Imogen Cunningham on teaching photography

[johnastovall]

I don't think there's any such thing as teaching people photography, other than influencing them a little. People have to be their own learners. They have to have a certain talent.
Imogen Cunningham

[12stones]

John, do you make ridiculous statements just to get a response? Of course there's such a thing as teaching people photography. You can't teach artistic talent or natural ability, that's where guidance and influence come in; but, you can absolutely teach photographic basics and principles such as exposure, framing and composition, film developing and post processing. People have been making a living off of it for years and others have been learning from people for years.

That being said, what's the point of this post? The link takes me to the trust website, but doesn't say a word about Imogen's thoughts on teaching photography. Am I supposed to search around and read something specific.

[JohnT]

Originally Posted by 12stones

John, do you make ridiculous statements just to get a response? Of course there's such a thing as teaching people photography...

Based on reading many of Stovall's posts over the last two years, I think what he means is you can't teach someone to "see" when it comes to photography. That is a talent that's developed over time with a lot of shooting. You know, one developing his/her own style. That sort of thing.

Of course I'm no mind reader so only Stovall can say for sure what he means. :-)

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by 12stones

John, do you make ridiculous statements just to get a response? Of course there's such a thing as teaching people photography. You can't teach artistic talent or natural ability, that's where guidance and influence come in; but, you can absolutely teach photographic basics and principles such as exposure, framing and composition, film developing and post processing. People have been making a living off of it for years and others have been learning from people for years.

That being said, what's the point of this post? The link takes me to the trust website, but doesn't say a word about Imogen's thoughts on teaching photography. Am I supposed to search around and read something specific.

That's not photography thats just craft skill. It's by searching and reading one learns thinks. The eye is not the word. Ceci n’est pas une pipe.

[kronos2818]

12stones you have a p.m.

[Clint_Smith]

as a photography educator.....I agree. There comes a point when the student must take charge of their learning. I spend 6 weeks teaching the basics; ISO, Shutter Speed, Aperture, basic lighting and basic rules of compositition...after that my roll changes from teacher to advisor.

[12stones]

Originally Posted by Clint_Smith

as a photography educator.....I agree. There comes a point when the student must take charge of their learning. I spend 6 weeks teaching the basics; ISO, Shutter Speed, Aperture, basic lighting and basic rules of compositition...after that my roll changes from teacher to advisor.

So, Clint, would you say that the first 6 weeks you spend aren't considered teaching photography? Or is it a part of the whole?

[LDB]

Originally Posted by 12stones

you can absolutely teach photographic basics and principles such as exposure, framing and composition, film developing and post processing.

I don't have a dog in this hunt so this is just devil's advocate / thinking out loud but is that teaching photography or is that teaching a good bit of scientific processes along with general art topics? In a way I can at least partially agree with the thesis. You teach mechanical/scientific skills that can be used to create photographs but is creating photographs really the same as photography? An interesting thesis that if viewed from a wide angle perspective has definite thought provoking properties.

[Clint_Smith]

Originally Posted by 12stones

So, Clint, would you say that the first 6 weeks you spend aren't considered teaching photography? Or is it a part of the whole?

I think it is part of the whole experience. The first 6 weeks is part mechanics...part teaching them to except failure and to learn from it. The reason I only spend 6 weeks on this part is because we have DSLRs and the feedback is instant. So the learning curve should be accelerated. Unlike when I learned with a note pad and had to process rolls of film then read over my notes to make sure I learn what worked and what didn't.

Some grasp this concept...some don't. Those that want to be photographers explore on their own and then seek advice when they hit a wall mecahnically.

[kronos2818]

Originally Posted by Clint_Smith

I think it is part of the whole experience. The first 6 weeks is part mechanics...part teaching them to except failure and to learn from it. The reason I only spend 6 weeks on this part is because we have DSLRs and the feedback is instant. So the learning curve should be accelerated. Unlike when I learned with a note pad and had to process rolls of film then read over my notes to make sure I learn what worked and what didn't.

Some grasp this concept...some don't. Those that want to be photographers explore on their own and then seek advice when they hit a wall mecahnically.

So them questions for those first 6 weeks should be: "Are you teaching them photography?" or are you teaching them " How to use the tools they need to use to create photography?" And if they are only learning to use the tools "to create photography" then anything they create during those first 6 weeks can not be considered true photography. Because by definition they are only learning to use the tools to create photography. So if by chance a great photograph is create during that time, you as an instructor in form your student that it is not true photography because they are only learning the basic mechanics of it at this time????

What is the litmus test for when you are truely creating art???? And not just doing a trade skill (craft)????

[erisian pope]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

That's not photography thats just craft skill. It's by searching and reading one learns thinks. The eye is not the word. Ceci n’est pas une pipe.

Now this I don't understand. How is searching/reading different than teaching? I see an author as a teacher, albeit remote and less interactive. I see a teacher as an author whose writings are dynamic and interactive rather than statically committed to paper (although many teachers presumably write much of their material). So how is a book different enough from a classroom course that you would call one teaching photography (the book) and the other teaching a craft skill?

I would bet that many (most? all?) accomplished artists (both inside and outside of the photography medium) understand and have practiced the skills of their craft. I see this as a largely useful step in developing into an artist. So in my mind, learning the craft skills of photography are not to be poo-pooed.

Also, who's to say that one who 'merely' practices the craft skill (as you said) of photography is less than one who practices the 'art?' I think it's perfectly respectable for people to have different goals. I think judgement of people's aims is misplaced.

Ansel Adams learned darkroom technique at a job ... surely he was taught.



Mind you, I am not suggesting that classroom experience and only classroom experience are enough to take an utter neophyte and raise them to the level of a highly accomplished photographic artist. I realize the value in experience, trial and error, vision, inspiration, etc. but to utterly dismiss classroom learning seems shortsighted to me.

[KJ Smith]

You can teach someone to use a camera and take a picture.

A photograph requires much more than that.

Kevin

[Clint_Smith]

Originally Posted by kronos2818

So them questions for those first 6 weeks should be: "Are you teaching them photography?" or are you teaching them " How to use the tools they need to use to create photography?" And if they are only learning to use the tools "to create photography" then anything they create during those first 6 weeks can not be considered true photography. Because by definition they are only learning to use the tools to create photography. So if by chance a great photograph is create during that time, you as an instructor in form your student that it is not true photography because they are only learning the basic mechanics of it at this time????

What is the litmus test for when you are truely creating art???? And not just doing a trade skill (craft)????

why do I feel like I am being suckered into an argument....

A blind monkey finds a banana every once in a while. So it stands to reason that during the first 6 weeks great photography/images can be made. Depends on the student. Some people have an a God given talent that just exudes from them...others need to be pointed into the right direction.

I make my students shoot in manual mode the entire first 6 weeks. I do this because I want them to practice and learn how to use their tools. Program modes are not allowed and images turned in that have been shot program mode they get zero.

I would say that I am giving them the tools to make at the very least acceptable (stuff we can use in student publications) images.

But the majority of good photography work (artistic stuff) from my students has come in the last three weeks, which is the end of the 5th six weeks grading period. They have had the "Ah-HA" moment where the whole "photographic algebra" I call it clicks for them ....they understand ISO, aperture and Shutter speeds and how they affect their images. And that came from experience...not just reading from the book.

I think that photography is like any other art. You get better with experience and practice...as long as your doing the right things and not just aimlessly switching settings around.

I once had a friend that learned how to play the trumpet. The first grading period in band in the 5th grade it sounded like he was killing a goose when he played...was he a trumpet player that first grading period?....not then...but with the proper training & practice he became one. Same goes for student photographers.

and art is in the eye of the beholder...there is a lot of stuff in some museums that I think is total crap! LOL

Just go to any PPA print judging and you will get totally different responses from individual judges on the same image/artwork.

[kronos2818]

Originally Posted by Clint_Smith

why do I feel like I am being suckered into an argument....

A blind monkey finds a banana every once in a while. So it stands to reason that during the first 6 weeks great photography/images can be made. Depends on the student. Some people have an a God given talent that just exudes from them...others need to be pointed into the right direction.

I make my students shoot in manual mode the entire first 6 weeks. I do this because I want them to practice and learn how to use their tools. Program modes are not allowed and images turned in that have been shot program mode they get zero.

I would say that I am giving them the tools to make at the very least acceptable (stuff we can use in student publications) images.

But the majority of good photography work (artistic stuff) from my students has come in the last three weeks, which is the end of the 5th six weeks grading period. They have had the "Ah-HA" moment where the whole "photographic algebra" I call it clicks for them ....they understand ISO, aperture and Shutter speeds and how they affect their images. And that came from experience...not just reading from the book.

I think that photography is like any other art. You get better with experience and practice...as long as your doing the right things and not just aimlessly switching settings around.

I once had a friend that learned how to play the trumpet. The first grading period in band in the 5th grade it sounded like he was killing a goose when he played...was he a trumpet player that first grading period?....not then...but with the proper training & practice he became one. Same goes for student photographers.

and art is in the eye of the beholder...there is a lot of stuff in some museums that I think is total crap! LOL

Just go to any PPA print judging and you will get totally different responses from individual judges on the same image/artwork.

Not suckered into an argument, just an real question? As by John's comment earlier in this post: I don't think there's any such thing as teaching people photography, other than influencing them a little. People have to be their own learners. They have to have a certain talent. and his other statement: That's not photography thats just craft skill. It's by searching and reading one learns thinks.. That last statement was what John said to someone that stated that, when you teach someone the basics like F/stop, Shutter speed, ISO and composition you "are" teaching photography. It gives the impression that (and I maybe wrong on this and if I am wrong please forgive me John. This is not an attack on you) John believes that photography is unteachable. You either have the gift or you don't. And if you don't have the gift yet learn how to take photographs through classes by learning the basics, then anything you photograph should not be considered art, again because you don't have the gift. All you have done is learned a craft
If you extend that line of logic, then there must be a litmus test to see of you have the gift. And that is my question "what is that litmus test"???

[Clint_Smith]

Originally Posted by kronos2818

You either have the gift or you don't. And if you don't have the gift yet learn how to take photographs through classes by learning the basics, then anything you photograph should not be considered art, again because you don't have the gift. All you have done is learned a craft
If you extend that line of logic, then there must be a litmus test to see of you have the gift. And that is my question "what is that litmus test"???

To a certian degree I agree with "either you do have what it takes or don't."

But like I said art is in the eye of the beholder.