Do you need a degree to enjoy photography?

[viv1969]

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.



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.

Where do I say it should be denied? Show me.
I suggested some may think about working harder themselves rather than being wholly subsidised.
Many of my peers at the time time owed thousands, even back then, at the end of thier degress. I did not. That is fact.
Even after the time spent studying overseas, which was ENTIRELY at my expense, I was debt free. I'm proud of that, and I don't see why I shouldn't be.

 

[PMN]

Yngwie and Satriani, especially Yngwie, are always used (rightly) as examples of musicians who are all technical prowess with no substance.

I've worked with Malmsteen, it was the most dull gig I've ever had to sit through for exactly that reason.

 

[dwoolway]

Hi Guys,

I have skipped most of this thread but hopefully what I say will be relevant. The short answer is no you do not a degree to enjoy photography but if you are going into it professionally it helps.

I have taught Basic Photography (Aperture, ISO, Shutter Speed) to over 1500 people in the last 3 years, many have done GCSE, A-Level and never learnt what I taught them before. I worked in a school for a few years and now know the answer why...

Photography at GCSE is not taught by a Photographer, it is taught by an Art Teacher, English Teacher, Science Teacher etcetera who have been given a syllabus and told here we are teach this! The quickest and easiest way for the teachers to deal with this is to tell the children:

1) Put your camera in one of the Auto Modes and take a few pictures
2) Load it onto the computer and print it out
3) Cut up your photo and re arrange it, maybe make a collage
4) Scan it back into the computer and take it into Photoshop
5) Add some fancy filters and hey presto there is your image

At A-Level they expect you to have learnt the Basics at GCSE level, and at Degree you should definitely already know it. The only course I have ever heard teach the basics is a BTEC.

In the last year I have had quite a few teachers sit my course who are going on to teach at GCSE Photography so I think that they are starting to realise that they need to know this stuff.

I am a self taught photographer and have been for 10 years, turning professional 6 years ago. 2 years ago I decided to go back to Uni and get a degree because:

1) I like teaching and want to teach part time at a school/college/uni so need a degree to do this
2) There were gaps in my knowledge of industry standards I needed to fill
3) I needed to work out a speciality, so the course challenged me to try different things so that I could make an informed decision of my strengths and follow them
4) To build a bigger network, I am now going into Advertising Photography and the Uni has opened up links into the industry I may have otherwise found hard to get.

The degree does not teach you photography! You still need to go out and learn the skills yourself, yes they might give a small lecture on lighting but not enough to get to grips with it, but university is about exploration and development so to teach too much would alter individual style.

 

[Byker28i]

try

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).

£15K a year for a 'second' degree
My daughters place was lost on her teaching degree due to a mixup by the Uni, which meant she ended up on a course for early years, then converted to teaching through PGCE. What was forgotten to be mentioned to us was the true cost of the second degree course... We funded that, plus her accommodation etc whilst I also paid for my degree fees.

It's not cheap. In raising the fees to £9K, they could actually reduce a lot of the three year courses to two years, thus reducing costs.

But we digress...

 

[GeeJay57]

Students don't have to pay the fees while attending Uni though do they? Isn't it the case that they pay back the money when they're earning above a certain level? It looks to me like a kind of graduate income tax..

 

[ukcyberboy]

My daughter took a photography course, they stick it in auto and press the shutter, when I asked her she said they aren't as interested as you dad. Get that no triangle just press and go.

Yup Martyn Lewis He of money saver fame. said it is better to take the loan than pay it from your pocket. as you only pay back the money when earning over 21K. Not an issue in most jobs young people do.

 

[Phil V]

Where do I say it should be denied? Show me.
I suggested some may think about working harder themselves rather than being wholly subsidised.
Many of my peers at the time time owed thousands, even back then, at the end of thier degress. I did not. That is fact.
Even after the time spent studying overseas, which was ENTIRELY at my expense, I was debt free. I'm proud of that, and I don't see why I shouldn't be.

Go back and read your first post, and what it was a response to. You may not have directly said 'access should be denied', but your answer was what spurred this debate:

... 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.
...

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.

I'd suggest a more honest response would have been "I agree entirely, that's how I got my degree, completely without debt, but even in those days some people still left University saddled with debt". Whereas your response seemed to me like you were completely happy that students nowadays get no financial help and that all they need to do is 'work a bit harder' to avoid the crippling debt, which is totally ridiculous, as is the point you made about 'expecting the state to subsidise them', which is exactly what you got; a state subsidised education.

 

[viv1969]

Go back and read your first post, and what it was a response to. You may not have directly said 'access should be denied', but your answer was what spurred this debate:


I'd suggest a more honest response would have been "I agree entirely, that's how I got my degree, completely without debt, but even in those days some people still left University saddled with debt". Whereas your response seemed to me like you were completely happy that students nowadays get no financial help and that all they need to do is 'work a bit harder' to avoid the crippling debt, which is totally ridiculous, as is the point you made about 'expecting the state to subsidise them', which is exactly what you got; a state subsidised education.

Exactly. I didn't say it.
And suggesting responses? Seriously? Laughable.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Yngwie and Satriani, especially Yngwie, are always used (rightly) as examples of musicians who are all technical prowess with no substance.

I'd be intrigued to know, Ghoti, if you were a guitarist or not?

 

[Phil V]

Exactly. I didn't say it.
And suggesting responses? Seriously? Laughable.

Nope, you just said that further education shouldn't be state subsidised because you left Uni with no debt, whilst failing to mention you had a free education and some maintenance grant. But clearly it's me that's laughable
My suggested response would have been honest, whereas yours...

 

[Steve Smith]

I left school in 1983 and was accepted for a university place. Even though there were no tuition fees to pay and I would have got a government grant towards accomodation, etc, I knew that neither I or my parents would be able to find enough money to allow me to go so I turned it down.


Steve.

 

[viv1969]

Nope, you just said that further education shouldn't be state subsidised because you left Uni with no debt, whilst failing to mention you had a free education and some maintenance grant. But clearly it's me that's laughable
My suggested response would have been honest, whereas yours...

I ask you again where I have said that further education should not be state subsidised.
Don't waffle about it, don't put your spin on what I said. Just show me where i said that.

 

[Phil V]

I ask you again where I have said that further education should not be state subsidised.
Don't waffle about it, don't put your spin on what I said. Just show me where i said that.

I quoted it above, it was your first post in this thread.
And again for clarity:

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.

I don't see how by making it bold I'm spinning it. I can see you're upset that I called out your hypocrisy, but I never made this stuff up, you chose to offer your opinion, I'm just clarifying it.

 

[viv1969]

I quoted it above, it was your first post in this thread.
And again for clarity:


I don't see how by making it bold I'm spinning it. I can see you're upset that I called out your hypocrisy, but I never made this stuff up, you chose to offer your opinion, I'm just clarifying it.

I'm sorry phil, but you're just reading as you wish to see it.
The whole line reads as it reads. I suggest more students put in more effort.
Nowhere, absolutely nowhere have I once stated that further education should not be subsidised.

 

[Phil V]

I'm sorry phil, but you're just reading as you wish to see it.
The whole line reads as it reads. I suggest more students put in more effort.
Nowhere, absolutely nowhere have I once stated that further education should not be subsidised.

You can call it however you like now, but the line definitely says that to me, especially when read in context as originally written and re-quoted by me above. You were responding to a point about free education by saying that students should 'not expect the state to subsidise them' and its pretty unambiguous to me.

 

[viv1969]

You can call it however you like now, but the line definitely says that to me, especially when read in context as originally written and re-quoted by me above. You were responding to a point about free education by saying that students should 'not expect the state to subsidise them' and its pretty unambiguous to me.

Why do you insist on ignoring the the first part of that line Phil?
This alone speaks volumes about your own literacy.

 

[Byker28i]

My daughter took a photography course, they stick it in auto and press the shutter, when I asked her she said they aren't as interested as you dad. Get that no triangle just press and go.

Yup Martyn Lewis He of money saver fame. said it is better to take the loan than pay it from your pocket. as you only pay back the money when earning over 21K. Not an issue in most jobs young people do.

Does it affect the ability to get a mortgage? Is the debt taken into consideration?

 

[Phil V]

Why do you insist on ignoring the the first part of that line Phil?
This alone speaks volumes about your own literacy.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm not quoting it because the second half of the line is the bit that mentions subsidised education, the first part is simply rhetoric. It's nice you question my literacy though, obviously with two degrees you have the run on me when it comes to education, even though I was happy to pay for your education whilst I was bringing up a young family - no need for thanks. It would be nice if you had the same attitude to my children's education though .

You keep telling me that I'm misinterpreting you, yet you've failed to clarify your original point; further you claimed to have paid for your own education without getting into debt, which is patently untrue, but you seem to think that there's some way that you can belittle me in order to nullify my argument like some latter-day politician. I'm simply dealing in the facts. And the fact is that you enjoyed a state subsidised education and yet you seem to believe that others should not expect the state to subsidise them. If neither of those is true, you'll need to offer better clarification, rather than poking me for my literacy.

You can clear this up simply by telling us what you meant, if it's not what you appear to have meant. Here's how I read it: Steve's point was that citizens should get a subsidised education rather than racking up debt, your response was that people should work harder to avoid the debt, just like you did.

But the underlying truth is that you avoided the debt a modern student would get because you had a subsidised education, which appears to be a dichotomy

 

[ghoti]

I'd be intrigued to know, Ghoti, if you were a guitarist or not?

Guitar is not my first instrument. But I can find my way around a guitar and I understand the instrument.
I don't really think it's relevant, though. Because Malmsteen is uncontroversially a virtuoso whose selling point is extreme technical ability, not creativity. That's his whole shtick.
Compare to someone like, I dunno, Zappa or even Gilmour like you said earlier. Who are highly competent but more focused on expression rather than precision.

 

[Steve]

Have to agree that I interpreted Ruth's comments in the same way as Phil.

I am of an age when going to university at 18 there were zero tuition fees and it is disgraceful imo that tuition fees were firstly introduced and then allowed to be raised to 3k and now 9k.

It is disingenuous to compare the ability to leave University with zero debt in the 1980s to now.

I accept that maybe that wasn't the intention, but that's certainly how it came across. Of course that could be due to my poor literacy skills.

 

[viv1969]

I'm not ignoring it, I'm not quoting it because the second half of the line is the bit that mentions subsidised education, the first part is simply rhetoric. It's nice you question my literacy though, obviously with two degrees you have the run on me when it comes to education, even though I was happy to pay for your education whilst I was bringing up a young family - no need for thanks. It would be nice if you had the same attitude to my children's education though .

You keep telling me that I'm misinterpreting you, yet you've failed to clarify your original point; further you claimed to have paid for your own education without getting into debt, which is patently untrue, but you seem to think that there's some way that you can belittle me in order to nullify my argument like some latter-day politician. I'm simply dealing in the facts. And the fact is that you enjoyed a state subsidised education and yet you seem to believe that others should not expect the state to subsidise them. If neither of those is true, you'll need to offer better clarification, rather than poking me for my literacy.

You can clear this up simply by telling us what you meant, if it's not what you appear to have meant. Here's how I read it: Steve's point was that citizens should get a subsidised education rather than racking up debt, your response was that people should work harder to avoid the debt, just like you did.

But the underlying truth is that you avoided the debt a modern student would get because you had a subsidised education, which appears to be a dichotomy

OK Phil, fair enough....I bow to your pedantry.
We can only hope your kids' education improves the family line.
Peace.

 

[Phil V]

OK Phil, fair enough....I bow to your pedantry.
We can only hope your kids' education improves the family line.
Peace.

So, once again I ask for clarification and you reply with further insults, Nice work!

I do hope that my children's education doesn't remove their moral compass, it was hard work making them nice people.

 

[Steve]

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?

Totally agree that education and training in a subject leads to greater insight and analysis. I see from your avatar that you are a musician/ or play an instrument. I cant play anything but love music that says something to me. I imagine you are able to appreciate music on a different level to me.

I used to perform as a magician years ago, doing some stage, cabaret and children's shows. I was largely self taught from books but had some formal training from lectures and workshops. This training totally changed my opinion of magic as an art form rather than a form of entertainment. And whilst I could never elevate what I did to an art, it did give me an insight into the poverty of the eye candy type magic that is prevalent and that appeals to many but leaves me cold.

 

[pollie]

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

Actually, not the entire country, I for one am not, but that is down to a lifetime of hard work

 

[pollie]

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.

Oh of course, you can't appreciate anything without a degree.

More codswallop

 

[StephenM]

Like Steve, I also read Ruth's post in the same way as Phil. From memory (I can't find the prospectus which I still have somewhere) in my day there were tuition fees (I went to university in 1967) which were lower for UK residents than those from overseas. For UK people, I think it was £100 pa. If you qualified for a local authority grant, this was paid for you; I was, and also received a grant for expenses of £360 pa. £12 was intended to cover expenses getting to and from the university 3 times each way in a year; excess was refunded though. And to put it in price context, a graduate starting salary was around £1000 pa when I graduated. But this is far off topic.

I think that the direct answer to the question of do you need a degree to enjoy photography depends on the person and what they understand by photography. Years ago, Popular Photography's Christmas quiz posed the question "What's the difference between a painter and a photographer?". The answer being that two painters could get together without talking about brushes. Photographers do seem to be equipment obsessed; and some seem to derive the pleasure from the cameras they use, or the process of photography, rather than the prints they produce. This is probably the area of photography that it's easiest to research on your own. And a degree isn't going to increase your pleasure - unless you specialise in the history of equipment and gather a lot of out of the way information to astound your friends!

If you're more interested in the "art" side of things, and if you enjoy something more if you know what you're doing (two big "ifs" there) then a suitable degree course should surely open your eyes to new horizons, train you to think and express yourself, and hopefully produce a more accomplished photographer. Whether this would increase the enjoyment is a matter down to the individual.

 

[ghoti]

Oh of course, you can't appreciate anything without a degree.

More codswallop

I don't think anyone said you did.

You don't NEED a degree to have critical thinking and comprehension skills either, but it might help...

 

[Ed Sutton]

Oh of course, you can't appreciate anything without a degree.

Did I say that?

 

[StephenM]

I don't think anyone said you did.

You don't NEED a degree to have critical thinking and comprehension skills either, but it might help...

And it might help in distinguishing exegesis from eisegesis

 

[pollie]

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.

So people without a degree are overflowing with ignorance?

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.

and who pays for these state grants?

 

[Ed Sutton]

and who pays for these state grants?

The same people who pay for the NHS.

 

[Byker28i]

Actually, not the entire country, I for one am not, but that is down to a lifetime of hard work

Good for you, but I said the country, which is something like 1200 billion government debt. Imagine the monthly minimum payments on that visa bill

 

[pollie]

The same people who pay for the NHS.

And they are?.......

 

[Phil V]

So people without a degree are overflowing with ignorance?

and who pays for these state grants?

No, not all of them. But I'm very scared of people who consider a lack of critical thinking skills to be a positive thing.

Usually statements that can be wrapped up with 'any idiot can see' are completely wrong. Weighing up evidence, thinking and working out are to be relied upon, whereas gut reactions tend to be completely idiotic and unreliable.

And whilst you never asked me, do you need us to explain how a tax system works? Or was that just a facetious remark too?

 

[Ed Sutton]

And they are?.......

Taxpayers.

 

[Byker28i]

Years ago, Popular Photography's Christmas quiz posed the question "What's the difference between a painter and a photographer?". T

Hang on I can answer that. Berger said, (in Ways of telling)

A drawing or painting is a translation. That is to say each markon the paper is consciously related, not only to the real or imagined "model", but also to every mark and space already set out on the paper.
Thus a drawn or painted image is woven together by the energy (or the lassitude, when the drawing is weak) of countless judgements. Every time a figuration is evoked in a drawing, everything about it has been mediated by consciousness, either intuitively or systematically. In a drawing an apple is made round and spherical; in a photograph, the roundness and the light and shade of the apple are received as a given.

This difference between making and receiving also implies a very different relation to time'i A drawing contains the time of its own making, and this means that it possesses its own time, independent of the living time of what it portrays. The photograph, by contrast, receives almost instantaneously - usually today at a speed which cannot be perceived by the human eye.
The only time contained in a photograph is the isolated instant of what it shows.

There is another important difference within the times contained by the two kinds of images. The time which exists within a drawing is not uniform. The, artist gives more time to what she or he considers important. A face is 'likely to contain more time than the sky above it. Time in a drawing accrues according to human value. In a photograph time is uniform: every part of the image has been subjected to a chemical process of uniform duration. In the process of revelation all parts were equal.

So the photographer decides on the instant that he takes the image. At the time of taking that is a recorded image, that instant of time, but the painter provides a translation through what he sees, onto the image. He provides his own interpretation of the scene and the time taken to produce the image is significantly more.

 

[ghoti]

Hang on I can answer that. Berger said, (in Ways of telling)

A drawing or painting is a translation. That is to say each markon the paper is consciously related, not only to the real or imagined "model", but also to every mark and space already set out on the paper.
Thus a drawn or painted image is woven together by the energy (or the lassitude, when the drawing is weak) of countless judgements. Every time a figuration is evoked in a drawing, everything about it has been mediated by consciousness, either intuitively or systematically. In a drawing an apple is made round and spherical; in a photograph, the roundness and the light and shade of the apple are received as a given.

This difference between making and receiving also implies a very different relation to time'i A drawing contains the time of its own making, and this means that it possesses its own time, independent of the living time of what it portrays. The photograph, by contrast, receives almost instantaneously - usually today at a speed which cannot be perceived by the human eye.
The only time contained in a photograph is the isolated instant of what it shows.

There is another important difference within the times contained by the two kinds of images. The time which exists within a drawing is not uniform. The, artist gives more time to what she or he considers important. A face is 'likely to contain more time than the sky above it. Time in a drawing accrues according to human value. In a photograph time is uniform: every part of the image has been subjected to a chemical process of uniform duration. In the process of revelation all parts were equal.

So the photographer decides on the instant that he takes the image. At the time of taking that is a recorded image, that instant of time, but the painter provides a translation through what he sees, onto the image. He provides his own interpretation of the scene and the time taken to produce the image is significantly more.

The last paragraph is not necessarily true. Darkroom techniques (or digital equivalents) can mean more attention is paid to certain parts of the image by the artist.

 

[pollie]

No, not all of them. But I'm very scared of people who consider a lack of critical thinking skills to be a positive thing.

Usually statements that can be wrapped up with 'any idiot can see' are completely wrong. Weighing up evidence, thinking and working out are to be relied upon, whereas gut reactions tend to be completely idiotic and unreliable.

And whilst you never asked me, do you need us to explain how a tax system works? Or was that just a facetious remark too?

I have met lots of people with degrees who had a complete lack of critical thinking skills.
Why would I ask you to explain how a tax system works?

I think you my friend are the master of the facetious remark!

 

[pollie]

Taxpayers.

So that's where my tax went for the last 50 yrs!
Paying for the education of you lot!

Bloody hell

 

[StephenM]

Hang on I can answer that. Berger said, (in Ways of telling)


Thus a drawn or painted image is woven together by the energy (or the lassitude, when the drawing is weak) of countless judgements. Every time a figuration is evoked in a drawing, everything about it has been mediated by consciousness, either intuitively or systematically. In a drawing an apple is made round and spherical; in a photograph, the roundness and the light and shade of the apple are received as a given.

I'm not convinced that this paragraph is invariably true. Lighting can be altered by the photographer; and even the shapes can be distorted (either with in camera movements, in a darkroom or in Photoshop.

The time of recording a photograph may be brief, but not necessarily the "thinking time" that preceded the shutter release.