Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: wmchauncey on November 23, 2013, 08:40:28 am
-
I'm gonna speak from personal experience mind you...as a hobbyist.
Were you to total up all the monies that I have invested in this photography hobby thingy...camera/lenses/and associated whatnot, along with high end computer and monitor, then add in the post processing software with training to use that software...the total would be staggeringly obscene.
But, what is worse is, when you consider that I've printed a grand total of four prints, that were donated to friends...then it becomes increasing oblivious that I'm stretching the credible boundaries of the term obscene.
Does anyone else out there come close to my level of insanity?
-
Stop this self destructive throwing yourself in the mud!
Go on, take images, post, print and share!
We are all crazy here - more or less.
Its just normal.
:D
EDIT:
Addendum: Life is short!
-
Cameras: $5000
Lenses: $5000
Computer+Monitor: $2000
Software: $1000
The enjoyment, fulfillment, satisfaction: Priceless
-
Take note that Van Gogh sold one painting in his life. He was an artist because he had to be.
There was more than money considerations at play in his world.
Somewhere a balance can be had.
Peter
-
My children, all nine of them threaten this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnzHtm1jhL4
-
I can't help feeling I'm surrounded by folk who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
+1
-
Take note that Van Gogh sold one painting in his life. He was an artist because he had to be.
There was more than money considerations at play in his world.
The Van Gogh story is, like most, much more complicated, and in its complexity defies easy categorization. It is easy and damaging to simplify it. (The same can be said of his paintings.) The concept of "artist", as we now understand it, did not exist at the time. Van Gogh came from a reasonably well-to-do family. He was trained professionally as an art dealer, and was successful at that as a young man. He came to drawing and painting as an adult, after a protracted religious crisis. He painted because he wanted to. He lived off his brother's generosity, and was bothered by his dependency. As a painter, he was among a group of upstarts working in a new, little known, style. Within that group, he was widely and completely recognized as doing excellent, ground-breaking work. Unfortunately for him then, and for his social legacy, he suffered from mental illness, and died at 37 from an infection caused by a self-inflicted gunshot wound. (The Wikipedia entry on Van Gogh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Gogh) is excellent.)
From his life's story, I want to emphasize two things relevant to this thread:
- He wanted to make paintings. His desire to have materials to work with, and his need for money to pay for them, were driven by the end product, which was paintings.
- Painting is not photography. The slow accretion of thoughful work that goes into a painting (even de Kooning spent hours planning his next "moves") has no real equivalent in photography. And the hunter's joy — "shot", "captured", "Got it!" — that is for many a central part of photography has no equivalent in painting.
I see in the above, facets of an important difference: the over-riding egotism in photography is different from the over-riding egotism of photography. The OP has stated — I can't tell with what degree of seriousness — that his/her photographic egotism is obscene. I concur (but need more information). Our current practice of photography invites a substitution of (the relatively easy) "I bought this" in the place of (the difficult) "I made this". That substitution could not occur in painting.
I think photographers and photography could learn much from painting.
(NB: I am aware that I have run as rough-shod over the OP as I have implied Peter trampled Van Gogh. I welcome corrections, etc.)
-
Cameras: $5000
Lenses: $5000
Computer+Monitor: $2000
Software: $1000
The enjoyment, fulfillment, satisfaction: Priceless
+1
-
(NB: I am aware that I have run as rough-shod over the OP as I have implied Peter trampled Van Gogh. I welcome corrections, etc.)
I hardly think I trampled Vincent in any way. Just an example. He has been long dead and as such I never got the chance to meet him....Sadly.
Peter
-
Take note that Van Gogh sold one painting in his life...
I heard he never sold any. Which one is it?
-
Stop this self destructive throwing yourself in the mud!
Go on, take images, post, print and share!
We are all crazy here - more or less.
Its just normal.
:D
EDIT:
Addendum: Life is short!
+1, especially the addendum.
-
Take note that Van Gogh sold one painting in his life. He was an artist because he had to be.
There was more than money considerations at play in his world.
Somewhere a balance can be had.
You could cut off your ear to feel better.
-
I heard he never sold any. Which one is it?
The only painting that Van Gogh sold was 'Red Vineyard at Arles', and it is currently at the Pushkin Museum in Moscow.
Peter
-
I heard he never sold any. Which one is it?
Peter has answered below. I think it's important to know that, dispite the lack of sales, his work was well-known and very highly regarded among his peers. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Gogh):
His work was praised by Albert Aurier in the Mercure de France in January 1890, when he was described as "a genius."[128] That February he was invited by Les XX, a society of avant-garde painters in Brussels, to participate in their annual exhibition. At the opening dinner, Les XX member Henry de Groux insulted Van Gogh's work. Toulouse-Lautrec demanded satisfaction, while Signac declared he would continue to fight for Van Gogh's honor if Lautrec should surrender. Later, while Van Gogh's exhibit was on display with the Artistes Indépendants in Paris, Monet said that his work was the best in the show.[129]
Van Gogh died at the end of July that year.
-
Wmchauncy,
Since your main concern seems to be the obscene ratio of dollars spent to equipment to number of prints made, the solution is obvious: Make more prints!
-
It all depends on how much money you have to chuck around, where you want to get to, and, as importantly, why.
How many street-races did anyone win in their red Ferrari, in their BRG Jaguar or even in their Corvette? Were they even dumb enough to participate?
I don't think Vincent had wheels.
Anyway, I don't think you can define someone an artist just because he owns brushes and/or cameras; unfortunately, it goes rather deeper than that. Basically, that person - the artist - is born that way and has little option but to follow his star. As Peter said, there is more at play than money in those choices... often, you follow the route because you can't deny it.
Rob C
-
The only painting that Van Gogh sold was 'Red Vineyard at Arles', and it is currently at the Pushkin Museum in Moscow.
Was it him selling it or his brother did it?
-
It all depends on how much money you have to chuck around, where you want to get to, and, as importantly, why.
How many street-races did anyone win in their red Ferrari, in their BRG Jaguar or even in their Corvette? Were they even dumb enough to participate?
I don't think Vincent had wheels.
Anyway, I don't think you can define someone an artist just because he owns brushes and/or cameras; unfortunately, it goes rather deeper than that. Basically, that person - the artist - is born that way and has little option but to follow his star. As Peter said, there is more at play than money in those choices... often, you follow the route because you can't deny it.
Rob C
Yes, that sums it up.
At heart the question of how much money we've invested is plainly the wrong question.
We could look at what folks spend on their cars or houses compared to their real needs, but the the real question is how much time we have invested.
Our time is our most valuable resource, and it is most telling how much of that we invest in our art.
David
-
Which brings us back to the "10,000 Hour Rule", which I am firmly convinced is a good yardstick.
To master any art, craft, or profession it takes about 5 years of concentrated full time study and involvement. To whit, the time it takes to become a doctor, a lawyer, an airline pilot, or dare I say a photographer.
After spending much of my life teaching photography, lecturing, writing and working one-on-one as a mentor, I have seen first hand countless times that the only people who really become masters (even if they never sell a single print, or earn a single dollar's commission) are those who read, study and practice daily. Month after month. Year after year.
Good, even great gear is nice, but has little to do with mastery of ones art or craft. It simply takes time, and of course some innate talent doesn't hurt.
Michael
-
Hear, hear, Michael, but I'll go a step beyond that and say that as near as I can tell, in any art, no matter how hard you work, innate talent is what takes you beyond good to unforgettable. I think I've mentioned this before on LuLa, but my wife and I had a friend who was a concert pianist. She'd worked at it for decades, and technically she was flawless, but to me there always was something missing in her ability to interpret, and I find I'm not alone in that evaluation. I always think back to Oscar Levant. He wasn't a very good mechanic. When he played Gershwin he'd sometimes miss notes, but the way he played it always could bring me to tears. I think visual art is like music. To be absolutely tops you have to have a particular gene -- one that's pretty rare.
And yes, equipment has absolutely nothing to do with it. Think back to the kind of equipment people like HCB and Kertesz were using. Nowadays there's nothing out there that comes close to being that awkward and difficult.
-
Hear, hear, Michael, but I'll go a step beyond that and say that as near as I can tell, in any art, no matter how hard you work, innate talent is what takes you beyond good to unforgettable. I think I've mentioned this before on LuLa, but my wife and I had a friend who was a concert pianist. She'd worked at it for decades, and technically she was flawless, but to me there always was something missing in her ability to interpret, and I find I'm not alone in that evaluation. I always think back to Oscar Levant. He wasn't a very good mechanic. When he played Gershwin he'd sometimes miss notes, but the way he played it always could bring me to tears. I think visual art is like music. To be absolutely tops you have to have a particular gene -- one that's pretty rare.
And yes, equipment has absolutely nothing to do with it. Think back to the kind of equipment people like HCB and Kertesz were using. Nowadays there's nothing out there that comes close to being that awkward and difficult.
Folks often confuse the "10,000 hour rule" with being up with the best. It just means you have mastered your craft, it doesn't mean people will like what you do.
I don't know about innate talent.
I mean I know it exists, but I don't know whether there is some aspect of "talent" that can be learned. When teaching students, I have seen many with real talent fall away when it becomes tough, as it inevitably does, because they don't have stickability. And I have seen some students who were "all thumbs" become wonderful players, because when the practice became difficult they never knew it because it was always difficult.
Musically, I have no innate talent. But I have the ability to work at something and change myself in the process. There have been moments of ineffable joy playing classical guitar. Quite a lot of cr*p as well.
Back on topic: who's counting the money when it's our lives that we are investing in our art/craft?
-
Speaking of awkward and difficult, I am on my way down to Mexico at the moment, and have just started shooting with my Leica M lenses on a Sony A7r. My write-up will come in a few weeks, but this is a total manual world...focus, exposure... and I'm loving it!!!
Suddenly it's 1975 except with image quality that we could have only dreaming of in the film days.
Film (err..report) at 11.
Michael
-
OP, yes.
Over the years, $100,000K +. So, yes it obscene.
But the alternative is to leave it behind for someone else to spend for me when I die. In my case the someone's in question seldom see me or talk with me. So as long as I have enough $ to live comfortable, I spend the rest. Don't have much time left...
-
I heard he never sold any. Which one is it?
One or none...not much difference.
-
One or none...not much difference.
There is for me. I've been bragging that I've been more "successful" than Van Gogh ;D
-
One or none...not much difference.
One is 100% more than the other? :)
-
OP, yes.
Over the years, $100,000K +. So, yes it obscene.
But the alternative is to leave it behind for someone else to spend for me when I die. In my case the someone's in question seldom see me or talk with me. So as long as I have enough $ to live comfortable, I spend the rest. Don't have much time left...
Far from me to tell you how to think, but I know this: sometimes, when you think you have reached the point where you don't really want any more time, your life can suddenly change by accident and living takes on a fresh appeal once more. What makes the difference is an unexpected injection of excitement you clearly didn't think would happen. In the past few weeks this came to me on a couple of levels, one of which was the Coke thing; suddenly I no longer moon about wishing my models past back again, I am able to realise it was a phase - a delightful and rewarding one - but a phase nonetheless.
I have been waiting for three medical appointments that were all due in September; for the first time the health service crisis has touched me, and despìte two trips to the hospìtal to see why I can't get those dates, the 'phone doesn't ring. And even there, I have suddenly changed from a condition of mild worry to not giving a damn, happier in the belief that since I feel perfectly okay, then for all the difference, I must be okay. I could be wrong, but hell, everything ends anyhow, so better to stop worrying and learn to enjoy what's possible and still under one's own control.
Kids? They have their own problems, and who knows how well or otherwise they can cope? Those things affect their reactions to their outside worlds too.
Rob C
-
Speaking of awkward and difficult, I am on my way down to Mexico at the moment, and have just started shooting with my Leica M lenses on a Sony A7r. My write-up will come in a few weeks, but this is a total manual world...focus, exposure... and I'm loving it!!!
Suddenly it's 1975 except with image quality that we could have only dreaming of in the film days.
Back in the sixties and early seventies I loved my Leicas, Michael, but I wouldn't go back to split-image focusing on a bet. On the other hand, I have a Summilux on my E-P1 and, as usual, the results are stunning. Leica does know how to make lenses.
-
I absolutely believe in the obscene
if you don't ever feel it then you never know, I realized at some point I have to create something. obscene song for the day http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuxZyCfCVag
My friend's obscene dental college education & 110k bill taught him something that'll pay at least.
Still, I bet you had way more fun, personal illumination, and ultimate satisfaction spending your 100k than he did spending his.
You could always take your old self and find a cause.
A person like you could fix so many broken things.
Well, there you go.
My lousy 2 cents in a high dollar world.
I want to see your 4 prints now.
Can you show us?
Thank you
-
I can't help feeling I'm surrounded by folk who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Good one!
-
I know, but it was a good reply, all the same.
-
Shit! And I thought it was Ruskin.
I know he (Ruskin) was reputed to have written to the effect that "there's nothing that one man cannot produce more cheaply than another; those whose only consideration is price are that man's legal prey" or like that.
I always felt that was some kind of validation for good photographic pricing, but I never had need nor nerve to use it in anger.
;-(
Rob C
-
Which brings us back to the "10,000 Hour Rule", which I am firmly convinced is a good yardstick.
To master any art, craft, or profession it takes about 5 years of concentrated full time study and involvement. To whit, the time it takes to become a doctor, a lawyer, an airline pilot, or dare I say a photographer.
I hate the 1000 hour rule. My view is that poor conclusions were drawn from iffy research and after Gladwell championed it it has become the science version of the urban myth.
After spending much of my life teaching photography, lecturing, writing and working one-on-one as a mentor, I have seen first hand countless times that the only people who really become masters (even if they never sell a single print, or earn a single dollar's commission) are those who read, study and practice daily. Month after month. Year after year.
What defines Master?
Good, even great gear is nice, but has little to do with mastery of ones art or craft. It simply takes time, and of course some innate talent doesn't hurt.
Talent can get you there a lot quicker and without it I'm not convinced you ever get that good.
Heck with a millions hours practice, I'd still be a crap singer. :o
-
I'll go a step beyond that and say that as near as I can tell, in any art, no matter how hard you work, innate talent is what takes you beyond good to unforgettable. I think I've mentioned this before on LuLa, but my wife and I had a friend who was a concert pianist. She'd worked at it for decades, and technically she was flawless, but to me there always was something missing in her ability to interpret, and I find I'm not alone in that evaluation. I always think back to Oscar Levant. He wasn't a very good mechanic. When he played Gershwin he'd sometimes miss notes, but the way he played it always could bring me to tears. I think visual art is like music. To be absolutely tops you have to have a particular gene -- one that's pretty rare.
And yes, equipment has absolutely nothing to do with it. Think back to the kind of equipment people like HCB and Kertesz were using. Nowadays there's nothing out there that comes close to being that awkward and difficult.
Absolutely.
I'd also say that many of the masters/geniuses were those who took the accepted way of doing things and did it their own way, usually upsetting the apple cart in the process.
-
One is 100% more than the other? :)
Not quite, as one is infinitely greater than zero.
-
Not quite, as one is infinitely greater than zero.
Now thats obscene ... ;)
-
Hi,
Positive infinity is greater than zero, negative infinity is less than zero. The twain should never meet, except in a doubling time plot.
Best regards
Erik
Now thats obscene ... ;)
-
You guys need to find some work.
Or you need to be poorer.
;-)
Rob C
-
Shit! And I thought it was Ruskin.
I know he (Ruskin) was reputed to have written to the effect that "there's nothing that one man cannot produce more cheaply than another; those whose only consideration is price are that man's legal prey" or like that.
I always felt that was some kind of validation for good photographic pricing, but I never had need nor nerve to use it in anger.
A local Sheffield Sandwich shop/Bakery uses it. Ruskin had dealings in the area and we have a Ruskin Gallery here.
The full quote is "There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price only are this man's lawful prey"
I've also thought about using it with regard to pricing. Though this other quote of his is also apposite…
“It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that's all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.”
-
Folks often confuse the "10,000 hour rule" with being up with the best. It just means you have mastered your craft, it doesn't mean people will like what you do.
I don't know about innate talent.
I mean I know it exists, but I don't know whether there is some aspect of "talent" that can be learned. When teaching students, I have seen many with real talent fall away when it becomes tough, as it inevitably does, because they don't have stickability. And I have seen some students who were "all thumbs" become wonderful players, because when the practice became difficult they never knew it because it was always difficult.
A friend of mine commented that quite often those with natural talent are the ones who are most likely drift away whilst being taught. And it's something I have observed and also have done. The reason being is that they get bored as they find the subject easier than the level it was being taught at.
Musically, I have no innate talent. But I have the ability to work at something and change myself in the process.
But the ability to work hard or to learn new tricks is also a great talent in itself. Which gets overlooked when people talk about these sorts of things. Possibly one of the most useful talents to have.
-
A friend of mine commented that quite often those with natural talent are the ones who are most likely drift away whilst being taught. And it's something I have observed and also have done. The reason being is that they get bored as they find the subject easier than the level it was being taught at.
But the ability to work hard or to learn new tricks is also a great talent in itself. Which gets overlooked when people talk about these sorts of things. Possibly one of the most useful talents to have.
Indeed; I walked away from photographic night school for that very reason; the lecturer belittled Bailey, whom I'd mentiond as a sort of career beacon, and I realised there was nothing in that college that I wanted or needed. Never returned. Never regretted not returning.
Rob C
-
I realised there was nothing in that college that I wanted or needed. Never returned. Never regretted not returning.
Those who CAN, do. Those who CAN'T, teach. And, these days, maybe some of those who CAN'T run galleries.
Cheers,
W
-
Those who CAN, do. Those who CAN'T, teach.
That's the sort of silly quote trotted out by those who've never taught. Teaching is in itself is serious skill/talent and there are plenty of people who are good at something and really bad at teaching it.
Also it's hard to teach something properly without completely understanding the subject.
-
That's the sort of silly quote trotted out by those who've never taught.
Well, actually, I have taught.
-
So you were saying that you were unable to do what you taught then?
Or do you not agree with what you posted?
-
So you were saying that you were unable to do what you taught then?...
What Walter is saying, and I concur, is that those who can, both do and can teach... those who can't, can only teach. Neither guarantees good teaching, by the way. Nor it diminishes great teachers who can't do.
-
What Walter is saying, and I concur, is that those who can, both do and can teach... those who can't, can only teach. Neither guarantees good teaching, by the way. Nor it diminishes great teachers who can't do.
That, Slobodan, is a paradox too far.
How do you teach that which you cannot do? Indicate the books to read? That's 'teaching'? Of course, the rôle of the signpost is another matter altogether.
Rob C
-
That, Slobodan, is a paradox too far.
How do you teach that which you cannot do? ...
No paradox at all. Some of the best teachers in my business school, including Nobel Prize winners, never worked a day in their life outside of academia. At the same time, some of those "doers," like a sitting governor of the Federal Reserve Board, were pretty lousy teachers.
-
No paradox at all. Some of the best teachers in my business school, including Nobel Prize winners, never worked a day in their life outside of academia. At the same time, some of those "doers," like a sitting governor of the Federal Reserve Board, were pretty lousy teachers.
Business School. That explains why you believe in fairies. Just like the Fed. does.
You must watch the video, Inside Job.
;-)
Rob C
-
What Walter is saying, and I concur, is that those who can, both do and can teach... those who can't, can only teach.
Except he didn't. Walter said you taught if you weren't good enough to do what you taught. With no equivocation.
'Those who CAN, do. Those who CAN'T, teach"
-
No paradox at all. Some of the best teachers in my business school, including Nobel Prize winners, never worked a day in their life outside of academia. At the same time, some of those "doers," like a sitting governor of the Federal Reserve Board, were pretty lousy teachers.
Yet there are plenty of crap academia only teachers and practitioners who are excellent teachers. Which only goes to show that some people are good at teaching and others are not.
The saying is simply a load of crock.
-
Except he didn't...
He did not have to... it is a simple logical deduction.
-
He did not have to... it is a simple logical deduction.
Except it isn't and that is certainly not what people mean when the use the phrase - which is actually the most important thing. It is specifically used as a sneering put down of people who teach.
-
Except it isn't and that is certainly not what people mean when the use the phrase - which is actually the most important thing. It is specifically used as a sneering put down of people who teach.
It is a perfectly accurate little saying. If being accurate is a put down, so be it. And it is only a put down in the sense that they can not pretend to be great writers, artists or business people. They can still be great teachers, however.
-
Which brings us back to the "10,000 Hour Rule", which I am firmly convinced is a good yardstick.
I think a good yardstick would need to be about how good we think they are, rather than how many hours they've done.
... mastery of ones art or craft. It simply takes time...
On the contrary, that 10,000 hours researcher reported it does not simply take time (http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/ericsson.exp.perf.html) -- "...continued improvements (changes) in achievement are not automatic consequences of more experience..."
But these are details which we've already been through (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=62647.msg505017#msg505017) at least twice, so for a little variety --
"Talent is Overrated (http://books.google.com/books?id=PQrtV67iqgEC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false): What Really Separated World-class Performers from Everybody Else" book
"What it takes to be great (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/10/30/8391794/index.htm)" Fortune Magazine
-
Folks often confuse the "10,000 hour rule" with being up with the best. It just means you have mastered your craft, it doesn't mean people will like what you do.
It doesn't mean people will like what you do.
It kind-of is about being up with the best --
"For example, the critical difference between expert musicians differing in the level of attained solo performance concerned the amounts of time they had spent in solitary practice during their music development, which totaled around 10,000 hours by age 20 for the best experts (http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/ericsson.exp.perf.html), around 5,000 hours for the least accomplished expert musicians and only 2,000 hours for serious amateur pianists."
-
Seems this thread is becoming increasingly obscene the longer it grows ...
-
Shit! And I thought it was Ruskin.
Definitely Wilde, from Lady Windermere's Fan. I rather like the way it continues, which is almost never quoted:
"What is a cynic?"
"A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."
"And a sentimentalist, my dear Darlington, is a man who sees an absurd value in everything, and doesn't know the market price of any single thing".
I know he (Ruskin) was reputed to have written to the effect that "there's nothing that one man cannot produce more cheaply than another; those whose only consideration is price are that man's legal prey" or like that.
Close: "There is scarcely anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse, and sell a little more cheaply. The person who buys on price alone is this man's lawful prey". I know only because it's on the wall of a (pricey, needless to say) sandwich shop in Manchester which I visit from time to time for my lunch.
Jeremy
-
A visual contribution to the above:
-
It is a perfectly accurate little saying. If being accurate is a put down, so be it. And it is only a put down in the sense that they can not pretend to be great writers, artists or business people. They can still be great teachers, however.
It's simply a sneering put down by people who are actually showing how ignorant they are and not as they think, how clever they are.
You cannot teach what you do not know. And why is being a teacher seen as inferior to doing other jobs anyway, particularly as most people get to learn what they know from…teachers.
I saw a very good comic strip the other day about this ignorant attitude towards teaching. But cannot remember who did it.
-
Close: "There is scarcely anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse, and sell a little more cheaply. The person who buys on price alone is this man's lawful prey". I know only because it's on the wall of a (pricey, needless to say) sandwich shop in Manchester which I visit from time to time for my lunch.
Jeremy
Strange, I did a post yesterday with the correct quote and also mentioned a [pricey, but very good] Sandwich/bakers shop in Sheffield which uses it. But post has vanished. ???
We have a Ruskin Gallery too as Ruskin spent time here in Sheffield inbetween making interesting quotes such as this one…
“It's unwise to pay too much, but it's worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money - that's all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the thing it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot - it can't be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better.”
Another Jeremy
-
... You cannot teach what you do not know...
Correct. Yet knowing about something and doing it (especially successfully) is entirely different. Theory and practice.
...And why is being a teacher seen as inferior to doing other jobs anyway...
I never said it is. I have a great respect for teachers. I think they should be paid and valued much more. Perhaps equally as artists or businessmen. But artists or businessmen they aren't.
-
Correct. Yet knowing about something and doing it (especially successfully) is entirely different. Theory and practice.
I never said it is. I have a great respect for teachers. I think they should be paid and valued much more. Perhaps equally as artists or businessmen. But artists or businessmen they aren't.
Unfortunately, that's a destiny shared by many of the 'doers' too. Maybe the teachers teach it as well, you know under 'humility'?
Teaching, as a word, is too broad a bush for the sense of this discussion. There are many many subjects where teaching is the way - possibly the only way - to learn, but I don't accept that it has all that much value in art; yes, of course, teachers can teach about technique and tools and history, but that's a tiny part of the whole and as has been made abundantly clear via the world of art collection, a rather small factor towards success as an artist if a factor at all. Other things, such as contacts, mad ideas, exploitation of morality and even of religious beliefs, photography that touches the very far edges of boredom, those are the things that produce results - notoriety, in other words, is the highway in a lot of photography.
IMO.
Rob C
-
I never said it is. I have a great respect for teachers. I think they should be paid and valued much more. Perhaps equally as artists or businessmen. But artists or businessmen they aren't.
Really? So teachers/businessman/artist are all mutually exclusive activities now. That'll come as a surprise to all those who can combine activities.
-
Strange, I did a post yesterday with the correct quote and also mentioned a [pricey, but very good] Sandwich/bakers shop in Sheffield which uses it.
Philpotts?
Jeremy
-
Philpotts?
Jeremy
Trevor's?
Rob C
-
Philpotts?
Jeremy
Lily's.
-
War & Religion.
-
War & Religion.
W. R. Philpott?
Rob C