From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 10/20/01-12:56:24 AM Z
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, shannon stoney wrote:
> >I loved grad school, but I used to say it was like a Victorian lecture on
> >marriage, a lot of talk about the beauties of conjugal love, but if you
> >asked about HOW IT WAS DONE (film, development, etc.) you were quickly
> >shushed.
> Seriously, why do you think this is? Maybe the profs have never
> actually "done it"?
Actually, my two main profs were EXCELLENT printers & very knowledgeable
about all aspects of the "craft" -- they just weren't very interested in
spending their career time talking about it. (Oh is that an
understatement. They REFUSED to talk about it!) I think also they'd
unconsciously gotten the idea that paying attention to those things was
tacky, sort of trade-school stuff. We were an ART school.
I did have a wonderful course in "alternative photography" -- tho it was
called "non-silver" -- and modelled my own after it when I began to
teach... BUT, the ingredients of a negative, like shadow detail &
highlight separation, were not discussed, in that or any course.
I ultimately learned the rudiments, but it was hit & miss, thus took a lot
longer than it should have. And when I did finally catch on, & began to
teach with the 21-step, two things happened: One -- I noticed that the
concept of shadows and highlights, or steps of density, was very difficult
for many students to grasp. Some of them never did -- all they knew was to
change filters if they didn't like the look of a print. (And refused to
believe me when I told them contrast filters wouldn't work on their lith
film!) The second was that their PHOTOGRAPHS got better. Not just
technically, but conceptually & aesthetically.
However, I'm going to disagree with Jack that students should have mature
work either entering or leaving grad school. The ones who come in with a
good "package" probably didn't do it on their own, and may go nowhere...
or actually regress. And if they're so "mature," what do they need you
for? The unformed, in my experience, are much more likely to be open, to
catch fire, or actually invent something new. But I also think that
progress in school has ZERO correlation to developmnet as an artist later.
Sometimes class and/orteachers give inspiration or support for
"brilliance," which fades upon leaving. Anyway, if you can tell in
advance (more than the occasional lucky guess) which entering students
will be great future photogs -- you're doing a lot better than I could.
I also was troubled by seeing students who wanted to explore, experiment,
discover, spread out, pressured to develop a style, or "mature body of
work." My own opinion was that that was stealing their time & tuition,
usually to make the school look good. What they needed more was permission
to engage in search and discovery with knowing mentors. Some take longer
in that process than others (some of us never get it done!).... but the
pressure to be polished or "flashy" (ie.,look like "hot" work of the
moment) is (IMO) greater than it should be.
> I don't understand this. Is this an over-reaction to the days of
> Ansel Adams, Minor White, etc?
My teachers revered Minor White.... but I think they felt that was given,
received, and they wanted to push the envelope with IDEAS, not same old
zones.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 11/02/01-08:55:27 AM Z CST