The physics unit light year is a measure of distance and not of time. It is the distance that light travels in one standard Earth year.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gender bias in photography analyzed (by some interesting empirical data) and an essay
-
- Thread starter CatLABS
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Voigtländer 25mm ƒ/4 VM lens for Leica M mount, Ex. clean, $200
- Started by Kodachromeguy
-
For Sale Partial roll of 70mm late date (2011) Portra 160 NC, frozen
- Started by MCB18
-
For Sale Berthiot Eurygraphe 180mm f/4 (France, c1900)
- Started by Manual Camera
-
For Sale FS: Rittreck Wista Revolving Graflok 4x5 Back
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
- Status
The physics unit light year is a measure of distance and not of time. It is the distance that light travels in one standard Earth year.
Respect one another.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not if you study in college and work your butt off. Work smart rather than work hard. It can be done if one applies oneself regardless of who they are. Lets see more work and less crying in ones beer.
What nonsense.
I would not be the one too call someone who lives in rural America a redneck. But since you did, that's up to you.
The interesting thing about conservatism, and intolerance is that they are always just behind the times. They tend to fight tooth and nail against change.
But change does come and in 10 or 20 years they finally see the light. Or they die off.
That's why whatever challenges we face from people who are afraid of change we always know the in a few years they are proven wrong or they come around.
Outdated ideas never last. Doing what is right usually wins out over time.
Last edited by a moderator:
To call the term a "highly charged label", a little over wrought when a southern comedian made a really good living lampooning it.
Frankly I dislike the idea of anybody not being able to speak at universities.
Even the Bush team.
Because everyone has a right to explain themselves and because generally everyone does things, which to them, had a valid reason.
Even though those reason may have been incorrect or influenced.
Defense secretary Robert McNamara comes to mind.
In general we want people coming out of universities with the ability to think critically, and to do that they need to be exposed to everything.
Last edited by a moderator:
Including listening to badly thought out concepts and sometimes really stupid ideas.
Rednecks don't bother anyone typically, they just want to be left alone to do their redneck things....huntin' ,fishin', beer drinkin' and four-wheelin'. they don't have enough power or money to influence anything. most probably don't even vote or even know who's running for office.
Unfortunately, not everyone has the same opportunities to go to college or anything else that follows. Those persons end up working harder then most for less money.
They usually do not have time to cry about anything, which is why we, privileged few, must fight to correct the wrongs they suffer.
In all my many years in art school (across a great many schools and platforms across many states), i have seen a less then hand full of african american students. That could lead me to surmise that they simply chose to not study art, or that perhaps there is another reason. If that type of exclusion exists towards african americans in what can easily be called a progressive environment, is it so hard to believe there is a gender bias as well?
You are making a false assumption that one must attend college to be successful. However you are not alone in this. Far too many parents have the same pernicious idea. Education through high school is free here in the US. After that many trades will accept people as apprentices. Such jobs are perhaps not glamorous but they are profitable. There is a humorous sign which says "If you encounter any plumbing problems call a lawyer. They charge less."
In addition most cities hace junior colleges which provide low cost continuing education. There are opportunities all around. So people either do not see them or chose not to take advantage of them. Be that on their heads not society's.
Having taught in college I have seen far too many students that have absolutely no interest in being there. They have no interest in doing the work and want only a degree.
Last edited by a moderator:
MattKing
Moderator
Many (if not most) of the apprentice-able trades now require strong math and other academic skills. Many of those entering apprenticeships - which can be very difficult to attain - are doing so after spending time in progamms at technical colleges, in order to better prepare for those apprenticeships, and succeed in the competition for the relatively few openings.
No, serious glass is, and most employers and gallerists do too.
I thought in the lowest cost 4 year program in all of Massachusetts, and that cost was daunting for some of my students, who did their best to keep up, holding one or two jobs while going to school.
Unfortunately, higher education is not available to all in the US in the same way, most definitely not in the fine arts field, and there is a severe under representation of various groups in art programs across the board.
Unfortunately, certification has become the gateway - not talent, ability and hard work (not apologizing for that "racist" term).
Juan
Juan
There seem to be two points of view on this thread which I think are not mutually exclusive.
On the one hand, there are the people that say, basically, work your ass off and you will reach some level of success.
And the other is that the deck is/was stacked against certain groups and their chances are diminished or non existent.
Well personally I believe in both.
It's possible to believe in hard work and determination and also to believe that there are changes that need to be made to level the proverbial playing field.
In my opinion, the problem at it's core is, when you only believe one of those theories is true.
On the one hand, there are the people that say, basically, work your ass off and you will reach some level of success.
And the other is that the deck is/was stacked against certain groups and their chances are diminished or non existent.
Well personally I believe in both.
It's possible to believe in hard work and determination and also to believe that there are changes that need to be made to level the proverbial playing field.
In my opinion, the problem at it's core is, when you only believe one of those theories is true.
Amen
Many have persisted and overcome adversity; many have not. It's a matter of having the right attitude and some opportunity. Unfortunately a bad attitude can negate some opportunity.
Many have persisted and overcome adversity; many have not. It's a matter of having the right attitude and some opportunity. Unfortunately a bad attitude can negate some opportunity.
Perhaps, but that doesn't make the discussion meaningless, only a bit difficult to reach consensus. We all have our backgrounds and experience. Some have more breadth and open minds than others, but each story is a valid story.
I wonder how many of the greats in photography, both male and female, had a 4 year college education in art. The only ones that are profiting from this obsession with education appear to be the colleges and universities that offer it. At one time there were schools which offered training in photography and only photography.
Speaking strictly of photography, Eastern Florida College here in Cocoa Florida offers a 22 hour curriculum in photography. The cost is $104 per credit hour for Florida residents. Usually an AA degree requires a two years enrollment with approximately 12 hours each semester. There are grants and scholarships available.
Last edited by a moderator:
I put myself through college by working in camera stores, as a draftsman, and a student engineer. When I graduated I got a job at Hughes Aircraft with a Rotation Program [every six months in a new position] and a full fellowship program. So if you would hard you can do it on your own.
I also had a good education in the arts and especially art history as well as loving photography, however I realized by the time that I was 15 that I could not earn a good living in photography or art so I studied mathematics and science as hard as I could. Then I went for a technical field. If you chose a field that does not pay well then go in to the bathroom and look in a mirror to see whose fault the problem belongs to.
Last edited by a moderator:
When I opened my studio in 1976 with no brains and no money, my area of photography was fairly constant.
Color was just taking over in the last few years, although it wasn't very stable. But the industry basically stayed the same for around 25 years, until digital showed up and eventually changed everything.
And that massive change has not only changed my field but changed the general public as well. The entire industry was set on it's head.
Very few people in that time and in that field went to photography schools. Almost all started by the seat of their pants shooting weddings or high school seniors, and the ones who progressed took tons of workshops and seminars to get better.
In fact the success rate for schools like Brooks in Santa Barbara was fairly low for a graduate to end up a working well paid photographer. (if that was their goal)
So in my end of the photography spectrum, schools had a minimal effect on who succeeded and who didn't.
Color was just taking over in the last few years, although it wasn't very stable. But the industry basically stayed the same for around 25 years, until digital showed up and eventually changed everything.
And that massive change has not only changed my field but changed the general public as well. The entire industry was set on it's head.
Very few people in that time and in that field went to photography schools. Almost all started by the seat of their pants shooting weddings or high school seniors, and the ones who progressed took tons of workshops and seminars to get better.
In fact the success rate for schools like Brooks in Santa Barbara was fairly low for a graduate to end up a working well paid photographer. (if that was their goal)
So in my end of the photography spectrum, schools had a minimal effect on who succeeded and who didn't.
Very true. Many careers are locked out to otherwise highly talented people who, for some reason or another, were not able to go or to get a college or university degree. In engineering at least, it used to be the case that experience or demonstration of one's ability over a trial period would suffice to get you moving along a career path. Sadly, that is no longer the case.
I've met many highly talented people who will not get the opportunities they deserve because of this.
I would like to think trade schools or apprenticeships could counter this, but I don't see that happening. I don't know what the solution is, but I think we are all poorer because of it.
Just because you had this experience is not a measure of weather or not someone else would have or could in your stead.
Having a fine arts degree, actually having an MFA is for the most part, the starting point of anyone who hopes to make a stride in the art world today.
Sure - David LaChapelle has neither of those, but that does not say anything about the world.
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2012
- Messages
- 2,660
- Format
- Multi Format
Some people perceive that it is difficult to make a living in the arts. Could this have something to do with the demographics of those attempting to do so? It would not rule out bias based on access and opportunity, but would split how much a discipline/field could be responsible for. In other words, a field may be guilty of bias, but perhaps have less bias than mere grade-school arithmetic would suggest.
Am I wrong for believing life is not a simple all-or-none, us-versus-them dichotomy with no shades of gray?
Is reality a lithograph, or is it continuous-tone?
Am I wrong for believing life is not a simple all-or-none, us-versus-them dichotomy with no shades of gray?
Is reality a lithograph, or is it continuous-tone?
Some would say X zones, Truzi.
That is part of the problem. We know women make less money then men for the same work, and we know minorities are over represented in the lower levels of income, and we see strides to correct those issues as progressive positive societal efforts.
Surely, we cannot say its their fault for earning less or being poor and thus have less choices when it comes to the path to personal fulfillment (or whatever other reason someone decides to go to art school).
Why then not see the problem of under representation of minorities in art schools and women in the arts in general as an extension of the above problem, and strides to correct it (even if merely by acknowledging the fact it is so) the same progressive positive effort?
Blaming the poor for being poor because they do not work hard enough does not absolve 400+ years of systematic and legal disenfranchisement. Yes, it is true, some take advantage of such progressive positive changes to better society for the greater good of all, and that is a small price to pay if it means these in built inequalities discussed in the OP's articles are even slightly alleviated.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 14,232
- Format
- 8x10 Format
An MFA degree looks impressive on your resume when applying for a career delivering pizzas. Otherwise....
- Status
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |