Do you need a degree to enjoy photography?

Well, quite an interesting read..

My view is that one does not need a degree in order to enjoy photography.

There are millions of people around the world that proudly post selfies and other images they've captured on their smartphones on Facebook and the like. Clearly they enjoy being able to do that. There are millions that take photos for the family album, recording the moments in their lives that are important to them. Surely they must enjoy looking at those images that evoke meaningful memories. There are millions of amateur photographers around the world, some (including me), that frequent forums like this one to share their images and through interaction with others, seek to improve their technique etc.. Then there are thousands of professional photographers around the world, who's job it is to take photographs and create images in order to make a living. Who knows, maybe some of them enjoy their work.

Formal education and training in a subject should in my view lead to improved powers of analysis, insight, understanding and appreciation in the given subject. This may actually lead to the situation where enjoyment per ce is diminished.

So, perhaps one really does not need a degree (in photography) to enjoy photography?
 
Last edited:
Ed Sutton said:
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.
Click to expand...

And this is an interesting point.

One of the things we're encouraged to do when asking for critique is to include an explanation with our images of what we are trying to achieve, however if the images were good in terms of containing the things we wanted to say then this would be un-necessary. The images referred to in the BBC thread DID have additional information with them, but for many even that wasn't enough to bridge the discontinuity Byker described, which makes me think that it is not merely enough to contain the information, but artists code the information into their work in a way that deliberately obscures it from eyes not taught to read it.
 
ancient_mariner said:
And this is an interesting point.

artists code the information into their work in a way that deliberately obscures it from eyes not taught to read it.
Click to expand...

That's possibly true; but isn't it also just conceivable that the obscurity comes from not having learned the language, or even denying that you need to learn anything to read? Generally, people expect to have to learn to read a book, so why not an image? Symbolism has been a part of art for ages.

I suppose artists could make their works easy for all to understand - Shakespeare could have written in the style of the "Janet and John" books we had in the 1950s for young children. But would Shakespeare have quite as much meaning if he'd had to emasculate his writing in this way?

A lot of writers dress up trite comments to make them look profound, and so do artists. But this doesn't ipso facto invalidate the necessity to have a rich vocabulary to convey a richness of meanings.
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
That's possibly true; but isn't it also just conceivable that the obscurity comes from not having learned the language, or even denying that you need to learn anything to read? Generally, people expect to have to learn to read a book, so why not an image? Symbolism has been a part of art for ages.

I suppose artists could make their works easy for all to understand - Shakespeare could have written in the style of the "Janet and John" books we had in the 1950s for young children. But would Shakespeare have quite as much meaning if he'd had to emasculate his writing in this way?

A lot of writers dress up trite comments to make them look profound, and so do artists. But this doesn't ipso facto invalidate the necessity to have a rich vocabulary to convey a richness of meanings.
Click to expand...

Maybe.
 
Indeed.

Jewellery even. The early earth mother statuettes, body paint and many other manifestations of the early use of symbolism inferred by studies of current tribal societies.
 
Last edited:
pollie said:
But we sure did find out a lot more rubbish!
Click to expand...
That's a bit non-specific. And what are your credentials (if any)? Perhaps you're afraid of emotional or cultural intelligence. Would you like to expand the topic?
 
droj said:
That's a bit non-specific. And what are your credentials (if any)? Perhaps you're afraid of emotional or cultural intelligence. Would you like to expand the topic?
Click to expand...

And get dragged into another pointless argument?

No thanks!

My credentials have got not to do with you matey!

(Your sarcasm is lost on me)

:canon:
 
ancient_mariner said:
The images referred to in the BBC thread DID have additional information with them, but for many even that wasn't enough to bridge the discontinuity Byker described, which makes me think that it is not merely enough to contain the information, but artists code the information into their work in a way that deliberately obscures it from eyes not taught to read it.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think assuming that's the case because you didn't understand it is a possibility. Even when a statement is published with the image, you still don't get it, I don't see why you'd accuse the artist of being deliberately obtuse when they've clearly done quite a lot to help you understand it. I think most are just operating on that surface level of "That's crap, and everything he wrote there is crap too". I tihnk they DO understand it actually. They just disagree with it.... in the very militant, closed minded way ignorant people always do.

Unfortunately, unless an image is dripping with the trappings of craft skill, the amateur will always dislike it. If it looks like something they'd delete off the card, they dismiss it because here it is being praised and that hurts them. It simply HAS to be a b****x, right? I delete stuff that looks like that, so therefore I'm better than this guy and this is all "emperor's new clothes" and it's not fair... boo hoo... They then go on their merry way pumping more and more evidence of "craft" into their work that still continues to say nothing to anyone: A bird on a twig, a bee on a flower, water drops, shots of the kids etc. (unless it's being shown to others who take birds on twigs, bees on flow4ers, or water drops - and then they're only comparing each other's techniques in a silly contest mindset)...all blissfully unaware of the true power of photography... even in their own work... they'll fail to see the real power of their work and instead focus on the triviality of bokeh, sharpness, depth of field etc. Master those things.. sure... but to actively be considering them when taking a photo of your kid? Why? You're shooting your kid... why do you want me admiring your sharpness or the bokeh of your lens? Why not say something about your kid instead? Then the same people will call Sally Mann a p***... just because she's truly captured childhood at a certain age. LOL

Talking of stupidity, I was waiting for my wife in town the other day and had the misfortune to be overhearing a conversation between two "Mums" about how schools should be doing more to protect their little darlings outside the school gates, because we all know there are packs of slavering Paedophiles hanging around every street corner. I then looked at her child.. a girl of about 7... who has a pair of skin tight shiny pants on with the word "Juicy" written across her ass.

I just despair....
 
Getting back to the original question in this thread.

I personally think nobody should be allowed to study for a degree in a subject that has very little chance of leading anywhere.

The country is full of "clever" people working in dead end jobs for minimum wages.

What a waste of time,effort and money.

(All these "artists", and most talking a lot of excrement)
 
So who's going to regulate that then ? It's never going to happen. University is all about getting bums on seats now and income generation to swell their coffers...
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
I disagree. I think assuming that's the case because you didn't understand it is a possibility. Even when a statement is published with the image, you still don't get it, I don't see why you'd accuse the artist of being deliberately obtuse when they've clearly done quite a lot to help you understand it. I think most are just operating on that surface level of "That's crap, and everything he wrote there is crap too". I tihnk they DO understand it actually. They just disagree with it.... in the very militant, closed minded way ignorant people always do.

Unfortunately, unless an image is dripping with the trappings of craft skill, the amateur will always dislike it. If it looks like something they'd delete off the card, they dismiss it because here it is being praised and that hurts them. It simply HAS to be a b****x, right? I delete stuff that looks like that, so therefore I'm better than this guy and this is all "emperor's new clothes" and it's not fair... boo hoo... They then go on their merry way pumping more and more evidence of "craft" into their work that still continues to say nothing to anyone: A bird on a twig, a bee on a flower, water drops, shots of the kids etc. (unless it's being shown to others who take birds on twigs, bees on flow4ers, or water drops - and then they're only comparing each other's techniques in a silly contest mindset)...all blissfully unaware of the true power of photography... even in their own work... they'll fail to see the real power of their work and instead focus on the triviality of bokeh, sharpness, depth of field etc. Master those things.. sure... but to actively be considering them when taking a photo of your kid? Why? You're shooting your kid... why do you want me admiring your sharpness or the bokeh of your lens? Why not say something about your kid instead? Then the same people will call Sally Mann a p***... just because she's truly captured childhood at a certain age. LOL

Talking of stupidity, I was waiting for my wife in town the other day and had the misfortune to be overhearing a conversation between two "Mums" about how schools should be doing more to protect their little darlings outside the school gates, because we all know there are packs of slavering Paedophiles hanging around every street corner. I then looked at her child.. a girl of about 7... who has a pair of skin tight shiny pants on with the word "Juicy" written across her ass.

I just despair....
Click to expand...

Maybe you're right, and it's all jealousy. Yes, that must be it. ;)
 
ancient_mariner said:
The images referred to in the BBC thread DID have additional information with them, but for many even that wasn't enough to bridge the discontinuity Byker described, which makes me think that it is not merely enough to contain the information, but artists code the information into their work in a way that deliberately obscures it from eyes not taught to read it.
Click to expand...

I think they just followed the Guardian's example of providing images and a little information, expecting that if you are interested, you'd research the subject more, not expect everything given to you. (and I know the Guardian often does detailed articles) http://www.theguardian.com/inpictures.

There's actually quite a decent amount of info in the BBC article. Obviously the picture editor cannot give detailed accounts as he's effectively promoting the book

I've no idea how old you are but is this perhaps a generational thing? With the internet and easy access to resources, I've noticed the younger generation expects things given to them, almost as a right. That is of course our fault as parents trying to give them the best, but we've lost that link of my parents generation of working hard to get what you want?

To a certain extent, even the BBC thread starts with 'Interesting Read' and the link. Nothing detailed, no explanation into whats interesting to promote the conversation or discussion.
 
pollie said:
I personally think nobody should be allowed to study for a degree in a subject that has very little chance of leading anywhere.

The country is full of "clever" people working in dead end jobs for minimum wages.

What a waste of time,effort and money.

(All these "artists", and most talking a lot of excrement)
Click to expand...

It may come as a surprise to you that not everyone wants to climb the greasy pole of promotion in pursuit of financial wealth. Some are quite satisfied to earn enough to survive, doing something which they actually enjoy doing or doing some dull job in order to spend their free time doing what they enjoy without any pressure to conform the norm.

Doing a degree isn't always just about getting a job, some people like to learn for the sake of improving their minds. I think that state grants should be reintroduced to enable more people to take degrees in 'useless' subjects. It may not have lead them anywhere in your terms, but it might broaden their minds and enable them to appreciate stuff they would previously have dismissed as the 'excrement' you deride.
 
Ed Sutton said:
I think that state grants should be reintroduced to enable more people to take degrees.
Click to expand...

So do I. I think it's ridiculous that the government does not support its citizens by funding their further education like they used to (when I was at school) instead, choosing to burden them with debt.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
So do I. I think it's ridiculous that the government does not support its citizens by funding their further education like they used to (when I was at school) instead, choosing to burden them with debt.


Steve.
Click to expand...
That's a whole different discussion though isn't it?

In the past there were other routes to higher education for those that were not 'academic', that could lead to long term employment, ie apprenticeships, polytechnic courses, technical college courses. In my view the rot set in when the industrial training boards and the levy-grant system were scrapped.

Today anyone with a decent brain that has ambition to develop to a professional level, pretty much has to stay on at school to A-level and go off to Uni. This in turn impacts on the courses that universities have to offer and they have many more students to 'process' than they did in the past.

Government, with funding under so much pressure from an array of competing areas, decided that those who wish to go to Uni should pay for it when they are in a position to do so. At least under the present system no student has to pay up front.

The thing I'm most uncomfortable with is that kids go off to Uni on the promise that a degree in 'basket weaving' will bring them lifelong prosperity, when the reality is very different.
 
Last edited:
There's much more value to society in education than just getting people into well paid jobs.

Developing critical thinking skills, an analytical mindset, exposure to different and competing perspectives, etc. All of these things are personally satisfying but they also produce more effective participants in society and democracy. Policy makers cannot ignore an informed population.
 
pollie said:
Getting back to the original question in this thread.

I personally think nobody should be allowed to study for a degree in a subject that has very little chance of leading anywhere.

The country is full of "clever" people working in dead end jobs for minimum wages.

What a waste of time,effort and money.

(All these "artists", and most talking a lot of excrement)
Click to expand...


We don't want people asking complicated questions or looking for reasoned debate, where will that get us? Instead it makes more sense to wallow in ignorance and throw excrement at anyone who thinks that's wrong.:clap:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Byker28i said:
I think they just followed the Guardian's example of providing images and a little information, expecting that if you are interested, you'd research the subject more, not expect everything given to you. (and I know the Guardian often does detailed articles) http://www.theguardian.com/inpictures.

There's actually quite a decent amount of info in the BBC article. Obviously the picture editor cannot give detailed accounts as he's effectively promoting the book

I've no idea how old you are but is this perhaps a generational thing? With the internet and easy access to resources, I've noticed the younger generation expects things given to them, almost as a right. That is of course our fault as parents trying to give them the best, but we've lost that link of my parents generation of working hard to get what you want?

To a certain extent, even the BBC thread starts with 'Interesting Read' and the link. Nothing detailed, no explanation into whats interesting to promote the conversation or discussion.
Click to expand...

I'm old enough and ugly enough to have always had to do my own research if I think it worthwhile. :)

It may be that the issue isn't understanding, but instead how we value things. So one might look at a piece of art, see some of the things the artist intended to say (and probably a bunch more they didn't*) but decide that it simply wasn't worthwhile or was presented so badly that it didn't deserve merit.

A part of the disconnect that some (me included) feel with art is that it's not enough to be saying something, but that something must be worthwhile for us. There was a parallel in a quote I read on a guitar forum by Dave Mustaine "Someone like David Gilmour can say more in three or four notes than Yngwie can say in 100, but at least they're both speaking." The application being that relatively few can find something worthwhile in Yngwie's work, even though as an artist he's incredibly accomplished in his field. Most of us probably want the Dave Gilmour equivalents: Edward Westons and even Robert Mapplethorpes, but not the Yngwie Malmsteen or (to use a more current example) Dragonforce equivalents of the photographic-art world.

And yes, this has generally been a good discussion.
 
I don't think there's much that annoys me more than proud ignorance. Straightforward gnorance I can handle. You can work with straightforward ignorance. But people who are proud of their ignorance are the worst.
 
ancient_mariner said:
I'm old enough and ugly enough to have always had to do my own research if I think it worthwhile. :)

It may be that the issue isn't understanding, but instead how we value things. So one might look at a piece of art, see some of the things the artist intended to say (and probably a bunch more they didn't*) but decide that it simply wasn't worthwhile or was presented so badly that it didn't deserve merit.

A part of the disconnect that some (me included) feel with art is that it's not enough to be saying something, but that something must be worthwhile for us. There was a parallel in a quote I read on a guitar forum by Dave Mustaine "Someone like David Gilmour can say more in three or four notes than Yngwie can say in 100, but at least they're both speaking." The application being that relatively few can find something worthwhile in Yngwie's work, even though as an artist he's incredibly accomplished in his field. Most of us probably want the Dave Gilmour equivalents: Edward Westons and even Robert Mapplethorpes, but not the Yngwie Malmsteen or (to use a more current example) Dragonforce equivalents of the photographic-art world.

And yes, this has generally been a good discussion.
Click to expand...
Yngwie is all style and technical ability and no substance, that's the criticism. I'd draw a parallel between Yngwie and the "pretty landscapes" and categorise Gilmour as closer to the "artistic" photographers people are dismissing.
 
Last edited:
Sidetracj - Wow, I thought Yngwie had god like status? I saw him in 2010? with Steve Vai and Joe Satriani
 
Steve Smith said:
So do I. I think it's ridiculous that the government does not support its citizens by funding their further education like they used to (when I was at school) instead, choosing to burden them with debt.
Steve.
Click to expand...

The entire country is burdened with debt - there's just no money. However the previous Govt's target of 50% in university and the breaking up of the traditional further education routes backfired in undervaluing degrees. We do need a return to the mix of technical colleges, apprenticeships and universities
 
Byker28i said:
Sidetracj - Wow, I thought Yngwie had god like status? I saw him in 2010? with Steve Vai and Joe Satriani
Click to expand...
Yngwie and Satriani, especially Yngwie, are always used (rightly) as examples of musicians who are all technical prowess with no substance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PMN
Byker28i said:
The entire country is burdened with debt - there's just no money.
Click to expand...

Then what little money there is should be spent more wisely. Investing in the education of your population is much wiser than blowing up parts of other countries.

Byker28i said:
We do need a return to the mix of technical colleges, apprenticeships and universities
Click to expand...

Apprenticeships are becoming popular again. The company I work for has 57 employees of which six are apprentices and we are probably going to take on another one soon.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
So do I. I think it's ridiculous that the government does not support its citizens by funding their further education like they used to (when I was at school) instead, choosing to burden them with debt.


Steve.
Click to expand...

I worked through both of my degrees and left university with zero debt.
I would suggest more try to do so and not expect the state to subsidise them.
 
ghoti said:
Yngwie and Satriani, especially Yngwie, are always used (rightly) as examples of musicians who are all technical prowess with no substance.
Click to expand...
Perhaps by people that don't have the technical prowess?

Doesn't Joe actually teach in a University somewhere?
 
Last edited:
viv1969 said:
I worked through both of my degrees and left university with zero debt.
I would suggest more try to do so and not expect the state to subsidise them.
Click to expand...
Well £9000 a year in just tuition fees is a bit of a stretch for a part time worker, but I'd love to hear your plans to cover it.

I'll add my daughter is in her final year and she's held down 2 jobs through most of it. It won't stop her having a shed load of debt though.

BTW you never mentioned whether you had paid tuition fees, or whether you'd had access to grants. Because what you offered is a bit of spin with less than half the relevant information.
 
viv1969 said:
I worked through both of my degrees and left university with zero debt.
I would suggest more try to do so and not expect the state to subsidise them.
Click to expand...
I worked three evenings a week and full time hours at the weekend, as well as F/T work in the holidays, all through my undergraduate studies and I still needed student loans for a very unextravagant lifestyle. The work barely covered the basics. So I'm not sure how you did it.
 
Phil V said:
Well £9000 a year in just tuition fees is a bit of a stretch for a part time worker, but I'd love to hear your plans to cover it.

I'll add my daughter is in her final year and she's held down 2 jobs through most of it. It won't stop her having a shed load of debt though.

BTW you never mentioned whether you had paid tuition fees, or whether you'd had access to grants. Because what you offered is a bit of spin with less than half the relevant information.
Click to expand...

I had 2 part time jobs.
Yes, I paid tuition.
Part of it I lived at home, part in Digs (this was back in the late 80's / early 90s.)
When I say I left with zero debt that's not quite true because I still owed £600 on a car, but that was nothing to do with university.
If I hadn't have been able to manage then yes, I could have applied for grants.
And I don't particularly care whether you think what I've "offered" is a bit of spin or not.
I worked hard and did it the best way I saw for me. Anyone else who choses the "shed load of debt" option is welcome to it.
 
Sorry, but I don't recall tuition fees being such a big deal in the late 80's, can you break down how they'd compare to the £9000 a year my step son is paying or the £3000 a year my daughter paid? (you'll note the difference in fees due to her starting 2 years earlier).
 
No I certainly didn't pay anything like £9000 pa, and yes I do think it's a fairly outrageous sum even now.
Nor was my Masters wholly studied in the UK (though the degrees are wholly UK), but I still paid the associated costs abroad, and continued to work whilst doing so.
 
viv1969 said:
No I certainly didn't pay anything like £9000 pa, and yes I do think it's a fairly outrageous sum even now.
Nor was my Masters wholly studied in the UK (though the degrees are wholly UK), but I still paid the associated costs abroad, and continued to work whilst doing so.
Click to expand...
It seems tuition fees were introduced in 1998, so you were really unlucky having to pay them in the late 80's.
 
Sorry....in 1988 they were called contributions to maintenance, except my time in US where they were indeed called tuition fees.
I know what I did, I know how I lived, and I got the degrees I worked for.
You seem to have developed a bit of a stick up your rear because I suggested some university students might want to work harder and keep their debt lower.
Your snide posts insinuating that I'm lying are, frankly, beneath you.
 
viv1969 said:
Sorry....in 1988 they were called contributions to maintenance.
I know what I did, I know how I lived, and I got the degrees I worked for.
You seem to have developed a bit of a stick up your rear because I suggested some university students might want to work harder and keep their debt lower.
Your snide posts insinuating that I'm lying are, frankly, beneath you.
Click to expand...
Contributions to maintenance are a million miles away from tuition fees. I have no problem with the idea of students working to keep their debt down.

What I do have a problem with is someone who managed to leave University under completely different conditions patronisingly suggesting that it's a realistic aim for most people to do today.

viv1969 said:
I worked through both of my degrees and left university with zero debt.
I would suggest more try to do so and not expect the state to subsidise them.
Click to expand...

Which, given you were possibly entitled to a grant scheme (you paid towards your maintenance) and you had no tuition fees to pay is frankly twisting the truth to the point of snapping.

The education you received for free under a scheme where you had the opportunity of help with maintenance, is something you think should be denied to modern youth, because now you've benefitted from it you see no value in contributing to other people enjoying the same opportunities. If that's your position, you could have been honest enough to just say so at the start. Rather than the snide comment that you'd managed to do it all by yourself so everyone else should.
 
contributions to maintenance weren't tuition fees - they were a reduction in the grant for maintenance - with a loan instead to cover the difference ( I was at uni 91 - 94 and at that time there were no fees and the grant was at about 2/3 of the full ammount - with a loan of arround £700 pa for the other third. - of course even a full grant wasnt sufficient to actually live so most of us had part time jobs as well - except those with rich parents who didnt get the grant but mostly didnt need it.

Masters courses largely have never had a grant for fees - unless one got a bursary - I did mine on an extra mural basis while working full time

However phil is correct in that theres no way a student can pay the fees from a part time job - especially if he or she needs the part time wage to stay alive now there isnt a maintenance grant. Certainly its not unreasonalbe to expect them to earn enough to pay for their keep in order to keep the maintenance element of the loan down, but it is unrealistic to think that they can cover the whole thing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top