teaching photography

[robert_4927]

Stieglitz, no matter how great he was, would have been a terrible teacher. His searing critiques would have discouraged many a young photographer to the point of never picking up a camera again. But the bigger question would be ...Where do we find a university big enough to house his ego?

[Mike H.]

Gee, Mark, I was there at the CCP also (but with a two hour drive from the north). Didn't see you. As if I would have known when I did... :-)

As to the selection process, look at the applicants for this position. Four guys and a gal. IF - If the panel is composed of at least 50% women, the gal gets the nod. If it's all guys, some of them are going to vote for the woman - giving her the advantage. If they are all women - she's a shoo in.

If they were able to get past the gender issue and truly look at the prints in the portfolios, my hope is that they really like motion stopped as a series of consecutive images (Maplethorpe). I'd hate to have any of the other four spending their time in a classroom when they should be out making more of their really great images.

And why "artist teachers who are not photogrphers (sic)"? If you are a photographer teaching art, wouldn't you have a little more expertise about what makes a great photograph?

[Stan. Laurenson-Batten]

In my sixty years of earning a crust in the arts photographic world and otherwise, I have yet to meet a person in full time teaching that has been a truly successful, dependent, exponent of their craft.

I have a sympathetic understanding as to the many and varied reasons why a person would choose to teach rather than follow their primary calling. Nevertheless, I consider it usually shows some of degree of failure on their part. This is not intended to be a put down for teaching, a noble profession - when the right person is involved. However, the right persons for teaching are thin on the ground in most subjects and all areas of the world.

Robert and Mark seem to have had some experience of questionble teaching, perhaps they too conclude that it will always pay to be cautious when taking up such teaching posts.
I will now keep my head down below the parapet!

[Conrad Hoffman]

I have to admit to more knowledge of Stieglitz and his personality from various readings, whereas I know the others only by their images. My earlier comment was definitely cynical, but Stieglitz could be a very arbitrary SOB, and I wouldn't wish him on anyone not having the experience and strength to know how to deal with that personality type. That leaves out most students. Regardless, he had the greatest influence on the direction of the photographic arts (directly and indirectly) of anyone I can think of. A very interesting read is "O'Keeffe & Stieglitz - An American Romance" by Benita Eisler.

[Kirk Gittings]

I wouldn't hire any of them as full time faculty, they were too much into there art. There is allot of bureacracy and general bs in art schools that require broader efforts and tolerance for the endless meetings and whinny students etc., ie its about more than great art work. Teaching full time would have cut into their art production and I would not have desired that from any of these extraordinary people. They would have been extraordinary sessionals, but the wrong people for full time teaching.

[paulr]

"In my sixty years of earning a crust in the arts photographic world and otherwise, I have yet to meet a person in full time teaching that has been a truly successful, dependent, exponent of their craft.
I have a sympathetic understanding as to the many and varied reasons why a person would choose to teach rather than follow their primary calling. Nevertheless, I consider it usually shows some of degree of failure on their part."

The trouble is, there isn't any direct correlation between how great someone's art is and how commercially succsesful it is. Which is why there are so many important, great artists who are unable to support themselves on sales and grants alone. Any other solution, including teaching, is going to be compromise. So the question is, is it an acceptable compromise, or maybe even the best one, for some people?

As far as excellent photographers who teach (or used to teach) full time, I can think of at least a few:

Frank Gohlke

Nick Nixon

Mike Smith

Andrew Boroweic

Mnor White

Walker Evans

Emmit Gowin

Linda Connor

Ed Ranney

Abe Morrel

[tim atherton]

There's a good argument to be made that Muybridge was possibly one of the first truly Modern photographers

"(Re: Atget): "He was a throwback in terms of technique, but he was a modernist's modernist in terms of images. It was other modernists and the surrealists who were greatly inspired by his work, particularly his formal and spacial innovations. "
I don't think so, though I can repect those who would disagree. I think Atget's work, other than the heavily published images of reflections and mannequins in store windows, are very typical (but wonderful) examples of late 19th century straight photography. Having Bernice Abbott (who was part of the American Modern Art movement) controlling the selection and interpretation of his images caused him to be pushed more into the "Modern" camp. And while much has been made of his selling a few prints to surrealist painters, his main clients were museums interested in simply documenting "old Paris," which was modernizing quickly at the time. "

The truth of Atget probably lies somewhere between Nesbitt''s commercial artisan with his albums and the Szarkowski/Abbott/Hombourg Modernist and father of the surrealist photographers.

Putting aside the parc and trees photography and the exceptional street/city work such as the reflections and mannekins etc, even in his most workaday photogorpahs cataloguing the Paris streets, there is easily enough of something different that moves Atget beyond the purely journeyman photographer. His working life coincides almost exactly with the growth of Modernism and Paris was where that took place. The are enough instances among his everyday work of this something different that move it beyond Le Gray, Marville and his many other predecessors in the 19th centry, the more obviously exceptional work aside. His materials may have been anachronistic and from the 19th century, but his work isn't

[David Karp]

paulr:

We can add Henry Gilpin to the list too. And from all accounts a really great guy and solid family man. Something that some of the other greats were not able to accomplish at the same time as their art.

[Kirk Gittings]

Paulr

Ed Ranney? I have known Ed for twenty years, but I have never known him to teach full time anywhere. Have I missed something? Great photographer, especially the stuff on Incan stone work.

[Mark Sawyer]

I'd add Todd Walker, Jerry Uelsmann, and Barbara Crane, three excellent full-time teachers and prolific in their own work.