The F-Stop wrote:
oh im doing that already!

Naughty Ties wrote:
Oh wait...I already do it full time so I guess I'm good. 

pffft...you guys are cheating ! it's no longer just a dream if you're doing it !

Zack Zoll wrote:
Teaching full time in a BFA or MFA program, with absolutely no intro courses.

Of course not having intro courses would pretty much require me being the chair ... Which means I'll need to do all sorts of administrative work, and watch over other instructors. And potentially fire people.

So, maybe my ideal work load would be Art History 1, Photo 2-4, and a couple specialized Photo courses. Right now I do portrait and advertising classes, but I'd really like to do a Professional Practice class where we focus on image selection and presentation, and making excellent prints. Ideally our final project would be a curated show, where we address a certain theme rather than just show what we did that year.

I'd also like to have booths at all the local art fairs as part of our class.

Figuring out what to actually do with your images is the weakest part of most photographer's skill sets, and I think it's the most interesting. Context is really important, and is usually the difference between landing a commission, poking the bear, and just plain being forgotten.

Probably not a shocker that I'm a teacher for life, for those that have read my posts before. Fame fades and you can only spend so much money, but the feeling that you get in knowing that you're helping people, and that you've built a really strong program that students are fighting to get into is forever.

This doesn't count surely?  Is teaching the same as doing or being?

Derek Ridgers wrote:
This doesn't count surely?  Is teaching the same as doing or being?

The question wasn't about what sort of photo gigs you wanted. The question was what sort of photographer you wanted to be. And since teachers get paid, that makes me professional and a photographer, even if I'm not a 'professional photographer.'

If I had to answer your way, I'd like to be a project-based gallery photographer showing in a mid-sized city like Cleveland or Portland. Maybe the outskirts of Boston, but nothing bigger. I enjoy doing work for the work's sake and trying to ask and answer questions with it, and so long as I could afford film and (massive) prints, I would be happy.

And a place to keep it all. Doesn't need to be midtown, and I don't need a BMW or Vogue covers.

Besides ... Where would we be if nobody wanted to be teachers? Most of the artists history remembers went to school, and the ones that didn't where brought to prominence by gallerists and curators that did go to school. There isn't a single example of a famous critically respected artist from the last century that didn't have school factor in somehow.

Even Grandma Moses, whom I dislike immensely despite being from my area, was at one time promoted my MoMA. I think they'd like to forget that now, but without their overeducated board it never would have happened.

Phoenix Digital Image wrote:
What type of photographer would you be if you could do it full time?

I'd be a sports photographer shooting multiple sports at the professional and college level.

I'd be Mike Disfarmer.

Zack Zoll wrote:
There isn't a single example of a famous critically respected artist from the last century that didn't have school factor in somehow.

I don’t think this is true.  I think you’ll find that there are some artists in the Lowbrow and Outsider Art genres for whom education wasn't a significant factor.  Or at least, not a positive factor.

Derek Ridgers wrote:

I don’t think this is true.  I think you’ll find that there are some artists in the Lowbrow and Outsider Art genres for whom education wasn't a significant factor.  Or at least, not a positive factor.

And they become famous and well-respected how exactly?

Magic? YouTube?

Solas wrote:

The F-Stop wrote:
oh im doing that already!

pffft...you guys are cheating ! it's no longer just a dream if you're doing it !

Well it was a dream back in 2003....does that count?  lol

Derek Ridgers wrote:
I don’t think this is true.  I think you’ll find that there are some artists in the Lowbrow and Outsider Art genres for whom education wasn't a significant factor.  Or at least, not a positive factor.

jean-michel basquiat.  no formal education heroin addict great painter.  if you think this is college or formal training you must also be heroin addict.

He was a neo-expressionist painter.  He became famous as a friend/student of the mighty Andy Warhol.

I think he is best remembered for bringing outsider art specifically african and latino art mainstream.

GER Photography wrote:
I'd love to be the ichi ban,, número uno, head chignon photographer for Sports Illistrated!! That's all!!:-)))

What is your favorite sport that you would love to shoot?

martin b wrote:

What is your favorite sport that you would love to shoot?

Just the Bikini Edition!! :-))) and maybe motor sports as a side. I'm not a subscriber, do they cover motor sports??:-)

Solas wrote:

pffft...you guys are cheating ! it's no longer just a dream if you're doing it !

✴✴✴✴✴✴✴✴✴✴✴✴
ah... dreams do come true!

martin b wrote:

jean-michel basquiat.  no formal education heroin addict great painter.  if you think this is college or formal training you must also be heroin addict.

He was a neo-expressionist painter.  He became famous as a friend/student of the mighty Andy Warhol.

I think he is best remembered for bringing outsider art specifically african and latino art mainstream.

And Warhol went to school for art. Basquait was also supported by the Gagiosian gallery and written of very highly in Artforum, both of which are learned institutions.

And now, having made my point, I will exit

Zack Zoll wrote:
And they become famous and well-respected how exactly?
Magic? YouTube?

Your sarcasm doesn’t really help your argument.  Originally you claimed -

Zack Zoll wrote:
There isn't a single example of a famous critically respected artist from the last century that didn't have school factor in somehow.

I was just trying  to make the point that sometimes it wasn't a positive factor.  In the genres I mentioned, those artists almost always succeeded despite their education rather than because of it.

To say that all artists eventually need the assistance of gallerists, curators, publishers, journalists, gallery owners, art patrons etc. that have themselves been educated is undoubtedly true.  But it’s an argument so tenuous as to have no real meaning. 

No one with any sense would argue against education and I wasn’t trying to do that.

Deep Visions wrote:
Would love to be a full time concert photographer, particularly the reggae scene

Unless you are only ever going to shoot small bands in small clubs, it will be a very frustrating experience.

Photographing big bands in big arenas you normally get the first three songs.  Sometimes only the first song.  During which time the musicians purposely don’t go near the photographers.

Often the bands PR person will tell you exactly where to stand and you’ll be in that spot with many others, all with their elbows out.

You’ll often be 40 feet away with TV cameras and security personnel ranged in front of you.

Then, after your allotted time, the PR person or the security lead you out.  Often not out the front but out the back and at an event like Glastonbury it can take quite a while to get around to the front.  By which time you’ll have missed seeing half the show.

All this and you'll most probably have to sign all your rights away too.

Good luck with all that.  You really, really need to like the music.