So what exactly are photography students being taught?

simon ess said:
Thank you for that.

Let me re-phrase the question then.

What kind of photographs might be deemed worthy of exhibition in a gallery?

I believe the answer to that question is many and various. So I'm really no more enlightened, sadly.

When you were rejected by LCC, what were they expecting to see that they would consider to be fine art?
Click to expand...

Genuinely, take a trip up to The Photographers Gallery in London? It's well worth the tr. Next month too there is Bailey's Stardust (not really fine art photography but worth a look) as well as usually an exhibition or two at the V&A. The Tate Britain almost always has some photography and there is William Eggleston at the Tate Modern.

Also, don't confuse 'fine art photography' with 'fine art nude'. 'Fine art nude' is very much an amateur style (the working pros just call it nude most of the time).

In fact, I shall give you some links to artists who's work I have seen over the last few years and enjoyed:

William Eggleston (currently at the Tate Modern)

Rineke Dijkstra

Hanna Putz

Leigh Ledare (NSFW - I enjoy the way he uses clippings and text alongside his photos)

Daido Moriyama (Two prints were hung at the Tate Britain in another exhibition last time I was there, not sure anymore)

The Taylor Wessing prize is always a good marker to see what is in fashion right now, because obviously fine art photography is an evolving beast that is constantly changing in style and application. Fine art always has been a changing beast.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Of course it is a science in the same way any other science based subject is a science it is what is called an applied science.
Take a look here
http://www.rit.edu/programs/photographic-and-imaging-technologies–biomedical-photographic-communications-option-formerly-biomedi
They are not wrong even if you may wish it to be so.
Click to expand...
Like I said, there are scientific subjects with high relevance to photography and you can learn the science that underpins photography but the act of taking photographs is not a science.
Taking a photo of, let's say, some biological sample in a laboratory for purposes of demonstration rather than aesthetics is still not a science. It may take place in a scientific context, and may require some knowledge of that context, but it's not a science.

A science requires you to be working with falsifiable hypotheses or theoretical frameworks that you use to make testable predictions about natural phenomena (there's much more to it, but that's fundamental). You can't really do that with taking pictures.
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
That could well depend on which campus you applied to, The Elephant and Castle do both a fine art photo degree and a non fine art photojournalism degree, but do not suppose that fine art is not touched on. Most universities like to see a broad range of work in a portfolio, unless they say otherwise.
Click to expand...

I take it back, they do offer both degrees at that campus. And I recall now I asked about how suitable my application would be for the other course (when they turned me down from the first) and they again said I didn't have enough fine art work in my portfolio. Photojournalism doesn't mean that it can't be fine art in intent.

They were horrible, horrible interviewers. Every other interviewer was constructive in some way, but those two men just said to me 'Everything in this book is rubbish. Nothing is good enough for our course'. And I almost threw my portfolio in the bin after that.
 
ghoti said:
Like I said, there are scientific subjects with high relevance to photography and you can learn the science that underpins photography but the act of taking photographs is not a science.
Taking a photo of, let's say, some biological sample in a laboratory for purposes of demonstration rather than aesthetics is still not a science. It may take place in a scientific context, and may require some knowledge of that context, but it's not a science.
Click to expand...

in other words an applied science
ever tried to photograph a sample using a black field. or used a microscope with polarised light for crystallography.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
in other words an applied science
ever tried to photograph a sample using a black field. or used a microscope with polarised light for crystallography.
Click to expand...
I use fluorescent microscopy regularly for imaging cells, but that's not the scientific part of my work. It's a technical skill. I could do it with no knowledge of how it worked. Using technology is not "doing science", no matter how fancy-pants the equipment is or how opaque and mysterious it may appear to the layman.
I could show an undergrad or a work experience kid from a high school how to set it up and hit the right buttons and they'd get usable results. It's the questions we're asking in the employment of the technique that require scientific expertise.
 
Last edited:
ghoti said:
I use fluorescent microscopy regularly for imaging cells, but that's not the scientific part of my work. It's a technical skill. I could do it with no knowledge of how it worked. Using technology is not "doing science", no matter how fancy-pants the equipment is or how opaque and mysterious it may appear to the layman.
I could show an undergrad or a work experience kid from a high school how to set it up and hit the right buttons and they'd get usable results. It's the questions we're asking in the employment of the technique that require scientific expertise.
Click to expand...

Which is why forensic photographers need a degree in forensics... and not photography. Because anyone with some technical aptitude can be taught 'photography'.
 
CharlotteM said:
Which is why forensic photographers need a degree in forensics... and not photography. Because anyone with some technical aptitude can be taught 'photography'.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's my point. The "photography" bit isn't a science.
 
CharlotteM said:
I take it back, they do offer both degrees at that campus. And I recall now I asked about how suitable my application would be for the other course (when they turned me down from the first) and they again said I didn't have enough fine art work in my portfolio. Photojournalism doesn't mean that it can't be fine art in intent.

They were horrible, horrible interviewers. Every other interviewer was constructive in some way, but those two men just said to me 'Everything in this book is rubbish. Nothing is good enough for our course'. And I almost threw my portfolio in the bin after that.
Click to expand...


I suspect they can be quite arrogant as their courses can be heavily over subscribed. but there is no excuse for rudeness.
 
simon ess said:
I've been following this thread with interest- some fascinating and thought provoking points have been made.

But I find I'm a bit stuck. I don't actually understand what is meant by the term 'fine art photography'

Would someone care to relieve me of my ignorance and confusion.

Thanks
Click to expand...

im with you here simon,,,,i thought some of our learned friends might have come up with a definition ,instead of saying just go to a gallery ,anyway ........heres my take on it ,think of it like " art " think very untidy bedroom full of junk ,,,( pretty much like a couple of my daughters bedrooms at this very moment ) now if you can convince people its art , and they believe you ( because they dont want to be seen as not understanding the " art " ) ,,,,,,,,then its art ,,,now take a very nice photograph and call it " fine art photography" and then get people to believe it ,,,,and hey presto ,,,,job done
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
http://new.artinstitutes.edu/los-angeles/Programs/digital-photography/3927

I would find This course very tempting were I a student. It has a very different emphasis to British courses. almost worth going to the USA for.
it emphasises technique and business over art. their program is well worth reading through.
Click to expand...

Why? You can learn technique and business on the internet and at seminars for an awful lot less money.

But being in an environment where you can create art for three years is an entirely different thing altogether - you can't get that experience any other way.

Terrywoodenpic said:
I suspect they can be quite arrogant as their courses can be heavily over subscribed. but there is no excuse for rudeness.
Click to expand...

No, I quite agree. Every year I got down to the last handful of interviewees at the London College of Fashion and they were exceptionally constructive. Even if I'd have been offered a place at the LCC I think I'd have turned them down because I didn't want to be taught by such people.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
donut said:
im with you here simon,,,,i thought some of our learned friends might have come up with a definition ,instead of saying just go to a gallery ,anyway ........heres my take on it ,think of it like " art " think very untidy bedroom full of junk ,,,( pretty much like a couple of my daughters bedrooms at this very moment ) now if you can convince people its art , and they believe you ( because they dont want to be seen as not understanding the " art " ) ,,,,,,,,then its art ,,,now take a very nice photograph and call it " fine art photography" and then get people to believe it ,,,,and hey presto ,,,,job done
Click to expand...

Cynics will never understand because they don't want to understand.
 
donut said:
:) the standard smiley will have to do ,as i cant find the pmsl one .
Click to expand...

To be honest, anyone who uses any kind of 'emperors new clothes' argument to make their point (if they even have a point?) is not at a level where they want to look at things seriously. If you actually looked at things seriously then you'd at least come up with a more constructive 'argument' than the one you just did, because there are plenty of legitimate arguments against art. But the one that you gave, that is not one.
 
donut said:
,i thought some of our learned friends might have come up with a definition ,instead of saying just go to a gallery ,anyway .
Click to expand...

It's not simple to define (Even Wikipedia can't manage one definition) because photographs which are commonly considered to have been made outside of artistic boundaries can fall within them. A photograph is a photograph. It's the intention of the photographer (or even a curator) that determines if it is art or not.

Then there are problems when people describe their work, or that of others, as Fine Art when it is sole intention is to look nice on someone's wall and match their decor. These will often be sunsets, blurry seascapes, or flowers shot with shallow depth of field. They are not likely to be photos of a child's tricycle or a bare bulb hanging from a red ceiling.

Art photography has an intellectual side to it and a level of seriousness beyond looking pretty.

All IMO - of course. :)
 
CharlotteM said:
Why? You can learn technique and business on the internet and at seminars for an awful lot less money.

But being in an environment where you can create art for three years is an entirely different thing altogether - you can't get that experience any other way.
Click to expand...

^this.
 
Garry Edwards said:
f/ = f/number, so if the aperture, which is arrived at by dividing the actual aperture into the focal length, is 1mm, that is expressed as f/50 (if the lens has a focal length of 50mm)
Click to expand...

Have to say I had great trouble attempting to understand this; in fact I've not managed to convince myself that it is coherent. For example:

"...the aperture, which is arrived at by dividing the actual aperture into the focal length..." Isn't the actual aperture* divided into the focal length the f-number, not the aperture, as stated here?

* And I don't think the term "actual aperture" is particular clear, being used as it is to refer to the diameter of the aperture being used for the particular shot.

Also, what is the referent of "that", in "that is expressed as f/50"?

And talking of using the correct terminology, isn't the normal convention to refer to "f-number" rather than "f/number" as you appear to have done here?

By changing the order of the words I think I may have discovered what you presumably intended to convey, as in " the f-number is arrived at by dividing the actual aperture into the focal length, so if the aperture is 1mm and the lens has a focal length of 50mm, the f-number is expressed as f/50".

I found a dictionary definition much easier to understand: "f-number: the ratio of the focal length of a camera lens to the diameter of the aperture being used for a particular shot (e.g. f8, indicating that the focal length is eight times the diameter)."

As you say, it's good to use the correct terms. I think it also good to explain them clearly.
 
Last edited:
CharlotteM said:
Why? You can learn technique and business on the internet and at seminars for an awful lot less money.
Click to expand...

I do not think that is true, most photographers would do better if they took a business degree. and learnt their photography part time.

But being in an environment where you can create art for three years is an entirely different thing altogether - you can't get that experience any other way.
Click to expand...

I agree the environment is the important thing, as at no other time will you have so much time to experiment or live in that sort of hot house.

However though I spent most of my time in galleries and taking photographs, I was never interested in photography as an Art form. Nor were the other students at that time. At the weekly crit. where we all had to criticise each others latest efforts. Words like artistic never came up, we were more interested in vision, communication, social context, design, use of light and form and quality. True these qualities all relate to art but the intent and end use were quite different
 
donut said:
im with you here simon,,,,i thought some of our learned friends might have come up with a definition ,instead of saying just go to a gallery
Click to expand...

Well... I was trying to get him to go to a gallery perhaps??

Never mind....

Have a look around here....

http://www.pocproject.com/members/

Some very interesting "fine art" projects here. Personally... I hate the moniker "Fine Art"... but if you must label something as such... the artists in that link would fit the description.


GardenersHelper said:
Have to say I had great trouble attempting to understand this; in fact I've not managed to convince myself that it is coherent. For example:

"...the aperture, which is arrived at by dividing the actual aperture into the focal length..." Isn't the actual aperture* divided into the focal length the f-number, not the aperture, as stated here.

* And I don't think the term "actual aperture" is particular clear, being used as it is to refer to the diameter of the aperture being used for the particular shot.

Also, what is the referent of "that", in "that is expressed as f/50"?

And talking of using the correct terminology, isn't the normal convention to refer to "f-number" rather than "f/number" as you appear to have done here?

By changing the order of the words I think I may have discovered what you presumably intended to convey, as in " the f-number is arrived at by dividing the actual aperture into the focal length, so if the aperture is 1mm and the lens has a focal length of 50mm, the f-number is expressed as f/50".

I found a dictionary definition much easier to understand: "f-number: the ratio of the focal length of a camera lens to the diameter of the aperture being used for a particular shot (e.g. f8, indicating that the focal length is eight times the diameter)."

As you say, it's good to use the correct terms. I think it also good to explain them clearly.
Click to expand...


Would anyone actually be a better photographer for resolving this in such detail? If not... then perhaps this is not the right thread. Perhaps you should start a thread in the technical section
 
Last edited:
PMN said:
What are all those words if not part of being artistic? Vision and communication are more artistic words than the word 'artistic' itself!
Click to expand...

Exactly, I am currently sitting here studying a book called 'British art since 1900' and I don't think the word 'artistic' has come up yet, and I'm on page 145 (mmm, Francis Bacon).
 
Pookeyhead said:
Would anyone actually be a better photographer for resolving this in such detail?
Click to expand...

By and large, I wouldn't have thought so, although I suspect there might be some exceptions.

Pookeyhead said:
If not... then perhaps this is not the right thread. Perhaps you should start a thread in the technical section
Click to expand...

I had two reasons for posting this, here.

The first was that someone earlier in the thread had asked what the terminology meant. Given that the answer given seemed to me to be unhelpful because of its incoherence, I tried to provide another definition which seemed to me easier to grasp. I had not at that point caught up with following post(s) which did give clear answers. So in relation to this reason my post was redundant; my apologies for not reading pages 3, 4 and 5 of the thread before responding to something on page 2.

The second was to hint to the poster that if he was going to argue for the importance of using correct terminology then perhaps he should take more care to deploy it clearly himself.
 
I just thought you'd get a better conversation about the subject in that forum is all.
 
donut said:
im with you here simon,,,,i thought some of our learned friends might have come up with a definition ,instead of saying just go to a gallery ,anyway ........heres my take on it ,think of it like " art " think very untidy bedroom full of junk ,,,( pretty much like a couple of my daughters bedrooms at this very moment ) now if you can convince people its art , and they believe you ( because they dont want to be seen as not understanding the " art " ) ,,,,,,,,then its art ,,,now take a very nice photograph and call it " fine art photography" and then get people to believe it ,,,,and hey presto ,,,,job done
Click to expand...

I really do struggle to understand how anyone who has a supposed interest in what ought to be an artistic endeavour could have such a complete misunderstanding of art.

This kind of inverted snobbery around the arts doesn't make you look smart, it has the exact opposite effect. There's a huge difference between.
Liking something
Understanding something
Appreciating something

I'm no expert. I know what I like, and lots of modern art leaves me completely cold. But that doesn't mean I ought to sneer at anyone who likes it in order to justify my opinion. I hate rugby too (both forms, although the posh southern one is the worst), but it doesn't make it rubbish, or mean that rugby fans are 'wrong' for not seeing it from my PoV. That's just silly, I could go on, but ... You've either dismissed this out of hand because it upsets your world view, or I've said enough to make you think.
 
s162216 said:
(interestingly for a bit of fun I did some correlation analysis on the distance each student sat from the lecturer each time [as we usually had the same room every day in year 3], and their final degree grade. Unsurprisingly perhaps there was a fairly strongly negative correlation between this [the further away the lower the final grade]!) so they put all the blame on the lecturers for not teaching them properly, when they actually simply failed to listen to what they were being told/expected to do.
:)
Click to expand...

There is probably a student who has written a thesis on this too...
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
I really do struggle to understand how anyone who has a supposed interest in what ought to be an artistic endeavour could have such a complete misunderstanding of art.

This kind of inverted snobbery around the arts doesn't make you look smart, it has the exact opposite effect. There's a huge difference between.
Liking something
Understanding something
Appreciating something

I'm no expert. I know what I like, and lots of modern art leaves me completely cold. But that doesn't mean I ought to sneer at anyone who likes it in order to justify my opinion. I hate rugby too (both forms, although the posh southern one is the worst), but it doesn't make it rubbish, or mean that rugby fans are 'wrong' for not seeing it from my PoV. That's just silly, I could go on, but ... You've either dismissed this out of hand because it upsets your world view, or I've said enough to make you think.
Click to expand...

its called having an opinion Phil . im not sneering at anyone , and its not inverted snobbery ,
 
donut said:
now if you can convince people its art , and they believe you ( because they dont want to be seen as not understanding the " art " )
Click to expand...


Oh the irony :)
 
donut said:
its called having an opinion Phil . im not sneering at anyone , and its not inverted snobbery ,
Click to expand...
You might believe that. But it's certainly not how it reads, as you can see from the 3 people who have commented.
 
CharlotteM said:
Even if I'd have been offered a place at the LCC I think I'd have turned them down because I didn't want to be taught by such people.
Click to expand...

I had similar feelings about doing architecture at Bath after several members of staff failed to turn up, so they interviewed us in groups of six and proceeded to rip one of the other candidates apart over his standard of drawing in front of the rest of us. It was embarrassing to be there.

I took the offer from Cardiff instead; they gave me a cup of coffee and actually came over as human beings. :)
 
Musicman said:
I had similar feelings about doing architecture at Bath after several members of staff failed to turn up, so they interviewed us in groups of six and proceeded to rip one of the other candidates apart over his standard of drawing in front of the rest of us. It was embarrassing to be there.

I took the offer from Cardiff instead; they gave me a cup of coffee and actually came over as human beings. :)
Click to expand...

One year the College of Fashion interviewed that way, and again I think it was actually very insightful. Possibly down to the individual tutors though. It certainly gave me a clear feel of where I was compared to my peers - something I didn't have because I had no foundation year or A Level.

My interview at Brookes for History of Art was great. We didn't do an 'interview' we debated Netherlandish art (his speciality) and feminist art theory (my interest). At the end I thought 'oh god, we've not even covered 'me', I'll never get a place' and he offered me one there and then! Some people were meant to be interviewers and tutors!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top