The Academic Perspective?

bjorke said:

Tsk. DR & Quinch rules. Plus they let him kill Superman in the 80's before the John Byrne retread of Krypton... and the whole first and second acts of Miracleman (aka Marvelman): brilliant (and much copied since)

Kimota!

Click to expand...

I'll be looking for a copy in my pigeonhole. Will I?

Steve Smith said:

One of our college lecturers used to say that it was more important to know where or how to look for the answer to a problem than to actually know it.

Click to expand...

That's also been my experience: over the course of my MA I figured out I could be an "expert" about pretty much every topic within a week. Just joking, of course, but I mean that once you know how to look for information, your knowledge can take a great leap forward.

mhv said:

... once you know how to look for information, your knowledge can take a great leap forward.

Click to expand...

The basis, in fact, of journalism.

Roger Hicks said:

The basis, in fact, of journalism.

Click to expand...

True, but you do it in a different manner between journalism and academia.

mhv said:

True, but you do it in a different manner between journalism and academia.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily, or at least, not always. Footnoting is the main difference, and I have long thought that many academics use footnotes because they are expected to, not because it makes an iota of difference to their argument; again, Eco provides a wonderful example of how much (and how little) to use footnotes. A scientific paper where you are building on the work of others is very different from (let us say) art history or philosophy or even sociology.

Roger Hicks said:

A scientific paper where you are building on the work of others is very different from (let us say) art history or philosophy or even sociology.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that at all; old-school philosophy or literary study were more "armchair and a pen" type of practices, but open any modern journal published by the MLA or similar organisations and you'll find the same citation pattern, the same literature reviews, etc.

That is valid for all social sciences, as well as humanities like philosophy, art history, literary studies, or my own humble MA thesis.

I know you will probably dispute this claim on the exact meaning of "building on the work of others," but the time of citation-less papers is long gone.

mhv said:

...the time of citation-less papers is long gone.

Click to expand...

Yes, but why?

My own suspicion is that form has triumphed over function: as long as it looks like a paper, with lots of citations, it is accepted at face value. The citations are a substitute for originality, imposed by a pseudo-academic clique that is terrified to admit its own inadequacy.

Or have you another explanation? I say this not to be combative, but because I can't think of one.

Roger Hicks said:

Yes, but why?

My own suspicion is that form has triumphed over function: as long as it looks like a paper, with lots of citations, it is accepted at face value. The citations are a substitute for originality, imposed by a pseudo-academic clique that is terrified to admit its own inadequacy.

Or have you another explanation? I say this not to be combative, but because I can't think of one.

Click to expand...

Why do you assume it's only form to use that writing paradigm? It does not bother you with science papers, but it does with the humanities/social sciences.

As to the reasons why we cite, the first one is intellectual honesty: you give to Caesar what is his. The second is that most papers answer to a previous argument. The third is that there is no such thing as studying "just the text" in literature, even when you're making a rather plain New Critical reading. You need secondary sources to elucidate a point, you refer to someone else's expertise in biography, history, philosophy, languages, philology, etc.

Do you think historians should not cite their sources? Do you think sociologists have no philosophical underpinnings that their readers should be aware of? Is a literature scholar supposed to understand everything about a novel just by reading it?

These disciplines are full of bozos, just like any other, but there is nothing about them that entails they should not go through the processes of peer-reviewing, literature reviews, etc.

Hegel used to say about philosophy, and I think it applies to many disciplines in the humanities as well "No other art, no other science is exposed to such a degree of scorn that everyone believes they are skilled in it." Kind of like photography, eh?

Yes, I know about the Sokal story, and he did a great service to us all by exposing the phonies. However, it's easy to make a faulty generalization and consider that all humanities scholars are the same.

I'll be the first to rant against all the wankers I see in literature, but I will not discredit the discipline because of them.

mhv said:

Why do you assume it's only form to use that writing paradigm? It does not bother you with science papers, but it does with the humanities/social sciences.

Click to expand...

It is not the idea of citations that bothers me: it is the quantity, and the apparent expectation that every statement, even of the bleedin' obvious, should be backed up with a citation.

Yes, give all credit where credit is due; but equally assume, as a patent does, that readers will be 'skilled in the art' and do not need to be told everything as if they were undergraduate students.

Besides, do you find a modern paper, crawling with footnotes, any more informative (let alone readable) than the type of robust statement of argument, minimally footnoted, that once was the norm?

Overflowing of citation sure can be annoying. But compared to a normal biochemistery paper, a humanities paper is much more readable if we talk about footnote/signal ratio.

And in science they even quote the bleeding obvious at least three times because they have amazing citation search tools that find forward and backward references at the same time.

Is it more informative? I think so. It's heavy reading, but an academic paper is not meant to be an essay. And I don't think we lack robust arguments.

I'm a non-academic in photography but an academic in another field that is quite related to photography on the technical side. Despite my science career, while in College was I very deeply immersed in literature and critical theory and maintained my readings in that area, so I have two or maybe three minds about this issue!

Foremost, I do value critical theory and critique, but frankly I get as annoyed as anyone when I read a criticism penned by someone who has no practical experience or measurable artistic output of their own. I simply don't feel how someone can understand the artistic process, in its entirety, without themselves having been through that process. So I very strongly value comments from photographers who have been through that process, and that's why I'm here.

In school I spent many semesters in critical theory- Kant, Benjamin, Habermas, Berger, and all the rest. It always irked me that none of these fellows had any measurable artistic output but could so casually project all manner of political and social shadings onto others' artwork, and then pass judgement as if they themselves were completely detached from the realities of the artistic (and funding!) process.

On the flip side, when I start thinking about a photo project, I do invest a fair amount of time investigating what others have done before, and questioning what my true motivation is, in some (usually vain) attempt to try to find an original approach and distill my thinking. That is one positive aspect of analytical academic training, it does sometimes help one to identify what is fresh and original, versus what is an homage.

The bottom line for me is that art requires analytical and synthetic approaches, interwoven and balanced. I know very well that one of my issues is that I can get "stuck" and overthink things and then have a contrived result. At that point, beer usually helps.

mhv said:

Overflowing of citation sure can be annoying. But compared to a normal biochemistery paper, a humanities paper is much more readable if we talk about footnote/signal ratio.

And in science they even quote the bleeding obvious at least three times because they have amazing citation search tools that find forward and backward references at the same time.

Is it more informative? I think so. It's heavy reading, but an academic paper is not meant to be an essay. And I don't think we lack robust arguments.

Click to expand...

No argument about the first or second paragraphs, but I genuinely do believe that academically, more is worse. A good academic paper should indeed read like an essay; the worse it reads, the further it has departed from its purpose, which is advancing the sum of human knowledge.

You have no doubt encountered those who, because they are academically shaky, are required to do their master's degree by examination, not dissertation. Well, I was accepted for an LL.M. (normally by examination) on condition that I did it by dissertation... Alas I found no funding, so my thesis on Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act of 1753, and the relative ease of marriage and divorce in the UK over the next 200 years, was never written.

Now, the common law is perhaps the most citation-ridden discipline of all, not in numbers of citations, but in their weight. Perhaps it is because of a legal background that I dislike an excess of footnotes: as Cicero said, when the law is against you, argue justice, and when justice is against you, argue the law. Too many academic papers seem to me to argue the law...

Roger Hicks said:

No argument about the first or second paragraphs, but I genuinely do believe that academically, more is worse. A good academic paper should indeed read like an essay; the worse it reads, the further it has departed from its purpose, which is advancing the sum of human knowledge.

Click to expand...

Well, I agree in part with the necessity of producing essay-style papers. While I don't think we can drop the highly technical, annoyingly pedant and profusely footnoted papers, academics also have a duty to synthesize their thoughts in a more accessible manner.

The crux of the problem is this: if you're a young professor, before tenure, you need to accumulate a certain volume of peer-reviewed papers, and book chapters or monographs. In other words, you will get real credit only for the purely technical writing you do. If you write a more accessible essay, it does not contribute to your career advancement. Even if you write a major bestseller, it will not help your academic career. Worse, you might get snickers from the tenured.

Some schools recognize the value of vulgarised knowledge distribution, but they are a minority. The academic foundation for which I work is in fact in the process of funding such kind of writing precisely because none of the major granting agency will ever let you have their money for a book that Penguin can publish.

So we have gained something by the specialization of academic writing, but we have put it in an either/or dialectic regarding more accessible forms of writing, while it should be a "both" situation instead.

mhv said:

Well, I agree in part with the necessity of producing essay-style papers. While I don't think we can drop the highly technical, annoyingly pedant and profusely footnoted papers, academics also have a duty to synthesize their thoughts in a more accessible manner.

The crux of the problem is this: if you're a young professor, before tenure, you need to accumulate a certain volume of peer-reviewed papers, and book chapters or monographs. In other words, you will get real credit only for the purely technical writing you do. If you write a more accessible essay, it does not contribute to your career advancement. Even if you write a major bestseller, it will not help your academic career. Worse, you might get snickers from the tenured.

Some schools recognize the value of vulgarised knowledge distribution, but they are a minority. The academic foundation for which I work is in fact in the process of funding such kind of writing precisely because none of the major granting agency will ever let you have their money for a book that Penguin can publish.

So we have gained something by the specialization of academic writing, but we have put it in an either/or dialectic regarding more accessible forms of writing, while it should be a "both" situation instead.

Click to expand...

As so often, we are in very substantial agreement; but I suspect that one of the problems is that tenure today is, unless I misunderstand, as much in the hands of professional administrators as of scholars -- and my proposition is that it is the administrators who insist upon a form that is over-reliant upon citations, and upon a quota of academic papers.

Or am I wrong? My contacts with academia have for decades been slender, and growing slenderer.

Roger Hicks said:

My own suspicion is that form has triumphed over function: as long as it looks like a paper, with lots of citations, it is accepted at face value.

Click to expand...

Michel has given a good list of reasons why citations are justified in any academic paper. There is another reason, though, why they seem to have become ever more extensive over the past thirty years or more. Academic tenure in US universities is only granted to a small proportion of the academic staff, with the rest (to a greater or lesser extent) depending for the continuance of their jobs on a regular review process: an element of this review is how often the work of the person concerned has been cited by other workers in the field in the leading journals. Hence there has been a tendency to cite anything that is even elliptically relevant to the article in hand, in the (usually fulfilled) hope that it will be reciprocated.

Even once tenure is secure, universities want to see their staff regularly cited because it is seen as being good for the university's profile - my father, for example, a full professor at NYU, gets asked annually what degrees and honourary degrees he holds, what he has published, what conferences he has been invited to speak at, what peer-review panels and editorial boards he is on, and where his work has been cited. Clearly the last of these is the least important, and often it is hard to know the answer fully, but nonetheless the question is, even after he has had secure tenure for years, still asked.

That is not to disagree with Michel's comments about why citations are necessary, but it is a side-light on why there seem to be more of them than there used to be.



Peter

Dear Peter,

Ah! This would certainly go a long way to explaining citation overload. And does it not come back to some extent to my last question to Michel, about who determines tenure?

Cheers,

Roger

I did a half year course in photography in high school. It taught me a lot of basics my dad wasn't willing to teach (he's of the "here's some books, teach yourself" school of thought) and to be honest I couldn't have learned at home because my mom wouldn't let "chemicals" into the house and we had well water and a septic tank anyway. I attempted to get into university for an BA(Hons) Fine Art degree and instead got offered a place on a Further Education course of Foundation in Art & Design. That was very difficult. I got told my stuff was "too fresh" and was basically berated for my foreign education and therefore I was allegedly not up to scratch to the other students. That shifted me back from fine art to photography which I chose to "major" in for the last 2/3rds of the course. It was great. We were allowed the freedom to choose subjects fairly widely. The tutor helped with questions. I passed this course and went on to start a BA(Hons) Photography course at the same school with the intent of focusing more on "fine art" type photography than technical photography. A lot less flexibility on choosing subjects within the briefs. Lots of peer critiques and encouraging the sort of drivel that spouts out of the likes of Tracey Emin, et al. Eventually during a peer critique I thought... why the heck are you guys lying? You didn't take that picture because you thought "the flow of the pattern" was interesting or whatever, you took it because you liked it and the tutor is encouraging you to lie about your work to pass it off as fine art. I quit the course soon after that. I didn't learn very much technical information at university. I fed my prints through a B&W developer machine. I never learned about FB paper. I never learned about film developers and the different effects they have on a negative; something I'm mostly concentrating on teaching myself slowly.
I took a timeout from all photography for about 2-3 years... only snapshots on a d-cam (which is still my only d-cam). I eventually sort of started getting back into it... I'd occasionally buy some developer and stop and fix to process a film or two but that was it because I didn't have a way of scanning or printing (no enlarger).
About November or so last year, my husband started to get lured into trying some photography. I offered to help teach him. We ended up with a rather nice enlarger and darkroom kit from flea-bay. Since then I've been a much more happy camper about photography and learning as I go along. I don't have to answer to anyone or to any brief and I can feel happy to say, I took this picture because it looked nice and not be told to elaborate in fancy smancy words because no one will take me seriously otherwise.

So that's my personal take on education and photography and where it comes from.

TheFlyingCamera
I've gotten lots of jokes about my undergraduate degree - English Literature is usually seen as qualifying one for being the most articulate cashier at McDonalds. While it never got me a job by itself, coupled with other qualifications, it has actually been a big plus, because people in the business world have seen it as proof that I can communicate effectively.

Lopaka
Absolutely. Good communication skills are key…

In fact, majority of artists (and high profile scientists too) and very bad in communication with other people, and also very bad businessman. They are the best performer when are in their own world. The reason is that they from childhood were concentrated on their work not on communication with other for what to learn they never find time…. fortunately.

Whenever I see good standing and nice talking artist, I am back to check something about his work…
And to photographers: if you earn a lot (for careless living) you will in most cases never arive to the world of art. To be the poor is terible advantage.

www.Leica-R.com

Daniel_OB said:

kayge
Sorry - am I going off? I just hate it when people spout things they don't have any education on!

So what you think how many on this Apug are photo-educ yet argue with anyone. I think you are correct, but if all on Apug think that way this site will die. I will not be far off the truth if say max 0.00001% of all "photographers" have some education in photography. So what now? The problem I see is that photography is not a good business so why to study? Some that study it see them free from some math problems (like on e.g. engineering) and great possibility to get "education" on the "easy way". Another side is get used camera register business for $80 and it is all, he/she is a "pro". Now all are same, unlike one that buy injection will never be a doctor. So where is now education in photography?

www.Leica-R.com

Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand what I said completely. I was talking about people who have no knowledge on a subject (nowhere did I specify photography) and then spout off on it. Much like my example that I gave. I wasn't talking about photography specifically.

Other than that, I'm sorry, I didn't understand your post very well.

Bandicoot said:

More than that though, I firmly believe that a good academic training (I use the word good advisedly, not all courses of study meet the criterion) is as much about teaching one to think and, particularly, to analyse as it is about teaching the 'subject'. These skills are as helpful to photographers (despite that fact that as a profession they are often almost proudly uneducable) as to any other activity. And, perhaps learning how to think helps with the challenge of learning to see.

Click to expand...

Amen, I couldn't have said it better myself!

Peter - your adventures sound amazing - were these while you were doing research, or while you were the project photographer?

That is something I would love to get into. My two loves, together at last!

mhv said:

Oh no, keep it coming! With art/literature, the single most annoying thing I hear is that "it's all opinion and yours is as good as mine."

Click to expand...

When will the world learn that some things are NOT opinions, and not everybody's opinion is equally valued? It goes back to that knowledge and understanding issue - if you have an opinion but it is not based on fact or any sort of logic, of course it's not an equal opinion. Of course this isn't the case for everything, but that little discussion over keeping animals with a friend is still on my mind and still infuriating me. He said "well it's my opinion". Yes, but it wasn't based on fact or logic! Gah!

Okay, going off again...

davetravis said:

Over the years, I've talked to many folks at the art shows. Most have no scholarship in art or photography.
In my life, I've only had one intro to photography college course. I've known all levels of academics, 2, 4, 6, even 8 years of education. In some cases it seems to have helped them accomplish their photographic goals. But after reviewing some of their works, I didn't see where the schooling helped improve their eye. It's like you have it or you don't. For myself, sometimes I'm glad I skipped formal education in the arts. I believe I'm more free to screw up, and to get it right.
DT

Click to expand...

I'm quoting myself, what's up that?
What I forgot to mention was the importance of real world experience, and how that was the one real thing that made me a better photog.
I have a photo library of about 30 books, have read and studied all the masters.
But it wasn't until I joined a local photo club, and submitted monthly slides to their competition that I began to do self-analysis of my work.
Learning directly from other photogs was worth more to me than all those books sitting on the shelve.
DT

Dave- I absolutely agree that what first and foremost makes you a better photographer is the same thing that gets you to Carnegie Hall- practice practice practice.

I would disagree however that viewing images by other photographers in books is radically different from viewing images by other photographers in a camera club slide competition. It is only by viewing the work of others that we come to know what is possible, to attempt it ourselves. Certainly, it is easier to get an answer about "how did you do THAT?" from the live person across the table than it is from the book if the book doesn't have the exact question you want to ask written out with the answer beside it. Books aren't as interactive as people are.

I think you're somewhat missing the spirit of the original question though - If I'm not mistaken, the purpose of the original question was to ask if you have ever done academic work relating to photography, and how does that academic work influence the photos you take. Personally, having a background in art history and pre-modern literature has had a big influence on my photography, because it has inspired the kinds of images I like to create. I draw on image and textual referents from antiquity to the Renaissance, just as the painters and poets and playwrights of the Renaissance did, and artists have continued to do up until nearly the modern period. With the arrival of the post-modern, abstract expressionist movements, the interest in relating to those humanist ideas has gone away, to be replaced by a de-humanization and abstraction to the point that art is now only about art, and not about the people who make it. I want my artwork to bring back the human element in art, and to keep it relevant to the audiences who view it.

That's how my academic background influences my photography.

I think the other part of my question that I may not have put across so plainly was that I was curious to know whether exposure to theories of aesthetics, sociology of art, cultural critique, etc, which all dissect and turn inside out works of art, have had any influence on your work.

For example, one of my former roommates did his BFA and MFA in photography, and they are always describing their artistic project in terms that are more often seen in academic papers: the gaze, the mirror, Lacanian psychoanalytics, Barthesian semiotics, and many other things that I actually dispute in parts or in totality. Mind you, I really like his work, and find that in fact it's his references to other works of art, not theory that makes his photos interesting (lots of Goya, Beckett, Jeff Wall, etc).

It's a weird byproduct of the academicization of art grants: they are judged by professors and scholars, so the artist talk the talk.

I study a good deal of aesthetics for my MA, and have wondered often whether this has anything to do with the practice of photography. I find it useful to elucidate, post-facto, what is going on in a photo, but so far I don't see it as a justification, or a motivation for, the creation of actual work, the way artists like my former roomate did. Cartier-Bresson said something similar about rules of composition: it's something you discover after you take the photo, not a mask you put on your viewfinder.

So far, what influences me is rather the other work in photography and visual arts I have seen. It's what helps me to give form and shape, to guide what I do.

mhv said:

I think the other part of my question that I may not have put across so plainly was that I was curious to know whether exposure to theories of aesthetics, sociology of art, cultural critique, etc, which all dissect and turn inside out works of art, have had any influence on your work.

Click to expand...

Almost certainly not. My views on the relationship and art and craft before the Romantic movement (Goethe onwards) and late 19th/early 20th century Movements in general (especially the Fauves, the low point in my estimation) do however instill in me a deep suspicion of anyone who feels a need to found or belong to a Movement or to provide verbal backing to a visual medium. Then again, I find some movements more sympathetic than others, sometimes because it's so easy to see how they press the buttons: Socialist Realism, for example. By studying others' work, I learn how to press which buttons.

mhv said:

I think the other part of my question that I may not have put across so plainly was that I was curious to know whether exposure to theories of aesthetics, sociology of art, cultural critique, etc, which all dissect and turn inside out works of art, have had any influence on your work.

Click to expand...

No, I don't think any of this has ever influenced my own work - whether it's study of literature (re writing) or study of photography (re taking photographs). If anything the opposite is true - if I thought about it too much it would get in the way. I think anyway the critic and the practitioner are two very different roles and some of the best critics have never picked up a paintbrush or camera (or writing note-book) in their lives.

What has influenced me is the emotional experience of works of art - whether books, paintings, photographs - and most certainly by that I mean the works themselves and not anything that was ever written about them (which I may be interested in on another level, but it would have no immediate relevance to my own creativity in any way).

The main effect my academic work in history and philosophy has on my photography is to allow me independence from academic art theory. Much contemporary art criticism makes me cringe. Before my graduate work in epistemology, though, I migh've thought that I was the problem, but now it's fairly easy to figure out the ridiculous, or at least questionable, assumptions made by these critics.