Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: JB Rasor on December 18, 2013, 04:44:56 am
-
Hello everyone. I am going to be applying for my MFA in photography within the next month or two and I wanted to solicit a little advice.
I'm working on arranging my portfolio for submission and I'm aiming for 20 solid images. I think that is a good number for a professional portfolio. Would the members agree?
My other question has to do with content. I have a photography business and I do a great deal of family shoots. I'm hesitant to include any of those images, as my goal for continuing with a degree is to move toward photojournalism and documentary work. So my portfolio is reflective of that style. However, I'm curious if there are any downsides to including a mixture of styles within a single portfolio? I'm thinking overall consistency in style is the best approach, but I hate to throw out great shots...family portraits, etc. But I'm a tough editor so I have no issue not including that work.
And lastly, any advice from those who've pursued a Masters in Photography is also welcome! I appreciate everyone's thoughts.
All the best!
JB Rasor
-
I haven’t gone after a MFA but do have a post grad degree in the arts. I strongly recommend that you ask your professors what they suggest and follow that. Fwiw, at post grad work and even leading to that, it is always a good idea to seek council from those who can provide the best direct responses to your inquiry. Professors are there for guidance and assistance and will absolutely provide the best possible answers. They have all been through what you’re going through and have helped many others to do so.
That said, when presenting work for review, it is always a good idea to present what you consider to be a coherent set of work that you think is your best. This is not necessarily your most popular work, but those works you think demonstrate your capabilities. The thing about the most popular works is that often they may be knock offs of a small sampling of skills that don’t necessarily exemplify the range of capabilities.
Fwiw, stay in college as long as you can. It will open doors that can take decades to open otherwise, if ever.
-
Try to be consistent, don't be all over the place. That was the best advice I got from a portfolio review.
But if you do good work, I don't think it will break you one way or another.
I don't use family shots in my portfolio unless they stand on their own as great work. A great work for me is something that is museum worthy.
Take this pix of ‘Carla and Babydoll.’ It may look like a family portrait. That is what it ended up as for her. But the fact is I didn’t know them and met them wandering the dump site. I asked them to sit in the tub and let me shoot a pix of them with my ancient 6mp RD1. They left and I never saw them again. I did meet someone that new them and they gave a copy of the pix to them. The pix is a family portrait for them and a nice portfolio pix to me.
http://wheelingwv.tumblr.com/image/68125791156
Same with this pix. I probably wont put it my #1 portfolio, but I like it enough as a keeper. It is not family, just a friend. But if it was family or friend I’d show it.
http://wheelingwv.tumblr.com/image/68501491381
Here is her dog. 'Deer Still Life' THIS is in my portfolio.
http://wheelingwv.tumblr.com/image/70084531350
The 'Lost Princess' is a stranger girl I shot on the street. She is in my portfolio. If she was my daughter...she would still be in my portfolio.
http://wheelingwv.tumblr.com/image/69810153448
Hope this helps some.
Good luck!
-
I don't think an MFA degree will propel your marketability as a photojournalist or as an editorial photographer. Those genres are being fed more and more by journalists and bystanders equipped with iPhones and digital cameras. Sorry to be the herald of bad news. If you really have a desire to develop your competency in those areas, I'd start by doing pro bono work for local publications--electronic and print. You may also consider seeking out a mentor to help you navigate sticky situations. I think an MFA is a money pit and a trip down the garden path for someone with your desired objectives.
-
I'd leave out the family portraits - unless you're Thomas Struth or Nicholas Nixon.
Interesting discussion of MFA programs here:
http://www.vulture.com/2013/12/saltz-on-the-trouble-with-the-mfa.html
-
Interesting discussion of MFA programs here:
http://www.vulture.com/2013/12/saltz-on-the-trouble-with-the-mfa.html
Thanks for the link to the article. While the article does express some valid points, imo, it employs too many autobiographical comments including some odd ones. Mostly, however the article is not so much about MFA programs but about the high cost at some top schools.
Not every grad school will cost between $100K to many times that. This fact is directly acknowledged in the 2nd to last paragraph where the author states:
it's time for applicants to bite the bullet and consider the enormous benefits of less expensive, less sexy-sounding schools
It is true that top schools present opportunities for status seekers. It’s easy to confuse the goal of excellence in education with the goal of great expense for a degree from a prestigious school.
I often have no idea what some teachers and students are talking about in group critiques.
While there are some poor professors, most professors are very good and very highly trained. There is a substantial vetting process that takes place for most to become a college professor and more usually goes into the tenure process.
While the article doesn’t mention it, not enough good things can be said about when there is an intellectual bond between a professor and student. It doesn’t always happen but a trait of a good professor is the ability to motivate and even inspire a student.
There should be a lot more art history in addition to all the current theory.
I agree that teaching more art history is a good thing. A lot can be learned form this discipline.
The author’s last comment may be his projecting, along with very bad use of English:
Trust me; I've taught at them all. And should be fired.
How odd. Is that supposed to be self-depreciating? If that’s what he states, I would tend to agree that he probably should be fired.
Anywho, I agree that it is not a great idea to put oneself into a mountain of debt just to go to a school with the equivalent of a designer name like prestige, even if grades and finances permit it. It is good if you can afford it, but more importantly, putting oneself into crippling debt is short sighted, says something about the person's judgement skills, and due to that, it should not encouraged for anyone.
I'd leave out the family portraits - unless your Thomas Struth or Nicholas Nixon.
Not necessarily true. Portraits can express a lot about one’s skills in a studio setting as well as the ability to get others to perform for the camera, as well as one's skills in pp. Portraiture was a notable part of curricula when i studied, and it's a given that what was curricula during under-grad studies, would be considered for assessment of grad studies.
-
If the OP already has a 'family business' then why does he require further 'education' in photography?
I have absolutely no doubt that going to a prestigious art college will be very helpful in later life. However, that's not for the qualification he may gain, but the personal contact value of the venue. Oxbridge isn't cheap, but its output holds the highest number of top exec jobs in business and politics you can shake a stick at anywhere in the UK, as far as I can deduce.
Nothing opens more office drawers doors than pre-existing friendship.
It's just one more reality of life.
Rob C
-
I didn't mean to be down on portraiture. I was just suggesting that a certain type of commercial 'social' portraiture might not be appropriate for an MFA application. Much better to show personal work; the kind of work that you would want to develop during an MFA. Now if you want to do something interesting with social portraiture, as Nixon and Struth have done, then by all means show your 'family portraits'.
-
If the OP already has a 'family business' then why does he require further 'education' in photography?
Perhaps he's realised that social photography is an anodyne genre and he wants to broaden his horizons?
-
... the personal contact value of the venue. Oxbridge isn't cheap, but its output holds the highest number of top exec jobs in business and politics you can shake a stick at anywhere in the UK, as far as I can deduce.
Nothing opens more office drawers doors than pre-existing friendship.
A common misconception, Rob.
They did not get "the highest number of top exec jobs in business and politics" because they went to Oxbridge, but they went to Oxbridge because they already belonged (their families, that is) to the "club" which generates "the highest number of top exec jobs in business and politics." Going to Oxbridge is just a stamp of approval they belong to that club.
When a poor schmuck accidentally ends up in some of the top world schools (and I know such, very intimately), none of that "friendship" and contacts gained there mean much, as he is simply not one of "them," nor he has a pre-existing portfolio of friendships and contacts to trade.
-
... Professors ...will absolutely provide the best possible answers...
I find that strange. Such a categorical, general statement, that is. Most professors have no clue what the real life or business is about. Most of them never spent a day outside of academia. Most of them know the theory, and that is about it. So, yes, they will provide a decent answer when it comes to theoretical aspect of the issue, sometimes even the best theoretical answer. But there is so much more to life and business beyond theory. Unless, of course we are talking about adjunct or clinical professors, who've come to teach after a successful stint in business or arts.
... Fwiw, stay in college as long as you can. It will open doors that can take decades to open otherwise, if ever.
Care to elaborate? In particular, what is the advantage of a perpetual student status, if that is what you had in mind? And what doors will it open?
-
To the OP:
Gaining an advanced degree in any field is a worthy intellectual endeavor, that is if theoretical knowledge is your thing. Its worth is much less clear as a business proposition. Especially in your chosen profession and future career choices. If you plan to switch careers, from a practicing photographer to, say, museum curator, than I would say obtaining an advanced degree might make sense (or even be a prerequisite). To become a photojournalist? Hmmm, not so sure... might even be a hindrance.
Again, if you are doing it for personal satisfaction and can (easily) afford it, go for it. But if you think it will advance your PJ career, hmmm...
-
Sage comments Slobodan.
-
A common misconception, Rob.
They did not get "the highest number of top exec jobs in business and politics" because they went to Oxbridge, but they went to Oxbridge because they already belonged (their families, that is) to the "club" which generates "the highest number of top exec jobs in business and politics." Going to Oxbridge is just a stamp of approval they belong to that club.
When a poor schmuck accidentally ends up in some of the top world schools (and I know such, very intimately), none of that "friendship" and contacts gained there mean much, as he is simply not one of "them," nor he has a pre-existing portfolio of friendships and contacts to trade.
You're also right, but generally, you have to belong already to get there, if only to handle the fees. Bursaries help, but the friendships can't ever be equal: you can't afford the holidays. So we are both right: top universities plus family wealth. Regardless, it still means that one way or another, the top establishments produce the top job fillers.
Rob C
-
Regarding the value or otherwise of a good education: it depends. I had one, but I discovered that in day-to-day functioning in the local advertising world, I was the odd one out. If anything, it made me a bit of a misfit. In England, they immediately thought me Scottish; in Scotland, they thought me English. I could never ape the vernacular, but both my kids could and do, switching to suit the ethics of the situation.
Also, some of the ADs went to Art Schools and some did not; it seemed a lottery. My overall impression was that good education was de rigueur when dealing with top brass in big firms, many of which I knew had university behind them, but of doubtful - even negative - value lower down the totem pole. Folks just want to feel comfortable with those with whom they have to work.
Rob C
-
To the OP:
Gaining an advanced degree in any field is a worthy intellectual endeavor, that is if theoretical knowledge is your thing. Its worth is much less clear as a business proposition. Especially in your chosen profession and future career choices. If you plan to switch careers, from a practicing photographer to, say, museum curator, than I would say obtaining an advanced degree might make sense (or even be a prerequisite). To become a photojournalist? Hmmm, not so sure... might even be a hindrance.
Again, if you are doing it for personal satisfaction and can (easily) afford it, go for it. But if you think it will advance your PJ career, hmmm...
Photojournalist? That job is kinda dead nowadays isn't it? I remember one guy on the forums asking how he can make a living being a street photog. I guess photojournalist would be better than street photog.
Before spending a lot of $ on being a photojournalist I'd check out the job ops.
-
Getting back to the portfolio...
A portfolio review is a must. That is what helped me out with placing my work. If the OP can't afford a review, use the fourm to bounce your work off of.
Without a review I'd be sunk.
-
Thank you all for the comments. They are insightful!
To delve into a few of the specifics, I graduated from UCLA in 2006 with a BA in political science. I have worked in the television and film industry since I was 18, I'm now 33, and transitioned from news media to professional photography over the last five years. While I do greatly enjoy my photography business, which mainly consists of family photography and portrait work, I'd much rather pursue photography in the documentary, environmental and photojournalistic realms. And, I can run my business while attending school. The school cost is $30,000 per year. Between grants, financial aid and my own money I shouldn't have trouble covering the expenses.
I'm in Atlanta, so the only school I am considering is SCAD (Savannah College of Art and Design). I'm not sure if any here are familiar with it, but its photography MFA ranks well.
A couple of my thoughts and benefits, though not all, in pursuing an MFA:
1: My skill set in the craft (photography, post processing, printing, etc.) will be honed and perfected. While I consider my work in all of these areas to be quite good (don't we all :), I think the benefit of focusing solely on the craft for a Masters will be a long term benefit as photography is my career choice.
2: The relationships with students and faculty are invaluable in the art and photography world. Seeking grants, finding work, generating leads, having a great academic, and local, resource to turn to when needed.
3: The job market may be a bit more accessible. While that is not guaranteed by any means, academic institutions have greater access and relationships with news papers, news outlets, museum boards, grant writers, etc.
4: I am interested in teaching. It is not my first career choice, but I may enjoy it and it can always serve as a back up plan.
5: Having a Masters is always better than not having one. Sounds silly, but another degree can't hurt anything other than the pocket book.
As to the field I am most interested in, documentary photography is really my passion. I include photojournalism because there are many similarities in the photojournalist and documentary fields. I'm interested in capturing the changing world, documenting the impacts of the changing world and perhaps, though it is very idealistic of me, in creating a small change for the better...even if it is on a local level. I love the industrialized world! And I don't mean that sarcastically. But I am very interested in learning, and teaching others, about the billions of people that are nothing like "us." And I am interested in the worlds that exist within our own borders, that almost mirror the third world. I love the idea of someone taking an interest in people and places that don't normally get noticed, except in pictures and on TV. So why shouldn't I be the one taking the pictures? And, with any luck, my work can knock at the door (creatively speaking) of great photographers in those fields, such as Sebastiao Salgado or Tim Hetherington or Steve McCurry. I can dream right haha?
I know that a Master's is certainly not necessary to be a successful photographer, nor is it going to make one a successful photographer, but that is also true of other fields. And I'm not seeking a Master's to become "successful," rather I'm looking to expand my personal knowledge, my life goals, my skill set, my working relationships and everything else that goes along with attending school beyond the undergraduate level.
I hope that clarifies things a little bit. Now that I've started the application process, and back to my initial question, the school wants a portfolio that contains 20 images total. In fact, their vague request for a portfolio is as follows: "Portfolios should include 20 images that demonstrate a mastery of basic printmaking techniques along with a developed body of work that is both conceptually and technically mature. The portfolio should reflect thematic development, experimentation and sophistication."
Once I have my final portfolio together I'll certainly have it reviewed and post on Lula for feedback.
Thanks again everyone!
JB
-
Good luck in your quest, you seem to have a sound knowledge of the academic world already.
For my part, and this isn't aimed at the OP personally, I hate the concept of grants etc, with a vengeance. I think a photographer or any artist should stand or fall on his own merits and efforts, and getting money from 'institutions' to pay for the ride feels, to me, as something almost contrary to the idea of making it through the value of your work: it's like saying 'well look, I can't do this well enough by myself, but I enjoy it, so can you pay for my doing it?' which feels horrible to me.
I value the idea of grants for promising students who could not, otherwise, go to university or college, but for mature adults? I think not. It's just a subsidised ego trip of one form or another. But then there's a whole industry of grants, clubs and memberships out there... a sort of world of faux supported/sponsored success. Odd how it usually seems to be an art-based phenomenon.
Rob C
-
JB, you've probably already done this, but when assembling an application portfolio, it's a good idea to take a close look at the work of recent graduates from your chosen MFA program, and ask yourself whether you'll fit in.
Here in the UK things are slightly different as we don't have many masters programs like the American MFA (2 years, full time) - maybe just the Royal College of Art and St Martins? Our typical Photography MA is a 1 year program (costs about £7.5K, $12k). Some institutions (e.g. LCC, Westminster) offer both an 'MA in Photography' and an 'MA in Photojournalism and Documentary Photography'.
I imagine you'd be well suited to the latter type of course, but might find yourself at sea with the former. The question is how far do you want to go into the art world? (Perhaps the art world is the only option, with traditional outlets for documentary work in decline?)
On many masters programs, the photographers you admire (Salgado, Hetherington, McCurry) are unlikely to get a look in. If you're willing to put them aside whilst you study the likes of Wall, Sugimoto, Sherman, Struth, Demand etc. then all well and good (I'd recommend it). But be careful - some students can find critical theory and contemporary photographic history overwhelming and subsequently find themselves unable to produce new work. On the other hand, many students will be massively inspired and will produce the best work of their lives.
-
I hate the concept of grants etc, with a vengeance. I think a photographer or any artist should stand or fall on his own merits and efforts, and getting money from 'institutions' to pay for the ride feels, to me, as something almost contrary to the idea of making it through the value of your work: it's like saying 'well look, I can't do this well enough by myself, but I enjoy it, so can you pay for my doing it?' which feels horrible to me.
It's not easy getting a grant. It's very competitive.
A lot of memorable photography would not have been made without grants.
Perhaps it's state-funded grants in particular that irritate you? There's certainly a question of whether government should fund the arts (I think it should).
But there are also many private grants available (e.g. a photographer dies and leaves a fund to help future photographers produce work). Do you despise these also?
-
I've never been in that position, but if I understand the advanced degree requirements, those entrance committees want to see your experiences. So would they not be disappointed if you avoided showing your best work, whatever the subjects?
-
It's not easy getting a grant. It's very competitive.
A lot of memorable photography would not have been made without grants.
Perhaps it's state-funded grants in particular that irritate you? There's certainly a question of whether government should fund the arts (I think it should).
But there are also many private grants available (e.g. a photographer dies and leaves a fund to help future photographers produce work). Do you despise these also?
I dislike the entire system of adults using other people to pay for their ego-tripping; if you, as a grown person, decide to do something that's commercially unsustainable, then it should be at your own expense. It doesn't strike me as making any difference if the funding comes from public or private sources; if they are not your own pennies you are spending, then I think there's something wrong in the sytem that encourages that.
I'm sure it is a competitive business getting grants: handouts always attract massive queues, even if nobody knows what they are really standing in the queue for - that's an old British joke about the war days.
As to state funding of the arts: I would agree that young students should get all the art school funding they need, just as long as they can prove an aptitude for the business. I don't see it as the state's business or responsibility to pay if somebody, anybody, later in life decides they want to switch careers. Once an adult, it's your responsibility to manage your own affairs.
I have reservations about the state funding things such as ballet or orchestras, for that matter; there are too many people unable to feed themselves or pay the gas and electricity bills; last winter, thousands of old folks in the UK died because of their inability to heat and feed properly; I see that as a problem far more concerning than anybody's ego-trip. If we have state funds to throw away, let's first use them to help those who need help, not those who'd just like it!
Rob C
-
I don't care if I get paid by a commercial client, a grant-giving body, or a collector. I need to make work, and I'll finance it whichever way I can. The attraction of grants is that I can get a sizeable sum of money upfront and sufficient time to explore a project in depth.
Getting back to the topic, doing an MFA will certainly facilitate grant applications; you'll learn about more grant opportunities and you'll be in a better position to secure them.
-
Again, thank you all for the feedback and insights. They have all been helpful!
Just to clarify, I didn't mean to put a great deal of emphasis on grants. Rather, my statements were to illustrate that seeking grants can be a bit easier if one is working toward a Master's degree.
As it relates to federally funded secondary education financial aid, I will most certainly take those grants, as I did for undergraduate study. I've certainly paid enough in taxes over my years to justify some modest grants toward my education. But I think you're referencing, more specifically, the idea of grants for photography projects Rob C. And that is largely a philosophical argument that can have rebuttals and counter arguments to no end. My personal view is I am perfectly fine with privately funded grants going toward an artist's work, as long as the accountability is there and the funding is completely transparent.
Government dollars going toward specific artist's work, I'm hesitant to agree with that approach, but I certainly agree that federal money going toward generating more artistic development, and exposing young people to the arts in general, is a worthwhile investment in our culture.
But, I certainly wasn't trying to state, "hey, if I go to grad school I'll get tons of money, for free, from rich patrons and get to go play with Phase One's in Greenland." On the contrary, the idea of someone giving me a grant to pursue my photography is so far removed from my reality it isn't even on the radar. Again, I was just mentioning in passing that grants come into play as one develops work down the line, and grad school is a good resource for that.
As to my portfolio, I've tightened things up and have aimed for 20 solid images that have a general, and linear, narrative. I'm adding a few additional images and will post as soon as I'm finished. I'd really welcome some feedback, if the members would be so kind. Initially I was overwhelmed with the idea of creating a portfolio for graduate study, as the audience (i.e. school faculty) review photographic work for a living day in and day out. I have a ton of work, but as I originally posted, the bulk of my professional work is family photography and portraits. Not that that work isn't good, but I didn't want to include it in the portfolio as my main reason for attending graduate school is to change my focus in photography from family/portrait to documentary based work. So I've put together a good selection of images that focus more tightly on that genre.
Thanks again to everyone!
JB Rasor
-
SCAD and Photojournalism is a bit of an oxymoron. Let's see, J-Schools: University of Missouri at Columbia, Syracuse University, Columbia. SCAD = family-owned art school--not bad for commercial art. Fine art degrees are weird American inventions. Art History MA = career in art criticism, adjunct professorship, or using a historical foundation to add depth to your artistic endeavors. Education for the sake of education is fine.
But a degree from SCAD will not be helpful regarding your objectives. Savanna is a lovely town, and SCAD has a workable distance learning program. It will gladly take your money. It will help you identify financial aid sources.
If you really want to improve your photo documentary skills, I suggest spending a month documenting the city of Detroit followed by documenting Palm Beach in the winter time. Your end product will surely provoke interest. It will garner a lot more attention than a run-of-the-mill McArt degree.