- Black Star Rising - http://rising.blackstar.com -

Photography Students Are Being Taught — But What Are They Really Learning Today?

Posted By Mike Sheil On December 13, 2007 @ 6:25 am In Teaching Photography and Design | 48 Comments

Tweet [1]

I recently was asked to teach a module at a well-known college here in the UK which hands out degrees in photography.

I say “well-known” as its students seem to get a large number of prizes for shots of discontented-looking people draped in studiously languid poses in scruffy locations ranging from hair salons to bedrooms to public toilets.

Me, I thought heroin chic was passe, but clearly the “soul searching and honestly raw approach to the problems confronting the modern generation” (to quote one assessment of a shot of a girl shot sitting on a bed with a Che Guevara poster on the wall) shows that the wheel of fashion ever revolves and the 1960s are back with us.

I am only too sad to reflect that now I am indeed in my sixties, and that I remember the real ’60s and taking pictures just like that. Trouble is, I was just having fun taking pictures of pretty girls — and possibly just having fun with pretty girls! — when really I should have been writing a 10,000 word thesis explaining why my picture of a girl sitting on a bed with a Che Guevara poster was, well … ART.

Desperate Desire to Be Different

So there am I looking at work which looked very similar to what I was doing 40 years ago and being told that this is now the real cutting edge of creative photography. It certainly had that rather off-centered, badly composed and poorly lit look that my work had 40 years ago — wide-angle shots of people’s heads, girls with sullen/bored expressions, oddly focused shots and peculiar distressed colours.

In all truth, I think my work owed its peculiarities to the fact I did not know what I was doing and anyhow had just started smoking pot, whereas the modern idiom seems to owe an awful lot to a desperate desire to be different — and hence ending up turning out the same mediocre rubbish as everyone else who is also trying to be different.

People seem to spend hours stroking around the sliders in Photoshop to seemingly achieve the same effect I got by by using cheap out-of-date film and going off drinking with friends forgetting that I had left film in the developer. Same stuff, same Che Guevara poster — but certainly not ART!

The big difference is that young photographers these days are taught their “art” by politically correct teachers and lecturers who “guide and nurture” them, whereas 40 years ago a “teacher” was either a brand of whiskey or one of a bunch of hard-nosed picture editors who tended to get somewhat out of focus after lunch.

Being Taught Vs. Learning

Please note my deliberate usage of “taught” versus “learned” regarding university study; being taught does not mean you learn. I learned from those picture editors. Tough and abrasive as they may have been, they all knew the business they were in and had generally practised their craft at the sharp end.

Looking back at the careers and work of photographers whose lenses I was not fit to polish, I am amazed at how much time they spent giving green and naive rookies like myself a helping hand and good practical advice.

Here in the UK we have an extraordinary situation: we seemingly have more students at university studying photography at degree level than we have actual working photographers. And at a time when commercial photography is drying up, we have created a conveyor belt system for churning out a stream of supposed “graduates” who have not been exposed to any of the realities of the commercial world and whose work has never been exposed to any really rigorous criticism.

And the reason for those 10,000 word theses now becomes glaringly obvious: it is so they can write increasingly verbose justifications for their personal work.

At which point I’ll take my own advice: stop pontificating and go and walk the talk!

[tags]photography instruction, photography degrees[/tags]

Tweet [1]

48 Comments (Open | Close)

48 Comments To "Photography Students Are Being Taught — But What Are They Really Learning Today?"

#1 Comment By Tobin Rogers On December 13, 2007 @ 5:51 pm

I do agree that there is a lot of questionable work out there that is being recognized as "art" and such. But, I also know that there are certain schools that actually do know how to teach photography. I think what you're saying is that there really is no education quite like real world experience. I agree. Fortunately there are schools like Brooks Institute of Photography in California. Yes, I'm giving credit to the place that gave my my education in photography. But I give credit because it was an education that not only taught us the technical side of photography, but also the creative side and business side (along with so much more) . . . all while giving us many real world opportunities and experiences. The school provides very much a "learn-by-doing" education. We were taught by experienced photographers and were definitely critiqued appropriately.

So as I do understand what you are saying, we can't leave out the importance of an education in photography prior to, or at least during real world experience. For those out there wanting to get into photography, at least do your homework on the photography programs in different schools. Some are wonderful, some teach just as poorly as Mike mentions.

#2 Comment By James Steinberg On December 13, 2007 @ 6:29 pm

Does it even warrant mention that art moves in cycles? I defy you to find a single book on the market today that does not ultimately cover the same subject matter already covered a hundred times before.

A million times before, if one does not count the science-fiction section.

That does not preclude any of the aforementioned works from being art - even ART - and somehow, I would imagine a theoretically 'practicing' artist would be well aware of the reasons why. That you would put forward so stale and weak a critique as "this has been done before," is just sad, and makes clear to me to what extent your words on photography need to be taken with a more than a pinch of salt.

#3 Comment By T.B. On December 13, 2007 @ 6:30 pm

I'm a photography student at university in the UK, and I have to say my lecturer sounds very much like the 'lecturers of old' you are describing. Harsh critisism is certainly something he has, and most tutorials end with him conluding you need to reshoot, but he knows the business and craft, and he gets results out of all the students.

I would also look at how many students finish the 3 years. In my course I would say only a third of people who start the course finish it, and the numbers steadily dwindle in the second and third years.

#4 Comment By Sean Duffy On December 13, 2007 @ 6:31 pm

This is simultaneously the most crotchety and awesome thing I have read about photography ever.

#5 Comment By Name On December 13, 2007 @ 6:33 pm

Oh my lord, that is the most satisfying photography rant I have had the pleasure of reading since I dropped out of art school.

Ah yes, ART SCHOOL PHOTOGRAPHY... the endless student shows filled with b w shots of homeless people... subway shots... naked breasts....

and I had been hoping for some discussion on colour theory, for some discussion of the business of photography... for anything real. Instead, I was subjected to 4 years of fluff, of bitter MFA'ed failed-artists sitting around trying to help us "find inspiration." Why would you even enroll in art-school if you were lacking inspiration - it's a bloody prerequisite!

Anyways, thanks for the bitterness... much appreciated!

#6 Comment By Dave Bullock On December 13, 2007 @ 6:33 pm

This is a great article. I am just now transitioning from being an amateur photographer to being published for pay. I have spent years teaching myself photography (with some help early on in the darkroom from my mother). In the last year, I've gotten some help from those photo editors you mentioned!

I'm kind of an odd case, I also taught myself programming, which is what I've done for a living for the last decade.

Some day I would love to go to school, but that will probably be for some type of engineering. Art School would be interesting, but I'm not sure how useful it would be to me.

Anyhow, thanks for the post, it was a good read.

=]

-Dave

#7 Comment By christopher wray-mccann On December 13, 2007 @ 6:38 pm

here here, mr. shell.

I know of what you speak. while i've never taught a class on your side of the atlantic, i've had the same experiences, with one mentionable difference. here in the states, students pay massive amounts of money for their "education". to put it in perspective, a student here pays as much for tuition and fees as a primary school teacher makes in a year. what a racket. the money would be better spent sustaining them on the long, hard march to creative independence that every photographer must make.

no classroom can prepare you for it. you just have to jump.

#8 Comment By Ross Berry On December 13, 2007 @ 6:49 pm

This is amazingly asinine. Back in my day we got drunk and made real art... If you look at any art movement that drugs or alcohol influenced it was not a direct influence. People do not make great art while they are on drugs or drunk; people often make great art from those experiences. Anyone using the broad sweeping generalization "young people these days" needs to rethink their assertions. From this article it sounds like we should all drop out of school, get drunk, and make commercial art. Yeah, thats gonna have a really positive effect on the art community.

#9 Comment By J On December 13, 2007 @ 6:50 pm

I'm a photography student at a London College, and I'm so glad I read this. I totally agree with you, what a great article. I'm so glad you said it.

#10 Comment By irspariah On December 13, 2007 @ 6:51 pm

Also, in these modern times, it is less and less talent and skill than connections and nepotism. Look back behind these new talents, and witness the pedigree rather than skills that drive these "success" stories.

#11 Comment By Nathan K On December 13, 2007 @ 6:54 pm

So apparently back in the day photography was all about being drunk or stoned, and getting edited by people who are also drunk and stoned. And it was good. That was quality photography.

What I believe I am reading here is a sour man off on a pointless rant who is fighting to stay relevant in an ever-changing industry.

it is no longer 1960, Mr. Shell. Wake up.

#12 Comment By rabbitfighter On December 13, 2007 @ 7:09 pm

fuck your art community.

#13 Comment By Peter Riviera On December 13, 2007 @ 7:35 pm

Blah, blah, blah.

Once again we have some old crotchety man blasting the 'young' people for not being like him. Photography, like all art forms, rises to greatness when the artist is able to express themselves making their emotions felt. Some are subtle, some are in-your-face.

I've seen art emerging from Photoshop that blows me away, while other stuff sucks. Photoshop is simply the new canvas and paintbrush (or darkroom and chemicals), just because it's new doesn't mean it's any less meaningful. Most importantly, just because some old, one foot in the grave, guy doesn't 'get it', who gives a rats ass?

#14 Comment By matthew blake powers On December 13, 2007 @ 7:37 pm

You know... you remind me of a photography instructor I had back at university. Very 'old school' and stuck in his ways - completely against the digital revolution. It's a good and horrible thing. You do, indeed seem a tad sour at the whole debacle, but as stated above - it is no longer 1960, although the same things are cycling back around. Instead of ranting and complaining about your thoughts about us 'younger people,' why don't you step up yourself and start "giving green and naive rookies like myself a helping hand and good practical advice"?

All I am saying is this, instead of bitchin' about it, how about some action?
Or would that involve more than writing an online article?...

#15 Comment By Greg On December 13, 2007 @ 7:43 pm

This is awesome. You are awesome.

#16 Comment By CCNA Discovery On December 13, 2007 @ 7:52 pm

These people sure have talent! :)

#17 Comment By Name On December 13, 2007 @ 7:57 pm

Har har... I love how some of the comments here seem to think the article is saying that "photoshop is evil" and "getting stoned is the way to become a good photographer." Geez, the original post is only 9 paragraphs long... is it that hard to get the point?

It's about craft, experience, and artistic control. The problem is that at art-school you get people with none of the above, learning to explain away their over-exposed, pointlessly manipulated mistakes with a lot of abstruse drivel.

#18 Comment By tony v. On December 13, 2007 @ 8:00 pm

i'm ot a photographer myself, i know the equipment, i know the techniques.. but i lack the 'eye' for anything but macro work.. and despite my young age, i'm rather anti-digital.

what i am, is a commercial designer. while many people refer to the work i do as 'art' i emphatically disagree. what you're discussing here is in that region; when the sixties rolled around and this style that's cycling through first got attention, it was because creative minded people were playing with the rules (either on purpose or by drunken/drug addled/unlearned mistake.) and coming up with cool shit.

today, it is NOT artists making the work you see. they may delude the thought, they may dress it up in pretty words and rationalizations, like that 'art moves in cycles' horse shit... when's the last time someone who painted anything like the washed out, oval faced portraiture hanging in stuffy museums made it big? it's certainly due for its cycle.

the cycles are horse. what we're seeing is aesthetics. today, those color schemes that seem to violate color theory are all the rage, the super sharp focus, the weird focus forces, odd blurs, psychotic lighting, despondent subjects.. this is all the rage. and its a product of our lives; the washed out colors are reactionary; the age range thats most targeted by advertisers today is the range that was blinded in the 80s by neons and primaries and color clashes (in music videos for the clash!) and it won't sell product to use those old color motifs, it 'dates' product.. additionally, most of us are moving on to flat screens and LCDs for our tv and pc.. which wash out brightness and blacks and narrow the contrast band, making these odd tone ranges more the norm for us.

there's science and aesthetics behind all this.

but mr. shell, you said it best, there ain't art. and those schools are marketing schools at best, since they dont push any limits beyond our capacity to be bored and sold.

#19 Comment By Rather not say. On December 13, 2007 @ 8:13 pm

Photography is a skill. You can make of it what you want. You won't be able to do squat if you don't have anything to say. There's also a lot of crappy writers out there and a lot of crappy musicians. We all know that and focus on the ones that we think are good. How many times do we force ourselves to listen to bad music? We seem to do it with photography though. Photography has hit its "point of saturation." The next hundred years will be taken up by fishing out the real meaty culturally relevant stuff from the fluff.

As a printer for many of the top photographers in Chicago, I get to see into their creative process. It's never about making a cool photograph. It's all about showing what they are interested in all the way from steel mills to sex and drugs and gangsters.

#20 Comment By David N On December 13, 2007 @ 8:21 pm

He isn't bashing the students, it's the education he disapproves of. He seems quite aware we're not living in the sixties and expect the photography to reflect that... which, in many cases, it hasn't.

Brilliant rant, thanks.

#21 Comment By psychic readings On December 13, 2007 @ 8:27 pm

Thanks for this article, interesting to say the least!

#22 Comment By elyssa On December 13, 2007 @ 8:31 pm

ever thought that maybe the point of the education wasn't so much to "learn" art, or journalistic photography for that matter, but rather to be in an environment with like-minded folk - an environment where photographers aren't cut-throat and unwilling to share their "secrets"?

#23 Comment By F On December 13, 2007 @ 8:54 pm

As an art student some 15 years ago I discovered that by including bare ass in my photos I could ensure a good grade. The funkier that ass was presented, the better the grade (and the more of said ass you could procure... at least art school was good for that).

After 10 years as an award winning (hey , aren't we all?) staff photojournalist for a large newspaper in the U.S. I realized that most art school photography was little better than harmless, regurgitated, visual scat cranked out by self-induced angst laden, wanna be artists.

After 5 years of freelance work I discovered that photography makes a better hobby than business and that if you want to make real money at it you'd better spend more time studying the business end of selling work and churning up clients and less time shooting self-indulgent crap that looks like all the other self-indulgent crap being produced by all the other self-indulgent crappy art students.

Now I teach at the college level and conduct some workshops for kids and after so many years of looking at so many images I gotta say to most of the art students out there, give it up. Get a real job for christ's sake 'cause unless you don't need money for the rest of your life (and if you think you don't and haven't won the lottery or don't have a large trust fund... you are wrong. Trust me. Remember when you were a tiny litle kid and didn't really know anything about anything? Well, you are still that kid... I'm serious.), unless you REALLY don't need money... remember that photography makes a great, great hobby.

#24 Comment By been On December 13, 2007 @ 9:53 pm

well, what's art after all?
I learned photography at school, you can see my work here: [2]

i'm working with alternative processes right now

#25 Comment By Austin On December 13, 2007 @ 10:00 pm

Yeah, yeah, and you walked ten miles to school each way in blizzards. How many business majors or chemistry majors or political science majors wind up making the big bucks, either? It takes very special talent to become surly and backstabbing enough to rise to the level of, say, a Karl Rove of your field.

#26 Comment By been On December 13, 2007 @ 10:01 pm

i forgot to mention that i actually drink a lot ("using cheap out-of-date film and going off drinking with friends forgetting that I had left film in the developer" happens all the time) and that if you need to convince someone that something is art, then your art sux

#27 Comment By Tom On December 13, 2007 @ 10:27 pm

I've been taking photographs since 1959. I've been drunk once in my life and was never a druggie. I always disliked "politically" correct copy cats.

I acknowledge greats like W. Eugene Smith but I liked his Country Doctor more than horror pictures of mercury poisoning victims. That kind of photojournalism serves a useful purpose but I have been in 30 countries and all 50 of the United States and find life is seldom as ghastly as SOME photo students or pros would like to have you believe. That stuff sells, so that's what many of them deliver. Note, I said SOME. I discovered long ago that being poor doesn't mean mentally impoverished or a slum resident. Being poor doesn't give you a ghetto mentality as many would have you believe in the USA.

I remember some guy was furious because I posted a picture of a Muslim woman in India who obviously didn't like being photographed. A photojournalist who has time to ponder whether he will offend the subject should seek another field of employment. It's about taking the picture and sometimes that means others will take offense. In my case I wasn't being paid and love the picture to this day because it caught one of those precise moments like Cartier-Bresson was famous for.

I went to the NY Institute of Photography in 1961 and learned some good technical skills. I soon quit my job as a commercial photographer as I hated taking what somebody else wanted me to take. I went back in the Air Force where I could photograph what I wanted when I wasn't working. Being an amateur has NOTHING to do with the quality of your photography. Being a pro presupposes you have some ability but being an amateur has no meaning except you do it for pleasure. Quality doesn't come with $$.

I've taken all sorts of photographs. See my website:

[3]

for examples dating back from day one to the present.

These days I photograph mostly nature photos but also work as a volunteer for the local police recording them at work. I switched to digital in August 2004. Since then I have owned, or own, a Nikon D70, D70S, D80, D200, D2Xs, D300. Yes, I think the technology helps me be a better photographer but anybody who believes buying the right camera will make a photographer out of somebody who hasn't got the talent naturally, is great for the camera and lens industry, but sadly won't ever become a good photographer because of the camera he/she owns.

I don't know anything about today's students or instructors. I look at the NY Times daily and the level of photography is superb and they seem to have outgrown the boo-hoo liberalism I so despise.

#28 Comment By Tom On December 13, 2007 @ 10:31 pm

Whoops! Make that:

[4]

#29 Comment By Patrick Cavan Brown On December 13, 2007 @ 11:38 pm

Amen.

#30 Comment By peter On December 14, 2007 @ 12:08 am

I went to a university and studied something that had nothing to do with photography. I also took a few classes with the fine art photography students. I now work in photography. They work in coffee shops. They took photos of themselves and each other in the same way that Mike described. I think his post is totally valid ... oh, and I graduated a year ago ... so I'm probably one of those 'young folks.' This post couldn't be more spot on ... for art programs that is. There are journalism, commercial and technical programs where I would say this usually isn't the case.

#31 Comment By Adam On December 14, 2007 @ 1:20 am

Why would you have to write a 10,000 word thesis on one photo? The photo should speak for itself. I can't imagine Ansel Adams sitting there writing out 10,000 words!

#32 Comment By HDR On December 14, 2007 @ 3:02 am

This is why I like working with HDR blending. It's new, nobody teaches it really, and I can explore new territory and discover things myself.

#33 Comment By Jsb On December 14, 2007 @ 3:07 am

Unfortunately, teachers like F are why art school sucks so hard. You can't learn art, but you can learn technique, gain new perspective, and hopefully find some inspiration along the way. If you're not going to get the last two of these, (and you won't if you are being taught by someone who is only teaching you because they are burnt out or not good enough to make it in this competitive feild) you might as well just skip the tuition and opt for a few suplimentary classes for the technique. Or just read and test. A lot.
After one year of art school, having boring teachers kiss my ass and give me absolutely no constructive critism, just a lot of "great job", "good work" keep at it!", I had enough. I quit, took an assisting job and learned more in one month than I did in that entire year.
You don't learn art, you develop it. There may be a few good schools that will actually help you do that, but most are just crap.
I've been freelancing for ten plus years and loving it. I learn from my experiences and from other working photographers.
I do think that inspiration from photographers from decades of past is fabulous, but when you cross the line and start to emulate their work, it's time to give it up. If you have to copy someone else's style, you don't have the art. There is nothing to develop.

#34 Comment By leif On December 14, 2007 @ 3:26 am

one shot and the truth can either fall to it's knees or rise to lead the masses... photoshop can fix both... whad'a you gwan'a do?

#35 Comment By Rory On December 14, 2007 @ 3:28 am

If only this phenomenon were isolated to the photography department, but I suspect that this type of atmosphere has penetrated nearly every discipline associated with "art".

I think the reason is not so acutely that the attitudes of kids in school has changed, but rather that the term art has changed.

The word “art” has been kidnapped by an aristocratic sort of club who propped it up on a pure white pedestal and forced it to drink overpriced Champaign.

“Art” has became about the pontification of intangible celebrity rather than the craft.

It is not the fault of the students that the examples for which they’ve been taught to strive are so different from the profession they hope to enter.

All art books begin at classical excellence and end in modern rubbish. There is a point where the definition of “art” changes from it’s classical definition to it’s modern definition, and it is at that point where this arrogant exploration of self displaces the diligent pursuit of excellence in one’s craft.

So I got into digital art in order to avoid what appeared to be a soulless path of peddling self image.

#36 Comment By BC85 On December 14, 2007 @ 3:35 am

Good Point, but is this true of most university degree courses, in my experience... it is

#37 Comment By leif On December 14, 2007 @ 3:37 am

that Rory guy is prettysmart... we should all ignore him. ("prettysmart" is one word as of right... now!)

#38 Comment By Bang On December 14, 2007 @ 3:39 am

Ansel adams....heh.

Mathematically correct zone system black and whites without soul, blah!

#39 Comment By Tony Porter On December 14, 2007 @ 5:28 am

I agree with much of what he says, although with the increasing complexity of top level DSLRs and processing software, technical know-how is now an imperative (certainly to optimise the creative possibilities that digital represents). I am self-taught and have been shooting [mainly] concerts for 8 years. The standard of this type of (most challenging) photography has declined alarmingly, and I see a lot of young photographers clambering around for shots that I know will be sub-standard. Perhaps training should include much more in-work experience rather than reams of written work? The fact remains that one must have an inate feel and talent for the craft which no amount of training can provide.

#40 Comment By arthur On December 14, 2007 @ 6:46 am

Photography is not art; photography can create art.

Going to art school is like going to genius school.

Photography is a skill like any other.

#41 Comment By Requiem On December 14, 2007 @ 6:58 am

To those nancy-boys spewing at the writer...he knows exactly what he is saying. Phtography was not, is not and will never be serious enough a subject to warrant a degree. In professional journalism...it is simply used to drive a point. Else...it may be used as some sort of contemporary art branch...but we know what stupidities have already been pushed under the mantle of contemporary art.

#42 Comment By Whetty On December 14, 2007 @ 7:43 am

Your original post aint quite the 10,000 words you berate younger students for writing, but the you are guilty of what you accuse young art students of doing: justifying your ideas with long winded drivel. Justify your arguments instead with pictures, and you may not come off as such a hypocrite.

#43 Comment By Whetty On December 14, 2007 @ 7:46 am

Your original post may not be 10,000 words but you are guilty of what you accuse young art students of doing: justifying their photography by writing pointless drivel about it. Try instead to make your point through taking pictures and you might not come off as such a hypocrite.

#44 Comment By Mike Sheil On December 15, 2007 @ 3:20 pm

The sad thing about blogs is that people become abusive towards people they have never met. Thus for a writer to call me a "hypocrite" when he has never met me is really rather a rude and if I might suggest pointless comment that does little to advance a creative debate.

Prove my point through taking photographs - easy. I have been shooting solidly for the past six weeks illustrating a book on the aftermath of war so I think that I can claim that whilst I may, according to some be a dinosaur roaring in the swamp, I am at least still walking the talk.

And may you all find people who as as informed and helpful towards you were those I encountered in my early days.

Enjoy the light!

Mike heil

#45 Comment By alex Shaw On February 4, 2008 @ 5:48 pm

People follow trends and trends are taught at art colleges along with techniques, professional practice etc. What is missing is meaning.Its okay to follow new German photography or an era but in the end you have to own what you do and this takes work, and cannot be taught. As for dropouts what is the point in complaining , just move on.

#46 Comment By TONE On January 9, 2010 @ 3:27 am

OMG! BEST REPLY EVER!!

#
F said:
December 13th, 2007 at 8:54 pm

As an art student some 15 years ago I discovered that by including bare ass in my photos I could ensure a good grade. The funkier that ass was presented, the better the grade (and the more of said ass you could procure... at least art school was good for that).

After 10 years as an award winning (hey , aren't we all?) staff photojournalist for a large newspaper in the U.S. I realized that most art school photography was little better than harmless, regurgitated, visual scat cranked out by self-induced angst laden, wanna be artists.

After 5 years of freelance work I discovered that photography makes a better hobby than business and that if you want to make real money at it you'd better spend more time studying the business end of selling work and churning up clients and less time shooting self-indulgent crap that looks like all the other self-indulgent crap being produced by all the other self-indulgent crappy art students.

Now I teach at the college level and conduct some workshops for kids and after so many years of looking at so many images I gotta say to most of the art students out there, give it up. Get a real job for christ's sake 'cause unless you don't need money for the rest of your life (and if you think you don't and haven't won the lottery or don't have a large trust fund... you are wrong. Trust me. Remember when you were a tiny litle kid and didn't really know anything about anything? Well, you are still that kid... I'm serious.), unless you REALLY don't need money... remember that photography makes a great, great hobby.

#47 Comment By Tom Hurley On January 9, 2010 @ 8:41 am

Three years featherbeding at university is no prep for the little darlings to enter the business of professional photography, an apprenticeship would be more appropriate, as long as they are competent with a camera and have some grounding in the craft of the trade, then the rest is up to them....sink or swim.

#48 Comment By Jonathan Worth On January 9, 2010 @ 4:52 pm

Goodness, what a lot of comments. With respect, I hope you have time to read and respond to them, it would be great to do so publicly so that we can all learn from your answers.

I wonder, how did you change the teaching model that you disapprove of? Especially after having (presumably) accepted payment for teaching on this course?


Article printed from Black Star Rising: http://rising.blackstar.com

URL to article: http://rising.blackstar.com/photography-students-are-being-taught-but-what-are-they-really-learning-t.html

URLs in this post:

[1] Tweet: https://twitter.com/share

[2] : http://www.flickr.com/photos/pedroivobeen/

[3] : http://gallery.mac.com

[4] : http://gallery.mac.com/thomasbroach

Copyright © 2010 Black Star Rising. All rights reserved.