Choosing a school: art or technology?

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/department.aspx?dID=76&sdID=101&ptype=1

Oops, too late. Better luck next semester.
 >> Stay informed about: 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.

> 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 gsm.DeleteThis@mendelson.com 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/
 >> Stay informed about: Choosing a school: art or technology? 

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:56:33 -0500, "Matt Clara" <hey.wood.y.RemoveThis@buzz.off>
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
 >> Stay informed about: Choosing a school: art or technology? 

On Feb 14, 10:56 pm, "Matt Clara" <hey.woo....DeleteThis@buzz.off> 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?
>
> --www.mattclara.com


I'm in a technical field of photography, ophthalmic (eye) photography.
I see a lot of RIT grads here, most are smart and talented. Their
facilities are first rate (to the extreme), had an assistant once from
RIT, the only problem he had was he was used to such good equipment he
didn't know how to improvise. We had expensive medical equipment but
are asked to do artistic work with the bare minimum.
Are you looking for grad school, undergrad or what? RIT puts graduates
out in the techincal photographic fields. Their classes in the 1950
produced the whos who of pro photography. Art Institute of
Chicago,Rhode Island School of Design or other schools art schools
give graduates that are more artisicly trained, often don't have the
facilities RIT does, in their grad schools the graduates often go
into teaching photography on the college level. What is also important
is who is teaching at the school, check their images, they will
influence you.

Tom
 >> Stay informed about: Choosing a school: art or technology? 

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
 >> Stay informed about: Choosing a school: art or technology? 

"Matt Clara" <hey.wood.y.RemoveThis@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:jPGdnWiW-MLlRE7YnZ2dnUVZ_sapnZ2d@comcast.com...
> 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.
 >> Stay informed about: Choosing a school: art or technology? 

"Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message
news:2sf8t2tjg1a2c5ggaovb4c94590g279cql@4ax.com...

> 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.
 >> Stay informed about: Choosing a school: art or technology? 

"JJ" <AH2.RemoveThis@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:12t9k60fsdh3n71@news.supernews.com...
>
> "Matt Clara" <hey.wood.y.RemoveThis@buzz.off> wrote in message
> news:jPGdnWiW-MLlRE7YnZ2dnUVZ_sapnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> 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
 >> Stay informed about: Choosing a school: art or technology? 

"tomm42" <tmonego RemoveThis @wildblue.net> wrote in message
news:1171555880.345584.48520@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 14, 10:56 pm, "Matt Clara" <hey.woo... RemoveThis @buzz.off> 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?
>>
>
>
> I'm in a technical field of photography, ophthalmic (eye) photography.
> I see a lot of RIT grads here, most are smart and talented. Their
> facilities are first rate (to the extreme), had an assistant once from
> RIT, the only problem he had was he was used to such good equipment he
> didn't know how to improvise. We had expensive medical equipment but
> are asked to do artistic work with the bare minimum.
> Are you looking for grad school, undergrad or what? RIT puts graduates
> out in the techincal photographic fields. Their classes in the 1950
> produced the whos who of pro photography. Art Institute of
> Chicago,Rhode Island School of Design or other schools art schools
> give graduates that are more artisicly trained, often don't have the
> facilities RIT does, in their grad schools the graduates often go
> into teaching photography on the college level. What is also important
> is who is teaching at the school, check their images, they will
> influence you.
>
> Tom
>
>

Thanks Tom, that's good stuff.

--
www.mattclara.com
 >> Stay informed about: Choosing a school: art or technology? 

"Laurence Payne" <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom> wrote in message
news:2sf8t2tjg1a2c5ggaovb4c94590g279cql@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:56:33 -0500, "Matt Clara" <hey.wood.y.TakeThisOut@buzz.off>
> 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
 >> Stay informed about: Choosing a school: art or technology? 

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:25:54 -0800, David Nebenzahl
<nobody.DeleteThis@but.us.chickens> 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.
 >> Stay informed about: Choosing a school: art or technology? 

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:5ySAh.18621$c%2.13236@newsfe12.phx...
> 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?
>
> If it were me, I'd probably choose the side that I feel needs more work.
> Are you highly advanced technically or are you overwhelmed by the tech
> side? Are you artsy fartsy already, or do you need to devolop artistic
> vision?
>
> I'm not great at either, but I'm technically OK compared to what I see as
> an artistic funk for my photography. I'd probably want to enroll in the
> area that I perceive as the area with the greatest need of development.
>
> -Mark²
>

Thanks Mark,
Good points I hadn't considered.

--
www.mattclara.com
 >> Stay informed about: 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.
 >> Stay informed about: Choosing a school: art or technology?