As a photography teacher, should you be a practicing artist in your own right?

J

joodles

Suspended / Banned
Messages
195
Edit My Images
No
I'm doing a research project as part of my teaching qualification and I wanted peoples' opinion - should you need to be a practicing artist to be a successful teacher of photography/art? I'm questioning the dual identity of the role of art teacher. I would love just a line or two so I could see what the general feeling out there is please -whether you're a student, artist, teacher, parent of a student or if you just have an opinion it would be great to hear what you think and possibly why?

Many thanks for the help
 
They should have the relevant experience.
Whether they should still be working I guess would depend on exactly what they are teaching I guess.
 
I don't know about practicing 'artist', not all photography is art (thats a debate in itself though ;)), but I would expect them to be enthusiastic about photography so yes should practive photography in whatever form that takes for them.
 
Having heard on here some of the drivel some "teachers" come out with about photography I don't think you need to know a great deal.

In all seriousness it depends who you are teaching and to what level and what resources you have. example of what I mean if you were teaching photography to primary school pupils it is likely to be part of project. So will be more about composure using a point and shoot. Whilst those doing GCSE and A level would require more knowledge and understanding. Don't agree that you have to had made a living out of it before you can teach it though.
 
Real world experience is a massive gain - It also shows the students you have a passion and I think that really helps with relating the stuff you're teaching to real life scenarios as that is what can keep people interested.

I don't mean you need to have earnt a living from the subject, but a keen passion/personal interest in the goings on would be enough...
 
Last edited:
Art critics are rarely good artists or they wouldn't spend all their time talking crap about art, they'd be creating it; but good artists or photographers who make money as their sole income probably make more than they would teaching, so why would they teach? So no, I don't think you have to be a good artist or photographer to teach, but you do need to be a good teacher

That ^^^ was my one liner reply to the OP's question :)

As an aside, a new chap at our camera club joined after completing a 6 week course on photography locally that was in part funded by the council, which he felt was 'taught' by an idiot who was merely reciting info she'd read or been told to impart but that she did not really understand herself. After a day out with me he concluded she was talking [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER] much of the time and he'd just wasted over £100 and 6 evenings too

There's an old saying that often holds true that goes... Those that can, do; those that can't, teach

Dave
 
IMO you need some real experience and don't teach BS.

My younger brother just started studying Photography at College and one of his teachers told him that the camera body is the most important part.
He/she has at least 6 cameras all with the kit lens.
 
DavidBrill said:
My younger brother just started studying Photography at College and one of his teachers told him that the camera body is the most important part.
He/she has at least 6 cameras all with the kit lens.
Click to expand...

Then tell him to get a new teacher and QUICKLY !!!

Dave
 
I used to run a very basic photography course for kids at a local school, aged 8-10.
Some had access to a very basic compact, and all had access to a mobile. All thought I must be good as I had a big camera.
I would never claim to be an artist, but felt qualified enough to teach them a few basics, and to encourage, which to me was the most important thing for these kids. I would shoot and take in pictures each week that illustrated whatever we were looking at - does that make me practising ?
I borrowed an old compact and we would set a challenge each week with the idea that thinking about what to shoot was more important than the actual image. All the pictures, mine included were then looked at and we talked through the good and bad points without anyone knowing who took which one.
Several of the kids just wanted to call themselves a photographer, however one or two actually took some really good pictures - such that we held an exhibition at the end of each course.
These were the ones who would contact me (via their parents) to talk through any ideas or thoughts and I lent out a few bits of gear, like a tripod or whatever.

I guess what I am trying to say is that by encouraging and giving some direction I felt qualified to teach them, and the fact that often my pictures were picked out as that weeks winner meant I was a practising artist (or whatever !)
I was also earning a little income from photography at the same time, so again, I was a practising photographer to some extent.
 
Last edited:
my daughter is taking A level photography in 6th form collage the teacher who is teaching her is an art teacher and from what iv'e seen has very little knowledge on the mechanics / technical side of photography it looks like the whole first year is about art and i am told the second year is about photography
her first term was all about textures , colours , moods and feelings of a picture very little about photography

the few photographs she has taken seem to be sidelined with remarks like " thats nice" with no interest at all
one of the things she was told to do was to photoshop a couple of her images to change / degrade them and to write an essay of how she could make them better which completely lost me

i have a meeting with the teacher next week to see whats going on it all seems a bit bizar maybe i'm missing something
 
Last edited:
joodles said:
I'm doing a research project as part of my teaching qualification and I wanted peoples' opinion - should you need to be a practicing artist to be a successful teacher of photography/art?
Click to expand...


Yes... and no.

joodles said:
I'm questioning the dual identity of the role of art teacher. I would love just a line or two so I could see what the general feeling out there is please -whether you're a student, artist, teacher, parent of a student or if you just have an opinion it would be great to hear what you think and possibly why?

Many thanks for the help
Click to expand...


How else can you remain current, developed, and offer advice about an industry if you have no idea how it operates?
How else can you offer critique on student's images if you have no experience of what they are expected to produce in their chosen genre?
How else can you expect them to respect you and your opinions of their work if you offer nothing in the way of work you have done in return?

However....


  • School level - No.. not really. So long as you know the basics, I think that's all you'll need to stay one step ahead of your students.
  • GCSE - no.. same as above, with a dab of art history and timeline knowledge added.
  • A Level - No.... As GCSE.... although it would be preferable as they're starting to consider options at this stage, and you need to be able to give advice about photography as a career. The state current A level is in though is indicative of not really needing experience to teach it... so perhaps that should just be a yes, and have done with it.
  • BTEC - yes (these lead to degrees and higher education, you need to be preparing your students for that, and also what the industry needs. If you're not part if it, you can't - simple as that).
  • Degree - Absolutely. You'll be massively out of your depth trying to teach at degree level unless you are. Your best second and third years will run rings around you. In the vast majority of cases, you wouldn't even get a teaching position at degree level unless you can demonstrate professional experience and some kind of research profile as well, have both a BA (Hons) and a MA, and PGCE. Some will accept not having a Masters if you've got a great amount of professional experience and can prove it... but that's changing.

I'm curious as to how the opinion of those that don't teach it, or operate professionally are valid in any way though. It would just be a collection of personal opinion based on individual experiences, here say and guesswork.


[edit]

I think you need to clarify whether you are suggesting they need to be an artist or not. Define artist. If you mean should they have real world practical of experience of being a professional photographer, or practising, exhibited, reviewed and published artist... then that's different. Ideally, at degree level, I would suggest both.

munch said:
Don't agree that you have to had made a living out of it before you can teach it though.
Click to expand...

Depends what level you are discussing. But even if you leave level out of it... you can't teach what you know nothing about. For example - If all someone does is shoot steam trains as an amateur... isn't that all they'll be able to teach?... and wouldn't they just end up teaching people how to shoot steam trains as they themselves do? What if the students wanted advice on studio flash portraiture, or still life, or editorial portraiture, or fashion, or advertising. What would they do then?

If it's technical only teaching.... camera stuff in other words... then pretty much any experienced amateur may be able to teach that... but... and this is important... are they good teachers? People overlook the one little detail often :)..... You can have all the knowledge in the word and be a crap teacher because you're boring, uninspiring, and have no idea of how to engage students.
 
Last edited:
DG Phototraining said:
Art critics are rarely good artists or they wouldn't spend all their time talking crap about art
Click to expand...

No one's talking about art critics though.


DG Phototraining said:
they'd be creating it; but good artists or photographers who make money as their sole income probably make more than they would teaching, so why would they teach?
Click to expand...

Because we enjoy it? Besides... you can do BOTH you know? :)

DG Phototraining said:
So no, I don't think you have to be a good artist or photographer to teach
Click to expand...

Depends what level. I'd suggest you do. If you're not a good photographer, there's probably a reason... and a lot of that will be because you're not able to recognise what's good, or bad with your own photo, and you've certainly not demonstrated that you can do anything about it. So what makes you think you'll be able to fix other people's problems?

DG Phototraining said:
, but you do need to be a good teacher
Click to expand...


Yes you do. However, too many people think that just means knowing lots of stuff.


DG Phototraining said:
There's an old saying that often holds true that goes... Those that can, do; those that can't, teach

Dave
Click to expand...

Interesting comment coming from "DG Phototraining" :) So... you're either a crap photgrapher who can't do it, so you teach it instead Dave.... or your last statement is clearly nonsense. Which is it? :) Are you a crap photographer?
 
Last edited:
I thought we were answering the OP's question not critiquing everyone's replies for them :p And I still stand by every comment, including and especially that you do NOT need to be good at something to teach it well

And re the last point Pookey - I said 'often' - so double :p :p

Dave
 
joodles said:
I'm doing a research project as part of my teaching qualification and I wanted peoples' opinion - should you need to be a practicing artist to be a successful teacher of photography/art? I'm questioning the dual identity of the role of art teacher. I would love just a line or two so I could see what the general feeling out there is please -whether you're a student, artist, teacher, parent of a student or if you just have an opinion it would be great to hear what you think and possibly why?

Many thanks for the help
Click to expand...

No. Of course not. If you are a teacher then you teach, that is your job.

Or of course if you are an academic then you are likely to also be a professional researcher/writer.

But generally most people don't have the time to have two careers at once.
 
"Those that can, do; those that can't, teach" just seems a ludicrous thing for someone who runs photo training courses to be saying. I'm sure I'm not the only one who had a "WTF" moment reading that... no matter how many oftens you put in front of it.

CharlotteM said:
No. Of course not. If you are a teacher then you teach, that is your job.

Or of course if you are an academic then you are likely to also be a professional researcher/writer.

But generally most people don't have the time to have two careers at once.
Click to expand...

I'd argue this: Even if they have no time to fully engage with both, I think on a photography course at high level, it is essential that you have had the experience to be able to effectively teach. Many lecturers are on fractional contracts these days though... and do indeed do both.
 
Last edited:
IMO, it depends... not that one is currently "practicing," but has current/relevant knowledge/experience. There are so many aspects one could teach...photography business, photographic art, photographic mechanics general, photographic mechanics medium/camera specific.

IMO, it would be very hard to teach someone how to use a DSLR if their experience is based in film SLRs...
"Art" considerations are relatively independent of the medium (i.e. composition,color,etc) and of the ability to create the art. In a way a practicing artist could be worse here as they tend to be highly opinionated.
Business has little to do with "what" the specific business is involved in.
Etc., etc..
 
Pookeyhead said:
"Those that can, do; those that can't, teach" just seems a ludicrous thing for someone who runs photo training courses to be saying. I'm sure I'm not the only one who had a "WTF" moment reading that... no matter how many oftens you put in front of it.

I'd argue this: Even if they have no time to fully engage with both, I think on a photography course at high level, it is essential that you have had the experience to be able to effectively teach. Many lecturers are on fractional contracts these days though... and do indeed do both.
Click to expand...

I have to admit, one of the reasons that swayed me towards my choice of course was the fact that all the academics are employed full time to research and lecture. I think I would be less impressed with tutors that were moonlighting in a non-academic profession. However I am ten years older than your average student.

I would expect a lecturer to be *engaged* with the subject. Shooting imagery for themselves, researching collections, visiting galleries and so forth, but I would be asking questions about the university if they weren't providing their academics with enough to live on...
 
CharlotteM said:
I have to admit, one of the reasons that swayed me towards my choice of course was the fact that all the academics are employed full time to research and lecture.
Click to expand...

We're not pure academics though Charlotte.. nor is it a purely academic subject. In your area of study I'd be inclined to agree with you, but not with photography. The reality is though, most universities now are reluctant to employ lecturers full time. Many have a collection of fractional appointments and work in more than one place, or balance freelnce work wit teaching.




CharlotteM said:
I would expect a lecturer to be *engaged* with the subject. Shooting imagery for themselves, researching collections, visiting galleries and so forth, but I would be asking questions about the university if they weren't providing their academics with enough to live on...
Click to expand...

LOL.... ask away then, as many do not offer full time contracts to lecturers any more.

I'm on a full time contract, and I do research, and I do shoot my own work. I still undertake commercial work for a few select clients too. There are only 2 of us full time though.... the other 4 members of the team are no longer full time since the last "restructure"... which is suit speak for saving money at the expense of the quality of the "client's" education :(.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
We're not pure academics though Charlotte.. nor is it a purely academic subject. In your area of study I'd be inclined to agree with you, but not with photography. The reality is though, most universities now are reluctant to employ lecturers full time. Many have a collection of fractional appointments and work in more than one place, or balance freelnce work wit teaching.

LOL.... ask away then, as many do not offer full time contracts to lecturers any more.

I'm on a full time contract, and I do research, and I do shoot my own work. I still undertake commercial work for a few select clients too. There are only 2 of us full time though.... the other 4 members of the team are no longer full time since the last "restructure"... which is suit speak for saving money at the expense of the quality of the "client's" education :(.
Click to expand...

I did apply for photography degrees for five years though... I was a determined little thing!
 
Pookeyhead said:
"Those that can, do; those that can't, teach" just seems a ludicrous thing for someone who runs photo training courses to be saying. I'm sure I'm not the only one who had a "WTF" moment reading that... no matter how many oftens you put in front of it.
.
Click to expand...

Maybe others' can read a whole sentence then rather than just picking out the bits they want ???

Whatever - as the yoof say - but you're hijacking the OP's thread by arguing, when they only asked for one or two lines of each person's thoughts - that's puts you in the naughty corner for me and possible detention if you carry on lol

Dave
 
"quote"
I'm doing a research project as part of my teaching qualification and I wanted peoples' opinion - should you need to be a practicing artist to be a successful teacher of photography/art? I'm questioning the dual identity of the role of art teacher. I would love just a line or two so I could see what the general feeling out there is please -whether you're a student, artist, teacher, parent of a student or if you just have an opinion it would be great to hear what you think and possibly why? " unquote"

Many thanks for the help " unquote"


As an artist I can't even draw a straight line, so in answer to the question is I don't think so with reservations. Consider those playing music, a lot can't read a note on a musical score but are very good at playing an instrument.

Same with photography just because a photographer doesn't have a list of letters after their name doesn't mean their photographs are terrible .

The art of teaching is being able to put across to students the subject you want them to learn. A teacher can have umpteen qualifications but if they can't convey their knowledge to others then they are useless.

Obviously the more knowledge gained by a teacher should benefit the students, so understanding art/photography I would say is more important than being able to do
 
Last edited:
I teach and work in the industry I teach in I.e. Photography. I work with people who unlike me teach full time, they don't work in the industry as being a full time lecturer leaves pretty much no room for running their own business outside of it.

So no I dont think they should necessarily practice what they teach as it's probably not really feasible in the main... However there is also a case to be argued that the vast majority teach the subject because they failed to make it in the field they are now teaching.
 
If a degree-level photography lecturer on anything but the very most strictly 'fine art' course doesn't have their own clients and _still_ occasionally does jobs, they should probably be taken out to the knacker's yard and shot.

One of my lecturers was an advertising photographer 20 years ago. Guess what, the industry has changed a LOT since then, and some of his entirely outdated teachings confused a lot of people, and some (eg how taxation/self-employment works now) were just plain wrong.

Another of mine was a working photographer still. One lecture she had a phone call and had to postpone the next day's lecture because she had to nip down to Italy for a client job. A bit annoying but absolutely worth it to have someone who was still working. She was fantastic and bang up to date, used students as paid assistants on some of her shoots, and introduced us to incredibly relevant industry people.


Speaking to colleagues who've been on photo courses all around the UK, this seems to be pretty much everyone's experiences...


As for A-level photo teachers, if they don't take their own pictures for something or other (even if just their own projects for pleasure) then I'd be worried, to say the least...
 
Last edited:
DG Phototraining said:
Maybe others' can read a whole sentence then rather than just picking out the bits they want ???

Whatever - as the yoof say - but you're hijacking the OP's thread by arguing, when they only asked for one or two lines of each person's thoughts - that's puts you in the naughty corner for me and possible detention if you carry on lol

Dave
Click to expand...

Yes sir,, sorry sir. Wasn't me anyway, it was him... ^^^
 
joodles said:
I'm doing a research project as part of my teaching qualification and I wanted peoples' opinion - should you need to be a practicing artist to be a successful teacher of photography/art? I'm questioning the dual identity of the role of art teacher. I would love just a line or two so I could see what the general feeling out there is please -whether you're a student, artist, teacher, parent of a student or if you just have an opinion it would be great to hear what you think and possibly why?

Many thanks for the help
Click to expand...
I don't think they necessarily have to be currently working in photography but certainly have had a working background. When I studied photography, for fun, the tutors with experience held everyones attention more than those without.
 
In my view to teach photography you need to have a good knowledge of whatever the course covers. The exposure triangle (and the effect of the three parts) is an absolute minimum but could, depending on the course, include a lot more, eg composition, use of DoF, lighting etc., and also be a good teacher.


I don't think you need to be practising artist although some of the composition rules/guidelines used in photography are the same as those in art. Giovanni Bellini's, Madonna with Saints, for example -

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/bellini/madonna.jpg


The figures of the saints to either side and in front of the Madonna are less well lit and not painted clearly which concentrate the view towards the central figure; we would adjust the studio lighting and use a large aperture now.


Dave
 
Why is it that some people just cant answer the bleedin question asked by the OP instead of continually dragging threads like this down the route of "im better than anyone else so i know everything and only my view counts because the rest of you are all wrong because i say so and if you dare to prove me wrong i'll sidestep the issue and throw in another ah but" route
 
Last edited:
Do you need to be a practicing artist? I'd say, no. I don't think that you have to be a professional tennis player to coach.

The requirements should be to know the subject, and be able to teach.

Of the best three teachers I've had to pleasure of learning from, two would no longer be allowed near a school because they don't reach current minimum academic standards. None were practicing writers, mathematicians or physicists. University was different, since the lecturers were engaged in research - I don't know if this is any longer the case at UK universities.

Having had a limited exposure to what it's like on the other side of the fence to the students in adult education, I would probably answer "yes" to the question in that sphere of education, because it's the only way to get someone who has a clue, and is probably sure enough of themselves to break the teaching guidelines. And given that the institution in question was a school that ran AE classes, I suspect that the "yes" should apply to schools as well. What I found was that teaching ability and subject knowledge weren't the most important things - compliance to guidelines and tick boxes counted for more.
 
StephenM said:
Do you need to be a practicing artist? I'd say, no. I don't think that you have to be a professional tennis player to coach.
Click to expand...

Depends at what level though, surely. Would you expect a premier league team coach to be an ex professional footballer? Probably. A local pub team? Of course not.

No idea why I used a football analogy.... ****ing hate football :) It made sense when I write it though.
 
To a certain extent, I agree - but I read the question as asking whether in general you need to be a practicing photographer to successfully teach photography, and to that general question, I'd still say no. Whether you need to have actually done the job so that you can resist the pressures that appear to exist in school to teach badly - well, knowing that you are right in both practice and theory may give you more confidence to resist.

And this does presuppose a certain limitation on what is meant by "photography". I am looking purely at the photography, not at the business concerns necessary if you are to be a successful professional. I suppose I still come back to my own experience of being given a good understanding (and even affection, if not love) for certain subjects based on instruction from teachers who were, by modern standards, incompetent to teach and have never been professionals in the subject.

As to football - I have no idea. I've never watched a football match, and I have no idea whether matches are won through skill or brute force and ignorance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top