james_tau

(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

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.

So far I haven't followed *any* of the steps mentioned for the "american dream", and I don't plan to in the future. If that's your guideline for happiness, then so be it. But it's not the only one. Hell, I did pretty well in my previous career as network administrator without ever taking a class for it. I started as a lowly tech support and worked my way up. I don�t mind living in an apartment, driving a Toyota; don�t plan to ever have kids, and hope to never retire. Can artists (except teachers) ever retire?

As for studying, the factor is not only WHAT you choose to study but to NEVER stop studying. Any average Joe can go to a college and learn to be a programmer. Guess what? Technology is ever-changing, and the language he learned in school will be obsolete in months. You have to learn how to learn. So unless you're in a stagnant job that doesn't require thinking, continuous studying is essential for any profession and photography is no different. Education paves way for innovation. Oh and thank you for the brief lesson in supply and demand, but as an artist you must remember to create/open up opportunity for demand instead of just fulfilling them. You must be innovative/different to separate yourself from others. Same is true for commercial photography. The photographers that are "ahead of the pack" were the ones transferring wedding photos onto dvds when that technology was still emerging. Now that has become the "standard" and if you're unable to provide such service, you're behind.

In regards to smoking, I don't know the exact figures but from what I can infer, it may be true that smoking is decreasing in the US due to heavy campaigning and increased taxes. But you forget that the US is just *a* country on earth. Smoking is increasing in other parts of the world. And if you can extend this to an analogy, the world is a big marketplace for anything, even art. (as an aside, there's even a Starbucks in the Forbidden City).

"Demand in the marketplace" but which? For jobs that make +$80k a year? The difference between not "caring" about money and not "wanting" money lies in the degree of quantity. I may be satisfied, or even happy making < $20k a year, but to others, this amount of money may not suffice. Right now I�m doing dandy at $8K/year, considering I�m a student. Just because Mr. Smith has a PhD in Crystal Ashtray Construction, doesn�t mean he can only get a job in the dwindling ashtray business. Hell, he can sell crystal tables with ashtrays built-in. But the point is to be innovative and find/create a niche in the market. If you found jobs based solely on the degrees offered in colleges, this world would be very limited in skills and opportunities. You can major in biology and work for a computer company telling them how to effectively build new protein-unfolding algorithm; or be a medical doctor and work for tv or movies as a consultant. Both those industries have nothing to do with the earned major, yet it is a career. Perhaps it is the prospect of making < $20k considered "unsuccessful" after earning a degree. But it's just another condescending view placed by society; you choose whether or not to let it bother you.

As for oxygen, I don�t need to hyperventilate to stay alive.

But if wealth is to be an indicator for happiness, then please, don't be an artist.

I'm currently attending a liberal arts school majoring in photography and they don't teach you any technical skills except the bare basics to get you started in two weeks. Photography is easy to learn. It just takes time and practice. Truth be told, any motivated 6-year old can do it. Learning to take photographs is one thing; learning to talk about it is another (some may even venture to call it the 'art of bullshitting'). But this is the general attitude I get from this forum: photography major is useless! Allow me to refute that mentality.

First, what is an artist? I have to define this before I go any further and I'll try to define an artist within the confinements of visual arts, since of course, a poet, an actor, or even a con man can be classified as an 'artist'. In my philosophy, an artist is a person that effectively communicates the abstract/creativity through a visual medium; it is someone who projects his visions, thoughts and ideas to create a commentary, let it be social, political, personal, etc. An artist strives for a greater ideological achievement for the betterment of men and not for monetary reasons. But from art, he earns money as a byproduct for his art and not as the cause for his art. And with this I present the main crux of my argument: why photography major is not completely worthless in order to be an artist.

"Don't major in photography!" But why not? Because of the lack of job prospect? Lack of sufficient money? Security? True, you won't have any of those (except a teacher) but you have to understand, it's ART; you major in photography in the school of fine arts to be an ARTIST. One way to make money is to do commissioned work through galleries and private collectors. Another way is to apply for grants, fellowships, scholarships, awards. And if you establish yourself as an artist, you can even travel and give lectures for a hefty sum of money. But can you be an artist even if you don't go to art school? Sure, but assuming you do go to an art school, you may learn to be an artist faster. Otherwise photography major is completely worthless - just like drawing and painting, printmaking, sculpture, ceramics, etc. In a way, you can learn *any* of those on your own. Granted, photography has more leeway than ceramics or a printmaker major in the sense that you can use the camera for a multitude of uses and hold different jobs, and because of that, we forget there's a distinction with fine art photographer, commercial photographer, photojournalist, sports photographer, etc, and expect a major in photography to encompass all those fields. Well, it doesn�t. Photography major = fine art.

If you want to be a commercial photographer, then a technical school that teaches you how to make attention-getting, pretty pictures will suffice - for those are the only qualities advertising agencies look for. Oh and creativity, but nobody can teach that.

The question becomes, do you want to do photography because of money and have fun on the side (sounds like most people here) or because you seriously consider yourself as an artist and want to refine your craft? It is not to say that commercial photographer doesn�t create art, but when he/she shoots a Lexus for a magazine ad, it�s no different than the industrial designer that created the logo for Coca Cola � it is art in their own right, but not quite �fine art� per se.

If you choose the latter, you may further consider photography major because:

- you want to be an artist

- equipment (darkrooms, enlargers, processors, chemistry).

- critique - unlike popular myths, professors (at least here) don't mold you into their mini-me's; they teach how to address and defend your work (a.k.a. sell your idea/art). They push you to evolve and explore hidden facets of creativity. But don't listen just to the professor; listen to your peers. Here at the university we cultivate a strong relationship with each other to appropriate constructive criticism - art heads are the most valuable assets to make you grow as an artist. I've asked my roommates, parents to critique and most I get is "that looks cool," or "good job!" with the inability to explain why. At school, you learn to articulate.

"Major in business/engineer (or something useful!) and do photography on the side"

Again, what is "useful?" The ability to receive steady income? Have medical benefits? Retirement plan? Hell, I know business majors with master's degree from a very reputable private University who now work as a meager salesperson at clothing stores - was their degree useful in that perspective? Sure you can major in business, marketing, web design, etc. At best you'll end up working at Ritz Camera corporate headquarters and still taking pictures as a hobby. Why? You don�t have time to shoot enough and grow too slow as an artist. When was the last time those "business" people had a gallery show soon after college? Not many. Of course, just because you major in something else it doesn't mean you can't be an artist. But because of the limited time and amount of commitment to your craft, it'll take you longer to be recognized as an artist in the art community especially when you haven't "done your time." Commercial photographers are another case in which I will discuss later.

However, there are photographers out there that "made it" without any degree or ever going to photo school. Take Harry Benson, for example. Or any of the National

Geographic photographers (well, they got degrees but you'd be surprised at what they majored in). What did they have in common? They took lots, and lots of pictures using a lot of their time. Their professor? The editor. Experience is the dominating factor for success - and this is true for ALL careers (and a pinch of ambition).

As for commercial photography (portraits, high school shoots, etc): do you even need a business degree? My ex-roomate was a business major and the most benefit he got is networking with people. I know a very good photographer who just moved to the U.S. and opened up a studio and has regular clients. On top of that, he doesn't speak a word of english! He got involved with the community and people got to know him through craft shows. His secret? Being friendly and resourceful. Of course he�s an isolated incident but that point is, just are there are many ways to succeed in photo, there are many ways to succeed in business as well. If you want to succeed in anything, you have to do it on your own volition; not by waiting for something to happen to you or be discovered.

It is not to say that business degrees are worthless, but in relation to photography, are they absolutely crucial in opening up/maintaining a studio? Business at this level can be learned as a craft, not as an expertise. So, unless you plan to merge with Ritz Camera or B&H anytime soon, a business degree will largely be a waste of time. But if you're not the creative/innovative type and MUST have some business skills, some people suggested that you should major in business and take photo class on the side. But what about the other way around? There's nothing preventing you from majoring in photography and take business class on the side. You can choose to have a nice portfolio and not enough business skills or have those skills and a small portfolio. Either way, with time, you'll learn to master both. Ultimately what counts to be an artist on the side of commercial photography is your portfolio. It�s your call.

"...after graduating almost none of them will find work.� Funny. Everyone I know in the photo dept. has a job, considering that a pack of 50 sheets of 4x5 Fujifilm 160 NPS alone cost around $80�. But I think you mean a �secure career� with �steady income� and a fancy title to top it off. My peers may not have the best job, or get paid well but they work on these jobs to supplement their passion for photography; not for buying Ferraris, plasma-screen tv, summer houses. Even better, get internships or assistantship for photo-related area like I did. I will say this again: you can apply for grants, fellowships, and scholarships - consider them as sabbatical-passes, if you will, from your job. Now, wouldn't you call "working under a grant" to be "work?"

As for most posters such as John Cooks, I'm sorry they didn't find their college experience invigorating during the 70�s. But his comments (and of J. Scott Schrader, among others) seems only to apply on commercial photography and how to make enough money for...something. But can you be a commercial photographer and an artist? Of course! But what I�m arguing here is that you can also be an artist without being a commercial photographer; you can be an artist by being a photography major.

But here's the kind of photographer that WON'T make it as an artist: the kind that expects to be "discovered" by accident or chance. Do yourself a favor and find another source of income because you'll be waiting for a long time. But if you're the kind that can articulate your work and can present yourself, then you don't have much to worry about. You already have the salesman in you. You need to have the skill and will in order to make it as a serious artist. Or just get an agent. Read Joe Innis' book �How to Become a Famous Artist and Still Paint Pictures� (http://www.innisart.com/books.html for the free online version). It is possible to make it as an artist. Granted he's a painter, but how different is a painter from a photographer other than the medium? Or somebody who majored in drawing & painting versus a photography major? These are two completely "worthless," jobless, fine art majors.

In short, what you people (negative posts about photo major) are trying to do is market a fine art degree into something that's commercially-viable. While it's possible at times, it seems like a gross bastardization of what you've been originally trained for � to be an artist. But in Noah�s case, I think he wants to major in photography only because of the sheer joy in it, with the diploma to prove he was professionally trained? Whatever his reasons are, he only has to answer himself.

So it all boils down to this: Do you want to be an artist or a hobbyist photographer? Because it is possible to make it as an artist.

I�m not kidding.