A year of self portraits: 365, a set by sparkleplenty_fotos on Flickr.
Sunday
Professor John Kippin "Why Study Photography"
Interesting article found on the net by Professor John Kippin.
WHY STUDY PHOTOGRAPHY?
Photography is one of those subjects that everybody within our contemporary culture has an opinion about. It is, after all, probably one of the only forms of communication that is truly universal, crossing social and cultural boundaries and interweaving itself seamlessly with so many aspects of our lives. On a global scale, relatively few of the world’s citizens are unaware of photography (either as practitioners, consumers or subjects suitable for photography). It not only reflects and offers commentary on our lives, but in many ways, shapes them too. Our desire and need for photography reflects our need for representation within a vast spectrum that runs from the personal use of the image within our domestic lives to the security and military requirements of an age blighted by terrorism. Many of the uses of photography are not benign - they frequently contribute nothing to celebrate or enhance the human condition. Photography as technology is mute and without mercy. It has no morality and its subject is invisible until we choose to make it otherwise.
Why then should we study photography? Within a University context it is of relatively little interest as technological training for a commercial sector in meltdown. Its role in reporting the news or current affairs has been sidelined through the development of newer technologies such as cable television and the internet. Mobile phones are increasingly used for the news of the moment. The Fine Art Gallery (N.B. not the ‘Photography‘ Gallery) now stages the most important exhibitions of what we consider to be ‘important’ photography.
All of the above reasons contribute to the confusion around what exactly we are trying to achieve through the provision of photography courses at degree and post-degree level. The government has increased the target for participation in higher education to 50% but sadly it does not mean higher education on a level playing field available to all, but to a crippled and compromised version of what it means to offer education at undergraduate level. I refer to the development of foundation ‘degrees’ and the inept and inappropriate attempts to develop systems of accreditation and kite-marking supposedly apposite to the need of ‘the industry’.
Curiously there is a debate emerging in photographic education about the real value of teaching photography that suggests that a there will be a parting of the ways. This debate resolves itself broadly speaking, into two camps. Firstly there are those that see photography as essentially skills training and application matched to the needs of the photographic ‘industries’. This approach is exemplified by programmes of study that concentrate on technical training and marketplace awareness – on the face of it no bad thing. These courses exist at present mainly within the Further Education (F.E.) sector. The other school of thought is represented by the Universities and those other institutions that teach photography at a higher level (including some F.E. colleges that offer courses at both levels).
This approach can be best summarised as a broadly based liberal education through photography. On practice-led courses this links technical skills appropriate to the production of innovative and contextualised photography to an understanding of the function and ‘being in the world’ of that photography. Other courses (mostly at post-graduate levels) focus on the history and critical appreciation of the image and its location within a broad cultural framework, with research into these aspects of photography emerging strongly as a vital and exciting focus for academic development in the future. It is however within undergraduate education, that the broad focus of what is meant by learning through photography is relevant and this links the study of photography closely to other practice-led programmes such as fine art and other more traditional humanities disciplines such as history or philosophy.
Within these and similar subjects the primary motivations have not been to produce professional historians or philosophers but the belief that an education and awareness of these subjects creates an enlightened and enriched society and culture. It is also true that these subjects produce flexible, thinking graduates capable of engaging with the world of work in many ways That these ways are largely unpredictable is seen as a problem for the Universities, never for those politicians that promulgate the training as opposed to education ethos.
These issues are pertinent within photographic education. In addition to a rage of technical skills that are appropriate to their interests such programmes offer a range of ‘key skills’ that few subjects can match. These skills are appropriate to the many ways in which photographers and photography interfaces within our society. Our graduates offer creativity, flexibility, motivation and a range of problem solving and social skills that few other subjects can match. They deal with a wide range of broadly complimentary interests and subjects and create diverse and meaningful engagements with them.
All available evidence suggests that photography graduates have an excellent employment record. Some of them become photographers, unsurprisingly, but many more go on to develop careers over a wide spectrum of activities. There are over one hundred undergraduate photography programmes in the UK alone. We welcome the serious engagement of particularly manufacturing and equipment supply companies. These in particular benefit from our programmes, but at present contribute ( if at all), in an extremely ad hoc manner.
It is our job to debate and to develop the philosophies and practices of our courses through the good offices of our academic discipline and with educational values at the core of what we do. In this way we can meet the demands of students of the subject and the requirements of society, the market place and ‘the industry’ without simplistic solutions and platitudes that attempt to reduce our subject to technical training. Creativity is at the heart of our approach. Creativity through practice, theory and history and above all through dialogue.
John Kippin
WHY STUDY PHOTOGRAPHY?
Photography is one of those subjects that everybody within our contemporary culture has an opinion about. It is, after all, probably one of the only forms of communication that is truly universal, crossing social and cultural boundaries and interweaving itself seamlessly with so many aspects of our lives. On a global scale, relatively few of the world’s citizens are unaware of photography (either as practitioners, consumers or subjects suitable for photography). It not only reflects and offers commentary on our lives, but in many ways, shapes them too. Our desire and need for photography reflects our need for representation within a vast spectrum that runs from the personal use of the image within our domestic lives to the security and military requirements of an age blighted by terrorism. Many of the uses of photography are not benign - they frequently contribute nothing to celebrate or enhance the human condition. Photography as technology is mute and without mercy. It has no morality and its subject is invisible until we choose to make it otherwise.
Why then should we study photography? Within a University context it is of relatively little interest as technological training for a commercial sector in meltdown. Its role in reporting the news or current affairs has been sidelined through the development of newer technologies such as cable television and the internet. Mobile phones are increasingly used for the news of the moment. The Fine Art Gallery (N.B. not the ‘Photography‘ Gallery) now stages the most important exhibitions of what we consider to be ‘important’ photography.
All of the above reasons contribute to the confusion around what exactly we are trying to achieve through the provision of photography courses at degree and post-degree level. The government has increased the target for participation in higher education to 50% but sadly it does not mean higher education on a level playing field available to all, but to a crippled and compromised version of what it means to offer education at undergraduate level. I refer to the development of foundation ‘degrees’ and the inept and inappropriate attempts to develop systems of accreditation and kite-marking supposedly apposite to the need of ‘the industry’.
Curiously there is a debate emerging in photographic education about the real value of teaching photography that suggests that a there will be a parting of the ways. This debate resolves itself broadly speaking, into two camps. Firstly there are those that see photography as essentially skills training and application matched to the needs of the photographic ‘industries’. This approach is exemplified by programmes of study that concentrate on technical training and marketplace awareness – on the face of it no bad thing. These courses exist at present mainly within the Further Education (F.E.) sector. The other school of thought is represented by the Universities and those other institutions that teach photography at a higher level (including some F.E. colleges that offer courses at both levels).
This approach can be best summarised as a broadly based liberal education through photography. On practice-led courses this links technical skills appropriate to the production of innovative and contextualised photography to an understanding of the function and ‘being in the world’ of that photography. Other courses (mostly at post-graduate levels) focus on the history and critical appreciation of the image and its location within a broad cultural framework, with research into these aspects of photography emerging strongly as a vital and exciting focus for academic development in the future. It is however within undergraduate education, that the broad focus of what is meant by learning through photography is relevant and this links the study of photography closely to other practice-led programmes such as fine art and other more traditional humanities disciplines such as history or philosophy.
Within these and similar subjects the primary motivations have not been to produce professional historians or philosophers but the belief that an education and awareness of these subjects creates an enlightened and enriched society and culture. It is also true that these subjects produce flexible, thinking graduates capable of engaging with the world of work in many ways That these ways are largely unpredictable is seen as a problem for the Universities, never for those politicians that promulgate the training as opposed to education ethos.
These issues are pertinent within photographic education. In addition to a rage of technical skills that are appropriate to their interests such programmes offer a range of ‘key skills’ that few subjects can match. These skills are appropriate to the many ways in which photographers and photography interfaces within our society. Our graduates offer creativity, flexibility, motivation and a range of problem solving and social skills that few other subjects can match. They deal with a wide range of broadly complimentary interests and subjects and create diverse and meaningful engagements with them.
All available evidence suggests that photography graduates have an excellent employment record. Some of them become photographers, unsurprisingly, but many more go on to develop careers over a wide spectrum of activities. There are over one hundred undergraduate photography programmes in the UK alone. We welcome the serious engagement of particularly manufacturing and equipment supply companies. These in particular benefit from our programmes, but at present contribute ( if at all), in an extremely ad hoc manner.
It is our job to debate and to develop the philosophies and practices of our courses through the good offices of our academic discipline and with educational values at the core of what we do. In this way we can meet the demands of students of the subject and the requirements of society, the market place and ‘the industry’ without simplistic solutions and platitudes that attempt to reduce our subject to technical training. Creativity is at the heart of our approach. Creativity through practice, theory and history and above all through dialogue.
John Kippin
The Self Portrait
Anna Gay Photography
Research
Joseph, Baron Ducreux:
Joseph Ducreux
Vincent Van Gogh:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)