Photographic courses

[PeterW]

I think many photoraphic courses still put too much emphasis on "art" phtography. When students get out in the big real world, they find no-one wants to buy their work.

When my son John took his degree course in photography back in 1993 he didn't gain a place on the course by first doing a foundation course.

He'd been freelancing for a couple of years and submitted a portfolio of 24 10x8 inch pictures. After about a month his tutor got John to display the pictures. John told me they drew a few green-eyed comments from one or two other students who had slogged for a year on a foundation course to get on the degree course. They thought John had got on the course without really working. His pictures were not "arty" enough for them.

Then the tutor said, quite mildly, "Maybe, but I take it you aim to make a living from photography. Every one of those twelve pictures sold and was published because John studied his markets and gave editors and advertising agencies what they wanted."

This, remember, was before advertising used video so extensively. Much of the video "arty" stuff is computer-generated graphics.

Today, as well as looking after me, John occasionally makes four-minute advertising videos for an agency that persuades companies they ought to have a short video about the company on their website. John does the editing, but the agency provides the "voice over".

It takes him about half a day to shoot and edit a four-minute video while I take over Luke's home tutoring, mainly doing social history with him.

Its well-paid and John could get more work, but he doesn't want to off-load Luke on to me too much, and he has to watch his part-time tax-free earnings allowance as my registered carer.

PeterW

[daveh]

Peter,

Just listening to Radio 2 - a programme about George Formby.

I totally agree about arty photos - it was what I was alluding to on the other thread.

Once a photographer becomes famous he or she can start doing arty stuff. everyone will rave over it. Some fashion photography has become a bit too arty and to mind mind loses its point i.e. one can't see what the photo is really of.

Dave.

(Amended to include famous.)

[Deleted]

The same thing applies to writing as to photography. I know several authors who have made good livings writing -- some for more than 50 years. But I have heard young "wannabe"writers criticize the veterans because their work doesn't address social issues or have some deep inner meaning. I always tell the kids they should go ahead and solve the world's problems with their work ---and get a non writing job to pay the bills.

I hear bookstore owners talk with contempt about writers like Stephen King and Tom Clancy referring to their work as "trash." But if those same owners had to depend on sales of "deep" books to pay the bills they would be out of business. The vast majority of readers read to be entertained, not to change the world.

It's like a story I may have told before about the dog food company that did all sort of nutritional research and held dog owner focus groups. Then they spend a ton of money on developing a new dog food and spend millions on an advertising campaign. Six months later the company held a meeting to try to figure out why no one was buying the dog food. Various executive presented their theories. Finally a guy from the shipping department raised his hand.
"the reason we aren't selling dog food," he said, "is because the d@mn dogs don't like it."

Whether it's writing or photography or dog food, if you want to make a living at it you have to give the people (or dogs) what they want, not what you think they should have.

W.

[nikonbob]

There is a big difference between being commercially successful and being critically acclaimed. It is nice when the two coincide though. The great thing about photography as a hobby is that you need not worry about either and just please yourself.

Bob

[daveh]

The question is always how much should one pander to the masses, or ignore them. Somewhere along the way the two styles of writing meet.