Choosing a school: art or technology?

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?

--
www.mattclara.com

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.

In your mind, is one more valid than the other, and why?

Photgraphy, started out as a science. You needed to understand chemistry
to make the photgraphic materials and physics to get an image on them.
As time progressed, cameras became less and less technical. The Kodak was
the first widely available camera where you could go into a store, and
buy 100 photographs already done. All you had to do is point the camera
and push the button. You returned the camera and a few days later you
were handed your photographs.

A landmark invention in photography since then was the APS camera.
While APS was never a commercial success, the technology behind was a
great leap forward.

APS was a cmbination of two things. "Smart" cameras that made descisions
on exposure with more than a simple photocell and smart printing machines
that used the information recorded magneticly on the film to produce
prints. One of the reasons that APS never took off was that the same
technology was easily applied to 35mm (or any size) film,

The cameras could make better exposures based on more sensors, and the smart
printing machines could make better prints by scanning the negative, without
needing the exposure information.

While the technology to produce useful photographs has improved to the point
that in almost all situations you don't really need a lot of technical
skill, artistic ability has not increased. Predictions of self composing
cameras (beyond compensating for shaking) have never been fullfilled.

As an example, a person relocated here recently and started a photography
business. They had little money and blew it all on a Nikon Digital SLR.
In order to drum up business they started a web site figuring it would
attract customers. They solicited comments from other locals intending
to create word of mouth advertising.

I looked at the web site and could not say a word. The best photograph on
the page was disgusting. If you looked closely it was an out of place
strand of hair on a portrat, if you glanced at it, it looked like an
axe wound.

The rest of the pictures were combined and recolored in ways to make
them undesireable. If the person had any photgraphic talent, it was
not evident in the photographs.

I was trying to come up with a polite way of saying something when I noticed
that the bottom half of "home" page was devoted to providing your credit
card details for the $150 (a lot of money here) fee for them to
show up, time and materials extra.

I said nothing.

You can draw your own conclusions.

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/

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?

They're both valid, but not necessarily for the same people since
the forces that drive them will be different. And if you just look
at those interested in art for its own sake, some may find technical
institutes more valuable whereas others would find it stifling. If
I wanted a good assessment of schools focusing on photography, I
don't think that I'd rely too much on what US News & World Report
had to say unless I was primarily interested in the business aspects
of photography. Did USN&WR mention the Parsons School of Design,
which has undergrad and grad classes? It's not very far from B&H,
Adorama, J&R, etc., ya know! g


Parsons' BFA in Photography educates students about the evolving
creative position of the photographer today. The program provides a
rigorous technical training marked by conceptual and critical thinking
about photography's place in the global art and design world. Graduates
enter the photographic industry fully prepared to be leaders in a rapidly
changing work environment. The department also hosts visiting artists
throughout the year.

Degrees Offered:
BFA

Number of Students:
200

Application Deadline:
2/1/2007


http://www.parsons.edu/departments/d...ID=101&ptype=1

Oops, too late. Better luck next semester.

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 :-)

On Feb 15, 1:01 pm, Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom
wrote:
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 :-)

There is new technical stuff to learn. There are good reasons to
learn a lot of the older technical stuff, so it could be argued that
if you want to be excellent, there is more to learn not less. In any
case, the technical knowledge and appreciation of the best composition
is only some help if you are photographing to please yourself.

If it is a business, you need to know something about business. In a
business, you need to have some facility at dealing with people. Some
other aspects such as self criticism, integrity and etc. might be
mentioned.

On 15 Feb, 13:01, Laurence Payne lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom
wrote:

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 :-)

Depends on your level of ambition. If you want your class to reach
Lennart Nilsson level of technical proficiency, you might have to work
for a while...

Jan Böhme

Laurence Payne spake thus:

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 :-)

Well, there is, for Real Photography (the wet stuff, "analog",
silver-based, whatever you want to call it) as opposed to digital ...


--
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)

"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.

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.

Photojournalism? Missouri School of Journalism where you will learn news
work, reporting, the overall field, how to write - the whole cookie.

"Laurence Payne" lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom wrote in message
...

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 strongly disagree. I occasionally co-teach photography at the university
level and have noted one significant change among students today compared to
15 years ago - they think like you that the camera takes care of the hard
parts. Their work is the worst I've seen in my 40+ years in this business.

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:25:54 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

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 :-)

Well, there is, for Real Photography (the wet stuff, "analog",
silver-based, whatever you want to call it) as opposed to digital ...

My point precisely. There isn't much of that anymore. Some, but not
much.