So what exactly are photography students being taught?

[donut]

happy birthday Terry ,,,,,,keep learning

 

[steveclem]

We


You require training... not education. Training will allow you to just improve what you do, and not question what you do. I would constantly be questioning what you do to get you to push yourself creatively. You'd hate that.

[edit]

This is not anything negative towards you Steve. A degree would not be something for you is all.

Can I ask you whose work you admire as a photographer? I'd like to see examples of the output that moves your senses, is this work you would recommend to your pupils?
On another note, do you train or educate your pupils, to train sounds like forcing someone to accept a given point of view, is this something you endorse and practice, if not why are you suggesting it here?
Yes, I would hate being constantly questioned, I would (quite rightly IMO) resent having my output treated with such dismissiveness (?), I would far prefer encouragement, critical encouragement yes, but something positive nonetheless, where is the positive in constant questioning? All it does is create doubt and stymies creativeness for fear of rejection, how does that help a pupil on a learning curve?

 

[Pookeyhead]

Wow.. that's as bas as being asked what music you like... LOL



I wouldn't ever "recommend" work to students.. it's not about them liking what we like, so what I like is irrelevant. We'd encourage them to research and find stuff that inspires them. We'd include work in lectures though, of course... we'd give them an idea of what's going on out there. All we'd do is advise they don't just look on Flickr etc. as it's important they also gain an understanding of what is current in their chosen genre. We advise them to look in the industry journals and serious publications, such as BJP, Source, Foam, Lens (AoP Journal).. also the fashion mags (Vogue, Dazed et al) if they're into Fashion. We also have an extensive library. Once they understand what industry wants, and what's current in that industry... THEN they can trawl around the web if they want, as they'll then have a barometer to measure stuff by.

Why would you hate to be questioned? Why assume it's a bad thing? It's not dismissive to question Steve Why are you assuming we don't encourage? Crit is a balance between discovering what's wrong with work as well as what's right with it. You are under the impression that having someone question your work is dismissive... it's not. My point is that a training course will probably never question WHAT you produce... so long as it's technically correct... it will be critical of HOW you produce it. A degree will strive to push work creatively, and goes beyond the mere technical proficiency of an image. The "Why" of an image comes into play a great deal.

All it does is create doubt and stymies creativeness for fear of rejection, how does that help a pupil on a learning curve?

With all due respect Steve... you don't actually know what we do, and you've never experienced it. We're highly encouraging.... but very critical.... but this is a degree... it's not for beginners Work gets critiqued thoroughly... not just by staff either... but by their peers. If that's something you don't like the sound of, then like I said.... a degree may not be for you. Think about it logically... why would any course actively DIScourage it's students? They'll just leave

Anyway... stuff that inspires me...


Giocomo Brunelli
Edward Burtinsky
Ruven Afanador
Nadav Kander
Tim Walker
Joel Peter Witkin
Weegee
Joel Meyerowitz
Andreas Gursky
Alec Soth
Julian Germain
Reed Young

Just a small, but varied sample...I could probably go on all day.... there's no one single genre or style going on there. I like good work, no matter what particular kind of work it is.

 

[Arcanion]

Getting back on topic...
Why do universities teach photography as if it were only a fine art?
.

Even IF it would be all about fine art on a certain university, I'm still wondering about two things:

- 1st: Why is there no time at all for a few simple technical (basic) classes? Surely, it would take no longer than a few hours to teach the most important technical aspects of lenses and cameras.
- 2nd and more important: Why do the students have no interest in learning it at all?? Maybe at home or during free time?

 

[Phil V]

Even IF it would be all about fine art on a certain university, I'm still wondering about two things:

- 1st: Why is there no time at all for a few simple technical (basic) classes? Surely, it would take no longer than a few hours to teach the most important technical aspects of lenses and cameras.
- 2nd and more important: Why do the students have no interest in learning it at all?? Maybe at home or during free time?

1 I think has been covered; because they're universities not technical colleges. If it's not on the syllabus, it's not taught.

2; I think David has covered - most students learn the technical stuff for themselves, but if they can't be bothered and it's not part of the syllabus, who cares?

I'll answer the 'Who cares?'
Hobby photographers who have put a lot of effort into studying the technical aspects of photography and feel a bit cheated that someone can be 'better qualified' than them and yet be seemingly clueless. It's the seam running through this thread, it's based on a lack of understanding of what a 'photography degree' actually means, right from the premise of the OP.

 

[Pookeyhead]

- 1st: Why is there no time at all for a few simple technical (basic) classes?

There is!

Read what I wrote a couple of pages back. 1st year is a pretty equal mix of Tech and academic. Most degree courses will cover technical matters in year 1. We probably do more than others... probably because I bloody well make sure it happens at Blackpool, but I know for a fact all degree courses will recover the basics, and make it absolutely clear what skills need to be studies... they will demonstrated, outlined, and resources to aid study will be available on whatever VLE/Intranet system that Uni uses.

It seems to me people are under the impression there is no technical input on degree courses. There is.

Surely, it would take no longer than a few hours to teach the most important technical aspects of lenses and cameras.

It doesn't... which is why we do Have you read anything I've written in previous posts?

I've been writing degree programmes and delivering on them for years, and also been external examiner and course consultant for photo degree courses for many other institutions. I know full well what they do, as I played a key role in their validation. Is it possible that there's a degree programme out there with no technical input?... yes.. is it probable? No.

- 2nd and more important: Why do the students have no interest in learning it at all?? Maybe at home or during free time?

Bloody good question!!

Because they haven't been well enough informed on earlier courses (A level and BTEC) what to expect at HE level, so they can't hack it. They're not taught the concepts of self-led, autonomous study, so they want hand holding, and they want to be told exactly what to do all the time. Also, and this may be contentious.... digital photography as a hobby absolutely makes it so easy to do it wrong and still get (what they think of as) acceptable results that when we teach them what they need to do and know in order to do it to a high professional standard, they just don't have the skills, patience, or will to do that - in short, they had no idea photography was actually difficult.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Even IF it would be all about fine art on a certain university, I'm still wondering about two things:

- 1st: Why is there no time at all for a few simple technical (basic) classes? Surely, it would take no longer than a few hours to teach the most important technical aspects of lenses and cameras.

I am sure all degree courses include a basic technical coverage during the first weeks.
However I find it hard to understand why someone would enter for a degree if they were not at least competent amateur photographers.

- 2nd and more important: Why do the students have no interest in learning it at all?? Maybe at home or during free time?

There are many students who think a degree course is going to be like school.
It is not. if you are not self motivated, it is the wrong place to be.

However I can understand a photographic student being unhappy having to follow the "conceptual " art route. as it has perhaps run far past its sell by date as an art format.

Most Art styles and ways of expression moved on in less than twenty years. Conceptual art has hung on since the mid 60's and is now tired and repetitive. It has been ossified as a way of thinking about art, that has now become part of the establishment. The establishment is always the worst place to look for originality and forward thinking. (Much like Club photography which has been virtually unchanged since the 1930's)

 

[Pookeyhead]

I am sure all degree courses include a basic technical coverage during the first weeks months.

There'' fixed that for you

 

[~*~ElmoHolz~*~]

With respect... did you not do any research? It took me months and months of research to decide on the correct degree course for me at the correct institution. I examined the course syllabuses, their reading lists, looked up their academics and read the academics book reviews...

When you're spending £9000 a year - or about £45 an hour on contact time - then surely you must look into it enough to know what you would be doing an 'arts based course'. To be honest, I'd be shocked at ANY photography degree that wasn't arts based... considering that photography is about art.

I'm not going to get into how/when/why I applied for uni.

I did do research but not into other universities as I wasn't moving away from my area. This research was based on what other options there was in the area around photography and the careers advice from school/sixth form so in some respect at 16/17 years old you'd expect the school careers support system to be helpful, and in my case it wasn't. All they pushed was university university university.

I even had an interview with the local college for a media/photog course where there was a lot more technical aspects to the course but was advised by that course leader that it would be taking a step sideways as I had done a levels. So I did look into other options.


I think everyone's situations are different and in my case it was a combination of poor advice and lack of options in the local area that led me to university. Saying that I did learn loads and got a 2.1 so it's not all bad.

This kind of discussion always gets me wound up a bit as it seems some people chuck everyone into the same boat.

 

[Deleted member 67219]

I did do research but not into other universities as I wasn't moving away from my area. This research was based on what other options there was in the area around photography and the careers advice from school/sixth form so in some respect at 16/17 years old you'd expect the school careers support system to be helpful, and in my case it wasn't. All they pushed was university university university.

I can agree with you about the general failure of schools careers advice. I was told that I shouldn't bother taking an essay based subject at A-Level and that I should apply to bottom end university degrees because I wasn't capable of anything else. So I didn't bother at 18 and am now going at 28 instead. I'm also now a professional writer... which is quite frankly something I like telling people considering I was told I'd never manage any subject that involved writing!

 

[s162216]

To be honest a lot of the points raised apply to nearly any degree or HE course: your expected to know the basics already and work from there to develop further understanding/skills. Like with the technical matters of photography noted above, during practically every science course the first couple of months is mostly reviewing material that you should have learnt at school (and also adding to this), whilst at the same time your expected to do independent research/learning in your free time to complement what your being taught (and this is expected to increase every year so hence the lesser actual lecturing/lab hours as the course advances).

Unlike at A level they make it very clear that your expected to do this (in fact because of the rigid course/exam format of A levels it is near impossible to include anything extra anyway), and the effort you put in is what you will get out. There will of course be a certain small proportion of students who don't get this (I knew someone who during the final year still didn't know how to search or use journals properly, and they wondered why they kept getting low marks!) and don't understand why they come out with 2:2's (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.

Sorry if this is not quite relevant to the discussion, but as someone who did recently complete a Pharmacology degree the parallels between photography and science at degree level are eerily similar.

 

[RobbieB]

As a little sidebar: I'm a research fellow at a university (albeit in metaphysics) and at a meet and greet a few weeks ago I met a photography 1st year student. We got chatting about photography and she said to me "well, you'll never make it as a photographer without a degree in it!"

I had a good hearty belly chuckle at that. I mean, I'm not trying to make it but saying you can't become a successful photographer without a photography degree is like saying you can't become a successful musician without a music degree. I'll chalk it up to doe-eyed first years being told it's 'university' or 'peasantry'.

 

[Pookeyhead]

(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]!)

It's a good game that isn't it?

 

[chris-red]

A lot of interesting points! It has confirmed that a degree will be no good for me!

Interesting too about my notation being wrong, see I told you I was still learning!

I would like to stress one point.

Aperture/ISO/Shutter - These are not technical aspects, these are basics.

Calling them technical IMO is like calling the brake gas and clutch pedals technical to someone learning to drive.

I'm not saying 'proper' photographers need to shoot on Manual, I only do if I can't get the results with AV/TV. But I think someone spending a serious amount of time learning should be able to pick up their camera and take a correctly exposed picture within the first couple of weeks. They should be able to judge what settings give best results for a given situation, i.e. wide aperture for Portraits small for landscapes etc. This isn't technical, this is basic. I understood and could do all of those things after less than 12 hours of tuition. That is not a long time to spend on teaching people the basics. TBH I'd expect people to know this and more before starting a degree.

Technical for me starts with stuff like focus points, metering modes, using flash, etc.

 

[s162216]

It's a good game that isn't it?

To be honest it just confirmed pretty much what I already knew - nearly everyone (me included) who sat in the front 2 rows got a 1st class (me!) or 2:1, whilst nearly everyone going further towards the back got a 2:2. I happened to mention the result of my statistical analysis to one of my lecturers who I got on well with, and he laughed and said that he pretty much knew what final grade everyone was going to get from very first lecture he had with us that year.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Not so many years ago Photography offered a large number of specialities any of which offered great careers.
Photographers had no need to venture far out side their chosen specialities to make a good future for themselves.

Industrial
Architectural
Commercial
Advertising
fashion
editorial
Photo journalism
Press
Scientific
Medical
Social (weddings/Portrait)
All these were mainline opportunities, all with their own professional accreditation.

Photograph as an Art form was virtually an unknown or meaningful area of study, even then, it was limited to a very narrow educational establishment., and with few gallery or other outlets.
To day, though it is the major area of study as a degree subject, it accounts for a very small percentage of placements, and most of those are in the narcissistically narrow areas of education and academia.

It is true that Photo Journalism is still taught as a degree subject in a few universities. But the other general areas have dropped off the Radar.
Technical and scientific and medical Photography, which are perhaps the most demanding of all are no longer available as fields of study.
Photography as a subject, is just managing to cling to The shirt tails of fine art, and in a few places departments of Communication.

I do not feel photography is sufficiently respected, in academic or business circles, to have more than a marginal professional future.

There is no reason at all why Photography should not be taught as a Bsc. or combined with other fields of study like Architecture or Business studies, or even construction engineering.

From the Photographers point of view, a combined study of photography with Business studies and management. Would make far more sense, than the almost unwanted and unsustainable Photography as a fine Art.

 

[Pookeyhead]

To be honest it just confirmed pretty much what I already knew - nearly everyone (me included) who sat in the front 2 rows got a 1st class (me!) or 2:1, whilst nearly everyone going further towards the back got a 2:2. I happened to mention the result of my statistical analysis to one of my lecturers who I got on well with, and he laughed and said that he pretty much knew what final grade everyone was going to get from very first lecture he had with us that year.

I can always tell how they will turn out in year three by the end of the first week in year 1, yes

Photograph as an Art form was virtually an unknown or meaningful area of study, even then, it was limited to a very narrow educational establishment., and with few gallery or other outlets.

What?? LOL.. there's shed loads of photographic galleries, and galleries that always feature photgraphy.

Photography as a subject, is just managing to cling to The shirt tails of fine art, and in a few places departments of Communication.

Gotta disagree with you there. Fine art photography is alive, well and in rude health, on both sides of the Atlantic.

I do not feel photography is sufficiently respected, in academic or business circles, to have more than a marginal professional future.

Maybe not business, no.. what what aspects of creative arts truly are? Academic circles? Really? What gives you that idea?

There is no reason at all why Photography should not be taught as a Bsc.

I've got a reason... the kind of person who would study it as a science subject only would be a truly boring photographer in all likelihood. Maybe they;d do OK as a forensic photographer of something, but as a creative endeavour it would be a disaster.

From the Photographers point of view, a combined study of photography with Business studies and management. Would make far more sense, than the almost unwanted and unsustainable Photography as a fine Art.

Why is fine art unsustainable? It's managed quite well for centuries thank you. Creative arts graduates still remain amongst the most employable graduates to this day.

Where are you getting your information from Terry? It doesn't seem to match my experience with academia, the photographic industry or the art industry.

 

[ghoti]

You wouldn't teach photography (taking pictures) as a BSc because it's not a science. Unless you use a loose sort of colloquial definition of "science" that includes any sort of semi-technical endeavour.
You might study optics as a science, or film chemistry, or electronics, all of which might be relevant to photography; but the taking pictures part is not a science.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

What?? LOL.. there's shed loads of photographic galleries, and galleries that always feature photgraphy.

There are now , not then. Nor do I see Photographers making a living out of them.

Gotta disagree with you there. Fine art photography is alive, well and in rude health, on both sides of the Atlantic.

Art photography is much better placed in the USA and prices for work is far higher. We do not compare. Even in the USA few make a sole living from it.

Maybe not business, no.. what what aspects of creative arts truly are? Academic circles? Really? What gives you that idea?

Photography is still a very poor relation to the other arts. The Fine Art world is very much a closed circle inhabited by galleries and academics, dealers and a few in vogue artists... fine art photography is unsustainable as a career for a vast majority of those who take a degree in it. Even those who pass muster, usually fail due to lack of business experience.
Perhaps the most rewarding aspect is as an educator...

I've got a reason... the kind of person who would study it as a science subject only would be a truly boring photographer in all likelihood. Maybe they;d do OK as a forensic photographer of something, but as a creative endeavour it would be a disaster.

At least you are honest in your prejudice against non art photographers.

Industrial
Architectural
Commercial
Advertising
fashion
editorial
Photo journalism
Press
Scientific
Medical

All these areas are extremely interesting , rewarding and some are the most creative you can indulge in.
However not all photography needs to be creative, to be interesting, challenging and worthwhile.... boring never.

Film and Television may be either a Bs or Ba degree, and in the USA there seem to be an equal number of both degrees for photography.

The London college of communication do an excellent degree in Photojournalism, which is both challenging and rewarding. and is not fine art based.

Why is fine art unsustainable? It's managed quite well for centuries thank you. Creative arts graduates still remain amongst the most employable graduates to this day.

All fine art may be interesting to do, However few fine artists in any sphere make it into a worth while career. Photographers tend to be at the bottom end of that.
Nor does a Photography degree transfer well into other careers.

Where are you getting your information from Terry? It doesn't seem to match my experience with academia, the photographic industry or the art industry.

A life time involvement with photography and professional photographers and 12 years as a print and photographic department manager in a college (FE and HE)
I have visited many Universities Print or photographic departments and seen hundreds of exhibitions. I am not impressed with what I have seen.
Stand out students are rare as hens teeth.

Placement statistics in to Photography related fields are abysmal.

 

[Pookeyhead]

There are now , not then. Nor do I see Photographers making a living out of them.

Of course they are... just not solely from it. I don't believe I've ever said otherwise. However, you underestimate how important exhibited gallery work is in securing more mainstream work. Take Tim Flach as an example. He makes as much, if not more from his book sales than he does his actual commissioned photography, and it's his "fine art" work that gets him his commissioned work.

Art photography is much better placed in the USA and prices for work is far higher. We do not compare. Even in the USA few make a sole living from it.

It always has been though.. nothing new there. It's never been about a sole living from it though.. it's a showcase for your creativity.

The Fine Art world is very much a closed circle inhabited by galleries and academics, dealers and a few in vogue artists... fine art photography is unsustainable as a career for a vast majority of those who take a degree in it. Even those who pass muster, usually fail due to lack of business experience.

It's not.

It's a more risky venture to undertake, sure. Many other things that are worthwhile are as well though. You could say the same about wanting to be an actor, or singer, or writer. Plenty of people make a living out of art Terry, and more importantly, many artists secure more mainstream work, particularly in advertising FROM their art work. The creative industries in this country are worth many, many tens of billions a year. Why are you also making these huge divisions between "fine art" and everything else, as if there are strict boundaries?

Perhaps the most rewarding aspect is as an educator...

For some it might be... for others not.. just like any other career. You paint it as an easy option though.... and it's not. I work harder and earn less now. Teaching is not something you go into as an easy option. If you think it is, you're in for a rude awakening... especially these days. You do it because you love teaching Terry.

At least you are honest in your prejudice against non art photographers.

LOL.. really? I have no prejudices Terry. You list industrial and commercial and advertising: That's how I earned my living for years. In what way am I prejudiced? Why are you making distinctions between the two?

Industrial
Architectural
Commercial
Advertising
fashion
editorial
Photo journalism
Press
Scientific
Medical

Advertising? FASHION?? Editorial? Really? You're just as likely to see fashion and portraiture in galleries than any other genre.. more so actually. What's Alec Soth's work if not documentary/Editorial? You can pretty much always see Nadav Kander's work in a gallery every month of every year and he's a portrait photographer. Tim Flach earns more from book sales than he does commercial work... Nearly ALL fashion work is editorial as well Terry. How are these genres not art?

Talking of Tim Flach... it's his work in his books and his gallery exhibitions that GET him his commercial work.

My point was that very few of these people would have studied photography as a science.... with the possible exception of scientific and forensic photographers... possibly. I'm not saying there should be no such thing as a Bsc in Photography, but I seriously doubt anyone creative would be choosing it over a BA. There are many Bsc photography courses already Terry.

I still have no idea why you assume that I think Advertising, commercial and fashion is not creative.. I mean.. FASHION!.... I gave a list of what inspires me a few posts back, and there was three fashion photographers on it.... in fact there were only 2 on the list that anyone would class as purely fine art... 3 if you include Gursky... which most would, as they only really know him because he flogged a print for 8 Million. Anyone who known anything about Gursky though will appreciate that he is possibly better know for his architectural work.... one of the things you seem to think I don't value

There are all manner of photographers who cross over Terry... Candida Hofer springs to mind... she's an architectural photographer, but acknowledged as a "fine art" photographer by most people. Just go and Google Candida Hofer and tell me that she's not an Architectural Photographer... I dare you. All that separates her from any other architectural photographer is that she also writes academically about the subject. Her actual work is almost indistinguishable from any other architectural photographer working on a purely commercial basis.

Where are you drawing this line Terry... and furthermore.. WHY are you drawing it?

Where does Fashion become Art, or Architectural become art.. or portraiture, or advertising, or editorial? Stop putting people's work in little boxes to be neatly labelled

Tell me Terry... just what exactly do you think we promote on our degree programme? That everything has to be some Fine Art piece? Hardly ANY students go in a purely fine art direction. I've no idea where you're getting this idea that we teach fine art, and ignore anything technical. Seriously.. no idea where this is coming from. Not from me anyway. The vast majority of graduates will gravitate towards fashion, portraiture or editorial... the subjects you include in your list as non art genres for some reason.

All these areas are extremely interesting , rewarding and some are the most creative you can indulge in.

I've never said they are not. I said that a Bsc would not produce the kind of photographer that was creative, for the simple reason that it would attract the kind of person who believes photography is just a science.... and it's not. I know LOTS of architectural photographers Terry... loads of them... they all studied photography as a BA subject... and a couple didn't study at all. None of them treat it as a science. Advertising and art cross over constantly... in fact, advertising just... to coin your terminology... hangs onto the coat tails of art, and always has. Whatever is cutting edge, fringe, edgy, new.... will happen in art circles first... then filter down into the mainstream. I know for an absolute FACT that these young, fresh graduates who you seem to think are a lost cause are exactly the people advertisers want. Advertising is THE biggest user of art degree graduates there is!!! I recognise so many faces from people I know in advertising at graduate shows every year... they're actively scouting for talent. Advertising is always seeking something new, fresh, innovative... it's the advertiser's life blood.

I think the idea that you're not going to earn any money is because only the best will get that work. Well... why is that a surprise? You could say that about wanting to be a singer, dancer, writer, actor, broadcaster, presenter, film director, film producer, illustrator, graphic artist etc, etc, etc..... If you're no good at it, then you'll be poor and unemployed. If you're good at it, then you'll earn a living.

However not all photography needs to be creative, to be interesting, challenging and worthwhile.... boring never.

Well... care to give an example of photography that is not creative and still interesting, rewarding and challenging?

Film and Television may be either a Bs or Ba degree, and in the USA there seem to be an equal number of both degrees for photography.

Loads of them here too Terry.

The London college of communication do an excellent degree in Photojournalism, which is both challenging and rewarding. and is not fine art based.

What makes you think it's excellent?

You seem to be assuming most other degrees are fine art based Terry. You're simply wrong. You're also wrong that fine art is something for academics alone. You're argument is predicated purely on these assumptions... and they are assumptions Terry.

All fine art may be interesting to do, However few fine artists in any sphere make it into a worth while career.

Utterly incorrect. What is true however, is that most people who study ANYTHING will make a worthwhile career out of it. Why pick on one small sub-set?

Photographers tend to be at the bottom end of that.

Not in advertising, fashion and editorial they're not.

Nor does a Photography degree transfer well into other careers.

So what? You either want to be a photographer, or you don't. You study what you want to do. Studying architecture would be as non-transferable, or medicine, or many many other subjects. Should we abandon them as a career possibility? It's up to the person. If they're crap at it... then they'll not earn a living. That's life Terry.

A life time involvement with photography and professional photographers and 12 years as a print and photographic department manager in a college (FE and HE)
I have visited many Universities Print or photographic departments and seen hundreds of exhibitions. I am not impressed with what I have seen.

Which colleges Terry? I've you've been a department manager in a FE and HE college... I'll know the college possibly.. and I'll have possibly been there. In fact, depending on when you worked there, there's a very real possibility I've met you.

Placement statistics in to Photography related fields are abysmal.

Evidence please Terry. Show me the facts.

National statistics would suggest that Photo graduates are no more, or less likely to be working in a field related to their degree than any other.

If you're crap, you'll not do well. That's just life, and would be the same for any other graduate in any other field.

 

[Laudrup]

Pookeyhead what do you think of photographers like Terry Richardson?

 

[Lindsay D]

Going back to some things which we discussed earlier in the thread, a few days ago I received another enquiry from a second-year photography BA student who was hoping to find a work placement. In contrast to many of the other enquiries we receive (usually one liners with no address or salutation), she did at least use my name and the (brief) message was well constructed and even included punctuation. However there was absolutely nothing in her message which would suggest she is employable in any way. She said she was a good fit to my business, but could not give any evidence as to why. There was no link to a portfolio, which is pretty crucial. She said she had attached a CV, but there was no attachment. Nor was there reference to any of her particular strengths and how they would align with what I do. Nevertheless I took the time to reply with plenty of suggestions as to what she could include to make her application more likely to stand out from the crowd, plus a few other tips which would be useful. I received no acknowledgement nor did the missing CV turn up. Given that this was the "best" application I have received, that will tell you just how poor general communication skills are with these applicants, and also the sheer lack of effort they put into their approaches.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Going back to some things which we discussed earlier in the thread, a few days ago I received another enquiry from a second-year photography BA student who was hoping to find a work placement. In contrast to many of the other enquiries we receive (usually one liners with no address or salutation), she did at least use my name and the (brief) message was well constructed and even included punctuation. However there was absolutely nothing in her message which would suggest she is employable in any way. She said she was a good fit to my business, but could not give any evidence as to why. There was no link to a portfolio, which is pretty crucial. She said she had attached a CV, but there was no attachment. Nor was there reference to any of her particular strengths and how they would align with what I do. Nevertheless I took the time to reply with plenty of suggestions as to what she could include to make her application more likely to stand out from the crowd, plus a few other tips which would be useful. I received no acknowledgement nor did the missing CV turn up. Given that this was the "best" application I have received, that will tell you just how poor general communication skills are with these applicants, and also the sheer lack of effort they put into their approaches.

I've had similar experiences, several times.
I've also interviewed graduates who had absolutely no knowledge of any photography other than digital (It's good to see that Linhof Studio are giving a talk on camera movements at the Photography Show) but although specialised, I would have thought that the Scheimpflug principle would still be taught.

Speaking of which, there's a guy who is running a HND course not far from me, he once showed me a 5" x 4" monorail camera, which he thought was in some way historical. He didn't know what it was, didn't know what it was for and didn't know that monorail cameras are still in use... His history is that he was an art tutor who also taught the "Leisure" C&G course, without any technical content of course, and as his college then managed to get accredited to run the HND course he naturally headed it up, as he was their "Photography expert" - not all tutors are equal.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Pookeyhead et al...................

This is the second time I have had this "conversation" on this forum

They are my own opinions not that of any institution.
So far there have been only a few points where we have had a meeting of minds.

I love fine art though take no part in it.
I love classical music though can not play an instrument
I love literature though have never written.
I love hand craft work and am skilled in several areas.

These fine things are are all elements in our lives and form part of our education.
They are all things that make us who we are .

We all end up taking positions on these things, the positions are not based on the pre-eminence of tradition or cutting edge art, but on what our previous experience and knowledge give us in the form of value Judgements.

I believe that a majority of Art, in all its forms, ends up in oblivion and that what remains is not an act of chance but of recognised and accepted worth. This is quite different to saying we like it, or that it is good.

A degree of chance is certainly in action for individual objects. But the protection and care we lavish tends to go on what is valued, not on what is not.

Our differing points of view, can be partly summed up by what we think defines photography.

I believe Photography is a tool in the same way an artist may make his marks with tools. However a tool, like a paint brush can be used by an artisan or an artist and the result can be of equal worth and value to society. Both the Artist and the artisan need to develop high level skills to achieve their aims. An artist needs to develop many of the skill of the artisan, and the Craftsman needs the vision of the artist.

Photographers Have a number of sophisticated tools which they use as both artisan and artist.

Conceptualism.........
Wiki

In conceptual art the idea or concept is the most important aspect of the work. When an artist uses a conceptual form of art, it means that all of the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution is a perfunctory affair. The idea becomes a machine that makes the art

.........Places the value of the concept far above the realisation or the execution, to the extent that in photography, the concept may be only hinted at visually, but is encapsulated in the caption. This is an extension of the traditional dichotomy between Art and Craft taken to its logical conclusion.

At this point I part company with conceptual Fine art Photography.
There has always been a partnership between the artist his ideas, his tools, techniques, skills and the final expression. Any lack of application in any area, diminishes the quality of the communication.
A conceptual art approach to photography sees no necessity for a skilfully produced article, indeed in essence, it require no “Product” at all, as only the idea or concept needs be communicated.
In real life, Photography is valued for its many visual and communicative qualities. These are inherently tied up with the techniques, vision and abilities of the photographer.

The requirements and techniques used for an astronomical photograph will be highly technical in nature. When viewed by a lay man it will probably appear artistically stunning. However it may well not involve the use of a camera nor a lens, but only be a representation of radio wave of various frequencies, with no artistic input at all.
On the other hand a fashion advertisement may be equally challenging technically, but primarily artistic in nature.

My contention is that artistic vision is nothing with out the necessary skills to render them.
Whereas there are numerous fields where highly developed artistic vision is of little importance.

Photography is essentially an “applied science” that can be exploited by artists, Craftsmen and artisans.

Business skills are what turns photography into a secure livelihood.

​

 

[Pookeyhead]

I've had similar experiences, several times.
I've also interviewed graduates who had absolutely no knowledge of any photography other than digital (It's good to see that Linhof Studio are giving a talk on camera movements at the Photography Show) but although specialised, I would have thought that the Scheimpflug principle would still be taught.

Speaking of which, there's a guy who is running a HND course not far from me, he once showed me a 5" x 4" monorail camera, which he thought was in some way historical. He didn't know what it was, didn't know what it was for and didn't know that monorail cameras are still in use... His history is that he was an art tutor who also taught the "Leisure" C&G course, without any technical content of course, and as his college then managed to get accredited to run the HND course he naturally headed it up, as he was their "Photography expert" - not all tutors are equal.

Well Garry.... you'll be pleased to know... we do... Have a screen shot from the FIRST YEAR VLE (Virtual Learning Environment... a posh word for online resources) page from our course. We get them shooting 5x4 film in the first semester.

Looks like some courses are just better than others

Pookeyhead what do you think of photographers like Terry Richardson?

Not much if I'm honest. Same stuff being churned out for years. The snapshot aesthetic needs to be done with care. Jurgen Teller does it better.

As a person he leaves a great deal to be desired as well... not that it influences my opinion on his work... but you asked what I thought about him.. so you may be interested in that too

My contention is that artistic vision is nothing with out the necessary skills to render them.

I'm not sure anyone would argue with you.... least of all me.

Business skills are what turns photography into a secure livelihood.

Again... no one would, or has suggested otherwise.

I still maintain that someone who studies photography as a science only will probably be far less creative than someone who studies it as an art form. That's a debate that can rage eternally though. I've met some of these people... seen their work. We'll just have to disagree,

 

[Deleted member 67219]

The London college of communication do an excellent degree in Photojournalism, which is both challenging and rewarding. and is not fine art based.

Actually their degree is fine art based. I was turned down for it two years ago for not having enough fine art work in my portfolio.

 

[simon ess]

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

 

[Deleted member 67219]

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

Stuff that you might find in a gallery, is the simple answer. It's shorthand.

(Think Tate or The Photographers Gallery rather than your local kitsch high street gallery).

 

[simon ess]

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?

 

[Pookeyhead]

Thank you for that.

Let me re-phrase the question then.

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

Go to some and you'll see. That's not a glib answer either... genuinely.... go and see.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

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

Let me re-phrase the question then.
What kind of photographs might be deemed worthy of exhibition in a gallery?

Strangely it is never actually defined.... and it is not the same everywhere. In the USA it is highly regarded in its place alongside conventional art forms.
It is also very strong in Russia and Eastern Europe, with many fine photographers producing work of excellent quality and extraordinary vision.

Here we seem to get confused between club photography and fine art. One is rarely more than a pastiche of the other.

However.... if you visit a gallery and the Photographs are priced in the thousands, you are probably looking at fine art..................
and if you would like to own one, it is more likely still.
If they are Conceptual Fine Art. the question become rather more difficult, but they are always accompanied by a long caption explaining why.

As for exhibitions... any one who can walk past an Exhibition is missing one of the pleasures in life.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I still maintain that someone who studies photography as a science only will probably be far less creative than someone who studies it as an art form. That's a debate that can rage eternally though. I've met some of these people... seen their work. We'll just have to disagree,

I have never suggested that people should study Photography as only a science. Though those that need to should be able to. Medical and scientific photography has little need for artistic creativity, indeed it is usually discouraged.

At the very least there is a design element in a majority of photography.

 

[simon ess]

Thanks both.

I shall seek out an exhibition or two and consider the question further.

 

[ghoti]

I have never suggested that people should study Photography as only a science. Though those that need to should be able to. Medical and scientific photography has little need for artistic creativity, indeed it is usually discouraged.

At the very least there is a design element in a majority of photography.

Photography should never be studied as a science because it isn't a science. I don't even know how it could be studied as a science.

Scientific photography is not a science. Medical photography is not a science. It may be of use in those arts to have some scientific knowledge but the photography itself is not a science. How could it be?

 

[Steve Smith]

may be of use in those arts to have some scientific knowledge but the photography itself is not a science. How could it be?

The act of photographing is certainly not a science but what goes on with light, film emulsion, chemistry and the electronics of sensors, etc. most certainly is a science.


Steve.

 

[ghoti]

The act of photographing is certainly not a science but what goes on with light, film emulsion, chemistry and the electronics of sensors, etc. most certainly is a science.


Steve.

Yeah, I said pretty much the same thing in my last-but-one post.
Optics, electronics, film chemistry etc may be studied as sciences, but "photography" - the practice of taking pictures - cannot.

 

[ghoti]

Although arguably electronics is just a technical subject, not a real science. Due to its black-box nature.

 

[Steve Smith]

Although arguably electronics is just a technical subject, not a real science. Due to its black-box nature.

That depends on how far you take it. Film photography has a black box nature if your only involvement is loading film, shooting and sending out for processing.


Steve.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Actually their degree is fine art based. I was turned down for it two years ago for not having enough fine art work in my portfolio.

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.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Photography should never be studied as a science because it isn't a science. I don't even know how it could be studied as a science.

Scientific photography is not a science. Medical photography is not a science. It may be of use in those arts to have some scientific knowledge but the photography itself is not a science. How could it be?

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.