College level Photography?

[Bill_1856]

The notice (below) of a LF conference, hosted by a Professor of Photography, suddenly gave me the dumb thought: How on earth can Photography possibly be taught on a college level? Okay -- a semester or two of courses. Maybe even a study of advanced photographic chemistry, and alternate processes, as well as a thorough survey of photographic history. But how in the world can they possibly dedicate a whole curriculum to something which, for all purposes, could be learned from an introductary high school course and a little experience? In fact, most people of my generation, were self-taught. Edward Weston seems to be the only one of the great masters who had any formal training, and that was in commercial portraiture.

[John Kasaian]

Bill,

I don't teach photography, and I've never taken a photography class in my life but if circumstances allowed I'd jump at the chance! FWIW, you probably can't learn "photography" any more than you can learn "art" or for that matter,"brain surgery"but you can learn technique and history and "seeing." While I'm futzing around under my home made dark cloth, I can appreciate the opportunity to be able to study under someone whos "been there, done that and bought the t-shirt." Would it make me a successful photographer? Probably not, but I'd bet it would help me achieve my goal of becoming a better photographer sooner than my current "self taught" route I've embarked on. This assuming you get an instructor who hasn't bought into the Dewey influenced school of education lock stock and barrel. IMHO, those guys (and gals) are a waste of anyone's time. Flee from those scalawags!

[Kirk Gittings]

In all honesty, I wonder sometimes myself and I am a college level professor with a bachelors and masters degree in photography and a cumulative record of 17 years teaching at the University of New Mexico and the School of the Art Institute of Chicago.

College level photography is not just about technical or professional expertise. It is about that and in the best schools much more. It is about history and aesthetic theory and criticism as well as teaching. It is about creating a critical environment for the developement of one's own way of seeing.

Is it necessary? Of course not-some of the greats had no formal schooling at all. But I loved that structure for learning, because it made me explore things like history in a thorough way that I would not of on my own. And I met some incredible people along the way that greatly influenced and supported me later on.

Does anyone need it? Some do some don't. In some circles it is the dues you have to pay to be a member of some exclusive (bullshit) club. My biggest concern is that I don't think you can legitimately give art grades. It is too subjective. You can give technique or effort grades, but not aesthetics and if you can't really grade it how can you quantify it and give degrees in it?

[mark blackman]

It all depends on your definition of 'college level', I studied for a Phd at a college. As for a Professor of Photography, I doubt if such a post exists anywhere in the UK, there are probably less than 200 professorships in the entire academic field.

[Graeme Hird]

Bill,



Never having done a university degree in Photography myself (or any other
photography course for that matter), I can't speak with authority about
such courses. But there is more to being a commercially successful
photographer than simply taking great pictures (ie technical mastery of the
process).



I would imagine a course in photography prepares the student for life in
the real world, where he or she has to make money from the craft. Things
like business studies and people management would be valuable pieces of
knowledge in the photographers' armoury.



Any fool can make photos: making a living from them is entirely a different
kettle of fish.



Graeme

[Frank Petronio]

Living near the Rochester Institute of Technology, I have many friends who teach photography, and have worked with many graduates of its respected photography program. The George Eastman House also educates interns in related fields like conservation and photo history. Once a year I teach at the Visual Studies Workshop (SUNY) and sometimes do workshops at other places. Even though these are "famous" programs, there is only a small percentage of graduates who actually have long term careers as photographers. The same percentage holds true for most of the other arts programs – painting, graphic design, sculpture, etc. – very few graduates – even of the best schools – go on to have careers in the field.

My opinion is that college arts programs mushroomed in the 1950s - 1960s with the general expansion of colleges due to the post-war baby boom. Many programs were created in order to "fill the colleges with bodies." Not that there isn't a need for high level art education and criticism, but with thousands of colleges offering photo majors, it is overkill. Still, these programs go on because students keep coming, perhaps mistakenly or unrealistic in their expectations. I am always telling my students this, and my advice to them is to get a good general education in the liberal arts or sciences - or to learn a highly-skilled, well paying craft (like plumbing) - if they want to be successful photographers. For example, my 20-year old daughter is studying art conservation in Florence - she'll be able to get a good paying job right out of school, and will have the opportunity to work around the world. It sure beats paying Yale $150K to be a painting major and then having to work at Starbucks.

I think that it is immoral for the professors and colleges to keep propogating the idea that if you come to their program you'll learn to be a successful photographer or artist. I know a lot of these professors and frankly, many of them are professors because they want a steady, secure job that allows them to do art part-time. The few that are passionate teachers are great - but I know for fact that many of them are "deadwood" or politically-correct minority appointees (it really helps to be a black woman so you can leapfrog hundreds of other well-qualified candidates.) I said this to a audience of RIT freshmen once (a "meet the professionals" lecture) and you should have seen their shocked expressions - it's a shame I wasn't invited back... ;)

[Steve Williams_812]

Being a part-time instructor in a School of Visual Arts, a returning adult student in an MFA program, and having been a professional photographer for 20+ years, I have found that I wish I had entered a college program 30 years ago.

I learning photography in the apprentice/self-taught/dumb luck school. It worked, I became a capable professional and made a comfortable living. But it was focused on the technical craft, not by design, but by default because of the assignments I pursued, and the company I kept. I had missed an entire sphere of understanding and investigation that photography can embrace, and I found that when I went into an MFA program around my 46th birthday.

The first thing I discovered was a big chip on my shoulder. My reduction of photography to a perfect image and its commercial value, my death grip on the notion that my pictures "speak for themselves", my utter disdain for any academic utterances of Marxism, feminism, Derrida, Foucault, or the male gaze.... all of this kept me trapped in a safe, predicable, and eventually boring life.

Graduate school for me has been a revelation. I already knew how to run a camera, make a print, how to figure out how to do something. What I didn't know how to do was look at the world and use the camera to help me answer those questions that gnaw on me when I wake up in the middle of the night. It has been a gift.

I changed careers so I could keep my photography to myself. God, how I love to say no to an art director asking me to shoot something. I don't even have to think about it anymore---"NO, I don't do that anymore, I would rather have a sharp stick stuck in my eye..."

I tell my students here in the School of Visual Arts that the photography program is not a place to train to be the next generation of catalog photographers or fashion photographers, or commercial image makers. I tell them that this art program is a place to develp a foundation of craft skills on which they can explore, it is a place to learn where photography fits in the world, where they can begin to deconstruct how visual language works, what they are interested in, and ultimately begin learning to see.

Many graduates go on to work commercially, at magazines, as artists, professionals, etc. But that is never the goal. It just is not a technical school and the facilities reflect that.

Can they learn anything in a college photography program? Yes! David Bayles and Ted Orland's excellent book "Art & Fear" has a great chapter on the academic world of art and photography. It is a great and fun read for anyone, especially if you are wondering why you aren't working more.

thanks,

steve

[Frank Petronio]

Famed photographer (and RISD professor) Harry Callahan once said something along the lines of "you can learn any craft well enough to be a professional in less than a year but you can spend a lifetime perfecting it." I'm not saying that there isn't value in getting a MFA in photography, but, from direct personal experience I've seen a lot of good photographers actually "go backwards" and loose their vision from the influences of the program. Many people tend to "bend their work to fit the program" rather than finding good mentors that encourage independence and self-dicovery. Finding a good program is the hardest part - as well as identifying your learning style. (Good luck Steve - better to be doing it at 46 than 22 IMHO.)

I'm pretty much self-taught but I read nearly everything and did do a few basic classes, plus a lot of painting/drawing/art history/design stuff. The best "school" was Willie Osterman's three-week workshop on using large format. Ted Orland was once of my teachers in Oregon (nice guy) too. He struggles just like we all do though.

[Raymond Bleesz]

Bill et al,

Excellent question & fine answers. As a former high school educator (History & the Social Sciences), I taught an extra curricular class on "photography" in the '70's to my high school students. That experience eventually led me to terminate my being a "teacher" and become a "student" of photography through the school of hard knocks, self taught, & self realization, etc. with a few work shops, classes, conferences here & there over the years. In essence, instead of talking about photography, I determined I wanted to be a "photographer"-------I was listening to my inner self, and I still am--------a very difficult road to hoe & it has been costly in personal life.

I have been envious of those who were able to take academic classes with noteworthy instructors, professors & photographers, etc. In the late '70's, I started the paper work to be admited to ASU for a MFA program & study under Professor Bill Jay, an early mentor, however, I didn't go through with this decision because of circumstances. So I turned to the school of hard knocks,with a workshop now & then. Encouragment came, over the years, from Nathan Lyons, Ruth Orkin, Monsiour Jean Claude Lemangy in Arles, & Professor Ron Wolhauer, (perhaps one of Colorado/Denver's best known photographer/educator who just died of cancer at age 56 last month) to name a few.

I still would jump at the chance to enter a graduate program or go to school again, and I still am hosting that idea & will eventually. The idea of being a "student" has never left me----the Socratic idea of asking questions, seeking answers, of defining who one is. Atget took to the streets of Paris and "did his thing", defining who he was & what took his interest, a way of seeing without formal education.

At age 60, I'm still "searching, studying, reading & being a photographer". I think being a photographer is a way of life, and a way of seeing few people really posses in actuality. I think there is a place at the collegiate level & elsewhere for the study of photography, & to me, it's the academic aspect which is most important. I only wish the academic atmosphere was within a more reachable distance in my life.

up in the mountains of Colorado, Histographer/Photographer, Raymond A. Bleesz

[RichSBV]

As a non-photographer and non-college student, I have possibly other opinions.

There's far more to university/college photography than learning the art/craft from a teacher/professor. The teachers can be good or bad as can be the courses themselves. We can easily learn the craft on our own. We can develop our vision and styles on our own, and to do any good photography we would have to anyway...

What makes the courses valuable in my mind is the human interaction between people of like mind. The basic concept of the university in the first place! We learn more from the interaction of the other students than from the course proper.

I never had the benefit of college. Life just got in the way. If I ever had the chance, I would jump at it just to be among other people who enjoyed photography, and to hopefully learn something I didn't know. I continue to use cameras with the memory of the time I spent in my high school photo club 30+ years ago. I now live in a photographic wilderness. I can go to town or down the road and talk about ATV's, guns, windmills or beer, but I couldn't find someone to talk to about photography if I tried (and I have!). Any form of school or workshop gives us that chance to be among other people with the same interest. And that's where our minds learn and expand with the challenge of conversation and interaction with other people. The internet itself has become a global university in that regard as can be seen right here in these forums. What it lacks is the side by side personal interaction though. We can have the discussions here, but it doesn't help when it comes time to remember to pull the darkslide or figure out a difficult metering situation...

I never was a big fan of what colleges taught in a technical sense. But what they offer the students in spite of themselves is invaluable... People are social by nature. It's how we all live and learn and very few do well alone...

Just an 'uneducated opinion' ;-)

[Mike H.]

I'd been taking "snapshots" all my life. Every once in awhile I got a really nice photo, had it blown up, framed and mounted on my wall. Always wished I could do something with it. HAD been an art major at University of Colorado for one year. Military, family life and various careers intruded. Got an accounting degree with 10 years of night school. At age 56 I went back to college - in photography! First night my heart was pumping so hard, senses were so alert, brain was working so fast, excitement was at an all-time high level and the world started all over again from the beginning. It's now been four years (yeh, I'm now sixty) of college level courses in photography, starting from "beginning" (let's take the camera apart and see how it works) in 35mm and proceeding to large format and my own personal darkroom doing black and white enlargements up to 16 X 20. And the excitement has not gone away! That's the background.

Now for the comments about college classes: FOR ME ... its all about 1) a place to learn things from instructors with real life experience; 2) interaction with others who are trying to learn the same things I am; and 3) keeping up with what's new in the field - both technically and artistically.

The classes are a relatively inexpensive way to be exposed to really great photographers who stop in to guest lecture - Dick Arentz, Randy Efros, Jay Dusard, Joan Myers, Jody Forester, etc. They also have introduced us to places such as the Center for Creative Photography, web sites such as this, books, museums (I visited the Getty in LA this last weekend - absolutely stunning) (visited the International Center for Photography in NYC last month), and other schools. Got to see a slide lecture last night by 84 year old Allen Dutton, photographer, teacher and author. Has a history of college level teaching, producing excellent photography books from surrealistic images to "then and now" comparisons. Absolutely hysterical sense of humor.

The guest lecturers and our instructors also have another benefit: in may cases they were previously connected with some of the historically great photographers: Rod Klukas with Oliver Gagliani, Allen Dutton with Minor White, Randy Efros with Brett Weston (and because of proximity, with Cole and Kim - not to mention the ever present spirit of "Ed"). A CCP lecture by John Sexton gave first hand accounts of Ansel Adams' thoughts and processes. You don't get those connections and insights operating by yourself in a vacuum.

Lastly, for the moment, the classes give me an opportunity to learn (both on the receiving and providing end) how to criticize photography: what's good and bad both in technique and in one's vision. Sure, you have to develop your own eye, but you also aught to know where you fit in the overall picture and what paths others with similar eyes have already trod. An extra mind or two never hurts when you want to critique your own work - maybe you'll learn something new.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

It all depends on the curriculum. At a small college in Texas, the son of an acquittance had a great photographic education. The technical or craft side was covered, but he also was taught marketing, promotion of his work and his skills, presentation, business practices, management, etc, etc. There is more to photography than just knowing how to develop film or make a good print.

It is this mistaken perception that photography is "easy" and can be learn from a book that makes for many peoples failure. Sure, you can learn the technical side from a book and with enough practice you can learn good composition, but it makes your life easier if someone teaches you marketing, business contracts, etc, etc.

Bottom line, good photographers are also as skilled in business and marketing practices.

[tim o'brien]

Well... yes and no.

I studied at NESOP with teachers who studied with Callihan at RISD. Was it the same as studying with Harry? No, but I never had that opportunity. My artistic credentials would never let me into RISD, a true art school. So what was it like studying at a dedicated photography school? I wouldn't give those two years up for the world. I came in your average pitcher takin' duffer and came out a well rounded, highly informed pitcher takin' duffer. It gave me a shot at working in graphic arts for a couple of years, it gave me a level of knowledge of B&W down to the nth degree. It gave me a sense of self worth that I not only completed a serious course in photography, but mastered to a very high level the ideas that support the concepts of LF, and serious B&W work. Two years of having your technique, your vision constantly put under the review of serious photographers, whether teachers or fellow students, makes a difference, a hugh difference in both the quality of your work and the way you go about getting things done.

The experience I have about University courses is only as an observer. I worked in the B&W lab at a UMass campus for a year, work study while I was pursuing my engineering degree. I didn't like the program, I didn't like the attitude of fear I saw in all the sophmore and junior students as the prepared their portfolios for review. I write it off as symptomatic of that particular program, but I never had any desire to continue on to get a BFA degree. I never saw the purpose of it.

Choose your courses carefully, make sure the program you get into will take you where you want to go. A dedicated two year program at NESOP or Brooks could be better than a University degree.

tim in san jose

[jantman]

I just got back from visiting RIT, my first stop in searching for a college at which I intend to learn - what else - photography.

Bill, I think your view is quite narrow. Think of all of the areas of photography. They have a lot of info on their web site (www.rit.edu or photography.rit.edu).

They're based on a quarter system instead of semesters. As some examples - studio lighting - one quarter. Alternative processes - one quarter. Photo history - two quarters. Color photography (mostly printing) - 2-3 quarters. And on and on...

The idea of going to school in photography isn't to get a high-school level crash course in it. It's to really learn - to read, to see, to do, and to be evaluted.

Also, it's quite in-depth, as opposed to a high school class. There are seperate quarter classes in, say, building a portfolio. Selling yourself as a commercial photographer, another one for fine-art photographers. There are portrait courses. Landscape. Architecture. Food. Whatever you need to know.

[Frank Petronio]

Jason - You sound like a great student and just from reading your posts it seems like you must have a good understanding of photography already. Have you considered studying (ahem...) a real subject, like history, literature, evironmental science, or architecture? Then you'd have something that you'd know about TO PHOTOGRAPH.

I don't mean to be a hard-ass, but I've noticed that a lot of the best photo-journalists, and more than a few famous fine-art photographers come from educated, liberal arts backgrounds rather than photo schools. IMHO, if your goal is to become a NYC fashion or studio shooter, or if you want to open a lab, then RIT might give you the training you need. Then again, $10K and a summer photographing models in Milan would give you a better portfolio than most of those RIT seniors who just blew $160K on their degree.

The critique systems and peer reviews are great for some students, but it gets really old, really fast when you're not in the right group - and going to any school, no matter what the reputation is, doesn't guarantee that you'll "fit." And besides, you can excell at critiques but that may just mean that you can make work that pleases a bunch of photo students - big whoop.

My other two cents is to consider the week long workshops at places like Maine Photo Workshops - some of them are excellent, and you can make greater strides in one week there than over a term elsewhere. And you can get college credit for it.

[Vince Pulvirenti]

I took every photography course offered at the local community college, and enough related courses to get my associates degree. I did'nt realize how little I had learned until I began attending workshops with some of the really good (and Great) photographers whom I admire. I highly recommend that you locate photographers who are doing the kind of work that you would like to learn and attend as many workshops as you can. Then make lots and lots of photographs.

[tribby]

it's an easy choice... where else would a brokeass 18y-o get his grubby hands on lf cams and bigass enlargers?

never really listened in class, had it down pat by then.

[Robert_4191]

I've taken about half a dozen night workshops at the local photography academy on various aspects of photography (portraiture, studio lighting, basic darkroom/zone system, color, etc), and I wouldn't trade the experience of learning and the community I gained (both in the workshops and with the full time students in the darkrooms) for anything. On the other hand, I see students barely out of high school or just out of college going through the two year program, and I know many of them will get a good technical grounding in photography, but learning the realities of the business of photography and the art of seeing will take them much longer. That's if they're even able to stick with it without economic pressures forcing them into something else.

I'm a fan of photographic education, but maybe less of a fan of having very young students commit exclusively to studying photography without some grounding in a more general liberal arts curriculum. The more committed and focused students I've seen tend to combine the two year photography degree with an MFA from one of the arts schools, or go straight to assisting or even establishing their own business after photo school...but of course, all this takes money and is no guarantee of a reasonable future income.

Older students (26-45) making mid-life career changes tend to fare better in making school work for them, but even there I've seen successful entrepreneurs in other fields (real estate, restaurants, etc) find the going tough -- personally, I made the decision not to make photography a primary source of income during a recent sabbatical, because unlike other services and products in the business world (consulting, software design, etc), the worth of photography (below the highest end commercial clients and some other very specific areas) is not something that's established among all buyers with some level of consistency, which makes for a periodically tough sales and marketing process and a maddening path to economic self-sufficiency.

But photographic education that combines technical knowledge with aesthetics, passion and open-mindedness...I don't think there's anything wrong with a "curriculum", even if it's an informal one, that shows more sides of photography to enthusiasts beyond f-stops and enlargers. One week workshops seem to be one of the most popular ways for people to expand their horizons, but I feel fortunate to have the option of classes that meet once/week for 10-12 weeks, which breed more community and continuity. I wrote something about photography courses a while back at my site (http://coincidences.typepad.com/still_images_and_moving_o/2004/02/are_photography.html)...I know my enthusiasm probably seems a bit pollyanna-ish, but even with the hiccups (a couple of classes were slight disappointments), I'd always recommend a class, if not a full time two to three year program.

[Henry Ambrose]

This has generated very interesting reading.

Frank Petronio (who must have college age children) wrote: "Then again, $10K and a summer photographing models in Milan would give you a better portfolio than most of those RIT seniors who just blew $160K on their degree."

Does anyone ever think -seriously- about spending this kind of money for Photography education? (of course, I know they do) But will it ever pay to do this and expect to have a career as a photographer and make enough money to justify that kind of expense? Seems like a fun way to spend grandpa's fortune if he left it to you, but how could anyone who had to earn that amount back make sense of this? I'm pretty sure you could spend/invest your $160K in a better way when looking at it as purely business. And if it was a photography business, I would include business education, a little chunk for enough gear to do your work and a fat reserve for the times when you're not working or getting started.

I am completely in favor of education so how about a state school or community college and/or some workshops? The technical side of photography is not that hard and shouldn't take that long to learn, its not rocket science. Having something to say with your pictures is another matter and I think if you really have something to say (i.e. you must photograph) you'll do it whether you went to school or not.

All I can make out of this is that photography would be a great minor along with a liberal arts major that might prepare the student with greater value in the marketplace. And at the same time it would be -GREAT FUN- to have the luxury of spending four or more years messing around with cameras on someone else's wallet all the while complaining that you really feel you're wasting your time in art history 101 and should be shooting more. Ahhh to be eighteen again!

And then I slip back into fifty-year-old-dad mode..............

[Steve Williams_812]

There was a lot of great information in this thread. I think RichSBV hit on the truly powerful benefit of school, either at college, a workshop, or training session----the community of like minded individuals that help support you on the path. I tell my students over and over that the first thing they need to do after getting out of school is find other photographers (supportive) to help them grow.

It is truly difficult to work in isolation.

steve

[QT Luong]

My understanding is that when you get an MBA, the most important part is not necessarily what you learn, but rather a new mindset and the new connections you make with the right people. Maybe the same is also true of MFA, where you would be introduced to the art world. Although Andreas Gursky grew up in a family of commercial photographers, it is doubtful he would have become the photographer he is without attending the Dusseldorf Academy for the Arts.

[Frank Petronio]

If that was the case, we'd have thousands of "successful" MFA-holding art photographers out there. Instead we have a handful, even though the schools produce hundreds of new MFAs every year.

Also, it is ironic that QT's work is a perfect example of something that would get dismissed in most MFA programs. Not that I agree at all, but I can hear the discussion in my head...

Maybe a better example is Jeff Wall - art historian, knew how art dealers work and formed relationships, and now sells his photos for hundreds of thousands.

[Kirk Gittings]

Frank, I think it depends on how you define successful MFA's. Simply getting a teaching job at a mjor university would be defined as extremely successful in most students book. I read a study one time that was some years back. I think it was of graduates from the San Francisco Art Institute. I am not sure about that. It said that 10 years after graduation only 1 in 11 MFA's were still working in the field that they graduated in. I must be one of the lucky ones. Based on my years of teaching I think the stat is strictly true if one means making ones living producing photographs or teaching photo. But I have known many MFA's that went on to very successful careers as writers, book editors, gallery owners, collectors etc. I have a good friend who went on to become a very successful estate attorney, gallery owner and important collector. His MFA while not giving him a living went on to define his personel interests for a lifetime. He has the greatest personal collection of photography that I have ever seen, rivaling some museums and is a great promoter of the medium and the arts in his state. I know he greatly appreciates his photo education.

I have an MFA and have taught part time for 17 years at major universities. I needed the MFA for that, but most of my income comes from commercial architectural photo and gallery sales, which I do not need the degree for. But even in the commercial work I think my knowledge of art history has informed my style and contributed to my success. It was not necessary, but I am very glad I did it.