Can you teach art?
How much of art can be taught? Can any of it?
Thinking back of the 27 years, or so, that I’ve wielded a camera, I have taken 3 courses having to do with photography. I have read a number of books, all of which start to look exactly the same after a short while. I’ve also read a number of good essays, among my favorites: Letting go of the Camera (Brooks Jenson), On being a photographer (Bill Jay), Art & Fear (Ted Orland).
Regarding the courses, it all started with NYIP, the New York Institute of Photography home study course. Back in the day, before the Internet or digital cameras (yes kids, there was such a time!), I would have to do my assignment, develop and print the assignment, mail it off to New York, then wait to get my critique and rating sheet back via snail mail. It was a fun time full of anticipation. The instructors were very helpful and always kind. My photography grew by leaps and bounds. It was during this time that I was conquering the technical aspect of photography and learning the aesthetics. The NYIP also helped with aesthetics by providing compositional guidelines, etc. It was very valuable. That was circa 1982. I don’t know how long it took me to finish the course, but it took several months, each one of them joyous.
Fast forward ahead to 2006, some 24 years later. In September of 2006, I took my first workshop: Light, Place, and the Grand Landscape. The workshop consisted of a mix of individuals, some were fairly new to photography, some not so new. Technically, I would say that I was advanced. Aesthetically, I would say that I already had my own style. So, regarding photography, I got very little out of it in the way of learning. I did, however, get to go to a nice place, meet nice people, and find an instructor whom I really liked, Craig Tanner. Now, some of those same people are coming to North Carolina for a reunion of sorts. We’ll be photographing the fall color on the Blue Ridge Parkway in October.
The next workshop didn’t take me nearly so long to attend. I attended The Next Step Workshop, again with Craig, in March of 2007. It’s hard to believe that it’s been 5 months already. In this workshop I learned nothing about the technical aspect, but red-lined in the spiritual department and in pushing my limits and letting go. This workshop was tough, in a way, because it caused you to think outside of the box, let go of control, and just ‘be’ while photographing. I can say that this was a life altering workshop. I was already headed down this path, but this workshop came at the right time, as all things do.
So, those are the only bits of training that I’ve had through the years. I wonder, does school training, such as earning a Fine Arts degree, offer any advantages? Can an art curriculum, which seems to teach you the ‘right’ way to do art, be valuable since art is such an intensely personal thing? Given that most university degrees are about 2 years of ‘well roundedness (get the money!)’ and 2 years of study on your major, can 2 solid years of art appreciation, art theory, etc. be worthwhile for the artist? I imagine that it can, but I don’t imagine that it makes him/her a better artist. Studying basketball won’t make you a better player, playing it will.
As Paul Butzi said: Art is a verb. I’m inclined to agree. It’s not something that you sit and listen to some guy drone on about, it’s something that you do! Sure, there are useful things that a university, or school environment, can teach, such as how to run a business, but I doubt that art is one of them.
In the end I think that Art is one of those undefinable things. You can recognize it, enjoy it, and love it, but you cannot define it. As no one has been able to define it, I doubt that anyone can teach it. You just have to do it. You need to be as a child: non analytical, fully in the moment, and just full of joy.
I think you can teach technique, and the technical stuff about light and exposure, processing etc, but there really is no substitute for actually getting out and doing it. I took courses in High School for 2 years and it was useful but only went so far in that it was really up to me to go out and learn by doing. I learn something from every success but even more from every failure even though the failures (of which there are many more than the succeses) are discouraging.
I think the advantage of the degree is that, right or wrong, it gives you “legitimacy” in the marketplace. I don’t really agree with it but that is the way of the world today. You would not hire an engineer who didn’t have a degree no matter how much knowledge he may have been able to gain on his own. That’s just the way it is throughout almost all professions.
An interesting example in my life is the job that I did straight out of high school with only a high school diploma as a copy editor for an ad agency, now requires a 4 year degree or equivalent…Interesting. Not one of the copy editors I worked with there at that time had a degree. That piece of paper caries a lot of weight, right or wrong.
I can’t draw anything, but if I went to school for a few years would I still not be able to draw anything?
Yes, I believe you can be taught art. Or at least you can be taught to peel back the layers covering up the artistic you. Most of us go to school and learn 16 years of stuff we may never use. Nor did school really focus on the skills we really need to succeed in life. However it did expand our minds. History, art, math, science, etc. etc. It helped us find our place in the world. I myself am starting school in Septmeber, again, to complete a degree in Photography. I am looking forward to all the things I will learn. Why do I have to take History to get this degree? Along with all the things I will learn the most invaluable thing in this recipe will be me. And like you, I am more so interested in the people, the contacts, and like minded people I will have the opportunity to meet.
Laurie: I would certainly agree that formal education gives you ‘commercial’ value in the marketplace, but is the person who is formally trained better of artistically than the on who learned it through experience only. I agree with the requiring doctors to go through medical school and civil engineers to have past a litany of tests proving that they know their stuff, but it just doesn’t seem to apply to art.
Will: I think that you can be taught technique, but not ‘art’. I’m a bit more cynical with regards to classes taught at the university level. College, like a lot of things, is a business and their business is to sell their product, education. People got along just fine without colleges and universities. Now, to even compete, you have to spend nearly 6 years and, like in Laurie’s example, jobs that used to be accomplished quite well by non degreed persons, require some degree. I don’t find value in an art degree.
I think you learn by doing and experiencing, learn by knowing a bit about history and certain techniques – and an art education forces you to ‘do’ (ie. assignments/projects, etc) and experience. Not that you can’t do all of these things without a formal education, as long as the discipline, interest, and passion is there to do so. I certainly don’t have a degree in photography or any formal university classes in that area – but can’t help but think some of my progression would have been faster earlier on if I had some dedicated class to focus on rather than trying to pick up things in my free time.
I guess I don’t share your pessimism about higher education Paul or that it is just some grand marketing campaign to make money. Of course they have business considerations, it costs money to operate a university, attract good professors, etc, etc. I don’t necessarily agree that we would be just fine without them either.
I think there are valid points to be made with the value of a degree for certain professions. But for a society in general – I think the more education we have the better off we are. There is certainly proof of that if you look at issues around the world as a whole.
I forgot…LOVE the photos…your blog distracts me!!! But not in a bad way, I just sometimes forget to let you know that I like the shots you post with your thoughts.
In response to your response to me; maybe I am mistaken but I think that most colleges and universities would at least want to see a portfolio before they accept you into their art programs so there would have to be some talent somewhere to begin with, at least I would hope. Similar to the audition and resume required for entry into a university or conservatory music program. You have to be able to do more than just emulate. From there you can polish your talent by learning history, theory, and technique. So while art can be taught, the talent needs to already be there as a foundation to build upon.
Like any business, if they were unable to supply a good, working, product, they would be out of business. I admire your opinion but I do try to find some value in most things.
That is a cute shot of the kid!
Nice words. Never trained into photography. Actual cameras are so good that you need to train to do bad pictures. Of course I am only a lousy photographer (and I will never be an “artist” but I enjoy taking pictures and that is what matters. I don’t need to do a living out of it.
Nice picture of that kid!
One thing that a formal education certainly would give me: time and space for photography.
Speaking as a part-time photographer that has a somewhat full everyday job, that’s something that would have high value for me: The simple amount time that you would devote, a schedule that sets you on tracks, a framework for concentrating and focussing, (hopefully) a stimulating atmosphere that provides long-term motivation… I’m talking about a typical Greg Tanner “perfect world” scenario of a photography class here of course.
ahh well….could someone please teach me photography!!!
I am being honest here… As against many old time photographers, my photography is just two years old.. and only past one year I have been taking more photos … but I never read a manual, or book on technical aspects of photography..and I feel stuck!!!! Please could someone teach me photography!
I do think art can be taught! Photograghy is just a small part of art. Art is a much wider term…. music, dance, acting, painting are all forms of art … and all improve with “practice” and “learning” … which may be self taught or taught by another …. Being taught by another does not impinge on a person’s individualist expression …the same way as siblings growing in the same enviornment can have very different attitudes and personalities …
However most original artists, so to say trend setters, trail blazers …. have had innate /inborn talent … And since there are some people with natural talent, does not mean that it may not be improved by learning or being taught! It does not also mean that every one who learns from the same person or same sources, will show same results … Individual differences will always be there.
back to … I want to learn photography .. or give it up.. My interest has really declined.