Photography Degrees

[oblivi]

The more I dive into Photography and learn about different styles and techniques used by other photographers I see that there is a mixture of those who have Higher Education degrees in Photography and those who do not. I am on the fence about this because I have seen some great work produced by those on both sides of the spectrum. So I wanted to propose this question to the board. Do you think that a degree in Photography is necessary to pursue a career in photography?

I personally think that it does play a huge part in the types of work you can get so I am for a degree but it should not stop anyone who wants to follow their passion of photography and not just be a guy/gal with a camera. Any thoughts?

[ravncat]

No - not needed for pursuit of a career - but depending on the place of the degree - it is certainly helpful for knowledge, practice and connections.

[Photologyst]

Photography is an art form. Since one does not need licensing, a degree is unnecessary. In fact, formal “school” is often a way to kill a passion. Workshops, with other talented students and a super instructor, are better choices IMHO.

Learning the skill of photography can be done by anyone. Talent and creativity cannot be learned, but they can be developed—in some people. Those who are on top in any field typically learned the most on their own and via a superb mentor.

Talent will out, with or without degrees.

[Izzy]

A "degree" in photography; which I think you are referring to a Liberal Arts degree. Will have you doing much more than just photography. These other things are to help you build a portfolio overall. These core credit classes also eliminate the possibility that you will sound a like a monkey with a camera.

I am sure Jim Bryant will agree. Any monkey can push a shutter button, it sometimes requires a background in marketing to make it all work. Look into a Liberal Arts degree. You will get much more out of it.

[oblivi]

excellent responses so far. Photologyst I agree talent ultimately wins out over what someone can learn in a class room but it is the technical aspect that many photographers these days are truly missing that may come from going to learn whether it be in a book, online, workshop etc.

[AnneWynne]

Depending on what you want to do in photography, a degree could help open doors for you because it says you have gone through a formal process of learning. You do not have to go for a 4 year degree as there are technical colleges that offer 2 year Associate Degree programs (there are 2 state technical schools in Georgia that offer photography programs.) There is also certification as a professional photographer that also says you have more knowledge and skills than the average MWAC.

Sometimes having a good portfolio is not enough, depending on what you want to do. Sometimes having that proof of the educational process you went through to get that portfolio will put you ahead of someone that does not have it.

Google jobs in photography and look at how many require some sort of professional training for that position. Plus, having some additional, marketable, skills is a good fall-back.

Trust me, being a starving artist is not all it is cracked up to being.

[Photologyst]

Originally Posted by oblivi

excellent responses so far. Photologyst I agree talent ultimately wins out over what someone can learn in a class room but it is the technical aspect that many photographers these days are truly missing that may come from going to learn whether it be in a book, online, workshop etc.

Of course, anyone has to learn their craft. I am just saying that a formal, university education is not the only road to follow. In the information age, there is so much information available to everyone, at any time of the day or night, that there is no excuse to not learn. Skill without talent won’t get one far. Talent without skill has little staying power.

Acquiring an MFA with an emphasis on photography “might” be useful, depending on one’s age and level of work experience. A liberal arts base is good for everyone, even those planning on a tech or science career because it provides a basic education in many areas. That makes one an educated person who can speak of many things to almost anyone. Given that all things are related, this is useful. Certification as a ACE (Adobe Certified Expert) for example, might be much more efficacious than 2, 4 year or graduate degrees. Adobe - Support: Adobe Certified Expert (ACE)

However, I continue to maintain that an excellent portfolio, references and lots of talent will get one further in photography and many other fields than a degree. If, however, you want to become director of a graphics department or an editor of a photo mag, etc. a degree “might” come in handy. Then, again, perhaps not.

As a person who has numerous degrees in liberal arts as well as science and technology I can assure you that all these do is convince prospective employers that you have staying power. You graduated; you completed graduate school. They are a union card or admissions ticket, if you will. They do not show if you are any good at doing anything in the work world. That is where your CV, resume, portfolio and references come in. Once on the job, you had better be able to deliver or all the degrees in the world won’t help one whit.

I've said it once and I'll say it a million times.

The people whom have been good enough to purchase photos from me have NEVER... NOT ONCE... EVER.... asked where I went to school.

Why?

Because it doesn't matter.

What matters is that the quality of my work is good and that I'm easy (ok, sometimes easier) to work with than others.


Photography degrees are a WAAAAASTE of time and money.

~Eric