If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing a school: art or technology?
"JJ" wrote in message
... "Matt Clara" wrote in message ... I've been looking at schools of photography, and it has become apparent that there is a difference among schools that may be most easily deliniated as between art and technology. For instance, if you look at the classes offered by the Rochester Institute of Technology (rated #4 by US News & World Report), they are quite technical. Same goes for the Brooks Institute. However, if you look at the classes offered by some other schools, such as the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (number one in the US for photo grad school according to US News & World Report), it's much more focused on composition found through drawing and art history. In your mind, is one more valid than the other, and why? If you wish to be an Artiste, go to the Art Institute. Among such institutions that teach Art, there are two general types of school - one trains you how to behave like an artist, the discourse beyond the works themselves, how to defend and promote work, and so forth while others are more free-wheeling. To contrast the Chicago Art Institute, just cross the street to Columbia College for the later. John, is that you? Last time I posted about art school you ridiculed me. Thanks for the info, though--I do appreciate it. I doubt that I would get accepted at SAIC, at least not in the grad program. I'll probably apply anyway. As my dad always said, shoot for higher than you think you can reach. Technical institutes can still have a strong Art program and are to be seriously considered on a case-by-case basis. To become a Professional Photographer (studio, fashion, etc), Brooks is the kind of place to go. Nuts and bolts all the way. No affectations to speak of, just plain work. That's definitely the approach at Rochester IT. Just take a look at their class listings--nothing vague about those. Photojournalism? Missouri School of Journalism where you will learn news work, reporting, the overall field, how to write - the whole cookie. Yeah, I don't know what I want to be when I grow up. All I know is I love photography, and I'm tired of my cubicle. My wife's just started a Ph.D. program, so I've got a few years to build a portfolio and make up my mind. Best regards, Matt Clara -- www.mattclara.com |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing a school: art or technology?
"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
... On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:56:33 -0500, "Matt Clara" wrote: I've been looking at schools of photography, and it has become apparent that there is a difference among schools that may be most easily deliniated as between art and technology. For instance, if you look at the classes offered by the Rochester Institute of Technology (rated #4 by US News & World Report), they are quite technical. Same goes for the Brooks Institute. However, if you look at the classes offered by some other schools, such as the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (number one in the US for photo grad school according to US News & World Report), it's much more focused on composition found through drawing and art history. In your mind, is one more valid than the other, and why? The technical side is easy to teach. But there's not nearly as much technical stuff needed as there used to be (though the older teachers may be in denial :-) I'm of the mind that I could easily, though not without effort, be a fine technician. I'm not so sure about the artist part. Makes me think that's the one I should pursue--the one that seems more of a challenge. -- www.mattclara.com |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing a school: art or technology?
Matt Clara spake thus:
"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:56:33 -0500, "Matt Clara" wrote: I've been looking at schools of photography, and it has become apparent that there is a difference among schools that may be most easily deliniated as between art and technology. For instance, if you look at the classes offered by the Rochester Institute of Technology (rated #4 by US News & World Report), they are quite technical. Same goes for the Brooks Institute. However, if you look at the classes offered by some other schools, such as the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (number one in the US for photo grad school according to US News & World Report), it's much more focused on composition found through drawing and art history. In your mind, is one more valid than the other, and why? The technical side is easy to teach. But there's not nearly as much technical stuff needed as there used to be (though the older teachers may be in denial :-) I'm of the mind that I could easily, though not without effort, be a fine technician. I'm not so sure about the artist part. Makes me think that's the one I should pursue--the one that seems more of a challenge. Sure, so long as it's not, as others have suggested, just a way for them to fix you up with a lot of "artist's attitude". You know, how to wear black clothing, learning to schmooze at gallery openings, etc. -- Don't talk to me, those of you who must need to be slammed in the forehead with a maul before you'll GET IT that Wikipedia is a time-wasting, totality of CRAP...don't talk to me, don't keep bleating like naifs, that we should somehow waste MORE of our lives writing a variorum text that would be put up on that site. It is a WASTE OF TIME. - Harlan Ellison, writing on the "talk page" of his Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harlan_Ellison) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing a school: art or technology?
Matt Clara wrote:
I've been looking at schools of photography, and it has become apparent that there is a difference among schools that may be most easily deliniated as between art and technology. For instance, if you look at the classes offered by the Rochester Institute of Technology (rated #4 by US News & World Report), they are quite technical. Same goes for the Brooks Institute. However, if you look at the classes offered by some other schools, such as the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (number one in the US for photo grad school according to US News & World Report), it's much more focused on composition found through drawing and art history. In your mind, is one more valid than the other, and why? To some extent it depends on what your goal is when you graduate; and on your own "style" of learning. Are you going to be a photojournalist, paparazzi, commercial studio pro or wedding photographer? OTOH, you could look for a school that offers a balanced curriculum including both. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing a school: art or technology?
Matt Clara wrote:
I'm of the mind that I could easily, though not without effort, be a fine technician. I'm not so sure about the artist part. Makes me think that's the one I should pursue--the one that seems more of a challenge. Or work on both, concentrating on the harder. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing a school: art or technology?
Matt Clara wrote:
Yeah, I don't know what I want to be when I grow up. All I know is I love photography, and I'm tired of my cubicle. My wife's just started a Ph.D. program, so I've got a few years to build a portfolio and make up my mind. Personally I would expand upon what some-else said and if you are looking to be a successfull photgrapher, go get an MBA. Take classes on the side in the art deparment on composition, portriature, etc. You'll do better in life as a lousy photgrapher with good business skills, than the best photographer in the world with lousy or no business skills. Besides, once you are making a living as a photogrpaher, it's easier to improve your skills than it is getting a degree in fine arts and making minimum wage at "one hour photo" or the kid's portrait booth at the mall. Geoff -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing a school: art or technology?
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
... Matt Clara wrote: Yeah, I don't know what I want to be when I grow up. All I know is I love photography, and I'm tired of my cubicle. My wife's just started a Ph.D. program, so I've got a few years to build a portfolio and make up my mind. Personally I would expand upon what some-else said and if you are looking to be a successfull photgrapher, go get an MBA. Take classes on the side in the art deparment on composition, portriature, etc. You'll do better in life as a lousy photgrapher with good business skills, than the best photographer in the world with lousy or no business skills. Besides, once you are making a living as a photogrpaher, it's easier to improve your skills than it is getting a degree in fine arts and making minimum wage at "one hour photo" or the kid's portrait booth at the mall. Geoff Except I think I'd rather take a bullet than spend two years studying business. -- www.mattclara.com |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing a school: art or technology?
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing a school: art or technology?
Matt Clara wrote:
Except I think I'd rather take a bullet than spend two years studying business. Well, if you are talking about two years studing "good accounting practices", or finance, I'd say you're "right on the money". If it were two years learning things that are needed in starting and running a small business such as team building (finding and hiring the people that work for you, including lawyers, accountants etc), marketing (finding out what people want and getting your message out), learning public speaking and motivation and so on, it could be fun. It would also make your photography studio a fun place to work, instead of something you do because you gave up your day job, but still need to pay the bills. It would for example, be a lot more fun than studying the mathematics of physics, applied optics, modulation transfer functions, bayer filter design and so on, if you don't ever plan to design lenses, camera sensors, film, etc. IMHO the optics necessary to use and operate a camera were pretty much figured out 100 years ago. While studying them would yield better photographs, they are much likely to be taught in an art school instead of a technical insititute. For example, I don't have to know the difference between the manufacturing and interal structure of KB-25 verus T-Max 400, to know how they react to light and the negatives they produce. Nor do I have to know the difference between the chemical formulas of FG-7, HC-110, Rodinal, D-76 etc, to know how each one will effect the film I devlop in it. Although I know the difference between Kodachrome and Ektachrome type films, in their design, manufacture and processing, it does not help me take better pictures. Knowing that Kodachrome is slower, redder, and has more contrast does. You also don't have to know how a Bayer filter works to know the limitations of a particular digital camera, how to calculate MTF to determine best print size, etc. Without discussing the merit of digital photgraphy, if you plan to be anything but a fine art photographer, you should spend some of your time studying it. The ability to use digital cameras, the manual systems behind data archiving and storage, and the use of image manipulation programs such as photoshop will be demanded by your customers. If you don't provide it, they won't patronize you. On the other hand, if you want to drag an 8x10 camera out to the wilderness, and produce 16x20 paper prints to exhibit and sell as a way of making a living, I would not waste my time and money. Note that Weston made his living with a portrait studio, not from his fine art. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing a school: art or technology?
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 07:00:46 -0500, "Matt Clara"
wrote: "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message ... Matt Clara wrote: Yeah, I don't know what I want to be when I grow up. All I know is I love photography, and I'm tired of my cubicle. My wife's just started a Ph.D. program, so I've got a few years to build a portfolio and make up my mind. Personally I would expand upon what some-else said and if you are looking to be a successfull photgrapher, go get an MBA. Take classes on the side in the art deparment on composition, portriature, etc. You'll do better in life as a lousy photgrapher with good business skills, than the best photographer in the world with lousy or no business skills. Besides, once you are making a living as a photogrpaher, it's easier to improve your skills than it is getting a degree in fine arts and making minimum wage at "one hour photo" or the kid's portrait booth at the mall. Geoff Except I think I'd rather take a bullet than spend two years studying business. Does one develop "good business skills" from studying business in school? I've seen plenty of business professors who drive old klunkers that won't reliably get them to work and wear worn out suits 20 years out of style--if they in fact had "good business skills" rather than "good publishing papers so they can hang onto their crummy job skills" one would expect them to at least be driving a somewhat newer klunker that would start dependably and to have someone sew up the holes in their clothing. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Choosing a school: art or technology? | Matt Clara | Digital Photography | 65 | March 3rd 07 03:46 AM |
School has started, and Drive to School Hall of Shame Web Site is | SMS | Digital SLR Cameras | 17 | August 27th 05 07:37 PM |
technology? | Josh | Digital Photography | 1 | May 5th 05 09:44 PM |
Need help choosing. Anyone? | Mat S | Digital Photography | 22 | June 30th 04 10:45 PM |
Need help choosing. Anyone? | Giorgio Preddio | 35mm Photo Equipment | 14 | June 30th 04 10:45 PM |