In Australia, it was very easy to be employed as an Assistant to an established professional 20 years ago (I was one in the country) when all one had then was an out-of-school education or mentorship. Today assistants commonly have their own degree/post-graduate degree, in either a like or allied area of the arts or something different e.g. somebody with post-graduate qualifications in market research and analysis could be potentially very useful to a long established professional in seeking out a "route of least resistance" against the competition, and there is heaps and heaps of competition! I am aware of only one wedding photographer in a pool of professionals who employs an assistant who has more qualifications than the boss! Masters graduates also fall into the Assistant foot-in-the-door area but generally only for the duration of their Masters (3-4 years).
Originally Posted by batwister
To twist a saying...
A self-taught person has an idiot for a teacher.
Fortunately we can sometimes over-come bad teaching...
At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can still be a good day of exercise.
in art school and photo school the student is surrounded 24/7 by art and photography.
Originally Posted by Mainecoonmaniac
they are getting "direction" and learning how to overcome their weaknesses and magnify their strengths.
no degree or assistantship is a ticket for a career, the person has to have motivation.
without motivation a degree in anything, or an assistantship in anything is just that, a degree and assistantship.
years ago there was a radio show i was listening to. it was a panel of deans of universities ... the show had to do with
university / college education and what it was worth. there were countless people who called and said
they went to a prestigious college and had a crap job, and it was the university's fault they had no career.
the people took no responsibility at all for their choices and they failed to recognize that a university gives
a student the opportunity to learn, to work with others with mutual interests &c, it was not necessarily
the ticket to a $100,000 / year job.
art / photo school are the same thing. they give the opportunity to learn &c but they don't necessarily mean
right on vaughn !
a ticket to success.
you are a pro thevery moment when you decide to accept the risk and make photography part of your income;save some money for rainy daysand take the plunge;hope you never need to starve;many want-to-be-pros do for a while
No you need business school.
Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
While I'm not so sure about commercial photography, I'm sure it can't be any different than filmmaking. you need a portfolio. i went to film school precisely to build my portfolio; i had access to equipment otherwise not regularly available at the consumer level. I now work in my desired field because of a) the portfolio and b)the people (especially professors and peers) I met there. I'm sure the same applies for photography.
"The real work was thinking, just thinking." - Charles Chaplin
You learn about business, risk assessment, finance, budgeting and investment in uni (degree course with upward path to post-grad study). Attending business school only would be exclusive of learning anything about the art and application of your chosen creative stream e.g. art/photography/traditional arts.
Originally Posted by markbarendt
Learning art is so much more than finding your subject in photography. You are taught how to survive and even get ahead (but you won't always).
It's really just a coming together of different things. Only one kid left in college, I'll not need as much money in two years' time; and a recent health scare which left me thinking that it's about time I lived up to what have have always told my kids: If you have a passion, go for it.
Originally Posted by PKM-25
I live in Chattanooga, TN where surprisingly, there seems still to be a fairly healthy demand for photographic art/services, and a pretty vibrant art community with a healthy following. We shall see. Wish me luck!
I quit high school my jr. year, in the 70's, but shoot for a living.
Having said that, an education isn't bad to have. What can I say. It was the 70's.
I have a question for you .
In the large scheme of things, and lets take your own personal net worth aside. What do you think the average working salary per year of a professional photographer is.?
I believe the number is quite staggering low. This profession has way too many unqualified people calling themselves photographers and polluting the market place.
I think the degrees in someway open other doors for those who may not have your talent.
I do get the idea that the cream rises to the top , and talent is what gets you there, but from my perspective of 35 years of dealing directly with thousands of photographers, a solid education helps some transition to other avenues of financial support to continue producing their personal work.
The photographers that seem to get to the top have schooling, just need to look at Bios and CV's to figure that out. Yes there are exceptions but in my home town this seems to be the rule and Toronto just became the fourth largest city in North America so the numbers are pretty strong to judge from.
Originally Posted by PKM-25