Recognition, titles: Fostering improvement or vanity and gatekeeping? - e.g. Royal Photographic Society's ARPS and LRPS

[BrianShaw]

Setting aside the intentional acidity conveyed in your comparison of apples to pitchforks: what in the FRPS title makes it a good predictor for its holder to be a competent author, specifically in the field of biographies or history?

"Intentional acidity"; what makes you assume that? A rude yet humourous implication.

An answer to your question would be offered but that should be obvious to anyone with the least bit of academic background. I believe you have such background and well know the answer.

 

[koraks]

An answer to your question would be offered

Go ahead; how does this work for you? How can you tell by someone holding the FRPS title that they're likely good at writing this sort of book - or any sort of book? They've been posted before, but here are again the criteria for an FRPS (which, as I've pointed out before, I find in part somewhat vague):

• A submission that demonstrates a distinctive body of work.
• A Statement of Intent that defines the purpose of the work, identifying its aims and objectives.
• A cohesive body of work that depicts and communicates the aims and objectives set out in the Statement of intent.
• A body of work that communicates an individual's vision and understanding.
• The highest level of technical ability using techniques and photographic practices appropriate to the subject.
• An appropriate and high level of understanding of craft and artistic presentation.

None of those directly relates to a proficiency in doing the sort of research required by a thorough biography or historical text, abilities in organizing large texts, effectively structuring and conveying ideas in the form of a book, etc.

Mind you, I'm not saying that an FRPS wouldn't be capable of producing a good or even a great book. But by the same token, someone who amply meets the criteria above can still be someone who is utterly incapable of producing a book that's coherent, let alone relevant or insightful. The FRPS appears to be about something else. Not that it's of lesser relevance than whatever title you might want to attribute to a proficient author. Just different.

So how come you attribute so much value to the title beyond the scope of what it's apparently associated with? Apparently, this title is deeply meaningful to you - why?

 

[cliveh]

koraks, stop going on about RPS accreditation and just concentrate on taking good pictures.

 

[BrianShaw]

@koraks. In general and in all academic fields, there is a presumption that two things add credibility: peer review and established credentials of the author. I'm sure that you don't disagree. That isn't so obvious on forums and websites, especially when the authors are concealed or unknown. That's not to say it's all bad information, it just takes a lot of knowledge (or trust) to tease out what correct and valuable and what's just bla-bla-bla.

But I think I understand the disconnect on this topic. You may need a bit more information about the breadth of RPS and their distinctions. There are a few more than covered by those criteria cited in post #77 and before. I'm vaguely aware of Dr. Callender's work as I love photographic history. It would benefit you to read his background and review the additional distinctions available by RPS. I think that might clear up the disconnect. It's not that I have a feeling of unnatural value for thse distinctions, but apparently I have a broader understanding of the scope of them.

Regarding your general perception that exceptions are possible and some distinction holders have limited knowledge boundaries, I agree. These things happen. As does the opposite scenerio where some unidenfiable forum/website publishers actually know what they are talking about and provide valuable information.

Hope this helps...

Dr Ronald Montgomery Callender – Me and Mrs Middleton

Dr Ronald Montgomery Callender “Former President of the British Institute of Professional Photography Following national service with the Cameronians, Ron Callender joined the Lighting laboratory o…

dominikaedwardsphotographyandfilm.wordpress.com

Research Distinction

rps.org

At this point, though, Clive offers some very good advise. [edit: for both of us.]

 

[koraks]

Thanks for the thoughtful response @BrianShaw, I appreciate it.

The core of my argument in #77 is that credentials in one field are not necessarily a good predictor for performance in another. There's no doubt that a holder of an FRPS can also be an excellent historian or biographer. The opposite is of course not necessarily true. And I agree that anyone can post pretty much anything online, but anyone can also (self-)publish a book, regardless of talent or proficiency - although for the latter, the barriers are evidently higher. In either case, perhaps we should judge neither publication on its cover, but its content. Honestly, I've seen too many entirely crappy books with the author proudly flaunting their PhD on the cover. At the same time, I've seen and heard utterly unqualified people make inspiring, insightful observations. It doesn't render titles meaningless, but it emphasizes their limited scope, where this limitation is not delineated particularly sharply.

As to the advise offered by @cliveh (pot extends thanks to kettle): ultimately, that's what my questions are also about. Take these criteria for the FRPS, which, if I would interpret them loosely, appear to attempt to characterize a competent photographer. In that case, working towards being able to meet those criteria would in fact constitute "concentrate on taking good pictures". Some people can concentrate and it just happens. A bit how Mozart composed. Others need to work more laboriously and may have to rely a bit more on systematic reflection and purposeful exercise to advance their skill. For the latter category, more clarity on the kind of guidance associated with the e.g. FRPS criteria might be very helpful. However, I think they don't stand up very well to closer scrutiny as they are formulated on e.g. the RPS website. Perhaps it's not really possible to define them more precisely, but that in itself brings on another set of questions.

 

[BrianShaw]

We all should objectively and fairly consider the credibility of both information and their authors. Degrees and professional accreditations are a time-honored way. And a good way. Individually it's valid to question such things. Collectively, not so much.

But what does it matter if you or I decide that the RPS criteria are shallow or flawed...

 

[ChrisGalway]

koraks, stop going on about RPS accreditation and just concentrate on taking good pictures.

Hear hear! @koraks apparently has a giant chip on his shoulder!

 

[koraks]

But what does it matter if you or I decide that the RPS criteria are shallow or flawed...

As I said, the relevance is in:
1: what we can take from them for the development of our own photographic development.
2: how to interpret a title.
Whether that 'matters' depends of course on what you find important. I find this (somewhat) interesting from a philosophical, social and academic perspective. That's why I wanted to discuss it - to explore the topic.

 

[koraks]

Hear hear! @koraks apparently has a giant chip on his shoulder!

So in this case that the presence of a title does not correlate with an ability to participate in a discussion in a civil manner. That's fine; that's not what the title is about, as I argued above. Perhaps the "you should" people would be best served by adhering to their own advice.

 

[BrianShaw]

As I said, the relevance is in:
1: what we can take from them for the development of our own photographic development.
2: how to interpret a title.
Whether that 'matters' depends of course on what you find important. I find this (somewhat) interesting from a philosophical, social and academic perspective. That's why I wanted to discuss it - to explore the topic.

So have you figured out the answers, for you, yet or is this an on-going exploration?

 

[warden]

As an aside, in 1961, I submitted a photo (in the under 15 class) to an RPS-affiliated competition and it got an "award" ... I can't remember what the award was, but it meant a lot to me at the time and it led to a lifetime of interest and activity in photography and photographic/imaging science.

That is a very cool start in photography.

 

[koraks]

So have you figured out the answers, for you, yet or is this an on-going exploration?

The latter, and I think it's an exploration that will always continue. This is also why I find the questions I asked relevant - the insights gained by asking and exploring them I find helpful and inspiring in that exploration. Not only for my own perspective, but also to understand how this works for others. How about you?

 

[ChrisGalway]

.......

The organisation in question looks "anglo centric". Ask yourself how relevant that is for your photographic life. It looks "established" and "relevant". ...

Established 1853. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Photographic_Society.

Worth reading this wiki page.

 

[koraks]

So the OP should ask himself "would my ecosystem actually recognize these qualifications"

The question is moot for me as I never considered pursuing these titles. I came across them and this piqued my curiosity as to the dynamics and underlying criteria, that's all.

 

[ChrisGalway]

.... A bit of Python's "Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things". "hear hear", black tie dinners, pink roast beef and "claret".

That's a wonderful sketch, I encourage everyone to locate it on YouTube.

To be fair to the RPS, its present-day incarnation could not be more different than that Python caricature. It is very diverse, just look at the RPS Magazine as an example. It may 170+ years old, but it does have contemporary relevance; in fact many of these old-established organisations exist today because they have moved with the times.

 

[Ian Grant]

That's a wonderful sketch, I encourage everyone to locate it on YouTube.

To be fair to the RPS, its present-day incarnation could not be more different than that Python caricature. It is very diverse, just look at the RPS Magazine as an example. It may 170+ years old, but it does have contemporary relevance; in fact many of these old-established organisations exist today because they have moved with the times.

I agree with you, the RPS has a very diverse membership. I was a member in the late 1980s for a couple of years. At the time it was heavily dominated by camera club types who thought the RPS was not the place for contemporary photography. That did change later.

It's worth pointing out to the OP that the LRPS And ARPS are qualifications that were introduced as stepping stones towards the FRPS. The standard of work needed to achieve an FRPS is usually exceptional, but It's always very high.

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

Is there something to the British art ecosystem that makes it easier for aspiring photographers to succeed if they have an LRPS or ARPS?
Are there perhaps photographers active on this forum who have experienced benefit from these titles - and if so, in what way? Conversely, are there photographers who considered or even in the past obtained such a title, but walked away from it because of a lack of a clear value proposition?

It's many years since I was a member of the RPS, but it used to be that if you had a Photography degree or higher, you automatically qualified for an ARPS if you joined.

I know many people who gained an LRPS, their work is usually quite good, those with an ARPS it's way better, consistent, this produces the club lecturers, (and judges), and the title does help them.

The handful of people I know & respect with an FRPS really are producing amazing work, and @David Lingham is one of them. I gave a camera club talk 2 weeks ago, at the club I joined for a few years in the mid 1980s. One member now with an FRPS has lapsed back to his old camera club styles, he used to be a good photographer.

But before any comments about the RPS you really need to see and appreciate the general high quality of members images, and remember that it has many subgroups where world leading photographers participate.

I went down a different route, workshops, academia, and that is the better way if you want to go into teaching photography, or seriously exhibiting your work.

It's like two ways around a circle a Masters or an FRPS, both are given for your high level of photographic competency, and your ability to articulate your work, and also that of others.

Ian

 

[snusmumriken]

It's like two ways around a circle a Masters or an FRPS, both are given for your high level of photographic competency, and your ability to articulate your work, and also that of others.

That really surprised me. I had no idea that either qualification required that articulacy bit. Personally, I love reading and talking about photographs; but I'd always taken it for granted that great photographs stand on their own merits, and hence that the ability to discuss them isn't a necessary skill for a photographer. So I suppose the flip side of that would be that some really excellent photographers might not be able to gain either a Masters or an FRPS?

 

[Craig]

but I'd always taken it for granted that great photographs stand on their own merits, and hence that the ability to discuss them isn't a necessary skill for a photographer.

I suppose that is true to a certain extent, but I think it take a deeper knowledge to say why a photograph is great at a more substantive level than "I like it", or "it's nicely exposed". There could be all sorts of avenues to discuss why a photo is great, or conversely why it fails to be great.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I wonder why I even attempted to wade into this long thread. Sheer curiosity, I guess. Just sounds like a bunch of foppery to me, so I'll depart on that note. (Delete if you wish)

 

[BrianShaw]

I wonder why I even attempted to wade into this long thread. Sheer curiosity, I guess. Just sounds like a bunch of foppery to me, so I'll depart on that note. (Delete if you wish)

Foppery? Cya…

 

[Taylor K Nankervis]

Hitherto flash-sounding titles/award bestowed by the RPS in the UK have little to no relevance in other countries, in particular here in Australia. They are considered British "clubby", companionable foppstones that have fallen into some obscurity (and guffaws) over the passage of decades. An FRPS, ARPS or whatnot is not going be a foot in the door for you here in Australia. We look for much higher, well-demonstrated and proven foundational skills over hairy chest beating of titles from the Old Dart.

We have localised, recognised titles through the Australian Institute of Professional Photography — AIPP, Fellow, Associate etc.; not a club or fringe group, but highly representative of a vast number of professional practitioners (including PhD holders, of which Harry Nankin is one for his pioneering work in wet plate solargraphy). Plenty of photographers in professional practice carry these titles (and the weighty, high calibre portfolios that justify the chest beating), but rarely use them, save for the occasional showboat parading one title after another at invitational judging events held by clubs.

My FRPS was granted in 1997 during an exchange to the UK showing and demonstrating work produced to Ilfochrome Classic media from Kodachrome and later, Fujifilm products. That was all when I was younger and doubtless crowed about the award all the way back Downunder on the flight! I do not know (read: care) where the certificate is (embellished with gold and blue and arthritic scrawl from the "examiners" as I remember it) and have no interest in using the award initials. "Call me by my name", will be just fine!

Foppery? Cya…

Foppery.

 

[Taylor K Nankervis]

I wonder why I even attempted to wade into this long thread. Sheer curiosity, I guess. Just sounds like a bunch of foppery to me, so I'll depart on that note. (Delete if you wish)

I'm with you.

 

[MattKing]

That really surprised me. I had no idea that either qualification required that articulacy bit. Personally, I love reading and talking about photographs; but I'd always taken it for granted that great photographs stand on their own merits, and hence that the ability to discuss them isn't a necessary skill for a photographer. So I suppose the flip side of that would be that some really excellent photographers might not be able to gain either a Masters or an FRPS?

The ability to articulate is entirely relevant to an academic environment.
After all, an artist who can't explain or illustrate "why" and "how" or "how this evolved from that" isn't much use as an educator or researcher or a guide to those who wish to learn more.
I've encountered a fair number of wonderful photographers over the year whose communication is entirely through their work. Unfortunately, you would never want to want to take a course from them!
You may not even want to get driving directions from them!
And I've also encountered educators who are capable of introducing, explaining and enabling great photography to legions of students, while not creating particularly memorable work themselves.
Those who can teach can do and create and foster work by others that they might never be able to create themselves.

 

[koraks]

I think it take a deeper knowledge to say why a photograph is great at a more substantive level than "I like it", or "it's nicely exposed"

It would be grand IMO if we could glean something about that vocabulary or methodology/approach for analyzing images from the titles and underlying criteria. That's part of what I've tried to uncover, but so far, no cigar, yet. Mind you, I'm torn on the question whether/to what extent the 'greatness' of a work of art can effectively be conveyed in words. I think it's an interesting question in itself; very, very tricky to answer.