Photography teachers can't shoot?

Maybe the verbal orientation and attitude to people that you find in

a really good photography teacher unsuits him for being a good

photographer. David Vestal is a terrific teacher, but his

photography is dull as dishwater. And double ditto for Ivor Matanle

and Minor White. I've seen this same pattern in my own photography

teachers. Have any of you had a teacher who was great at both the

teaching and the craft?

Yes. Richard Martin. Wonderful photography, and a very patient man who quietly works with his students, pointing out a lot of details you might otherwise miss.

Where does he teach?

Yes i have; Jay Maisel and April Rapier. I also had a doozy of a bad teacher who was also a really terrible photographer. But of course those are just my perceptions

of those teachers and their work .

 

 

Writing frankly as someone who is a pretty good photographer and who has also been a

cited by my students as a good, hard working teacher of photography -- I also have

students who just don't like me or my work -- is: Cie la vie. if the photographer /teacher

works hard and takes both crafts seriously then a student's perception of their teacher is

the student's problem and not the teacher's. The perception of a teacher's photography by

a student as either dull or exciting is mostly shaped by the student's internal expectations,

limitations, and willingness to see the world differently than the student already sees. You

can't teach imagination and you can't really teach someone how to see: you either see or

you don't. All a photographic education can do is help you see what is good and bad in

your work more clearly.

 

Did you actually have Minor White or David Vestal as teachers?

I think it happens in all fields, that the people who are the best at something are not always the best at teaching it, and vice versa. (I've seen that in engineering, for example). Teaching a thing and doing it are two different things.

 

Some things are just hard to teach. If you can teach the subject by giving a cookbook-type approach, then nearly anyone can teach it. I notice in math, that something like long division lends itself to this type of teaching while the "word problems" don't. In photography, many of the basic how-to details can be taught as a cookbook approach; everything except for actually taking the picture.

The cliche is 'those who can't do (fill in the art) teach.' As with most cliches there is some truth. But I have had a teacher who was also a master at his craft. But the craft wasn't photography. It was poetry and that teacher was Stan Rice who ran the creative writing department at SF State for 20 years. His classes were intense learning experiences and his poetry is world class. Incidentally he is the husband of Anne Rice. They moved to New Orleans when San Francisco literary community was rude and dismissive of Anne's work early in her career. He changed my life more than any teacher I've encountered. Poets tend to have to teach since it's hard to pay the mortgage by writing although Anne had no trouble at that.

Ellis: really excellent answer. I would add the following from personal experience. I remember some really excellent local photogs and enjoyed their images back in the seventies and eighties. A girlfriend of mine spent some major $$$ on one of these photogs, buying a HUGE sheet film contact print of a colored cactus exposure.. But when I went back to look at some of their displayed pics in a local gallery the spark wasn't there anymore...I found that their style had either "fixated" or the Gallery was showing some older images..

I actually bust out laughing when I read this "<i>I also have students who just don't like me or my work</i>". This is certainly my experience. Some of my students think I'm a great guy and a genius with a camera. Other's think I'm a no talent idiot. C'est la guerre... t

<<The perception of a teacher's photography by a student as either dull or exciting is mostly shaped by the student's internal expectations, limitations, and willingness to see the world differently than the student already sees.>>

 

But that's a self-serving attitude for a teacher to take. You are saying: if a student finds my photography dull, it's because he has limitations, rigid expectations, and an unwillingness to see the world differently. That really lets the teacher win either way, doesn't it?

 

Now, what you argue about student blindness may be true in your particular classroom, because you have shown on photo.net and in the "real world" that you are a very, very good photographer. And a student who finds your work dull is indeed missing something. But your case can't be extended to a general rule--because the general rule in anything, to play on words a bit, is mediocrity. Sometimes, probably most times, the student is correct: Ole Teach produces dull work. I'm not prepared to concede there's no such thing as dull work, it's all relative, you can't really make judgments, etc., etc., etc. That's 1960s thinking: wrong then and wrong now. And how could any teacher take such positions?

 

I actually did have David Vestal for a teacher, and he was terrific; but I can't imagine you would find his photography other than dull.

 

I did not study with White, but his prowess as a teacher comes through in his books. Unfortunately, his mediocrity as a photographer comes through as well. White is superior to Ansel Adams as a teacher to the extent that Ansel Adams is superior as a photographer---again, considering them as teachers via the printed word.

 

Matanle never, so far as I know, was a teacher; but he functions as a teacher--and a very good one--in his books. But, man alive, surely you don't find those endless pictures of his wife, daughters, and odd machines to be much beyond snapshots. You could not take the pictures you do if you think Matanle is a good photographer.

 

Or do I completely misunderstand your arguments?

 

To get down to cases: I like some of Tod Papageorge's work, and I know that he is or was a teacher. But a good teacher? Anyone know?

Aren't people who excel at something always in the minority?

Let me tell you about my photography teacher. His name was Mr. Tullos. (Don't know his first name.) Only, he didn't teach me photography. He taught physical science when I was in the 9th grade. But, one of the things we did was get to print a photo of the classroom (IE, each person printed a negative the teacher had taken). I don't know how he ranked as a teacher, but he made things interesting, and that little bit of printing made me interested in photography. It took me 30 years to get my own darkroom finally set up, though! I still remember seeing potassium burning in water, and hearing the hydrogen "Pop" in the coke bottle!

<<Aren't people who excel at something always in the minority?>>

 

Yep, that's my point. That's why students are usually right when they find their teachers' photography unremarkable.

Of course you are entiltled to your opinion, but when it comes to Minor White your opinion that he was not a good photographer is simply laughable. His work is collected by MOMA as well as every other Museum seriously interested in photography. He published numerous books. Maybe you are just not visually litterate, YET?

Idunno about the art world, but in the sciences this those-that-can't-teach idea does not apply. The world's best scientists work for universities and teach at least graduate students, if not undergrads. And there's little separation between teaching and doing, as professors teach by supervising student research and students learn by helping the professor with his. Many professors will tell you they learn as much from their grad students as the other way around.

<i>But that's a self-serving attitude for a teacher to take. You are saying: if a student finds my photography dull, it's because he has limitations, rigid expectations, and an unwillingness to see the world differently. That really lets the teacher win either way, doesn't it? </i><P>

Actually, I read Tom's statement as, "You can't please everybody." He didn't make the negative associations that you have--he simply noted that different people have different expectations (and different degrees of willingness to modify those expectations). Someone who idolizes Ansel Adams probably won't care that much for my work--should I consider myself a failure as a photographer (or as a teacher) because of that?<P>

My mother, a career teacher, had a coffee mug that said, "Those who can teach; those who can't do something less important."

I had one photo professor who stands out in my mind, <a href="http://www.barbarajaffee.com">Barbara Jaffe</a>. She had an excellent grasp of photography from a teaching perspectivem covering both technical and artistic considerations, and I will let the work on her website speak for her skills as an artist.<br />

<br />

Incidentally, I got an opportunity to view some of her work while it was on exhibition, and it is much more impressive as 20x24 prints than it could ever be as tiny jpegs on a screen.

Randy wrote<p>

 

<i>Have any of you had a teacher who was great at both the teaching and the craft?</i><p>

 

What difference does it make? Are you there to admire their photographic ability or take advantage of their ability to share their passion and help you learn about photography?<p>

 

I doubt one would find any of my photographic instuctors great photographer's. But what they did have, to a one, was a passion for photography.<p>

 

They had a passion which they enthusiastically shared with their students week after month after semester after educational year. Sometimes they even share their passion during the summer break, when others were off at the beach having a good ole time. And when I finished the degree'd program and moved on, they were still there, sharing their passion/knowledge with the next semester's worth of students.<p>

 

I came to the school not for it's talented photographers but for it's degree program and it's talented photographic instructors. I hope this is the light in how their chosen career efforts will be seen; as talented photographic instructors.<p>

<I>But that's a self-serving attitude for a teacher to take. You are saying: if a student

finds my photography dull, it's because he has limitations, rigid expectations, and an

unwillingness to see the world differently. That really lets the teacher win either way,

doesn't it?</I> <P>In your rhetorical formulation, you win! But your argument is sophistry

(def: subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation

). What I was trying to say is that if a student finds the work the teacher does dull,

the student simply doesn't like the teacher's work. <P>My experience as a teacher is that

those who got the least out of what I (and other teachers) taught were those unwilling to

do the hard work of opening themselves up learning how to see in a way different from

the

way they looked at it the day they walked into the school. Admittedly that is a harsh

judgment but in my experience it is true. I'll also own up to not being the most

competent or inspiring teacher of photography in the world: Gregory Heisler and Jay

Maisel get my votes for that. But I try.

if you want general rules of classification, how are these:

 

good photographer/ good teacher

 

bad photographer /good teacher

 

good photographer / bad teacher

 

bad photographer / bad teacher

 

and two final classes:

 

internet forum wonks.

 

internet forum wankers.

I'm a forum weenie. Wish I had Jay Maisel as a teacher!

Minor White a bad photographer? You have got to be kidding. As John states he is in every

major collection. His teaching set the standard for photographic education and most

assignments that you have4 been given are some form of his original concepts. As for Jay

Maisel and the like, I'm sure the experience of studting with them was a rewarding one,

but (and I might be wrong) I assume this was within a workshop situation. Thats alot

different than a 8 or 10 week course of study with one individual. I have uaually found that

ones dislike of ones teachers work is usually a personal matter and often a matter of not

understanding what the work is about. For example - try to explaining the importance of

Lee Friedlander's work to a beginning class.

It's true that there are many mediocre photographers. It follows that, since excellence at shooting isn't a prerequisite to teaching, many teachers will be mediocre photographers.

 

It does not follow that somehow a good teacher can't also be a good photographer.

<<when it comes to Minor White your opinion that he was not a good photographer is simply laughable>>

 

What you're saying, my friend, is that you disagree with my judgment of White's work. You're trying to say it in a way that will allow you feel one up, superior, ahead in the score, impressive, etc., etc. Okay, feel that way. You need it, you got it.

 

Ellis, you claim that I deceptively reconstructed what you were saying. That's possible, or it could be that I misunderstood what you were saying. Or that you didn't say it clearly enough to forestall misunderstanding. Which interpretation you choose depends on whether you think I was disagreeing with you in good faith or bad. Since you don't know me, you can only make that call in the dark. And thus your call reveals more about you than about me.

 

Go back and re-read everything I wrote. Slow down and take it in with judgment truly suspended. Now. Bad faith? Are you certain?

 

But anyway, you have now nailed it down: STUDENTS WHO FIND YOUR WORK DULL DON'T LIKE YOUR WORK. Well, that's why I hang around photo.net: to learn such things.

 

Anyway, I can see--and it surprises me--that Minor White's photography has some fans. Any fans of Matanle's photos around, or fans of Vestal's photos? Pause. I don't heeeearrr youuuuu!

<<those who got the least out of what I (and other teachers) taught were those unwilling to do the hard work of opening themselves up [to] learning how to see in a way different from the way they looked at it [sic] the day they walked into the school.>>

 

Hasty composition aside, you're shifting the ground of discussion. A student can work hard, open up to seeing in a different way, but still dislike (or find dull!!! yes, yes, yes!!!) his teacher's photography. The teacher may simply be unable to realize his vision, or any vision, very well. It happens. It is facile to say that a student who doesn't care for his teacher's photography practice is lazy, resistant to change, etc. The student who just adores his teacher's photographic practice can be the truly lazy one: he agrees to like what he is told to like.

 

My original question, now lost in a stag stampede, was whether teaching and photographing skills tend to be discrete. It's been my observation that they are. I asked if anyone disagreed, i.e., if anyone know of great photography teachers who were also great photographers. I received some useful answers to the question until a grand herd of creatures ran away from the original issue to grounds where antlers are flashed and poses struck with hoofs en aire.

knew

 

hasty composition--it's catching!