me and told me in detail about the texture and the structure. It still looked looked like a load of blobs of paint on canvas. I still didn't get it or like it. Her opinion may be objective and mine subjective....
Click to expand...


The problem is that liking it should be playing no part in judging it's merit as a piece of art. Liking it IS subjective, and that is where the confusion happens. There's so much artwork I don't LIKE... meaning I'd never, ever hang it on my wall, but it's still brilliant work. By "liking" and not "liking" you're just deciding that and nothing more. If we judged art merely by that standard, there would be no standard, and no means of judging it. There are some images I like looking at, but have to confess there's no merit to them as artwork - they're just pretty - chewing gum for the eyes, and conversely I've stood looking at some stuff in galleries and been horrified, but the fact that it held my attention for so long, and made me feel that way when considering what it was showing me, and why, that I had to just concede that it was utterly brilliant. I still didn't like it, nor would I want to look at it every day, but so what?

The untrained viewer just likes what they like, and dismisses what they don't offhand without any deeper thought, reflection or analysis. It's all surface judgements. That's a little like judging a car based on what it looks like without considering what it actually does, or how well it does it. You don't read a copy of Auto Car (or whatever) and expect a review of a car to say "We like this... it's pretty" and that;s it. You;d think it was a pretty crap review of that car, yet many, many people do exactly this with art. "I like that"... bang... and therefore it's art. That's pretty ludicrous when you think about it, yet that's exactly what most people do.

"I like what I like".. well... errr. yeah.. of course, but so what? Can you say why you like it, and if you can, do those reasons qualify it as a great piece of art, or merely explain why you like it? I like HP sauce... it doesn't mean it's art. Now.. many will be thinking, "But I don't care about all of that arty crap... I just like what I like".... and that's fine - Utterly fine. You really have no part to play in a discussion about what does, and does not constitute good art though, as telling us you like it is meaningless in such a discussion. If you can tell us why, and justify it well, then mabye the outcome will be a consensus that it works as art, and has merit beyond being pretty. However... that conversation needs to be had, just as the car review needs to analyse the car, it;'s performance and everything else that isn't a surface judgement based on it's looks alone. "I like what I like" is an utterly meaningless statement.
 
Last edited:
I think that it's a given that most of the population is neither tutored in visual art nor has much native insight into its nature. Just glance through the comments in an exhibition visitors' book. Even the term 'art' is a kind of catch-all, for art can be shallow or deep or somewhere in between. It also gets mis-used and applied to things that are hardly art at all. Art must involve craft in its making, but should never be confused with craft alone.
 
Last edited:
For what it's worth I agree with Viv that art and its interpretation is subjective. I just don't think that it matters and I think valuable and interesting discussions can be had about the subjective.

The interpretation and assessment of art is subjective because it doesn't rely on universal external - i.e. objective - principles. If we have two critics with conflicting opinions there's no experiment we can run to distinguish between them; to test them against "nature". The only thing we can compare them to is consensus, which is internal, constructed and cultural. Opinions on art are unfalsifiable, which is a big problem for their objectivity.

But it doesn't matter, because we can still have fascinating conversations about relative cultural worth. Even if they can never be resolved universally.
 
Last edited:
Byker28i said:
Ah but what is photography? We got sidetracked into the art side. The Oxford English dictionary defines it as: The art or practice of taking and processing photographs.If we consider that definition then of course the answer is no, you don't need a degree. ;)
Click to expand...

You don't need a degree to like, learn, perform or be competent at anything. It's just a formalised process of teaching and testing. People were liking, learning, performing and being competent in things before degrees were thought of.


Steve.
 
Pookeyhead said:
The problem is that liking it should be playing no part in judging it's merit as a piece of art. Liking it IS subjective, and that is where the confusion happens. There's so much artwork I don't LIKE... meaning I'd never, ever hang it on my wall, but it's still brilliant work. By "liking" and not "liking" you're just deciding that and nothing more. If we judged art merely by that standard, there would be no standard, and no means of judging it. There are some images I like looking at, but have to confess there's no merit to them as artwork - they're just pretty - chewing gum for the eyes, and conversely I've stood looking at some stuff in galleries and been horrified, but the fact that it held my attention for so long, and made me feel that way when considering what it was showing me, and why, that I had to just concede that it was utterly brilliant. I still didn't like it, nor would I want to look at it every day, but so what?

The untrained viewer just likes what they like, and dismisses what they don't offhand without any deeper thought, reflection or analysis. It's all surface judgements. That's a little like judging a car based on what it looks like without considering what it actually does, or how well it does it. You don't read a copy of Auto Car (or whatever) and expect a review of a car to say "We like this... it's pretty" and that;s it. You;d think it was a pretty crap review of that car, yet many, many people do exactly this with art. "I like that"... bang... and therefore it's art. That's pretty ludicrous when you think about it, yet that's exactly what most people do.

"I like what I like".. well... errr. yeah.. of course, but so what? Can you say why you like it, and if you can, do those reasons qualify it as a great piece of art, or merely explain why you like it? I like HP sauce... it doesn't mean it's art. Now.. many will be thinking, "But I don't care about all of that arty crap... I just like what I like".... and that's fine - Utterly fine. You really have no part to play in a discussion about what does, and does not constitute good art though, as telling us you like it is meaningless in such a discussion. If you can tell us why, and justify it well, then mabye the outcome will be a consensus that it works as art, and has merit beyond being pretty. However... that conversation needs to be had, just as the car review needs to analyse the car, it;'s performance and everything else that isn't a surface judgement based on it's looks alone. "I like what I like" is an utterly meaningless statement.
Click to expand...

Yes, I made the the point about objectivity and subjectivity.

If you don't like jazz, or art it doesn't mean it's rubbish it's just your preference.

Look, to use your car analogy. You don't need to know how it works to be able to enjoy driving it. You just need to be able to drive. You know when you have a good car or a bad one from experience.

Yes, it's important to gain as much information as you can, compare it with other models. Etc.

But the important thing to consider in all of this is what are your priorities and what time do you have to do this in. ? I visit the Tate Gallery in Liverpool on a regular basis. Quite often I will walk a piece and I will have an 'objective' discussion about this with my partner. Sometimes you just don't get the time to do this in the real world, and not with every piece. You just say I don't like this and move on...,,
 
Blank_Canvas said:
If you don't like jazz, or art it doesn't mean it's rubbish it's just your preference.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. There is a lot of music I hate but I know that it is very good. Equally, I like some stuff which I know to be quite awful!


Steve.
 
Full time work, I took the wrong degree course for me, I've never I've never experienced photography in an educational establishment.

If I could rewind 11 years back, I'd loved to have done an HND in photography and moved onto a degree course.

Would it have made me a better photographer, maybe, certainly more insightful and mindful of other area's of photography other than landscapes.

I photograph what I like seeing, landscapes in good light, cityscapes, cars. I've taught myself and got help from others along the way but looking back, now, I'd have enjoyed an HND program and maybe moving onto a degree.

Perhaps the question should be "does having a degree make you a better photographer". Well, it cannot make you a worse one...
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
Perhaps the question should be "does having a degree make you a better photographer". Well, it cannot make you a worse one...
Click to expand...

That's an interesting view, possibly countered by the bbc photography today thread
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/bbc-photography-today.545582

'pretentious claptrap', 'What a load of tripe', '..art was anything you could get away with, this rubbish confirms that quite nicely', 'Twaddle'

It appears there is a difference between art and images that produce a positive emotion (I was going to say pretty images :) ) in a lot of peoples views
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Look, to use your car analogy. You don't need to know how it works to be able to enjoy driving it.
Click to expand...

No.. but as you said, you need to be able to drive. There's more to photography that just "driving" a camera. Cameras don't take images... people do. All the photographic knowledge in the world won't make you a good photographer. So the "driving" part of photography is the understanding of how images communicate. Technical skill is just the equivalent of making the car go and stop. The total mastery of the medium is winning a RAC Rally stage. That has sod all to do with technical stuff. People who just concentrate on technical stuff are nearly always horrible photographers.
 
Pookeyhead said:
No.. but as you said, you need to be able to drive. There's more to photography that just "driving" a camera. Cameras don't take images... people do. All the photographic knowledge in the world won't make you a good photographer. So the "driving" part of photography is the understanding of how images communicate. Technical skill is just the equivalent of making the car go and stop. The total mastery of the medium is winning a RAC Rally stage. That has sod all to do with technical stuff. People who just concentrate on technical stuff are nearly always horrible photographers.
Click to expand...

Phew! - good job I learned photography at Paddington Art College back in the 80s and then later at the Armed Forces joint School of Photography then ;)
 
Last edited:
Blank_Canvas said:
Phew! - good job I learned photography at Paddington Art College back in the 80s and then later at the Armed Forces joint School of Photography then ;)
Click to expand...

I've no idea whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. No idea what Paddington Art College were teaching in the 80s, but I can't imagine the armed forces teaching photography as an art subject :)
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
I've no idea how wether that is a good thing or a bad thing. No idea what Paddington Art College were teaching in the 80s, but I can't imagine the armed forces teaching photography as an art subject :)
Click to expand...

Paddington College was all hands on. Started working on 10 x 8 monorail Sinars, 5 x 4 MPPs, Rolie TLR 120s and Hassleblad 500cm, then finally 35mm. All this against a backdrop of learning how to develop and print our own work in the darkroom. Lots of studio work, portraits and still life, followed by photojournalism, PR and architecture with a very strong emphasis on creativity. All this against a backdrop of photographic history and art. As for the military side that was just as technical but incorporated other complimentary skills, both very good courses in there own right for different reasons. I learned a lot from then and much of the theory is just as relevant today.
 
I've read through this thread with mounting despair. I'm with David on this (although whether he's with me after this post is another matter!).

I always distinguish between "liking" and "appreciating". You can't show me a photograph of a happy and healthy cat that I'd not like, and you couldn't show me a photograph of a spider that I liked. But I can still recognise a "good" spider photo and a "bad" cat one.

Part of art (to me) is conveying something to the viewer (an emotion, a factual statement, or something else); and this implies that the viewer is capable of understanding it. If you take someone who can't read, and doesn't know English, I suspect that the works of Shakespeare (or even J. K. Rowling!) wouldn't convey very much. A lot of art does require some knowledge to appreciate the symbolism or what the artist is trying to say. Yes, if you can speak pidgin English, you can understand a lot; but being fluent in English lets you understand a great deal more - including all the subtle nuances. That surely is what an art education should provide (amongst many other things) - the necessary vocabulary to understand the artwork.
 
If the necessary vocabulary is "understanding how images communicate", I'll pass, thanks.
 
No problem. I'd expect you to pass on taking part in a discussion on English literature if you had no English vocabulary as well. No difference.
 
StephenM said:
(I always) distinguish between "liking" and "appreciating".
Click to expand...
I think that's been said already, above.
StephenM said:
Part of art (to me) is conveying something to the viewer (an emotion, a factual statement, or something else); and this implies that the viewer is capable of understanding it.
Click to expand...
Appreciating and understanding needn't be synonymous. Certain art may be appreciated directly - emotionally, spiritually, viscerally - whereas understanding surely implies intellectual appraisal.
 
Last edited:
viv1969 said:
If the necessary vocabulary is "understanding how images communicate", I'll pass, thanks.
Click to expand...

Fine.. no one's making anyone do anything in here, but if you aren't interested in what your images are communicating, then you probably have no idea what your images are communicating. Hardly a good trait for someone who creates images to have though. A bit like a writer having no interest in the subtlety of communication their own language can provide. The end result would be that they are probably a crap writer.

You probably have a very limited visual vocabulary as a result. Why you seem to want to wear that badge with pride is something only you will understand, as I have no idea why you seem to want to resist the idea that photography is a visual communication medium. If not.. what the hell else is it? LOL
 
Visual vocabulary? It just gets better. I really need to write this down.
 
I don't believe, not for one second, that you don't understand the concept of visual vocabulary.
 
Oh, the concept is very simple. It's just about the information you receive through your vision.

Any discussions about how, and to what extent, that can be explored with photography are very interesting to me, and I enjoy such discussions.

Some clearly don't.
 
simon ess said:
... the concept is very simple. It's just about the information you receive through your vision.
Click to expand...
That far too simplistic. There are inescapable cultural components and implications.
 
Of course it's simplistic. Its the basic start point for someone who asked what it is.

The cultural implications are indeed inescapable, obviously, as are many other factors. It is still, at the most basic of levels, the information you receive through vision.

The computation and interpretation of that information is the next lesson ;)

That process, and what it reveals about the viewer, is interesting in itself.
 
Last edited:
In a way, I suppose so, yes.

Each individual will have a slightly different interpretation, or perhaps not so slight. It will, as droj suggests, be influenced by culture (a huge subject on its own), by personal experiences, by attitudes, by expectations, reaction to challenge or confirmation of belief systems etc. etc..

It really is a vast topic. Personally, I think it's fairly central to photography. I totally understand that many people have a particular view of photography and want to stick to that, but I don't understand the quickness to dismiss the, shall we say more esoteric, possibilities.

People should do whatever they want, that's great. I'm currently exploring the language of tables and chairs. That's great too.
 
simon ess said:
I take the hint. I shall retire.:)
Click to expand...
simon ess said:
Each individual will have a slightly different interpretation, or perhaps not so slight. It will, as droj suggests, be influenced by culture (a huge subject on its own), by personal experiences, by attitudes, by expectations, reaction to challenge or confirmation of belief systems etc. etc.
Click to expand...

No don't please. Exactly this is interesting, especially in the context of my coursework.

The context within which a photograph is produced, distributed and consumed determines the information it conveys. If a photograph cannot convey the experience of the event depicted, then John Berger called this discontinuity and argued that this makes the photograph ambiguous. Without words to fill the gaps left by the broken continuity, people fill in those gaps based on their experiences, culture, everything mentioned above really. Once words are used, Berger states 'they produce together an effect of certainty, even dogmatic assertion'.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
And that's why it's important to title a photograph. :)
Click to expand...

And equally important to not title them. Titles can lead (or mislead) people to conclusions, lack of titles allows for individual interpretations. Depends how you want the picture to be read. Some untitled pictures end up being given names by consensus as a means of referring to them.
 
RichardTaylor said:
What is the concept of visual vocabulary?
Click to expand...

Spoken communication relies on your vocabulary of words. If you have a vocabulary of 100 words, you'd find it almost impossible to communicate beyond the very basic needs... "Drink", Food", Toilet" whatever. You'd speak like a baby in other words. In order to communicate superbly at the highest of levels, you'd need a vocabulary of tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of words, depending on what level you intent to communicate at. Visual language is the same, except the words become ways of interpreting, and representing what's around you. The vocabulary is the wealth of visual ways to "say" what you want, and they come from understanding both the culture of the audience, the subject being represented.




Blank_Canvas said:
And that's why it's important to title a photograph. :)
Click to expand...

But if an image NEEDS a title, then hasn't it failed to communicate something?

Byker28i (paraphrasing Berger said:
If a photograph cannot convey the experience of the event depicted, then John Berger called this discontinuity and argued that this makes the photograph ambiguous. Without words to fill the gaps left by the broken continuity, people fill in those gaps based on their experiences, culture, everything mentioned above really. Once words are used, Berger states 'they produce together an effect of certainty, even dogmatic assertion'.
Click to expand...

So if a photographer knows, and fully understands the experiences and culture of an audience, surely that photographer can "encode" the image with meaning that the intended audience will understand? In order to do that however, that photographer needs the "vocabulary"... the means by which to say what he or she intends to say.

Titling a picture enforces a meaning - you're TELLING the audience what it is, and that can cause an even greater dissonance between the information received visually and the written information received.

Any first year art student... even A level actually, has probably seen René Magritte's "Treachery of Images"

AGMqZ2G.jpg


The words say "This is not a pipe"

That's how a dissonance between image and words works. The words are correct, it is not a pipe. It's a painting of a pipe.
 
Ok this is kind of confusing but interesting,popping in reading snippets, i thought i was keeping up, i'm going back to the start to make sense
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top