Teaching Photography is pointless...a student's perspective.

Yeah, I'm on a harangue from participating in a Beginner Photography thread that got me to look back on my experience with teachers as a student learning how to do something that interested me and finally realizing that it was always about and for the teacher. I'm sure you guys are going to have a difference of opinion. I've realized most of what I know especially on photography and art in general was due to me teaching myself. So what was the purpose of these teachers? I feel like I got bamboozled with my education.

 

From high school to art school I still can not see a direct influence on my learning any particular subject that interested me helped along by the person teaching me. Of course English, Literature, Biology, Mathematics, etc. didn't really interest me. Those were subjects where the teacher REALLY helped so I could get my grades up, graduate and move on to pursuing a career in art.

 

This attitude I've recently developed toward learning through teachers was supported when several years ago I happen to strike up a conversation with a retired art teacher who bought and lived in a house on the bank of the river where I swim. He said he'ld been teaching basic drawing for nearly 20 years. "Pretty simple stuff"...he added chuckling. "It bought me this house on the river and a nice retirement package".

 

Then I thought of the retired art professor from the Chicago Academy of Art my parents paid him for art lessons at his home when I was 14 and remembered how obsessive he was over one aspect of anatomy drawing constantly reminding me to "Really see what you're looking at!" It was like a "wax on/wax off" teaching moment where I was left saying to myself..."Yes! That's obvious...I know how to look at something." mmh..."Am I doing it, sir?...I can't tell!... What do you mean by this?...You seem to think I'm not looking, REALLY looking". I stop taking lessons from him. I went back to teaching myself how to draw.

 

Teaching is an ego trip, plane and simple. It provides an air of self importance for the one teaching regardless if the teacher offers useful information or not. Same applies to teaching photography. If you're interested bad enough, you'll figure out how to to be a photographer. If not, you can always teach it.

Tim - you are not allowed to give away secrets like this, Civilisation will come crashing down about our ears !

 

Seriously, I do agree - with hindsight, the best teachers I ever had did not teach me 'facts' about any given subject, except basic ground rules and a framework - they taught me how to learn from other sources, so I became (like yourself) basically self-educated. I also learned to question any statement based on dogma that was not supported by evidence. In the UK nowadays, it appears (to a cynical sixty-six year old) that all the 'education' process is designed to do is get the students to pass exams, not to provide them with any form of useful information.

 

A bit like the hypnopedia techniques in 'Brave New World' - useless for teaching information, invaluable for inculcating prejudices.

I'm thankful I've experienced the upside of having had a lot of great, dedicated, caring teachers, in photography and other fields. I'm richer (not in the monetary sense) for it. Those experiences have encouraged me to teach myself as well. Good teachers have taught me how to learn, not what to think. A good teacher knows what questions to ask me, not what answers to give me.

 

One important thing I've learned over the years, partially from teachers and partially through personal experience, is not to generalize my own experience with the occasional bad teacher to the whole profession of teaching. I've learned to make the best of bad experiences and to move on.

 

There are not only all kinds of teachers, good and bad. There are all kinds of students as well, good and bad. I've been in situations with some awfully stubborn, self-assured students who got in their own way more than any teacher ever could.

i'd Like Fred's post but i know he doesn't like Likes so i won't. but i will say, comparing Tim and Fred as photographers, in terms of creativity, that teachers do obviously help.

No amount of teaching will educate someone who does not want to learn.

I have a hard time remembering that far back but it seems to me now that the good teachers got me interested in a subject that I was ignorant of and spurred me to listen to what they had to say and dig into the text books.

I have a hard time remembering that far back

i am still being taught, not, obviously in a classroom, but by my peers (in both taking pics and the philosophy of taking pics :-))

i'd Like Fred's post but i know he doesn't like Likes so i won't. but i will say, comparing Tim and Fred as photographers, in terms of creativity, that teachers do obviously help.

 

That's OK, Norman. I did it vicariously for you! :p

 

I agree in principle with Tim's original sentiment--and also with Fred as a terminal qualifier. The vast majority of what I know--a lifetime of dedication to acquiring knowledge and skills--has come through my own effort and interest. The 'setup' from the point of teachers or instructors gets a bit more complicated--and changes immensely when considering such a person in the roles of mentor and protege.

 

I consider myself 'blessed' in having grown up in the 60s and early 70s. The demographic landscape was well populated with a wealth of older, often retired people who were self-learners--and had immense skills acquired through the war years and beyond. Many were beyond willing to take a young lad in tow and try to impart the "stuff" they knew--often from an "hands-on" perspective. Thus I learned the intricacies of electronics/amateur radio, astronomy, mechanical repair, woodworking/cabinet making, photography, machine shop design/prototyping, carpentry, history, and a host of other things.

 

While other kids were screwing around doing nothing substantial--I was hanging around old geezers and tradespeople in their garages, radio rooms, shops, studios, places of employment, and other places and activities. School? The primary/secondary system was a small assembly of real teachers whom I respected as people--who took an interest in me and the sad story of my crappy family life and became a bit more than just the 'blah blah blah wah wah wah' drones in Charlie Brown's school world. I learned because I did not want to disappoint them. This often had serious perks--such as my own keys and unfettered access to the high school chemistry lab and the darkroom!

 

At the university level, there were only three that did more than provide a platform for my own learning rigor. Two beat me over the head with language and grammatical structure on an intense 1:1 basis--to become a competent academic and social writer. The other challenged me with 'theoretical dilemma's' that vastly shaped the lenses I use to understand the social world and its underpinnings.

 

Now, can photography be taught? Sure! But the knowledge is only as good as the student's innate skills, vision, desire to learn--and as Tim notes--the attitude things are presented with. Lot's of windbags, rhetoricians, and dogma dumpers out there--some of whom I cannot even recall their faces or names after spending an entire grade or semester with... o_O

On this subject, I am always reminded of a friend who many years ago took a photography course. He said he learned one truly valuable thing, and that was on the first day. The teacher stressed that you should never put your camera on a shelf or table with the strap dangling down. It's a lesson I continue to remember and take to heart, and in many years have never had a camera hit the floor from a snagged strap.

 

The value of the lesson may no be where the teacher thinks it is, but it can sometimes be found.

The very best teachers most always teach us, not facts, but HOW to learn and to LOVE learning. That is the great danger of devolving education into a set of rote, standardized tests, in that doing so pushes even the best teachers to teach to the test, rather than teaching as noted above. At the university where my wife is on faculty, there is an ongoing effort to convince new students to become lifelong "learners", rather than just to memorize and regurgitate facts. I am so very grateful that I became a learner very early on. There is very little knowledge I use professionally that comes from purely academic teaching. Most of that was made obsolete within a very short time of my first exposure, if not being obsolete when taught! The most successful people I know are all, without exception, learners, who are continually exploring and absorbing new knowledge. Sometimes access to that knowledge is through or facilitated by good teachers, other times it is self-taught, and mostly it is through a synergy of others' shared knowledge and personal engagement. Long ago I spent a long time absorbing and attempting to apply technical and artistic knowledge of photography based purely on book learning and what I could do on my own with limited resources. I was not very successful, until I attended an early episode of the Nikon School, and had my eyes opened to the possibilities and integrated applications of the art and techniques used by successful photographers. Now, more recently, adopting digital photography has opened new doors for experimentation and learning, but this progress is truly founded on the knowledge and experience gained through both study, experimentation, and formal teaching. As noted by others, everyone learns a bit differently, and what works for me might be less successful for someone else. Relying solely on self-teaching can be a very long,slow, and frustrating process. As noted by Tim, formal instruction can be (but is not necessarily limited to being) more about the teacher than what is taught. There are good teachers in every field, particularly for good students who desire to be learners. And portable, durable reference materials (books, videos, etc.) offer the learner ready access to knowledge that is needed but is too vast to absorb without repeated exposure.

 

It is true that I disagree with the OP's original statement, but only to a degree. I've taught and mentored more than a few young professionals in my career, as well as some less experienced photographers. There was never a time where I could simply dump knowledge into there heads and send them forth to be productive. Always it has been the case where I shared my knowledge and experience, and then they went out and applied that knowledge, line upon line, and precept by precept, building their own structure of knowledge and experience on which to base success. This process is as applicable to photography as it is to any other endeavor.

With all due respect, the original post contradicts itself and offers conclusions without supporting evidence. First off, "Teaching photography is pointless" leads one to believe the post will focus upon ... teaching photography. Instead, it careens off into a body slam on all teaching. It concludes, "Teaching is an ego trip, plane and simple." (For the record, it's "plain and simple.") Such a statement makes little sense after the OP previously notes that "Of course English, Literature, Biology, Mathematics, etc. didn't really interest me. Those were subjects where the teacher REALLY helped so I could get my grades up." So, apparently not all teachers are bad, only the ones who try to teach us something we already love? Fred G makes excellent points. Please avoid labeling all teachers based on limited personal experience. The vast majority work literally night and day to help students of all ages. And they do so for wages lower than those earned by the average bartender. (Source: New York Times.) There is no room for ego in the typical teacher's life. The demands of children who arrive at school hungry and unwashed, of single parents looking for support, of educational systems that require constant professional development and evaluation and of public schools struggling to serve amid the onslaught of unending state and federal funding cuts keep your average teacher pretty busy. So if you've got a beef with a couple art instructors, great. But before you cast your

"harangue" across an entire profession, I suggest you visit a few schools. See for yourself the work that goes on each and every day. You're a photographer. You should be able to get the picture.

In school, you learn how to learn and how to think critically. A good teacher provides the means and encouragement of that process. Hardly anyone I've known actually makes a living from things they studied in school. Your real education begins the first day on the job.

 

I have taught a lot of things, from chemistry (as a graduate student) to audio recording and technology. I've had to learn, on my own, process modeling, which is a combination of differential equations and linear algebra (matrices and determinants). It's been a hoot. I haven't taught photography, but in audio engineering I introduce students to the tools and techniques, then have them try different methods and listen to the results. I may like one way, students another, but if I get them to listen, I've succeeded.

 

A lot of corporate life (I'm now retired) consists of writing memos and making presentations. In the academic world, you write in a way to describe the problem (largely omitted by major news organizations) and develop the solution one step at a time. You have to read to the end to find the conclusions. In business, you start with your conclusions and recommendations, then back it up systematically. Busy people might only read the first paragraph or two. It takes a LOT of work to say something in two paragraphs. Anyone can write twenty pages. I'm still working on that part,

 

Photography (and recording) is both an art and a craft. It's easy to teach the latter, which consists of cameras and other tools. The former is up to the student, with the proper guidance and encouragement. It is not a teacher's job to make you feel comfortable. You don't learn unless you recognize there are always conflicts. One other thing is often omitted in this egocentric world. If you want to be paid for your art/craft, you have to listen to and understand what your clients want, and keep that in mind when working. Many famous artists gained acclaim only after passing. What's the fun of that?

If you want to be paid for your art/craft, you have to listen to and understand what your clients want, and think in their place when working. Many famous artists gained acclaim only after passing. What's the fun of that?

Ed, while I understand what you're saying, artists generally don't have clients so there's no one to listen to in that same respect. An artist's viewers or audience won't determine what the artist produces to the same extent that someone paying for someone else's work will.

 

I think the nature of art is such that, often, the best artists lead their audiences rather than follow what they think will please an audience. As you suggest, sometimes it will take decades for an audience to catch up with what an artist has accomplished. True, a lot of artists haven't had fun. But they were doing it for other reasons, sometimes just because they were inexplicably driven to.

 

_______________________________________________________

 

Often, learning from a teacher is a complicated process, especially when it comes to art. One of my favorite art stories is of Tchaikovsky introducing his now-famous Piano Concerto #1 to his teacher/mentor/patron Nicolai Rubinstein, who thought there was way too much banging and intensity. When asked to perform the premiere, Rubinstein declined saying the piece was basically unplayable. Tchaikovsky, who honored and respected this man, stormed out of the room declaring that he wouldn't change a note. This independent streak was probably something Rubinstein loved about Tchaikovsky and didn't cause Tchaikovsky to think any less of Rubinstein in the long run. Folks can manage conflicting passions and attractions. Tchaikovsky could assert himself and stand by his work without rejecting all he had learned and been given by Rubinstein.

I took a B/W photography course back in the day and learned a lot actually. I still shoot B/W and developed a roll of Arista 400 in 120 format yesterday. . I did not have an interest in Art school myself but I did go to college for Nursing. That turned out to be a good decision.

The student must want to learn, and have interest. Good teachers inspire -- teach the tools, arouse passion for the art, and set their students on the road.

Photography (and recording) is both an art and a craft.

As is Architecture, too. I believe the same essential principals apply to the learning and practice of all the applied arts and sciences. One must master the tools, and then apply them to creative problem solving, whether the problem is scientific, artistic, or engineering in nature. The key factor is obtained in one word: "Applied". To the extent that photography is done in a conscious, purposeful manner (my apologies to Julie), it is an applied art, and so requires equal measures of technical competence and creative vision. These can be learned/developed in a number of ways, but success demands a high level of interest and investment on the part of the practitioner.

 

artists generally don't have clients so there's no one to listen to

I disagree with Fred. Artists frequently have clients or sponsors, and their work responds to the mission for which the client is paying. The Sistine Chapel is no less a work of art because it was executed under the patronage of the Pope, rather than as a wholly autonomous work by Michelangelo. We admire the work of Dorthea Lange in documenting the Dust Bowl, yet it would not have happened without a commission from the FSA. The work of architects is impossible without paying clients, but I don't think we would fail to classify architecture as one of the arts. Any photographer who works under contract or commission (and that's a lot of pro's) will respond to his/her clients' needs if they want to keep working. This does not diminish the art. Rather, it informs and empowers it, to a degree that would never exist without that material support. The artists who succeed in making a living on purely self-driven work are very few and far between.

Tim, all good teaching is about enabling you to teach yourself. What you teach yourself is what you truly learn and retain.

The Sistine Chapel is no less a work of art because it was executed under the patronage of the Pope, rather than as a wholly autonomous work by Michelangelo.

An interesting example.

 

Michelangelo was commissioned by the Pope and paid by the church. He was originally commissioned to paint the twelve apostles in the supporting arches meeting the dome. But he demanded, and got, free reign, painting the series we now have of the Creation, the relationship of God to man, and man's fall from grace. Instead of the apostles, he included other biblical and classical figures.

 

Yes, there are varying degrees in which artists will "please" those who support them either emotionally or financially. But quite often, those receiving patronage, commissions, and payment are still given a wide berth of latitude in their vision and creative decisions.

 

Tchaikovsky is relevant here again. His most famous patron, Madame Von Meck, supported him throughout his career, one of her stipulations being that they would never meet. She craved such distance precisely so as not to exert artistic influence and to allow his own voice the room it needed to develop.

 

I think a lot of patrons don't micromanage the artists they support and those patrons who attempt to do so often fail. There are, of course, exceptions.

 

The family of Gertrude Stein, for example, were incredible patrons and supporters of the arts and artists. They had a great respect for and appreciation of the creative individuality of those artists. As a matter of fact, Gertrude talked about how uneasy she felt at some of the work when it was first introduced. Thankfully, she had a sense that there was something going on that she could intuit was important even if she couldn't quite rationalize it yet. She didn't try to sway the Parisian artists she was supporting into making their art more palatable to contemporary audiences. She allowed the audiences time to come around. She proved to have great foresight.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Norma Desmond

I think a lot of patrons don't micromanage the artists they support

Agreed, and this can be the best of all possibilities. Still, the patronage is meaningful and frequently defines, if only broadly, the boundaries or character of the art produced. For example, FSA's support of Dorthea Lange would never have resulted in marble sculptures, but it gave us a wonderful and important collection of photographs.

Plutarch said, “The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled.” Frank Zappa said, “If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want an education, go to the library.”

 

Some teachers are horrible and some are wonderful. The good ones are those who adapt the stable boy's truth to education: you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. The teacher's role is not to pour information into a student but to make him or her thirsty for knowledge. Once the thirst is present, the student can purse acquisition in many ways, with or without a teacher.

 

Some disciplines, like photography, have both an artisanal and an artistic component. Artisanship--the mastery of the basic skills is the foundation on which artistic creativity is build. Those skills can be taught best by a good teacher, although some students can learn easily from other sources, such as self-study involving books (but those books have a human teacher too, the author).

 

One of the must misunderstood and abused aspects of modern education in schools, especially elementary schools, is the notion that nothing needs to be explained or systematically taught. Students, they say, will learn by discovery. Perhaps. But why should I spend years at a piano with no knowledge of music theory or fingering trying to become a classical concert pianist. Others over many centuries have mastered all that and a good teacher can provide me in a few months or years with a foundation to make success possible. Otherwise, unless I'm an unusually gifted person, I may never get beyond playing (probably very poorly) by ear.

 

At the college or university level, teachers sometimes push their own agenda and try to mold students to their preferred style. A friend of mine paints in the style of the Old Masters. I'm sure she would be very unhappy with a teacher who had a strong prejudice for cubism or surrealism.

 

Once the basics are mastered (how to use the camera to take into account light, depth of field, composition, etc.), a new era begins for the student--how to develop as an artist. This may be done without a teacher but will usually be helped by a good teacher. How to find that "good teacher" is the problem and the choice may be very limited.

 

However, that is what star athletes, for example, do. They find trainers with whom they are comfortable, who inspire them and give them the support they need. When that doesn't work out, they find another trainer (if they can).

 

There are a lot of bad and mediocre teachers. There are some good and excellent teachers. There are very few extraordinary teachers. One of the latter taught a university course in how to write research papers. He was interesting and likeable. After a few useful weeks of learning some of the mechanics of research, footnote and bibliographic style and organization of material, I found his classes tedious because he was going to slowly for me and adapting his teaching to the level of the others in the class. I just stopped going. Some teachers have an ego that would not allow such behaviour. This professor was different. He did not feel personally slighted by my absence. I went to class every time there was a test and always did well. One morning, while I was playing bridge (the dorm obsession), he phoned me just after his class to tell me that he had just assigned the term paper for the course and wanted to give me the details, possible subjects, deadline, etc. He also told me that he had to see and approve an outline by a certain date. I prepared my outline and went to see him. He said nothing about my absences but approved my work plan. I went back to the dorm over the next few weeks, between bridge games, researched and wrote my term paper. Most of the others in the class probably did well in the course. But because he understood that every student is different and that his job was to guide and perhaps inspire, he let me (like Frank Sinatra) "do it my way." Many other teachers, perhaps most, would have said, active class participation F, presence in class F, term paper (subject and outline not approved) F--final grade F.

 

Doris Lessing understood the tyranny of modern education when she wrote the following:

 

“Ideally, what should be said to every child, repeatedly, throughout his or her school life is something like this: 'You are in the process of being indoctrinated. We have not yet evolved a system of education that is not a system of indoctrination. We are sorry, but it is the best we can do. What you are being taught here is an amalgam of current prejudice and the choices of this particular culture. The slightest look at history will show how impermanent these must be. You are being taught by people who have been able to accommodate themselves to a regime of thought laid down by their predecessors. It is a self-perpetuating system. Those of you who are more robust and individual than others will be encouraged to leave and find ways of educating yourself — educating your own judgements. Those that stay must remember, always, and all the time, that they are being moulded and patterned to fit into the narrow and particular needs of this particular society.”

My OP was not meant to broad brush the entire teaching profession. It was my account of looking back with more clarity on my early learning experience in trying to understand the motivation behind the teaching techniques of my art teachers and figuring out why I can't remember one thing they told me related to improving my skills as an artist.

 

I even include music since I do remember my band instructor pointing me out in front of the entire junior high band proclaiming quite loudly I had a good ear, but I don't remember how I learned how to play the trombone and read sheet music. I do remember the personality of the teacher had a more profound influence in making me believe in myself more so than the instruction. So the teacher was more of a performer, cheerleader so to speak.

 

This is where ego comes into play. My teachers both in music and art encouraged and championed me with positive feedback. I don't remember ever asking technical or creative based questions to improve my skills. I seemed to just get it as if by osmosis just being in their company. This is why I don't understand the motivation behind people asking how to learn photography online without the influence of these teacher's personalities motivating them to teach them self as I did. I had to recall the bad teachers to understand the value of the good teachers and what made them better. I always assumed all teachers had the student's interests as their main motivator but now in looking back find their personalities concealed they didn't.

 

This realization has led me to conclude anyone who wants to learn photography or any other creative art field and KNOW they have some ability and drive, there's the possibility relying on teachers may be more distracting and problematic due to conflicting POV's, motivations, personality differences more so than learning hard line fact based fields of study such as math, computer programming, engineering, architecture, etc.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Tim_Lookingbill

Just want to let everyone know that I've read all of your comments and I have to say I'm amazed at the depth of thought in your feedback. I am now reminded that I'm among giants, maybe not in photography, but certainly those who can write well thought out and insightful responses. I feel intellectually refreshed for some reason. That's weird.

 

I may have over played the bowler plate tone of my OP but at least I know in doing so I've lit a fire that revealed some surprisingly very interesting POV's by contributors.

 

Thanks for reading my OP and giving your thoughts and insight.

The best music teachers show you how to listen more than how to play (or sing). That is the art. How to produce for others what you hear in your mind is the craft. I think that would apply to other arts as well, including photography.

 

Although my main interest is in technology, I pursued a liberal arts degree. One of my favorite courses in college was history. The teacher departed from the usual pedagogy and taught history as conflicting opinions and interpretations, rather than a rigid timeline. Our texts were many, consisting of essays from all points of view. My worst experience was probably sociology, populated largely by ideologues. My teacher, like so many in his field, confused opinion (his) with fact. It was fairly easy to provoke him at one point to declare, "Sociologoy is NOT common sense." The art of leading an ideologue into a blind alley is one which I used, more subtly, many times in business.

 

An artist who claims he need only please himself had better like Raman noodles and bicycles.

Edited June 1, 2017 by Ed_Ingold

I feel intellectually refreshed for some reason. That's weird.

It's NOT weird. I routinely feel enlightened and inspired by these dialogues. We enjoy association with some very smart and insightful people here, and I am honored to be able to participate and contribute. I know I receive more than I give.

 

An artist who claims he need only please himself had better like Raman noodles and bicycles.

My point, exactly...

I won't agree in a general sense, but photography schools are, to be polite, redundant, and always have been. It's not rocket science. Photography degrees are taken seriously by almost nobody, and for good reason. No matter in which era you live, the best photographers learned organically and naturally. Journalism is another subject which I cannot take seriously. Journalism is an extremely important job, but the worst way to become one is to study the subject.

 

Today, film schools are also redundant, although they certainly had their place. One could not simply walk into a shop and buy expensive cinema equipment, and then send off thousands of feet of film for processing, printing and telecine. But, cinema has been very democratic for quite a while now, for better or worse.

 

I've read of autodidacts described as 'gate crashers', by a writer who probably didn't like the fact that so many of the best photographers never wasted a single dime on formal study. Learning from each other is much more productive.

 

Engineering, OTOH, is a real subject, although it must be said that the old way of doing things - working your way up in an engineering firm - produced amazingly capable professionals. I support real education, not vanity degrees.