Do you need a degree to enjoy photography?

viv1969 said:
Heavens. Someone likes the look of their own opinions :LOL:
Click to expand...

I'm sorry Viv... what's the point you're making? Are you suggesting I don't have a certain level of expertise or something?
 
Pookeyhead said:
I'm sorry Viv... what's the point you're making? Are you suggesting I don't have a certain level of expertise or something?
Click to expand...

Art isn't subjective?

Read it as you wish.
 
viv1969 said:
Art isn't subjective?

Read it as you wish.
Click to expand...

Still not sure why that means I like the look of my own opinions. It wasn't my opinion: It's generally accepted to be the case by most people who study art. The only people who claim it's subjective are those that do not. Perhaps it makes them feel better when their art is called rubbish :)


As an academic subject, no it's not. As an artefact, yes it can be, but whether one person likes painting A as opposed to painting B does not mean art as a field of study is subjective.. You need to make the distinctions rather than make blanket statements you don't understand.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Still not sure why that means I like the look of my own opinions. It wasn't my opinion: It's generally accepted to be the case by most people who study art. The only people who claim it's subjective are those that do not. Perhaps it makes them feel better when their art is called rubbish :)


As an academic subject, no it's not. As an artefact, yes it can be, but whether one person likes painting A as opposed to painting B does not mean art as a field of study is subjective.. You need to make the distinctions rather than make blanket statements you don't understand.
Click to expand...

And the defence rests :-)
 
If by defence, you mean you.. rest all you want... you're still wrong.
 
Last edited:
ghoti said:
But a degree might be able to teach you to understand it.
Click to expand...

And even appreciate it. But not share it.
A huge waste of money IMO.
 
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 truly don't believe it can.
Whomever is teaching, is teaching you opinion, not stone cold fact.
But I'm happy to agree to disagree.
 
viv1969 said:
I truly don't believe it can.
Whomever is teaching, is teaching you opinion, not stone cold fact.
But I'm happy to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

You don't have to be taught "stone cold fact", the more opinions you hear the more open-minded you'll be and the more rounded you'll be as an artist. With respect you seem to be massively missing the point here.
 
Last edited:
PMN said:
You don't have to be taught "stone cold fact", the more opinions you hear the more open-minded you'll be and the more rounded you'll be as an artist. With respect you seem to be massively missing the point here.
Click to expand...

With respect, I don't think I am.
I think what you say above is nothing more than you can learn by reading independently.
I don't think it needs a degree.
 
viv1969 said:
Exactly!!! Subjective!!
No degree can teach you to love Jazz.
Click to expand...

LOL.. what do you mean exactly. You're proving Ed's and my point. It can't teach you to love jazz, no, but not loving jazz is an irrelevance. You do not need to like jazz to know that it is an accomplished, complex and highly regarded art form. Not liking it only proves one thing... that you don't like it and nothing more.


I'm struggling to see how you can just say "Art is subjective" as a means of dismissing it as a field of study for countless thousands of people for countless hundreds of years and not offer one single argument as to why you may even be correct in your assumption.

viv1969 said:
I don't think it needs a degree.
Click to expand...

Says the person without a degree in the subject. You got similar opinions of unified field theory, or anthropology, or any other subject you're not qualified in?

Ok.. I'll humour you Viv: Why is art subjective?
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
LOL.. what do you mean exactly. You're proving Ed's and my point. It can't teach you to love jazz, no, but not loving jazz is an irrelevance. You do not need to like jazz to know that it is an accomplished, complex and highly regarded art form. Not liking it only proves one thing... that you don't like it and nothing more.


I'm struggling to see how you can just say "Art is subjective" as a means of dismissing it as a field of study for countless thousands of people for countless hundreds of years and not offer one single argument as to why you may even be correct in your assumption.



Says the person without a degree in the subject. You got similar opinions of unified field theory, or anthropology, or any other subject you're not qualified in?

Ok.. I'll humour you Viv: Why is art subjective?
Click to expand...

Well, You have no idea what degrees I do or do not have.
Yet you are happy to assume it.
And your assumptions on this (and other matters) are the reason I'm not giving you oxygen.
 
viv1969 said:
Well, You have no idea what degrees I do or do not have.
Click to expand...

I know it's not in an art based subject.


The point was Viv, that you wouldn't make such statements about ANY subject you weren't qualified in... except art, because like most people who have no idea about art, you think art is about what you like, and what you don't, and that there are no actual measures you can judge it by - and you'd be wrong in that assumption. Also like most people who don't understand art, thy dismiss those that do as arrogant when they point out their mistake.

Talking of arrogance though, I'm not the one who has just dismissed an entire field of study with three glibly spoken words "art is subjective"... I believe that was you.


The reason you won't answer the question Viv, is because you actually don't know the answer.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I know it's not in an art based subject.


The point was Viv, that you wouldn't make such statements about ANY subject you weren't qualified in... except art, because like most people who have no idea about art, you think art is about what you like, and what you don't, and that there are no actual measures you can judge it by - and you'd be wrong in that assumption. Also like most people who don't understand art, thy dismiss those that do as arrogant when they point out their mistake.

Talking of arrogance though, I'm not the one who has just dismissed an entire field of study with three glibly spoken words "art is subjective"... I believe that was you.


The reason you won't answer the question Viv, is because you actually don't know the answer.
Click to expand...

And of course you do.
Of course.
Clearly your opinion (and that's all it is) is correct.
I'm sure we all bow to your superior knowledge.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I know it's not in an art based subject.


The point was Viv, that you wouldn't make such statements about ANY subject you weren't qualified in... except art, because like most people who have no idea about art, you think art is about what you like, and what you don't, and that there are no actual measures you can judge it by - and you'd be wrong in that assumption. Also like most people who don't understand art, thy dismiss those that do as arrogant when they point out their mistake.

Talking of arrogance though, I'm not the one who has just dismissed an entire field of study with three glibly spoken words "art is subjective"... I believe that was you.


The reason you won't answer the question Viv, is because you actually don't know the answer.
Click to expand...

Sorry you do come across as very arrogance, this thread was about whether you can enjoy photographer without an degree, and the answer is simple, yes you can.
 
Why get all arsy because people more qualified than you are arguing with you and telling you that you are wrong? That how you always behave? Why not say "Why am I wrong... would you care to explain?" You'd not argue with any other qualified person, yet because it's art, you think you can just dismiss what those qualified say? Well... it's a free country Viv, but if you#'re gonna do that, I think you should be prepared to be questioned and challenged by those you are dismissing as utterly pointless.

I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering what qualifies you to say,

"Whomever is teaching, is teaching you opinion, not stone cold fact."

I don't think it needs a degree."

"You can't learn the philosophy of photography (whatever that is),"

"art is subjective, so you can only learn someone else's perception of the art."

Bold statements Viv. easy to say, but as you've probably now realised... not so easy to defend.


Of course.. if all of this is just your OPINION.. then I'm happy to leave you to those opinions, but to challenge someone based on opinions alone is going into battle with damp powder Viv. SO.. next time you feel like advising whether someone would study an art based degree, perhaps you should actually consider whether you are qualified to give any opinion at all.


"Everyone's an art critic" :)
 
simonblue said:
Sorry you do come across as very arrogance, this thread was about whether you can enjoy photographer without an degree, and the answer is simple, yes you can.
Click to expand...


And dismissing an entire field of study with three words is not arrogant? Get some perspective.


Oh... that and I don't give a damn what you think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PMN
There are ways of appreciating art - such as intellectually and / or intuitively - that are above the merely subjective 'I like that' or 'I don't like that'. Such means of appreciation are analytical and also subject to consensus - peer review if you like. It doesn't matter whether an appreciation that truly gets to grips with the material is instinctive or educated. Aside from that, we may all of course have our own personal tastes.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
And dismissing an entire field of study with three words is not arrogant? Get some perspective.


Oh... that and I don't give a damn what you think.
Click to expand...

And the same to you, once again you are showing your arrogant by dismissing what anybody else has to say, because your just one of those people who think they are always right.
 
droj said:
There are ways of appreciating art - such as intellectually and / or intuitively - that are above the merely subjective 'I like that' or 'I don't like that'. Such means of appreciation are analytical and also subject to consensus - peer review if you like. It doesn't matter whether an appreciation that truly gets to grips with the material is instinctive or educated. Aside from that, we may all of course have our own personal tastes.
Click to expand...

Indeed you're right, but that's all they are... personal tastes. The WORTH of art can be discussed in a far more rational way however. I'm quite happy to discuss it and explain why with anyone who isn't gonna start blubbing the minute someone suggests they're possibly talking nonsense.

simonblue said:
And the same to you, once again you are showing your arrogant by dismissing what anybody else has to say, because your just one of those people who think they are always right.
Click to expand...

If you think I'm wrong, then just prove me wrong. What's the big deal?

Seems to me this happens in art discussions in forums like this: People LOVE the idea of art being subjective, because when someone says they're work is crap, they can say "Well.. it's subjective". :)
 
Last edited:
I think the obvious place to look is in the BBC photography today thread with statements like pretentious crap used to describe some interesting works.
 
pollie said:
For a photography forum, I see a right load of tripe being spouted.
Click to expand...

Why? Because photography isn't art?.. or because it is? Care to explain your standpoint a little more?
 
Last edited:
There's plenty of art degrees using photography as a medium, but then define photography? Capturing a moment?
 
Pookeyhead said:
Indeed you're right, but that's all they are... personal tastes. The WORTH of art can be discussed in a far more rational way however.
Click to expand...
You didn't fully read my post, David. You just ran off with a bit of it. Slow down!
 
droj said:
You didn't fully read my post, David. You just ran off with a bit of it. Slow down!
Click to expand...

No.. I was agreeing with you...

I suppose in retrospect, I should have also responded to "Such means of appreciation are analytical and also subject to consensus - peer review if you like. It doesn't matter whether an appreciation that truly gets to grips with the material is instinctive or educated."

Sorry for the misunderstanding.
 
droj said:
Recording of light.
Click to expand...

There's light involved, but visible light, what about infra red? What about the quantity of light.

Perhaps we need to define photography before we can suggest what's needed to enjoy it
 
I suppose any light, but for sensible purposes by rendering it into the visible spectrum even if it originates outside it.
 
Well... absolutely everyone in this thread.. even me... is saying that you most emphatically do NOT need a degree in photography to enjoy it, so tbh... I've no idea what all the argy-bargy is about, and I certainly don't understand why all the cynics are coming out of the woodwork.
 
And we still don't know whether the OP's niece actually did a diploma, but not a degree, in photography or not.

Or whether she enjoys photography.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top