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.