Fred Greissing wrote:
My wife has no college degree, but worked as an art director for several international advertising agencies. Her clients included leading grocery chains (international), italian furniture manufacturers, cosmetics lo list a few...

Really - none of the ABs, AD or CDs I know of or have work with have not gone to art school.  Maybe it's because we have several great schools in Atlanta along with some great agencies.  Even some of the smaller agencies I have worked at had well educated creatives.

Thomas Andreas wrote:
If we where in an private discussion I'd tell you that an art cannot be learned. Techniques, yes, in many ways (most of them without a degree, all modern photography theory exists in youtube, blogs and forums), instead art is shaped in the here and now for the future, not something that is aimed or planned.

As for degrees. Any kind of degree will make the same person better, than the same person would be without a degree. Education is important as it gives one a system under which one can think. But what's actually important is to realize that education is that (a thinking system) and it does not really affect the practicing part of anything. Scalping a mind into accepting new thinking systems is what higher education really does. But it wouldn't make a difference to a photographer if he/she would have a degree in photography or a degree in agriculture or business as I've seen all these degrees turn into some great photographers, full of skill.

The final goal for everyone is to sleep well at nights.

A couple of things here. You don't have to tell someone in private that art can't be learned. Two. You already made that statement here in public. And three. That's is both irrelevant and have nothing to do with what I'd stated. How you got all of that out of my post, is baffling. I'd tell you all of this both in public and private.

Most of us are artist. Photography, painting, furniture maker etc. It's really a subjective term. Speaking for myself. I've seen artist come in their freshmen year with either good or bad art. But in their 2nd to 3rd year, they have incredible art. It's like I'd pointed out to another poster on here. No degree can make you a better artist, doctor, lawyer etc. It's the education and hard work in school that will give you those results. School scalping a mind into new thinking. I like the say, helping the student to keep an open mind and expanding his or her own vision. No one can force you to do anything. Speaking for myself. The education has done the opposite for me. My photography skills are way beyond what they were before I entered school.

Photography medium for some is about art. For other students, it's all about the technical side. And for many, it's about both.

Degree making others better than the other? Really? That is not always the case for degree majors in general.

The final goal is not for everyone to sleep at night. The final goal for many is to achieve the goals that they desire.

Have you attended Art college?

Back on the actual topic that I was replying to.

"it's what's in your port followed by your level of networking skills that count in this line of work. Spending your resources in a degree will most likely kill some, if not all, enthusiasm that you have at this point and after you get the degree you are back at 0."

Can you back this up?

Legacys 7 wrote:
A couple of things here. You don't have to tell someone in private that art can't be learned. Two. You already made that statement here in public. And three. That's is both irrelevant and have nothing to do with what I'd stated. How you got all of that out of my post, is baffling. I'd tell you all of this both in public and private.

Most of us are artist. Photography, painting, furniture maker etc. It's really a subjective term. Speaking for myself. I've seen artist come in their freshmen year with either good or bad art. But in their 2nd to 3rd year, they have incredible art. It's like I'd pointed out to another poster on here. No degree can make you a better artist, doctor, lawyer etc. It's the education and hard work in school that will give you those results. School scalping a mind into new thinking. I like the say, helping the student to keep an open mind and expanding his or her own vision. No one can force you to do anything. Speaking for myself. The education has done the opposite for me. My photography skills are way beyond what they were before I entered school.

Photography medium for some is about art. For other students, it's all about the technical side. And for many, it's about both.

Degree making others better than the other? Really? That is not always the case for degree majors in general.

The final goal is not for everyone to sleep at night. The final goal for many is to achieve the goals that they desire.

Have you attended Art college?

Back on the actual topic that I was replying to.

"it's what's in your port followed by your level of networking skills that count in this line of work. Spending your resources in a degree will most likely kill some, if not all, enthusiasm that you have at this point and after you get the degree you are back at 0."

Can you back this up?

What is written by me is food for thinking, open for discussion, some may agree and some may disagree. I'm ok with any case and I appreciate that you noticed what I wrote. You misunderstood a small part back there though, when I said that the same person is better with a degree than the same person without it, for example, George is a better George if George has a degree in something than the version of the same George without it.

Elaborating my previous statement for you. Schooling is for common people that think in the common way of "no pain, no gain". If you break it down to the basics, any school is an enthusiasm grinding machine. It's because of the teachers mostly, their work is appreciated by our society but don't forget that instead of doing what they know, they have chosen to pass on the knowledge instead of utilizing it. In shorter words, those who can, do, those who can't, teach.

So an average student mindset is full of compromises to earn appreciation from the "higher ranked" teacher while the teacher sees them as a product that needs to be scalped into a formalistic way of thinking and then get out and achieve in the common sense way of achieving. A student will never get the project of inspiration, instead they will choose the project that has the most potential to be rated well, to gain a "prize" made out of thin air, by someone that is actually so far away from the business grid, unable to deliver any kind of prize, while only if lucky, some connection can open to the art grid, but with low appreciation too.

School is also full of childish competition. No wonder the drop outs usually stand out as wonders of our society, because they choose not to follow the stream.

Thank you for your interest in me. All I can tell you is that what you read, comes from the deep.

Thomas Andreas wrote:

What is written by me is food for thinking, open for discussion, some may agree and some may disagree. I'm ok with any case and I appreciate that you noticed what I wrote. You misunderstood a small part back there though, when I said that the same person is better with a degree than the same person without it, for example, George is a better George if George has a degree in something than the version of the same George without it.

Backing up my previous statement for you. Schooling is for common people that think in the common way of "no pain, no gain". If you break it down to the basics, any school is an enthusiasm grinding machine. It's because of the teachers mostly, their work is appreciated by our society but don't forget that instead of doing what they know, they have chosen to pass on the knowledge instead of utilizing it. In shorter words, those who can, do, those who can't, teach.

So an average student mindset is full of compromises to earn appreciation from the "higher ranked" teacher while the teacher sees them as a product that needs to be scalped into a formalistic way of thinking and then get out and achieve in the common sense way of achieving. A student will never get the project of inspiration, instead they will choose the project that has the most potential to be rated well, to gain a "prize" made out of thin air, by someone that is actually so far away from the business grid, unable to deliver any kind of prize, while only if lucky, some connection can open to the art grid, but with low appreciation too.

School is also full of childish competition. No wonder the drop outs usually stand out as wonders of our society, because they choose not to follow the stream.

Thank you for your interest in me. All I can tell you is that what you read, comes from the deep.

Actually I didn't miss your point. You've done the exact same thing here. You made a generalization statement. This contradicts your, "George" point. Had that been your point in your initial reply, I wouldn't have replied. Plus your recent reply totally fell apart. The more that you wrote, the more that you made my points. You never answered my question to back up your point, regarding if you attended art school. I know why many drop out because I was there. Many drop out because they couldn't handle the hard work. And it is hard work. They come with this illusion that they're going to take pretty pictures and that's it, failing to realize that your work is being critiqued,  mid term, finals, Art directors coming in to view your work and tons of other things that are part of the school equation. Photography isn't the only part of your studies.  See my reply in agreement with a graduate on here where we pretty much make similar points.

AJScalzitti wrote:
Really - none of the ABs, AD or CDs I know of or have work with have not gone to art school.  Maybe it's because we have several great schools in Atlanta along with some great agencies.  Even some of the smaller agencies I have worked at had well educated creatives.

This has been what I've encountered as well. Many of the local AD/CDs went to places like Portfolio Center and Creative Circus which, though they are not 4-year universities, they do educate and equip. Ad agencies respect their graduates because they know that they have what it takes. Portfolio Center in particular (the one of the two with which I'm most familiar) has a very impressive faculty in their design/art-direction dept. Their students have reasonable expectations of getting jobs at good ad agencies and not as a lackey in the mail room.

Kincaid Blackwood wrote:
This comes up so often it should be a sticky.

I'll finish my MFA (photography) later this year. I'll likely go get a second (cinematography/directing) beginning in 2015 and transition into motion media (in the past I worked as a director for a time; concurrent with my photography).

Many will tell you you don't need to go to school and it's a waste of time and money. Most of those people haven't gone to a photography school. They may or may not be able to accurately assess if it's a waste. Some of them have gone to schools but they went to shitty schools. Or they didn't take advantage of the opportunities. Or they're just lazy in general. So here's my assessment as someone who shot semi-professionally for a little while, shot purely for art's sake for slightly longer and then went in whole hog as a professional. Take it for what you will. This is just my perspective.

NO, you do not need to go to photo school to be a photographer. Or a successful photographer. You also don't need an masters of fine art to teach nor is the teach path th only reason to get one. You can get a masters of art (MA) and teach at many places if you want to teach some classes on the side. Just know that you'd never chair a dept with one. If you get tired of being in the trenches and want to retire but still work, teaching can be a nice side income. Or main income.

But you need not have the degree to be a talented successful photographer. That should be reiterated.

Now... here's what an academic environment can do for you if you select the right program.

The school where I study has a half a million dollars worth of photography equipment. As a grad student, I had access to all of it from day 1. Thus far I've been able to experiment with and become fluent with PhaseONEs, Hasselblad MFD, Pentax digital, Canon 5D, MkII & MkIII, Fuji XE1 & XPro, Profoto, elinchrome, travelite, Broncolor, ARRI lighting, Dynalite and others. It's allowed me to expand the scope if my shoots as many of my peers want to assist on my shoots and I return the favor on theirs. We also have fully equipped studios here. Sure, school can be expensive but it can also be a sound investment if you factor in what you get with it and maximize it. We also get other intangibles: free Adobe CC, free Lynda, student discounts at B&H etc. Free high-quality printers, discounts on paper, blah blah blah.

Alternatively, I got involved with the student media here and worked on the magazine staff. Our magazine is 100% student run and while I knew about being published as a photographer before coming here, I learned a ton about publications. It also allowed me to come into contact with many publishers and editors at for-profit magazines who have hired me. I would not have met them otherwise. Becoming a part of their network expanded the opportunities available to me. I maximize those opportunities because I'm ambitious and was making contacts before I came here. But being here helped me increase my reach dramatically.

The other intangible that many don't think about when they think of getting a degree in the arts is the other creatives you'll be around. Aside from getting regular, rigorous critiques on your work and it's process, these are also people who support you, feed you gigs that they can't handle, introduce you to their contacts etc. Can you get that outside of school? Absolutely. But count how many of the photographers you know who've referred work your way. How many is that? Also, it isn't just photographers we're talking about. Because my school is focused on the professional arts, I know a ton of junior art directors at ad agencies now. I know a ton of new designers and fashion houses. I know a ton of new editors at magazines. I know a lot of digital techs and retouchers (something a degree path can equip you to do with the right course selection). I know visual effects people, copy writers and graphic designers. All of those people need photographers and if you are good, they'll want your work.

Before I got here, "shooting frequently" was measured in number of shoots per month. If I was really busy, I'd have multiple shoots in a week. Now, I'm regularly shooting daily, often with multiple shoots per day. As a freelancer, it's always discussed in terms of feast/famine. I used to view feasting in terms of "How can I pace myself to finish everything on my plate?" Now it's more like "I can eat everything on this half of the table and finish someone else plate if they're not done by the time I am." Being in school and shooting full time and doing other selfish projects builds an ability to handle a larger workflow. If you shot photos every day for the next 30 days, how long would it take you to get swamped? How long would you need to get caught up? You learn that kind of thing as a byproduct of an environment like this. Could I have gotten it outside of school? Possibly. What I know is that I did not. And that was after having shot both semi professionally and unprofessionally.

That's just my experience. This school is not a community college, it's a university focused on creatives only. I'm also ambitious with an undergraduate degree in business. I'm also not some 20 year old. I've had the benefit of time in the workforce which taught me a number of things in and of itself. When I got here, I was ready and determined to maximize the opportunities available to me.

Which was the same thing I did outside of this environment, make no mistake. Lazy people will not get anywhere, degree or no. You can stumble to a degree (any degree) and be very unsuccessful after attaining it just like you can be very successful without one. But if you're driven and ambitious, it can boost your career path. Just choose the right school. There are a lot of shitty ones out there. Some have actually made the news due to how bad they are. Don't go anywhere where the faculty isn't filled with a.) working pros or b.) regularly exhibiting artists (if you want a fine art path). Contrary to popular belief, not all faculties are comprised of people who were unable to do. Some are, for sure; it just means you have to do your research.

Do I live lavishly as a full-time photographer? Nope. But I do support myself with money to say and some to play with. That's more than I was able to say before enrolling and being in this environment helped get me to that point.

Well stated. This is pretty much what I've expressed in my 2nd or 3rd reply.

AJScalzitti wrote:

Really - none of the ABs, AD or CDs I know of or have work with have not gone to art school.  Maybe it's because we have several great schools in Atlanta along with some great agencies.  Even some of the smaller agencies I have worked at had well educated creatives.

My wife worked in Milan Italy, the advertising capitol of Italy (worlds 9th economy).
Agencies were TBWA and DDB (both worldwide Madison Ave ad agency).
She had no college education. High School grad.

Legacys 7 wrote:
Actually I didn't miss your point. You've done the exact same thing here. You made a generalization statement. This contradicts your, "George" point. Had that been your point in your initial reply, I wouldn't have replied. Plus your recent reply totally fell apart. The more that you wrote, the more that you made my points. You never answered my question to back up your point, regarding if you attended art school. I know why many drop out because I was there. Many drop out because they couldn't handle the hard work. And it is hard work. They come with this illusion that they're going to take pretty pictures and that's it, failing to realize that your work is being critiqued,  mid term, finals, Art directors coming in to view your work and tons of other things that are part of the school equation. Photography isn't the only part of your studies.  See my reply in agreement with a graduate on here where we pretty much make similar points.

There are many forms of pain that can shape one's life, where pain, the equivalent of working hard. Withstanding schooling pain in a photography school is nothing close to the holy grail of achievements.

Photography is actually fun for most while it can qualify among the easiest jobs in this world. If you think otherwise, try building a part of a real aeroplane that flies, try being a leader of people that rely their future and feeding their families on your intuition and only, or try designing a device to solve our worlds energy problem. If you think that your photography degree offers you some kind of paper holiness, because some art director that likes little boys critiqued you, you are clearly a charlatan. Please do not continue that prologue of yours to me as no one is going to feel any more impressed by how you address individual views that are clearly subjective, free and open-ended.

Thomas Andreas wrote:

There are many forms of pain that can shape one's life, where pain, the equivalent of working hard. Withstanding schooling pain in a photography school is nothing close to the holy grail of achievements.

Photography is actually fun for most while it can qualify among the easiest jobs in this world. If you think otherwise, try building a part of a real aeroplane that flies, try being a leader of people that rely their future and feeding their families on your intuition and only, or try designing a device to solve our worlds energy problem. If you think that your photography degree offers you some kind of paper holiness, because some art director that likes little boys critiqued you, you are clearly a charlatan. Please do not continue that prologue of yours to me as no one is going to feel any more impressed by how you address individual views that are clearly subjective and truly free and open-ended.

So basically, little boy, your subjective point of view, not to be confused with facts was basically a waste of space on here. Get the fuck out of here with that over analyzed contradicting noise. You actually made it rocket science for yourself. And you still didn't answer my question. Evasive much?

Legacys 7 wrote:

So basically, little boy, your subjective point of view, not to be confused with facts was basically a waste of space on here. Get the fuck out of here with that over analyzed contradicting noise. You actually made it rocket science for yourself. And you still didn't answer my question. Evasive much?

I'm sure that thirty thousands posts by you, with the language and tone that you use, are a much bigger waste of space than mine. Farewell.

vsfotografi wrote:
Do "you" think pursuing a degree in photography is a "must"?

Not sure.

I quit High School my junior year.

Thomas Andreas wrote:

I'm sure that thirty thousands posts by you, with the language and tone that you use, are a much bigger waste of space than mine. Farewell.

Meh. Just another assumption that don't equate to facts. I only save that lingo for people such as yourself who basically do the "language and tone" thing in their sly and subtle way. Thanks for being evasive by not answering my question. Fare thee well.

vsfotografi wrote:
Do "you" think pursuing a degree in photography is a "must"? What are the pros/cons--in your opinion?

I think some of you have strayed off track here. How you learned aside, the question was about a degree in photography.

You can go to school and not get a degree. And I disagree about teachers. There are teachers who can do and want to teach. My design teacher created logos for airlines, fortune 100 companies and was astounding at teaching. There are poor teachers, but a great school doesn't hire them, or if they do, don't keep them for long.

Before I went to Art Center, I already had the technical stuff learned. What I needed was beyond that. That school taught me to light, without the main light, fill light formulas - but by looking at the light. It taught me color way past the simple color wheel, complementary color stuff. It put me with some of the best minds and best students from all over. Every day, the assignment board would go up and the students and teacher would critique each piece. They process was more intense than just self learning. They have a simple "no late work" policy. If it wasn't done at the beginning of class, you were trash.

That was why a third of the beginning students never got past the first term. There were very few easy assignments. As one teach said, "we never give you impossible assigments; just almost". Some schools are worth it; just not the degree.

There are also some great learning environments outside of school. I learned about color printing beside one of the great press operators, but I took a class in color separation to get hands on experience.

AJScalzitti wrote:
Again this is equating the final piece of paper with what, if any, doors it opens.  Sure you are not going to work as an art buyer, art director, or a teacher without one.

Fred Greissing wrote:
My wife has no college degree, but worked as an art director for several international advertising agencies. Her clients included leading grocery chains (international), italian furniture manufacturers, cosmetics lo list a few...

I've gotten all my prior jobs without a degree or college. It can happen, but maybe I was just lucky.

Production Artist
Technical Artist
Interactive Services Manager
Flash Developer
Website Developer
Creative Director

I'm not knocking degrees or education by any means. It's just not a path I chose to go down.

Leonard Gee Photography wrote:
I think some of you have strayed off track here. How you learned aside, the question was about a degree in photography.

You can go to school and not get a degree. And I disagree about teachers. There are teachers who can do and want to teach. My design teacher created logos for airlines, fortune 100 companies and was astounding at teaching. There are poor teachers, but a great school doesn't hire them, or if they do, don't keep them for long.

Before I went to Art Center, I already had the technical stuff learned. What I needed was beyond that. That school taught me to light, without the main light, fill light formulas - but by looking at the light. It taught me color way past the simple color wheel, complementary color stuff. It put me with some of the best minds and best students from all over. Every day, the assignment board would go up and the students and teacher would critique each piece. They process was more intense than just self learning. They have a simple "no late work" policy. If it wasn't done at the beginning of class, you were trash.

That was why a third of the beginning students never got past the first term. There were very few easy assignments. As one teach said, "we never give you impossible assigments; just almost". Some schools are worth it; just not the degree.

There are also some great learning environments outside of school. I learned about color printing beside one of the great press operators, but I took a class in color separation to get hands on experience.

Agree ^^^  never stop learning, Smaller class size are better, my class started 12 ended 8,, like you said no easy assignments and 0 if not done printed and ready time class started. AND you better be able to answer for everything top to bottom side to side and everything in the middle,, to everyone in class sometimes professional shooters in that industry(s) Fashion, Travel, Commercial,etc... My Portfolio review was done with a Playboy Photographer,,, ya, no pressure,lol.  That is why you should look at who is teaching at the school, if their work doesnt blow your mind,, it is not the place you want to go...

EH

CHAD ALAN wrote:

I've gotten all my prior jobs without a degree or college. It can happen, but maybe I was just lucky.

Production Artist
Technical Artist
Interactive Services Manager
Flash Developer
Website Developer
Creative Director

I'm not knocking degrees or education by any means. It's just not a path I chose to go down.

Pursuing a degree in photography is not a must, but a good education (formal or non-formal) is a plus. I too was lucky enough to get my prior jobs and freelance without a degree. I got even luckier later and got full scholarships for both of my degrees.

You might find it to your advantage (in photography) to purchase your gear and shoot what you love, and see where it takes you. College can be a great experience, but it is even better to be a college student with little to no debt.  A degree alone does not insure a job or a return on the time and money spent for college.  Good luck!

E H wrote:

Agree ^^^  never stop learning, Smaller class size are better, my class started 12 ended 8,, like you said no easy assignments and 0 if not done printed and ready time class started. AND you better be able to answer for everything top to bottom side to side and everything in the middle,, to everyone in class sometimes professional shooters in that industry(s) Fashion, Travel, Commercial,etc... My Portfolio review was done with a Playboy Photographer,,, ya, no pressure,lol.  That is why you should look at who is teaching at the school, if their work doesnt blow your mind,, it is not the place you want to go...

EH

Same here. All of the instructors at my school work in the industry.

Legacys 7 wrote:
Same here. All of the instructors at my school work in the industry.

That's a requirement at most of the 'better' schools. If you go too long without working or exhibiting, you are considered to be in breach of contract, and your ass gets fired, even if you're the chair.

It's interesting how many people get hung up on job opportunities, or what your teachers will teach in their lectures.  That's not how ANY college works.

Let's say you're a biology major. Your teachers aren't going to teach you anything that you couldn't pick up from a book, and you're not going to graduate with a job offer. What you get is the experience of having a people  help you learn, and the educational reinforcement of doing things like dissections, rather than looking at photos - all the while, with someone who(hopefully) has done all this before, and can correct your mistakes for you and explain why you're wrong and how you can do it better next time. You're paying for experience.

A photo degree is no different. I have no idea why people seem to be insisting that a photo degree that doesn't come with a job offer is a waste of money. Law degrees don't come with job offers, and they cost much more.  Ditto for music, bio, business, and pretty much anything else that doesn't include a residency.

Education is only a waste of money if you're a bad student.

Legacys 7 wrote:

Meh. Just another assumption that don't equate to facts. I only save that lingo for people such as yourself who basically do the "language and tone" thing in their sly and subtle way. Thanks for being evasive by not answering my question. Fare thee well.

Your challenging manner is habitual and I recommend that you fix it.

Thomas Andreas wrote:

Your challenging manner is habitual and I recommend that you fix it.

Irony much? I prefer to fix shit talkers. You fit the bill. Nothing so far to back up your points. You turned your false fact into a subjective one. Nice spin. Still waiting for you to answer that art college question.

Zack Zoll wrote:

That's a requirement at most of the 'better' schools. If you go too long without working or exhibiting, you are considered to be in breach of contract, and your ass gets fired, even if you're the chair.

It's interesting how many people get hung up on job opportunities, or what your teachers will teach in their lectures.  That's not how ANY college works.

Let's say you're a biology major. Your teachers aren't going to teach you anything that you couldn't pick up from a book, and you're not going to graduate with a job offer. What you get is the experience of having a people  help you learn, and the educational reinforcement of doing things like dissections, rather than looking at photos - all the while, with someone who(hopefully) has done all this before, and can correct your mistakes for you and explain why you're wrong and how you can do it better next time. You're paying for experience.

A photo degree is no different. I have no idea why people seem to be insisting that a photo degree that doesn't come with a job offer is a waste of money. Law degrees don't come with job offers, and they cost much more.  Ditto for music, bio, business, and pretty much anything else that doesn't include a residency.

Education is only a waste of money if you're a bad student.

This is exactly my points. For me, it's the overall education that has more value. I can honestly say that I've learned more than I had before school. My post on this topic isn't to change anyone's mind or state that you need a degree to better yourself. You don't.  Each individual have their own reasons why they took the school route. There is no right or wrong. The issue for me commenting on here because there are some on here that spew bull shit and can't back it up. If you never been in school, it would be best or safe to say, imo before you finish making your points.

Kincaid Blackwood wrote:
This comes up so often it should be a sticky.

I'll finish my MFA (photography) later this year. I'll likely go get a second (cinematography/directing) beginning in 2015

How much is the goal cost of the MFA?

Just to put things in perspective...

Kincaid Blackwood wrote:
Do I live lavishly as a full-time photographer? Nope. But I do support myself with money to say and some to play with. That's more than I was able to say before enrolling and being in this environment helped get me to that point.

Zack Zoll wrote:
Education is only a waste of money if you're a bad student.

And an education is a waste of money if you are a great student and work in a field where a degree is not required.

IF you are a great student you could have learned by yourself or from others outside
of a degree course. On top of that the large sum of money saved could be put towards equipment, studio, PR and travel to a better market.

Marin Photography NYC wrote:

That's a bit of stretch! No!

A degree for something more technical sure but not for answering phones.

Actually it isn't.Many receptionist and data entry positions do require at least an AA/AS degree.

Fred Greissing wrote:
And an education is a waste of money if you are a great student and work in a field where a degree is not required.

IF you are a great student you could have learned by yourself or from others outside
of a degree course. On top of that the large sum of money saved could be put towards equipment, studio, PR and travel to a better market.

Fred? That's not always true. A great student is always open to learning. That learning can come from learning in school, assisting other photographers or whatever it takes to get to where he or she is trying to get to. Some of you are over analyzing this, trying to sum up your own personal experience as the only answer to a somewhat complex topic. The only complex part in this topic that should be in here is how we're wired and what we feel is the best direction to take. As you can see, the replies are mixed. Many of us degree or in the midst of getting our degree have learned a lot and are/were great students. Educated is a life time thing. Where and how you apply it is up to you. There is no one answer or solution to this topic.

Alannah Jones Styling wrote:

Actually it isn't.Many receptionist and data entry positions do require at least an AA/AS degree.

I remembered when I use to reside in Detroit, there was a job working with the city where they were looking for a photographer and cinematographer. The job paid damn good with excellent benefits. The catch was, you had to have a degree in that field. This was back in the late 90's early 2000. So yeah, sometimes you do get jobs related to your field where a degree is required.

udor wrote:
I am self taught, sure, took some classes in my youth, worked in a photolab in my teen years after school... read books and always "winged it"...

I often wished that I had a sound and solid formal education in photography, because I often still feel that I have gaps in my knowledge and skills... that I wing and it works out... but, in my imagination... I think it would be easier for me if I had a better foundation as a photographer.

For me... it wouldn't be much of a concern to have a degree... but to have the foundation that comes along with it.

That's how I am at the moment: self taught, and have yet to take any classes at all. I was applying at a few places for the photographer position and I noticed that some employers required a degree? That's why I started looking into this.

But yeah, I often wing it and some how try to "make it work" with what I know.

Marin Photography NYC wrote:
]52k for two years? Hell no!

+1

AJScalzitti wrote:

Really - none of the ABs, AD or CDs I know of or have work with have not gone to art school.  Maybe it's because we have several great schools in Atlanta along with some great agencies.  Even some of the smaller agencies I have worked at had well educated creatives.

That's funny, all the sales or advertising guys I know never had any background in it.. on the other hand every creative worker has a piece of paper in media, design or fine art..

Zack Zoll wrote:
Education is only a waste of money if you're a bad student.

Fred Greissing wrote:
And an education is a waste of money if you are a great student and work in a field where a degree is not required.

IF you are a great student you could have learned by yourself or from others outside
of a degree course. On top of that the large sum of money saved could be put towards equipment, studio, PR and travel to a better market.

You're assuming that the only reason to get an art-based graduate degree is as a prerequisite for commercial work; and that's an awfully silly assumption.  Almost nobody ever gets a graduate degree in art specifically in order to practice that art - whether it is photography, watercolour painting, graphic design, or illustration.  Why?  Because if you're good enough to be accepted into the school, then you're most likely already good enough to do it professionally.  Many schools (especially design and illustration) go so far as requesting a portfolio of commercial work you've already done.

Pick a handful of artists you like.  Any artists at all, from any time period.  I guarantee almost all of them went to school for art - painters in particular.  Even Van Gogh and Pollock had formal training, and everybody likes to hold them up as examples of 'outsiders' in art.

If you want to be the Van Gogh of photography, you want to go to school.  If you want to be the unnamed portrait painter down the street that fed his family and paid all his bills, then don't bother with school, as it is a waste of money.

I'm not knocking your skills, accomplishments, or aspirations Fred.  On the contrary, I wish I had your CV.  I just think that you may have forgotten that not everyone that picks up a camera want to do the same thing with it.

vsfotografi wrote:
Do "you" think pursuing a degree in photography is a "must"? What are the pros/cons--in your opinion?

I was looking into pursuing a two-year program... but it's about $52K (it includes both years; a camera; and a one-week trip somewhere abroad).

Or, does anyone know of other programs? I'm located in Los Angeles, California.

What I think is scary here is that you actually have to ask this question!  This makes me think that public school (and private ones) haven't taught you diddly about basic business sense and what is or isn't a worthwhile college major... the latter of which is a real peeve of mine, especially since so many idiots during the economic dip blubbered that they couldn't find a job but had a Masters Degree...  ask what they studied in graduate school and it was something ridiculous like 20th Century Literature = really?  you really have to ask why you can't find a job with that worthless major?  Makes me want to spit.

I digressed.  Not no, but hell no to spending $52k on a measly 2 yr program to learn photography of all things.  I almost want to tell you to do it because you even have to ask such a question is (to me) horribly unfathomable, but you seem sincere in your asking.

No, No and H-- NO!  A degree in photography is worthless.  Generally, no one would give a rats bottom if you had a PhD in photography.  It just doesn't matter.

If you want to teach photography, then go to a cheap community college for 2 years, and do the remaining somewhere else, and know that even with a Masters in Photography, you'll still be eating ramen noodles for dinner if all you're going to rely on is your degree... Knowing that, it makes far more sense to get a degree in something people can actually use and follow your photographic pursuits on the side or take a few classes in the areas that interest you most (ambient lighting, studio photography, etc.)

2 years for $52k?  Are people still falling for that crap?  That's like paying out of your nose to attend a "travel agent school" back in the 80's and spending $10k to do it... utterly ridiculous especially since most agents were just bubble gum chewing young people hired off the street!  Same applies to photography.

Wake up dear.

Zack Zoll wrote:

You're assuming that the only reason to get an art-based graduate degree is as a prerequisite for commercial work; and that's an awfully silly assumption.  Almost nobody ever gets a graduate degree in art specifically in order to practice that art - whether it is photography, watercolour painting, graphic design, or illustration.  Why?  Because if you're good enough to be accepted into the school, then you're most likely already good enough to do it professionally.  Many schools (especially design and illustration) go so far as requesting a portfolio of commercial work you've already done.

Pick a handful of artists you like.  Any artists at all, from any time period.  I guarantee almost all of them went to school for art - painters in particular.  Even Van Gogh and Pollock had formal training, and everybody likes to hold them up as examples of 'outsiders' in art.

If you want to be the Van Gogh of photography, you want to go to school.  If you want to be the unnamed portrait painter down the street that fed his family and paid all his bills, then don't bother with school, as it is a waste of money.

I'm not knocking your skills, accomplishments, or aspirations Fred.  On the contrary, I wish I had your CV.  I just think that you may have forgotten that not everyone that picks up a camera want to do the same thing with it.

I agree with Fred in the context of photography.

I also know that getting into Grad school does not mean that you're good enough to do it "professionally" which isn't  a good word to use here because in the arts its meaningless.  MONEY is the quantifier.  If you are good enough to get into grad school for sculpture, watercolor, photography, etc., it does not mean that you're good enough to make enough money to survive on your skills alone without having to have that ratty job at McDonalds or some Pub to augment your horrible income from your art.
You are doing a lot of presupposing

Today, few people aspire to be a starving artist that may or may not be recognized after their death.  They'd rather have a small gallery in the snowy hills of Vermont or New Hampshire somewhere making $250k per annum from shipping their "art" all over the world as trendy restaurant pieces, etc..  Most want $$$, $$$ over fame because the latter doesn't necessarily pay the mortgage and send kids to college.

If the OP wants to get a degree in photography just because he likes attending college and simply wants to study what he likes with the knowledge that the degree (while fun and interesting) is worthless (generally speaking)- then that's a-ok!  Rock on!

But if the OP is doing it for reasons to get ahead in the field, then he needs a really, really loud wake up call for such even crossing his mind.