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

"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

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)

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.

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.

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/

"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

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:11:04 +0000 (UTC), (Geoffrey
S. Mendelson) wrote:

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.


If you learned about business, surely you would *never* choose
professional photography as a business.

It was reported a a coule of years ago that the average income of
people in the USA whose main income came from photography was around
the $20,000 mark.

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/

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.