man & nature # 154 ~ "advice" continued
Monday, June 1, 2009 at 09:05AM 
Tree, garden hose, fallen blossoms • click to embiggenHere's a fact, at least it has been stated as such - the blog/website T.O.P. has a readership of about 30,000 or so a day. That number certainly indicates that T.O.P. has tapped into a need /desire for something related to photography and, IMO, I believe that that "something" is business "as usual", especially so as the site has adopted a more commercial slant over the past half year or so.
Caveat: have no doubt about it, everyone has to make a living and I would not fault Mike Johnston for his efforts in the name of making a buck from T.O.P. Nope, no problem with goal that at all. None. Zip. Nada.
The business-as-usual activity that I am referring to is that of trying to teach things photographic by centering the discussion around matters of gear, technique, and technical considerations. And, what is even more deleterious to the idea of making good pictures, that teaching theory is based on the premise that, as Johnston has clearly stated:
Most photo hobbyists don't have anything like that degree of talent.
FYI, he was speaking about my son, The Cinemascapist. And, he's absolutely right about that fact but .... the conclusion that he seems to come from that statement is that "most photo hobbyists" need to be taught that the medium of photography is great entertainment, a very pleasant way to pass the time - not only by making "pleasing" pictures but also by discussing gear and techniques.
CAVEAT # 2: Unfortunately,for the cause of making good pictures, he's right on the mark, and, CAVEAT # 2A: if that's what floats your boat, photography-wise, you should have as much fun as you possibly can squeeze out of that approach to making pictures. Seriously, I really, really, really mean that. OK?
But, here's what totally rubs me the wrong way about that thinking - lurking amongst all of those photo hobbyists are some with real "talent", as well as many of "lesser" talent, and they are looking for ways to learn and develop that talent. But, I can't help but wonder how much time is lost and, to a very real extent, wasted by getting caught up in business-as-usual advice / teaching about the medium of photography.
Case in point: In defense of business-as-usual, re: teaching photography, one comment on T.O.P. went like this:
I teach photography at an art school ... [T]he first year of the three year program has them shooting monochrome, developing and printing. We recommend totally manual cameras with a 50mm prime ... [S]econd semester tranny [transparencies] is introduced to teach them a little more about exposure and composition ... [O]h, and second year it's all 5×4 transparency in the studio and on location ... [A]t the end of the first year they have to produce a portfolio of 16 B&W prints of professional standard.
Ignoring the fact that institutions of higher learning have a financial interest in stretching out tuition-paid learning as long as they can, here's what I have learned about that style of teaching - institutions of higher photographic learning have a miserable record of preparing graduates to actually make a living making pictures. One such highly regarded institution had a record (the last time I checked), 5 years after graduation, of only 3 graduates (of 150) making a living making pictures.
I had the opportunity to view many of the "professional-standard" portfolios produced by the graduating students of this institution and, indeed, they were all "professional-standard" quality when it came to technique and print making. Unfortunately (for the students), most of them were downright awful, when it came to content. I would even go as far as to say "pathetic", especially so when judged against the time and money spent on the learning process.
All of that said, let me be clear about this. The poor graduate employment record is undoubtedly the result of many factors other than business-as-usual teaching practices - students who shouldn't have been there in the first place, a very competitive employment marketplace, etc.
However, IMO, that graduate-to-employment ratio would be favorably impacted by addressing the fact that good picture making is, first and foremost, about the process of selection regarding what to picture, not about the process of selection regarding what gear to use / technique to picture with.
Why do I come to that conclusion? It's really quite simple but it's something that "educators" don't want to talk about. In my experience, whether your goal as a picture maker is to be a professional / commercial shooter or a Fine Artist, I can guarantee one thing (the thing that educators don't want to talk about) - the "buyers" of such "commodities" don't give a tinker's damn about your education or your technical expertise. What they care about is the pictures and what they say.
Reader Comments (7)
Three minor comments:
1. Equipment is a hobby in and of its own. There's really two distinct subsets of the photo hobbyists. The first are people who want to take pictures. The second is people who like cameras. There's definitely some crossover but most hobbyists fall into one of those two categories.
2.I think Mike has a point about teaching based on gear. His Leica for a Year challenge is one of the best idea's I've seen in a while to get gearheads to actually concentrate on making good images.
3. University Arts and Fine Arts Departments have little interest in teaching their students to make a living. What you're commenting on is a combination of restricting evaluation to what can be objectively measured (printing), a severe aversion to the entire idea of commercial work by Arts and Fine Arts faculty and an essential refusal to reduce students self-esteem by actually criticizing their composition. It's a general issue in the education system today rather than something specific to Photography programs. At least they do teach the technical side which is more valuable than many BA or BFA programs.
With photography, the technical, gear aspects, are more complex, and are evolving, thus an emphasis on that seems warranted. But, I'm not sure you need a "Masters" in it.
TOPs point with the Leica was to push the technical aside, to be able to see and use the tool unhindered by the machine.
Basic composition can be taught, but those are "rules" meant to be broken.
I'm not sure that a sense of content, or having something to say, can be taught. Personally, I would rather not have my content mucked with, which is probably the main reason I quit art school.
I learned more by working with a professional making his living in the arts, than I ever did in art school.
I blather and am inconsistent; no hobgoblins for me.
Maybe, instead of harking back to a bygone age, we should just accept where we are, now.
If it is all about subject matter and not about the camera, or technicalities (not that they aren't important, just they aren't as interesting)
Why not just use an iPhone for a year. Availability, lack of technical distraction, just you and the subject and the camera many carry all the time.
Maybe not entirely serious.
"Why not just use an iPhone for a year. Availability, lack of technical distraction, just you and the subject and the camera many carry all the time.
Maybe not entirely serious."
No, I'd take that very serious. Jorge Colombo has done something similar and most recently made the cover of the latest New Yorker with his altered iphone images.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/AheadoftheCurve/story?id=7666018&page=1
Jorge's iphone art is great, but it is all painted on the device, not modified photos.
I'm probably going to pick up the new one with the autofocus lens when it wanders out of the factory. Already impressed with what I've been able to do with the current version with just a few tries (don't own an iphone currently)
As ever, attention to light and subject makes for a more interesting picture than an expensive camera.
gravitas:
Can't this all be reduced to F-8 and be there?
Time to get back to politics.
And Hockey
actually, i tell my students that it starts and ends with the work. no one cares how hard it was to make or who you are, etc.