Anyone here knows about the RISD?

[dustblue]

Hi all,

Due to the depression some of my friends(well they are young, mostly 24-28, and I'm 26) choose to go back to school for another degree instead of going on working, my situation is not that bad but everyone knows next year it just gonna be worse. So I am considering another degree too, and the RISD draws most of my attention(coz they say it's the best in photography..).

So my question here is:

1. Is "The Master of Fine Arts in Photography program" in RISD good for a commercial photographer? Would I benefit from the master degree if I go on working as a commercial photographer after the program?  

2. Is there a best school for commercial photographers? I mean like Yale for Lawyers and Princeton for physicists..? Better in the US or UK, coz I really don't want to learn another language.

Thanks in advance for any input.

Regards,
Dustblue

[Ken Bennett]

Add up everything you will spend on tuition and living expenses, and realize that for that price you will be getting a diploma and a nice portfolio. The portfolio may be useful in securing clients as a commercial photographer. Unless you want to teach at the college level, no one is going to care about the diploma. (Sorry.)

I know a young man who just finished at the Portfolio Center in Atlanta. He seemed to have a good experience, he learned a lot, and his portfolio is quite nice. This isn't an auspicious time to graduate with a photo degree, of course, but I expect he'll do well. Their program is a tough, intensive 2.5 year study of commercial/advertising photography.

[witz]

When I went to get my degree in photography in the mid 80's there were only 2 schools in the US that offered majors in photography.... one being Brooks in Santa Barbara, the other being RIT in Rochester NY. I went to Brooks

but... in my 20 years as a commercial photographer doing national ad work I have never... ever... been asked what school did I go to. And... in casual conversation with art/creative directors, when I mention that I went to Brooks, they never heard of it.

That being said..... Being in classrooms and workshops with peers all learning the same thing is a very valuable experience and I would not trade my experience at Brooks for anything.

[jimgolden]

I'd look into the Portfolio Center if you're looking to work commercially and not looking for the MFA. otherwise I'd stick to RIT or Brooks personally. I cant imagine what the debt load will be like when you graduate tho...

[dustblue]

Thanks a lot for all your replies, those are really very helpful for me. And I think what I've heard about commercial photography is still right, which is the portfolio is the most important thing, be it in China, or the US, or anywhere in the world.

So it's a pretty easy choice to make now, I'd just work harder on my own portfolio. (and I'm really happy that a diploma is useless...it potentially saves me a lot of money...)

Regards,
Dustblue

[simplify]

If you went there, it seems you would be able to spell their name properly.  I too would not trade my undergrad at Brooks for anything.

When I went to get my degree in photography in the mid 80's there were only 2 schools in the US that offered majors in photography.... one being Brookes in Santa Barbara, the other being RIT in Rochester NY. I went to Brookes

but... in my 20 years as a commercial photographer doing national ad work I have never... ever... been asked what school did I go to. And... in casual conversation with art/creative directors, when I mention that I went to Brookes, they never heard of it.

That being said..... Being in classrooms and workshops with peers all learning the same thing is a very valuable experience and I would not trade my experience at Brookes for anything.

[dustblue]

Johannes:
Thanks for your words. I'm interested in films, in fact I would rather like to be a director, instead of a photographer, if it's easily accessible like photograpby:)
Dustblue

Hi,

just an opinion: If I would know a lot about photography, I would go for a degree in film (combination of both will be a winner in the future - I think) or an other fine art program like architecture, stage design, painting, graphic design, fashion or something like that (reason: see the visual arts from another perspective). You could continue with some photographic jobs too.

Best,
Johannes

[russell a]

In my opinion, art schools in general and photography schools in particular are essentially frauds.  And, don't get me started on the fraudulence of the college degree in general.  The only reason to have a degree is if it is required as a ticket to allow you to enter the profession in which you seek a career.

Ask yourself the following questions:

1)  would I gain some special and important knowledge that I could not obtain by other means?  Corollary:  Am I not sufficiently focused or organized to learn anything on my own?

2)  would there be a better way to invest the high tuition cost and subsequent debt load?

3)  rather than the warm and fuzzy cocoon of a program, is there a better way for me to invest my time?  Corollary:  What possible benefit might accrue from spending one or two years with people in the same boat as myself, competing in the same artificial and ultimately meaningless environment?

Now, on another level, you need to ask yourself if photography is a viable career choice.  At no time since photography became a possible profession is the technical entry barrier lower, the field more crowded, and the discriminatory ability of those who need some sort of imagery in the pursuit of their careers (art directors, etc.) been lower.

Can you say "Dog eat dog" while smiling bravely?

Recommended reading:  Why Art Cannot Be Taught, James Elkins, U. of Illinois Press

By the way, years ago I took courses with Callahan and Siskind at the Institute of Design in Chicago.  They subsequently moved to RISD.  The only possible product of their programs were teachers to teach photography to other teachers to teach..........  The limits of this academic Ponzi scheme should be obvious.

[AndrewDyer]

Ha!! A very interesting discussion!... I love it!
and I think everyone's comments have been spot on!

[NashvilleMike]

I'm originally from Providence, RI myself - maybe a half hour walk from the RISD campus, and considered RISD myself many moons ago.

It's quite a fine school with an excellent fine arts program. However, it is most assuredly NOT a school that I'd recommend for a commercial photography education. Not at all.

I'd look into RIT, Art Center in (I think) Pasadena, or Brooks (and probably a few others these days) as better choices for a commercial photography program, but I'm not sure a photography degree means that much in terms of the overall scheme of things.

In fact, I'd venture that a good MBA or business education would be far more useful, with some hard core photography workshops as the education for the technology side of it.

And I say this as an RIT photo grad. I learned a LOT there and had some excellent (and likely now retired) professors like Les Stroebel, Howard LeVant, the late Terry Bollman, Andrew Davidhazy and others, and have applied a lot of "thinking how to think" that they taught in my now non-photography career, but honestly, I just don't think a photography degree is neccessary at all in order to be a successful shooter. The business side of it tends to trip people up far more than the shooting side, hence the quandry. However, I had an excellent time there and learned a lot more than just photography that has served me well in the decades since.

-m

[RobertJ]

dustblue, I think you're the last person who needs formal education in photography or art.  Look at the kind of quality work you're capable of doing.

I think it's a waste of time and money.  Dude! What are you thinking?!

Edit: Oh, I see you want to be a filmmaker.  Perhaps a degree in film isn't such a bad idea, but try telling that to Quentin Tarantino (no education), Paul Thomas Anderson (film school dropout), and Steven Spielberg (college dropout).

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Edit: Oh, I see you want to be a filmmaker.  Perhaps a degree in film isn't such a bad idea, but try telling that to Quentin Tarantino (no education), Paul Thomas Anderson (film school dropout), and Steven Spielberg (college dropout).

My father was the first (and only one) in his family to go to college. He eventually got a Ph. D. and spent his career as a college professor. One of his brothers, who was a successful ship's captain (with no formal education) often liked to say that "Some people quit school while they still know something. Others continue."

-- Eric
(retired college professor -- having more fun now doing non-commercial photography)

[dustblue]

dustblue, I think you're the last person who needs formal education in photography or art.  Look at the kind of quality work you're capable of doing.

I think it's a waste of time and money.  Dude! What are you thinking?!

Edit: Oh, I see you want to be a filmmaker.  Perhaps a degree in film isn't such a bad idea, but try telling that to Quentin Tarantino (no education), Paul Thomas Anderson (film school dropout), and Steven Spielberg (college dropout).

Hi T-1000:
Thanks a lot for your praise, I really appreciate that..
I love Tarantino, but unlike him I think I only have two ways to access filmmaking:
1. Do better commercial photography jobs and then have the clients to start to do some TVC for them.
2. Learn filmmaking in college and gain access to filmmaking directly.
I really think for filmmaking the technical part is not that crucial(as photography), but social network is. However I couldn't figure a way out other than the 2 points I listed to gain access to filmmaking..

And Thanks alot to you guys here, you really provided the most valuable information. YOU are the reason why I love this forum, Thank you!


Regards,
Dustblue

[Schewe]

I learned a LOT there and had some excellent (and likely now retired) professors like Les Stroebel, Howard LeVant, the late Terry Bollman, Andrew Davidhazy and others

I graduated the year before Howard LeVant started at RIT and Terry was my faculty advisor! I also had M&P with Stroebel as well as taking perception classes with Zakia and Minor White still showed up at school from time to time. Small world...

I will also say that what I got out of RIT was prolly worth 10 years real life experience condensed down to less that 4 years. And true, it's not just about photography (although I learned a lot about that) but business courses, economics, halftone reproduction and a lot of ancillary subjects that helps a lot in the day to day photo biz.

But getting a college education isn't only about the subject you major in but becoming better educated and capable of learning how to learn. Can you do it without college? Sure...but if you apply yourself in a good college, you can do it a lot sooner than the school of hard knocks...however, if you really want to learn film (actually, more like digital capture these days) film school can get you access to technology and people that you'll never get to on your own.

A lot depends on how talented and dedicated you are and what you're willing to sacrifice in order to get to where you want to be. This is a tough time to be getting into the commercial photo biz because the fees are low and the equipment costs are high and there are a lot of sharks in the water happy to take advantage...kinda the same thing in film...lots of people out to take advantage but there always room for the best people.

[Carsten W]

Something I have not seen mentioned is the fact that getting a post-secondary education can help getting a job, not because of the knowledge you have gained, but because it is proof that you can apply yourself to a task on an on-going basis, and not give up, while maintaining a certain standard the whole way. This mere fact sets you apart from others from the get-go.

I am not sure that a *photography* education is helpful with becoming a photographer, however. There is a *lot* of resistance to education, and a very strong feeling that you should simply work your way up in the field. I suppose it depends if you want to work for yourself, or for others., ie. if you have to apply somewhere.

For film production I don't see this potential drawback though. Go for it!

[narikin]

There's some sense and nonsense being written here.

People go to art school to study the art of the medium, not for an apprenticeship that leads automatically to a job.
if that is your goal, then look for a technical qualification, not a course like RISD.
or assisting someone is often a great introduction to that world.

if you love the art of photography as a way of communicating about the forces that move and shape our lives, then by all means take a few years out of your life to invest in broadening your understanding and outlook on this amazing medium. RISD, Bard, Columbia etc all have excellent courses.

It may seem like nonsense to some hard noses round here, but thank god that some people aspire to this noble pursuit, to study music, literature, and art. It enriches all our lives, and is an essential measure of civilization that we value it highly.

[russell a]

if you love the art of photography as a way of communicating about the forces that move and shape our lives, then by all means take a few years out of your life to invest in broadening your understanding and outlook on this amazing medium. RISD, Bard, Columbia etc all have excellent courses.

It may seem like nonsense to some hard noses round here, but thank god that some people aspire to this noble pursuit, to study music, literature, and art. It enriches all our lives, and is an essential measure of civilization that we value it highly.

I'm afraid your comment is hopelessly idealistic and naive.  What may have once been a "noble pursuit" (noble = poverty?) is now an uber-romantic myth.  Contemporary art, including "high end" photography, is appreciated only by investors whose appreciation is strictly in the fiscal sense of the word.  The art market is manipulated by a few dealers, auction houses, and high-roller investors ("collectors" as long as the price is right) and ignored by most everyone else.  People go to see contemporary art exhibits to see why it is they don't like it.  If you want to know how the art world really works, read The $12 Million Stuffed Shark: The Curious Economics of Contemporary Art by Don Thompson.

The best basis for pursuit of art as a noble endeavor is if noble=trust fund. I wish that it weren't so, but it is.

[dustblue]

Johannes:
Thank you for your encouragement, I'll do my best.
Dustblue

Hi Dustblue,

I think photography is a subject where you can become successful without a formal education. It is more the master - apprentice or the self taught way which leads to success. On the other hand I think education is a very good thing. Diving really into something, don't stop when it is hard. Chose a a field that really interests you and you look back without regret.

If film is the thing, at least try to come into one of those programs. Even outside the US and UK these programs are often taught in English. There is so much to learn.

The bad thing about universities is tuition. We didn't knew that in Europe. But since a few years you can have that here too.

Best,
Johannes

[bcooter]

Hi Dustblue,

I think photography is a subject where you can become successful without a formal education. It is more the master - apprentice or the self taught way which leads to success. On the other hand I think education is a very good thing. Diving really into something, don't stop when it is hard. Chose a a field that really interests you and you look back without regret.

If film is the thing, at least try to come into one of those programs. Even outside the US and UK these programs are often taught in English. There is so much to learn.

The bad thing about universities is tuition. We didn't knew that in Europe. But since a few years you can have that here too.

Best,
Johannes

If you want to be a film maker, either spend 2 years at AFI in LA (Mostly to dive into their free rental equipment), or  save yourself two years and take this seminar or the set of dvd;s.

http://dovsimensfilmschool.com/homepage.html

The amount of information from Dove is truthful, (more truth than you ever wanted to know).

Unlike still photography you need more than a pretty picture, you need an idea (script) and the story is what matters, next is sound, third is editing, fourth is actual shooting.  

I do recommend moving to some area that has film resources, probably LA, because the network of film making is there, the crews all want to work and talent before they become famous will do anything to get in front of the camera.

Regardless, if you want to be a film maker, learn the basics, study the masters, then make a film.

If you want a sobering awaking, go into any production company that represents dp's and directors and ask to see their stack of dvd reels.  They usually cover two walls.

That doesn't mean you can't make it, it just let's you know that the chances of making it are somewhere between being an NBA star and an Astronaut.

[ziocan]

dustblue, I think you're the last person who needs formal education in photography or art.  Look at the kind of quality work you're capable of doing.

I think it's a waste of time and money.  Dude! What are you thinking?!

Edit: Oh, I see you want to be a filmmaker.  Perhaps a degree in film isn't such a bad idea, but try telling that to Quentin Tarantino (no education), Paul Thomas Anderson (film school dropout), and Steven Spielberg (college dropout).

I think the above is the best advise advise that was given on this thread.
I went to see your work as well and I also think you are the last person who needs education in photography.
If you ever go to a photography college/school, chances are that your teacher will not even be up to your level. If he/she was that good, they would be out working as photographer full time getting paid thousands a day, instead of searching a fixed income of thousands a month.

There will hardly be art director, editor or art buyer that will ever ask or care if you have a degree. All they care is your portfolio and that you are not too crazy to create troubles during a production.