I was curious about the Royal Photographic Society and had a brief look at the 'ARPS' title that one can apply for with them. My curiosity revolved around the question how to interpret the title - i.e. what does it really mean in the real world?
A brief summary as I understand the process: one becomes member of the RPS, then applies for the ARPS title (or the lower-level LRPS; Associate resp. Licenciate or the RPS), which involves submitting a modestly sized body of work within strict guidelines. Based on expert judgement (I could not find who these would be, how many or what specific criteria would be applied) the RPS decides whether or not to grant the title. The title can then be used by the member for as long as they remain a member of the RPS, which involves payment of its annual membership fee.
I do not know, nor do I get a clear picture of what the ARPS title really constitutes, or how it might help advance a photographer's practice (whether as a hobby, or professionally). Could anyone shed some light onto this?
What I can glean is that the RPS organizes a kind of advisory sessions where people can bring their work and they receive some advice (supposedly on composition and technique, but again, I don't really know) - including advice on whether or not to apply for an LRPS or ARPS title.
If one would look at this from a highly cynical viewpoint, the whole thing looks like a kind of pyramid scheme with a built-in gatekeeper function. Lure in as many punters as possible so as to ensure a stable or growing cashflow, but ensure that there's a desirability to being allowed in by feigning scarcity. But I'm aware that this might be too critical a perspective to take. Still, the question of what the value and relevance of the titles really is. Perhaps they're designed to serve mostly as a stimulus for photographers to develop themselves? If that's the case, then that hinges on the titles functioning as some kind of badge of honor. Does it work that way, or is there more going on?
I'm aware that the RPS offers all manner of services and engages in activities that IMO are arguably beneficial to the photographic community - think of maintaining collections, organizing exhibitions and workshops, putting young talent in the spotlight. But what's up with the titles?
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?
Speaking more in general:
What kind of role does the assessment of experts associated with a society or club like the RPS play in the advancement of photographic practice? Is it a simulus, or does it result in cementing some sort of conservatism?
For photographers, what benefit is there to potential 'vanity' activities like obtaining a title that's essentially paid for (not specifically/necessarily those of the RPS; see questions above), or vanity exhbitions or publications?
To give a tiny bit of context, insofar as it matters: people have proposed to me that I would organize an exhibition of my own 'work', but I never found a solid reason to do so, so I always turned it down. I have a friend (not a photographer) who is in the process of self-publishing a book he wrote (basically a memoir) and intends to sell copies to at least make up for the investment. And while I've read it with pleasure because, well, he's my friend - it's something I would probably never do, as again, I don't quite see the point in doing so. So I find these things puzzling, somewhat iffy/uncomfortable sometimes, although at the same time I find them rather amusing as well.
A brief summary as I understand the process: one becomes member of the RPS, then applies for the ARPS title (or the lower-level LRPS; Associate resp. Licenciate or the RPS), which involves submitting a modestly sized body of work within strict guidelines. Based on expert judgement (I could not find who these would be, how many or what specific criteria would be applied) the RPS decides whether or not to grant the title. The title can then be used by the member for as long as they remain a member of the RPS, which involves payment of its annual membership fee.
I do not know, nor do I get a clear picture of what the ARPS title really constitutes, or how it might help advance a photographer's practice (whether as a hobby, or professionally). Could anyone shed some light onto this?
What I can glean is that the RPS organizes a kind of advisory sessions where people can bring their work and they receive some advice (supposedly on composition and technique, but again, I don't really know) - including advice on whether or not to apply for an LRPS or ARPS title.
If one would look at this from a highly cynical viewpoint, the whole thing looks like a kind of pyramid scheme with a built-in gatekeeper function. Lure in as many punters as possible so as to ensure a stable or growing cashflow, but ensure that there's a desirability to being allowed in by feigning scarcity. But I'm aware that this might be too critical a perspective to take. Still, the question of what the value and relevance of the titles really is. Perhaps they're designed to serve mostly as a stimulus for photographers to develop themselves? If that's the case, then that hinges on the titles functioning as some kind of badge of honor. Does it work that way, or is there more going on?
I'm aware that the RPS offers all manner of services and engages in activities that IMO are arguably beneficial to the photographic community - think of maintaining collections, organizing exhibitions and workshops, putting young talent in the spotlight. But what's up with the titles?
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?
Speaking more in general:
What kind of role does the assessment of experts associated with a society or club like the RPS play in the advancement of photographic practice? Is it a simulus, or does it result in cementing some sort of conservatism?
For photographers, what benefit is there to potential 'vanity' activities like obtaining a title that's essentially paid for (not specifically/necessarily those of the RPS; see questions above), or vanity exhbitions or publications?
To give a tiny bit of context, insofar as it matters: people have proposed to me that I would organize an exhibition of my own 'work', but I never found a solid reason to do so, so I always turned it down. I have a friend (not a photographer) who is in the process of self-publishing a book he wrote (basically a memoir) and intends to sell copies to at least make up for the investment. And while I've read it with pleasure because, well, he's my friend - it's something I would probably never do, as again, I don't quite see the point in doing so. So I find these things puzzling, somewhat iffy/uncomfortable sometimes, although at the same time I find them rather amusing as well.
Last edited:
