Photography Teachers?

[my stuff]

<p>I have recently noticed several advertisements of those that are "teaching" photography. At a school of photography as a guest speaker I was asked what my thoughts were regarding the whole "I can teach you photography" thing. Well here goes. I don't subscribe to that concept for many reasons. One is how to stunt the growth of a new student by teaching them rules about what is and what isn't right for a starter. Another is the often over used formulas that in most cases these "specialists" teach the naive student as gospel<br /> <br /> I do however have no problem with a school that assists one in understanding technical issues or a school that deals with the historical and artistic aspects of photography. But a school that deals with issues such as cropping, lighting style etc...Well that's where I put my foot down and say an unequivocal NO, Nein, Non.<br /> <br /> I have had so many poor lost assistants whom I would rather not pinpoint specifically, that have no clue what so ever who they are. If they did come into a school of photography with the hopes of coming out an individual, well that notion was sucked out of them by the energy vampires. I'm not saying that all profs are frustrated unsuccessful photographers that couldn’t make it in their field. However from what I have seen and heard, one could not help but make that assumption.<br /> <br /> I am saying that guest speakers, workshops and specialized advise dealing with specific technical issues might be a reason to seek out advice or when a guest lecturer has come in to speak of his or her experiences, as I did at the Orleans School of Photography in France. Do your research. Read, experiment, take tons of photos inspire yourself and grow as a human. Build up your vocabulary in all disciplines and your life shall be richer as a result. It has been proven that the greater the vocabulary the richer ones life. Take a deep breath and do what comes naturally. If you get stuck creatively, take a short break. If you need some technical advice, just ask questions.<br /></p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>You do like to troll. This is right up there with your "I hate umbrellas" post.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Robert, the "umbrella" thread was definitely good, but my favorite Karanekism was from another thread, where he said</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You may call it a brain, but I call it a huge, floating ball...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've been looking for an excuse to work that into a conversation, ever since.</p>

[fil_hunter2]

<p>Well said, Benjamin. You don't seem to be indicting photography schools, but some schools' methods and motivation, and I agree. If the school's primary motivation is profit, the method is more likely to make the student happy with his experience while they're collecting his money rather than to make him competent.<br>

Schools must absolutely put technology first and leave the student to find his own art. When they do teach the art of photography, they need to present a diverse variety of styles from which the student can choose and combine to make his own.<br>

For several years, I taught photography part-time at a good, small state-operated school. I earned very little money, but was satisfied to be paying back the society who had taught me. I did get ultimately paid back myself, though: I got to know the students and was eventually able to hire the most capable assistants on earth!</p>

[david_callard]

<p>Well Benjamin,I'm afraid I can't agree with you that artistic expression cannot be taught, if that is what you are saying. Consider for a moment the Renaissance artists, whether of music or the visual arts and the common practice of apprenticeship to a master. I consider myself fortunate to have spent four years at a well regarded photography college in Melbourne, Australia. Although I had spent many years working successfully as a professional photographer before that, I feel that I graduated with a much higher standard of expression than I had before I enrolled. I think the real trick is to find a real master to teach students. For example, even now at sixty years of age I would dearly love to be "apprenticed" to a high profile master of architectural photography.<br>

Of course the technology content should be taught, perhaps better by technicians rather than artists. No argument there. But I do ask, what is wrong with learning the basic rules of composition, lighting etc. to start with if only so that we may know which ones to break as we mature as artists? <br>

I hope my small contribution to this discussion might serve to expand it a bit further! Cheers.</p>

[ted_fisher]

<p>I'm not sure I'm understanding the initial poster's question. It seems to set up a "straw man."</p>

<p><em>"... a school that deals with issues such as cropping, lighting style etc...Well that's where I put my foot down and say an unequivocal NO, Nein, Non."</em></p>

<p>I expect most people would agree: a school that taught there's only one way to do these things would not be very good. Except I don't know of any schools like that. Anyone teaching photography today most likely teaches with some flexibility, introducing students to various techniques, various approaches and various ideas.</p>

<p>How could a good photography school or program or class not address, in some way, cropping or lighting styles? These are elements that are part of photographic practice, so they need to be addressed in some way. What the heck kind of class / course / program / school wouldn't address these?</p>

<p>It's sort of like saying "I hate exploding meatballs! that's where I put my foot down and say an unequivocal NO, Nein, Non." The exploding meatballs, in this case, seem to be imaginary. There's no shortage of bad photography teachers. I've had many students tell me they'd taken a class before and didn't learn what they needed -- but that they learned in my class. I doubt that the key difference had to do with cropping or lighting styles.</p>