College, where to go?

Using the newspaper to reflect the marketplace? Maybe locally, 40 miles

away from where you live at best. And last time I checked, most of them want

to hire baby-sitters or nannies. Maybe you should do that instead of

commercial photography and do fine art on the side.

But I think you missed my point. When was the last time you saw an ad on the

*newspaper* for a PhD in math or physics? A lot of them do research work for

IBM, Sun Microsystems, Intel writing algorithms and whatnots. With some,

they even use their doctoral dissertation to create new software engines. My

point is this: there's work out there. You just have to get out of this small

confinement of the "newspaper" and look at the big picture. The world is a big

place.

A couple more notes: As to internships, everyone's always crowing about how all the big cities have them. As a native of NYC, I see thousands of scrubby-clean faced kids come from all over the country, who speak a tad too loud about how successful they'll be in (insert highly competitive, "instable work" field here) and yet none of them that I've met have made it to be the next Meg Ryan or Russell Crowe. From personal experience, most of us "natives" can't even get work for the most part, relying on schools and relatives and occasional good luck to find us a paycheck and experience in NYC. I don't know if this is true for other cities, but this is what it's like here.

 

Also, people tend to say stuff like "Oh, money doesn't matter, you have to enjoy what you do, I'm so happy with living below the poverty line." Maybe it's true for some, but especially when you're very young and still have the support of a family and social network, you're not seeing outside the box yet. Tell me how much money won't matter when you're pregnant with your first baby (or have a pregnant girlfriend/wife), and have been unemployed for half a yr unable to get freelance work to pay the bills. It doesn't make for a happy situation. Or how is it going to feel when you're 40, and retirement is only about 25 yrs away, and you don't have a retirement fund in process, because every cent is going for your shoebox apartment in NYC? This stuff DOES happen. Sure, it happens in every field, but some fields have more backup than others.

 

 

For that matter, why not just do a major and a minor? Or a double major, if you are feeling ambitious? If you're going to continue photography after you go to college anyway, it won't make much difference...it'll just be a couple extra bills to pay and an extra piece of paper you can add to your resume.

 

Just my two cents. :) Don't take it harshly guys.

 

--Laura ;)

Art colleges usually teach that learning art to become a commercial seller of art is

prostitution of the soul. This kind of ivy tower view places the teacher on a high

plateau. The problem is, what if you really like photography so much that you want

to make it a life? You need to learn to serve others. It is through business school

that you learn marketing, sales, advertising, law, contracts, which will help you serve

people. You need to learn to compete, and to present yourself well. You need to

write your own contracts, modify them. If you have a studio, you have a payroll.

You can do everything through the school of hard knocks, or you can accelerate yoiur

progress and decrease your pain by going to business school. Photography clients

want to see your photographs, your book. They do not care if you have a degree.

They care about success. Business school will help you to succeed. You will have to

learn to speak in front of groups in business school, in addition.

 

If you are a really talented fine artist who would render 3D cartoons, then fine art

school is for you. If you want to have a studio, business school is best with a minor

in photography.

 

Helmut Newton, fashion photographer for Vogue, Elle, others, did not go to college to

become a photographer. He simply started doing small assignments, gained the trust

of a few, then got bigger assignments while he developed a STYLE.

 

Being a style master is like selling ice cream with 58 flavors. The more styles you

know and can produce, the more valuable will you be. These styles are not presented

in college, they are presented in magazines and publications for you to find.

 

What art college does, is to create discussions about communicating with symbols.

You learn that others may get a different idea from a picture than you. This may be

due to sociological or belief factors (taught in Sociology, Archaeology). College

places tools into your hands which you will continually use. But nobody cares if you

have the college degree in photography. They care about performance.

 

This was frustrating to me to complete a BA in media/business while I was a

photographer. I thought I was wasting my time. But along came some problems and

my college training surely helped me out.

 

I suggest strongly that you have various job back-ups to help you out in tough times.

The economy will fluctuate, and there will be times when your photography is not

needed. So become a big rig truck driver for a year; become a office worker; become

a waiter, too. If you could get some experience as a sales person, then you will have

the aggressive communications experience of a pro.

 

Do not believe that the professional world throws work at "art photographers".

Money is on the line, so they need a performer, a person who talks their language,

which is taught in Business Law and Marketing, Advertising.

 

If you want to teach, realize that you may only be a part timer forever. You may end

up teaching at 4 different colleges per week and have spotty employment.

 

Brooks Institute will likely point you in the direction of a successful career as a

commercial photographer. I know of one who did, and he was. But having that

business degree will benefit you generally in all other areas of your financial life. If

you ever hang up the idea of photographer, you have something to fall back on.

 

Being flexible with your job occupations will allow you to cope with bad times. It is

nice to have an ivy tower fantasy about your goal, but you will be shaken from events

that are beyond your control and you will need to rise to the problem with a solution.

 

Timber Borcherding timberborcherding

If you go through life with "something to fall back on" , you will never take chances.

I have been reading most of what people have been saying here and I think there is a

lot of good advice/anecdotes here based on people's own experiences and beliefs,

and all that I read are good, valid points. I believe I have some valid points as well,

and I'll tell you what I believe, take it or leave it.

 

I have come to the realization that, like what many people have stated above, that you

are more than likely not going to find a good paying job in photography. If you go

looking for a job you will wind up at a department store shooting sterile, non-creative

portraits, or working in a lab, as an assistant, etc., etc., etc.....

 

However, this does not mean that there isn't any money to be made in photography,

it only means you will have to work for yourself. There are many different ways to

make money with a camera, and you may have to be flexible and somewhat diverse to

have enough business coming in to pay the bills. So of course some business and

marketing classes will be a necessity to being sucessful. Also, consider what types of

photography you like doing and find working pros that you could do some volunteer

assistant work for and get some up-close views of what it would be like to actually

work for a client in that particular field.

 

So basically what I'm getting at is have a clear direction some time in the near future

as to exactly what types of things you want to do with photography, and limit it to a

few different fields, too, so that you are focused professionally. Being focused

professionally is going to help reinforce your reputation in those circles you run in. Be

specialized and be the best damn photographer you can be in your chosen

specialties, network, promote yourself actively and vigorously and good things will

happen.

 

As for photo school, my opinion is that this is a great place to hone your skills and

get valuable experience doing different things photographically since a college will

have much greater resources/equipment than you do. School is also useful for, of

course, instruction and you get feed-back on your work from other talented people.

Don't underestimate how much that can mean in terms of your growth as a

photographer.

 

As far as a degree in photography; get it if you want, but don't expect to get hired in

some place with a 401k, full dental, medical, etc, that all will come out of your

pocket.

Many moons ago (1978) I graduated from high school and went to RIT as a student in the Professional Photography program. After my first year I made a decision to change majors into my other passion at the time, which was engineering. I made that decision mostly because I felt at the time that engineering offered a better career prospect, and it was also something I was very interested in.

 

Fast forward 24 years (and those years went fast!) and here I am successfully early retired from the engineering world (my choice) and enjoying once again diving more deeply into photography as an art and as an advanced hobby. In the years in between I was very successfull as and engineering turned manager turned executive. Often I wonder where my life path would have taken me had I stuck through the RIT photo program.

 

As a money making adventure photography, like journalism, music, theater and the like is one of the more difficult roads to travel. The competition can be intense, yet there are many who make good lives for themselves (that is a much broader thing than "making a good living") in pursuit of their photographic or other artistic passion.

 

Although there are good arguments for skipping college (in any field) and getting to work, there are also good reasons for getting yourself grounded and rounded through the rigor and breadth that a good eductional experience can provide.

 

If you are talented, and if you are driven, and if you have an interesting point of view about the world around you ... then perhaps you are one of the people who should be dedicating their life to a particular art and craft. If so, getting a thorough grounding at a top flight school is a darn good idea. RIT (Rochester Institute of Technology) certainly has one of the finest photography schools in the country and you could do a lot worse with a few years of your time than to go there. I am sure that there are some other great schools to consider. Go visit a few. Check things out.

 

John

(In response to Mr. Timber Borcherding�assuming your post is a reply for my response, did you even read my first post thoroughly?)

My university never taught us we shouldn�t sell our art because it�s prostitution; or hate commercial photographers because all they do is sell photographs. That would be unprofessional and irresponsible. This �ivy tower� view of yours bothers me. It doesn�t make any sense. How does it place the teacher on a high plateau? Art photographers survive by making art. Their motivation comes from within, not because there�s money out there. That�s the kind of mentality that separates art photographer from commercial photographer. And is there money out there for artists? Guess who our clients are. CEOs, business people, etc - our so-called �enemy.� Look at the Rockefeller Center. That building may be considered the epitome of what �business� stands for. Find the murals by Diego Rivera, Frank Brangwyn, and Jose Maria Sert � all artists.

 

Maybe I should�ve said this in the very beginning but you don�t need a *diploma* in photography degree. But the program - the major - is invigorating. That paper thingie with your name and school is utterly useless (unless you become a teacher). You enroll in the school of fine arts for the experience. To learn. To critique and be critiqued. On that note, a business degree is equally useless when it comes to opening up a studio. Clients don�t care if you have an MBA from Wharton. But if you lack management skills, take business classes� or whatever skill you think you�re lacking. And then drop out of college. Seems like I�m the only exception that doesn�t need business class. Then again, I�m not opening up a commercial studio either.

 

Fine art school is all about the community experience that helps you *learn how to think* and *learn how to learn*. If you want to learn draw 3d fishes, you can do so at a workshop. Why waste money and time on pre-requisite classes such as philosophy, art history, or sociology in order to take 3d animation class in a liberal-art university? Why are they a pre-requisite in the first place? Just to fill up an unpopular professor�s classroom out of pity? Think about it. Another alternative is to learn it yourself. It�s possible. I�ve mastered Lightwave by myself. Or ask anybody from the 3d studio max, or Maya communities. Even the first generation Pixar animators had to learn it by themselves because no such classes existed. They learn by trial and error. The only difference is that it took us longer to learn than if we actually went to such classes/workshop. 3d animation is a technical skill like learning how to control aperture and shutter speed. Fine arts school continues where a technical schools leaves off. But can you learn fine art by yourself? Sure, if you can critique your work from 20-something different perspectives or have a lot of artist friends.

 

�Helmut Newton didn't go to fine art school and became a successful fashion photographer.� So what? Neither did Guy He didn�t go to business school either and yet, is successful with a nice apartment in Monaco. His art was mediocre early in his career (fired two weeks later from Singapore Straits Times due to incompetence). How did he become an important figure in the fashion photography world? He took a lot of pictures. He had an editor to learn from (I do believe I drew parallels between an editor and a professor in my first post). Experience, again, is what�s important. If I had a gig at a newspaper as a photographer, I wouldn�t need fine arts school either because I�d be surrounded by seasoned photographers to learn from, and experiences to share. The trade-off between going to a fine art school or not (or newspaper org.) is how long will it take for you to develop a STYLE. The community in a fine art school helps you cultivate your style on a day-to-day basis. Remember, they are there to help you cultivate it, not spoon-feed you all the 58 flavors of it. They want you to discover it yourself. They believe that since you�re smart enough to enter a university, then you�re smart enough to figure out the technical problems. Or at least be resourceful enough to figure them out. Technical skills is not the priority here. In short, fine art school won�t give you a packet containing all the checklists of what to do in order to open a studio or be a commercial photographer or how put meals on the table or how to cook them. If you are in dire need for money, they expect you to be resourceful enough, to let�s say, open up a studio by yourself. Or apply for grants. Or take out a loan. They�re there to help you learn how to think critically. Not technically. Or even lucratively.

 

�Do not believe that the professional world throws work at �art photographers��. True that. That�s because you still don�t see the difference (or missed the point of my previous posts) between the art photographer and commercial photographer. Let me present you my thesis again: why photography major is not completely worthless in order to be an ARTIST. The experience gained from a liberal arts institution may be completely worthless if you want to be a COMMERCIAL photographer - unless you make a lot of friends/contacts/clients there during your stay. Let�s look at some examples:

Sally Mann�s collodion plate images of Civil War battlefields. For those who haven�t seen those in person, the charcoal-like images looked like a darkroom accident - certainly not a style to be adopted by any magazine or advertising editor soon. YET it sells. Tell me why. Because she�s famous? Then, how did she become famous in the first place? Where did she go for her education and what did she MAJOR in? Now commit these questions to memory and look at John Paul Caponigro, Cindy Sherman, Jerry Uelsmann (by the way, he attended RIT), and ask those same questions. These artists � by your monetary standard � are successful. There are many more artists to list but it would take too long to put them all here. Don�t just take my word for it and look it up. Please. I beg you.

 

I agree on your point of being flexible during �bad times.� Be a waiter. Be a store clerk. You don�t necessarily need to have a business degree to prevent these �bad days,� because hey, they�ll still happen even for a business major - even they become waiters, store clerks, cooks. Point and case? The Great Depression. History won�t repeat itself? Who knows! But wait a minute; even photographers had jobs during that period. Who is this Dorothea Lange person? Look it up.

 

In the end, if you still think that photography major is useless, then try to think about philosophy majors. Why is there even such program? Can you find ads for that in the newspaper? How do they make money? Sounds to me that most people here are presenting a case about what fine art photography can�t be instead of what it can. What is art photography? It�s more than just a pretty picture hanging on the wall. Look up those artists I listed above. Read their artist statements.

 

(In response to Laura E. Napolitano � sorry but I had to pick on you :))

 

When you talk about Meg Ryan and Russel Crowe, I�m assuming here you�re talking about actor friends? My argument here is visual artists, specifically photographers. Very seldom do you become a �superstar� in the art world because the media doesn�t care about it; because the layman doesn�t care about it (except Thomas Kinkade). Artists aren�t measured (in term of success) by the amount of media attention, the million-dollar contracts, or how expensive the wedding was. A better analogy for success for art photographers is comparing them to stage actors at a community theater. They may be successful locally and �underground� on a national or even international level. They travel far and compete for parts, but stage-acting at a community theater is satisfying enough (for those that I know anyways).

 

I don�t want kids, I�m self-sufficient and I pay for my own rent and tuition. Bad things will come, statistically speaking. It�s unavoidable. But (most) people get through it. If life was easy, what would be the point of living? (hedonists need not respond).

 

As for living in New York City, here�s a city-by-city comparison of national cost-of-living differences.

�All index numbers are based on the composite prices of groceries, housing, utilities, transportation, health care, clothing and entertainment with 100.0 as national average.�

 

New York City: 216.2

LA: 137.8

San Francisco: 182.3

Dallas, Texas: 97.4

 

To calculate, do:

(city 1)/(city 2) and multiply it by your salary.

Ex. What is the Dallas equivalent of a $40,000 salary in NYC?

97.4/216.2 x $40,000 = $18,020

 

Umm�which one would I choose? They�re all abundantly populated. So, �poverty line� is relative to where you live.

 

*Data collected in the fourth quarter of 2002 by ACCRA. They list their website at www.coli.org. Got this information at the library. Go to the library. I seem to have this nagging feeling that you people don�t frequent those establishments enough. And for the self-learning businesspeople out there, pick up �Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images� by Bert P. Krages

 

 

University of Michigan - Ann Arbor! Why? Because I go there! :)

 

Get a business or econ degree...then go to our MBA program. Learn photography on the side...either by yourself, or with a mentor, or through U of M's School of Art & Design, or through a non-academic institution.

 

You'll have all the business savvy in the world after having graduated from one of the top business programs in the world! Combine that with the awesome photography skills you will have developed, and you'll be all set!!!

Sorry, but the "ivy tower" that many photography professors live in gives them a safe

haven to have such views about "prostituting oneself" for commercial art. They like

to have one over photographers who are making $100,000 a year.

 

Art college cannot teach everything that the world has to offer in the way of

photography. By cutting out pictures from publications, you will see what is really

going on. Develop an ability to analyze these pictures, its all there, right in front of

you.

 

I became a pro BEFORE I took a 3 week course in beginning photography. I believe

that art school is valuable, but it is not necessary to go 4 years in art. Rather, use 4

years for a Business Degree, use 1 year for photography, theatre. Journalism courses

are for writers, not photographers. Theatre Direction, however gives you some

experience in organizing and visualizing the placing of people. If you are going to

photograph people, it would be nice to do a semester in Theatre. But get a Business

Degree. This degree has respect in the American Community. A photography

degree, theatre degree, art degree is not a ticket to a job. They want to see your

book, your experience. A business degree will put your wiser to the world.

 

Timber Borcherding timberborcherding

I read a lot of the responses, but not all, so forgive me if this has been brought

up. Where you go to college for a degree depends on what you want to do.

While it may be true that many Brooks Institute grads never succeed as a

photographer, it's not true that the ones who are dedicated to their craft fail.

As with any college education, what you do with your degree depends

entirely on you. I graduated from Brooks in 1975 with a BA in Industrial/

Scientific degree and it was because of that degree that I got my first job as a

corporate photographer for a government defense company. It was there that

I learned more about photography then I learned in all my time at Brooks,

however, this company would only hire Brooks graduates because of the

solid technical foundation they had. I worked there for 5 years before moving

onto freelance and I've been successful in earning my income from

photography since. I never regretted for one minute that I went to Brooks and

got my college degree, but if you are very dedicated to your craft you can

become successful without the degree. Sometimes it just turns people off to

you, but it also can get you into some doors that otherwise might have

remained shut. It's also easier to get your teaching credentials with a degree.

Good luck and I commend you for thinking about photography school.

Noah, the first thing you might want to do is clarify your

objectives. If you want to become a commercial photographer, a

photojournalist, a 'fine art' photographer - each of these might as

well be a completely separate profession, in many ways. And

each will have strengths in different schools.

 

If you want to be a commercial photographer, then the numerous

"get a real degree/job" and "get a business degree" answers

make sense.

 

If your goal is to be a fine art photographer, they don't. Not at all.

 

I'm studying photography in a BFA program, and looking to

transfer from a four-year public university into a four-year

intensive art college, though I may not. Going to engineering

school, or business school would have been an absolute

disaster for me. Not caring about political science classes

(when I lived and breathed politics) was bad enough.

 

My goal is to be a 'fine art' photographer, and it's very likely that I'll

pursue for my MFA.

 

Art classes invigorate me. I'm excited to go, even to the lowliest

drawing class that I'm terrible at. Along with photography

classes, in art school, you'll learn design - which means that in

this age of on-demand printing and digital media, I'll be able to

do much of the legwork on promos, catalogues, books on my

own. You'll learn print-making skills. Turn photographs into silk-

screened posters and t-shirts, sell them at bazaars and markets

for extra cash. Take the right classes, and you'll learn film-

making skills (which is dangerous for me, as I keep teetering on

the brink of pursuing film school, which is even less likely to pay

the bills). You'll learn how to mount an exhibition, how to get the

word out, etc. etc. etc.

 

More important than the classes are the facilities. At my

university, where photography is somewhere below

"professional cheerleading" on the administration's priority list, I

have 24-hour access to a color line, enlargers, several dozen

computers (no film scanner unfortunately) with the latest

software, etc. And much as I enjoy not being stuck in a pitch-

black room with no company for hours on end, digital color

images don't match the process of chemical color for me yet. So

that color machine is worth the price of tuition (it's a state school)

alone.

 

All of that is irrelevant if you want to run a commercial studio,

where business needs will often come before artistic. That's not

my goal. I would sooner never pick up a camera again.

 

Life is too short to set aside passion for profit. I'm sure some will

say I'm an idealistic fool, but I already know that. I'm young, I

have no children (and don't intend to) and have no

responsibilities to or for anyone but myself.

 

Neither path is right, neither path is wrong. The first step is

figuring out your wishes.

 

And, for what it's worth, if they fit your needs, almost any

photography program will do. I attend the University of Texas at

Arlington, 24k+ students strong and getting larger. I doubt

anyone knows of our art program, but we have a small

photography program student-wise, incredible faculty (Kenda

North, Rene West, Brian Florentin, Leighton McWilliams, Andrew

Ortiz, and God help me I'm sure I've forgotten someone), always

there to help out or talk, and plenty of material.

 

We're not RIT or Brooks, but I sure wouldn't let use that as an

excuse for bad work.

I went to San Francisco State University after having spent 2 years at Humboldt State University. I had the most inspired teacher of my life at HSU, Don Anton. The program not only shaped me as a photographer and an artist but as a person. I found SFSU to be a big disappointment in comparison. The department at SF was small and soul-less in contrast to the passionate experience of Humboldt. Call Don at HSU, he will have great insight and advice. Here's his web page through the University-- http://www.humboldt.edu/~dga2/

 

a former student ~Cassandra Young

I agree in regards to finding a "soul" in college. SF State is not a community center, a cultural center. However, if you have hadthe spark of "soul", the next step is to add intellectual knowledge, like a BA in business. My first teacher was Ed Douglas. He did not teach, he lead you to your own thoughts. He didn't grade, we graded ourselves. About 1/2 of our summer school class became pros. We started out with little more than 3 weeks of education and a year of chatting, hanging out without classes. There was no studio, no lights, no "portraits". Yet, I am still profoundly influenced by him.

I looked at www.SFSU.edu catalogue on photography classes. I looked at the hard copy, too. I looks as though there are only about 6 classes, and they are not very distinguished from each other. This means to me they are "art photography".

 

I then looked at San Francisco City College, a Jr. College, and found about 18 courses in photography! There were "running a photography business", "photojournalism" and many other titles. I have visited the site and I know they have a nice color lab. The nice thing about City College is that it is near SF State University. They are connected by trains. City College, however, is not a pretty campus. It is dull and filled with working students as is SFSU.

 

However, San Francisco people are generally not dull! It takes a cultural stretch to take it all in here! Humboldt State would be a nice area in a small town surrounded by enormous trees. Very Pretty.

 

So, to modify my recommendation, I would say go to City College for those unusual photography courses, and get the hard core college degree from State in Marketing, Sales.

 

A lighter weight degree is the BECA Broadcast and Electronic Communications Arts degree. I have that. I never pursued that career. If you simply want a 4 year degree without having to do any math, then BECA is fun. But you really should take marketing, sales, and a few other business courses.

 

I don't believe that anyone can stretch photography into a 4 year college. Maybe Brooks can.

 

San Francisco has the culture and the interesting people! You will find many people here interesting in visual arts of all kinds. We have a Modern Art Museum which now shows Diane Arbus' work. We have all the professional organizations dedicated to photography: Magazine photographers Assoc., Advertising Photographers Assoc., Greater Bay Area Professional Photographers Assoc., and maybe more. This you won't have in Humboldt!

 

Therefore, use www.google.com to look up San Francisco City College, and SFSU.edu.

 

Becoming a pro photographer, however, really requires an independent spirit and focus. The degree is only as good as what you learn from the given classes. Remember, too, that San Francisco is a "Multi-Media" hotspot. San Francisco has a long history of acceptance of artists.

 

Timber Borcherding timberborcherding

Here is San Francisco City College. Impressive, they have courses in many areas of photography. They also offer a degree in photography.

 

http://www.ccsf.edu/AR/admissions.html

12 million photojournalistic images are at this site for your education:

 

www.britishpathe.com

How come I don't see anyone mentioning SVA? I heard SVA has a good balance between art and business, and its in the middle of NEW York City