Graduation

and I imagine you can flush your own loo too!

 

He cant reach, he has to have a box.

 

I read somewhere that RTT was short for Rich The Titch. is that true? and is that the same titch as was on TheModFathers?

 

Yeah, it's short for rich. Not sure about themodfathers part tho

btw, tomorrow, i'll post some pictures from my yearbook to show you europeans what an american graduation looks like

 

whats a year book???








[/sarcasm]

 

our yearbooks were printed in time for last day before exams in year 11 so we could get everyone to sign them, as well as shirts, ties, ....

I can see the point of a suit for some kind of end-of-school celebration but tbh the cloak and mortarboard thing seems a little daft - to those going to uni it's silly compared to proper graduations, and to those not going to uni, it's probably down-right patronising....

 

Sorry, I've been sleeping all day (from 4pm to 9pm ), forgot to upload pictures, will try tomorrow.

edit: decided I'm too lazy to hookup the scanner

We got our yearbooks about a month before school let out

 

Er...this is a joke, right? How else do you account for those photography graduates who obtained their degrees from the Blackpool and Fylde Art College (such as Pookeyhead aka David himself), and the Journalism graduates who got theirs from the London College of Printing? And let's not forget Central Saint Martins...

 

theres always exceptions to every rule.....

non-academic degrees dont really count anyhow, cos lets face it they are not proper degrees.

 

Aheheheh, nice try.

Anyhow, why do non-academic degrees not count?

I doubt anyone who's ever done those courses would consider them 'non-academic'. Besides, there are very few courses these days that are solely academic with no consideration for the practical...

 

Hmm... surely they count if you're in a non academic career? Besides, how do you define a non academic career? You would assume photography is non-academic, but the lion's share of the work involved is not really taking photos at all. It's art history and other contextual studies. It's the study of communication and semiotics for example. Any prat can take a photo, but being able to communicate visually is most certainly an academic subject... if you have any doubt, I welcome you (if it were possible) to take it up with people like Susan Sontag, who would no doubt give you a severe intellectual raping for your presumption

 

getting back to the main point, i meant it as a generalisation of a general rule.

For the most part colleges in the UK do not offer degree level qualifications....
Most of them deal with A level students.

As for non-academic degrees, i do look down on them. Not because of the subject matter (which tend to be things i appreciate more than most), but because having a qualification in those subjects is largely useless.

It would be like johnny wilkinson going for a degree in rugby...

if you go for a job in photography, which will they look at more, your portfolio or your academic qualifications? In such jobs it is the creativity that matters, and it is silly giving a qualification in something that is an inate gift and cannot be taught.

what im trying to say is that justbecause someone has a 1st in art from cambridge really doesn't mean they are better artists than the guy who sits on the street drawing pictures of tourists....

hence in my view non-academic degrees dont count.

and bring on this sontag lady, so i can give her an intellectual arse raping for your presumption that i wouldn't beat her in an argument...

 

Well.. first of all... whilst I know relatively little about you, I do find it unlikely that you would best one of the foremost academics of our times dealing with media and communication. Whilst I have no doubt that you're far from Mr Numpty.. you'd have to furnish me with something other than an opinion before I accept that on face value

I'm confused by this... All undergraduate students are A level students... or they wouldn't be undergraduates.. as for graduate students, nearly all good colleges offer graduate courses, and just as many of them are held in high regard. To say that only universities offer degrees of any worth, is a silly, and slightly elitist statement for which you probably have no real facts to substantiate it... it appears to be just an opinion.

There are no "jobs" in photography... besides.. In a way you are right.. no one would ask to see my degree, and yes, they would ask to see my portfolio, and yes, that would be far more influential. However, what you fail to understand, is that without the EDUCATION, your photos would probably be crap. I'm not talking about technicalities here... any prat can take a sharp, well exposed photograph.. i'm talking about being versed in visual communication. How to encode an image.. to say what you need to say... to sway an opinion. Just take a look at work of people like Dorothea Lange, Robert Cappa, or Don McCullin... and then tell me that these people were just photographers. They shaped the development of the 20th century! People like Moholy Nagy... without which there would BE no art colleges.. anywhere.

Art IS an academic subject, and as such, requires being taught with as much diligence and acuity as any other. Like most people, you just take for granted the images you are bombarded with on a daily basis, and don't give a moment's thought to any of them when you look in magazines etc. It's not just photographers either,.. it's art directors, advertising personel, researchers, writers.. all these things are "art" based careers, but I promise you this, all these people will have degrees... and probably from colleges. Whilst no one cares about their degree per se, without it, they wouldn't be where they are. SO, I put it to you that in "non academic" careers, the degree is paramount... not because people ask to see it at interviews, but rather because without the EDUCATION you received whilst attaining it, you would not be ther person you are. Any schlep can drag his ass through Uni, get a 2:2 in a dry, dusty academic subject, and be totally crap, and then just flash his degree at interview time... woohoo! That makes it a worthwhile degree, because it gets you a job? You and I have differing views on what makes a degree worthwhile: You put great stock in it's ability to pay dividends when you look for work; treat it as a passkey to attaining a career. Me? I see it as not an end itself, but merely something you attain at the end; to me, it's not the piece of paper, but what you have become whilst studying to acheive it.

This could well be true, but it's a rather immature view of what constitutes art. Art is not about how GOOD the painting is... it's about what it says!!!! L.S Lowry... from a technical point of view... was completely rubbish. It's not his skill as a painter in any technical sense that made him the renowned artist he is. Most uneducated people would dismiss his work as crap, and probably think that the average sidewalk artist is indeed better. Are they right? Is it fair to say "I know what I like" and leave it at that? Is a painting "good" just because it's technically brilliant? I put it to you that it's just boring.

Art needs to say something.. it needs to be able to influence. This is usually through having a deep understanding of how to communicate visually, or in the case of many artists, just having been through so much ****, that they can't help but pour out their souls onto the canvas. This is why "art" classes, and courses teaching you "how to" paint, or "how to" take photographs, are useless.

You are probably getting the two confused. You are looking at the subject from a standpoint of one who probably DID study a purely practical, academic subject, such as computing in some form, for example. In that case, the degree is "worth" more in a practical sense, yes. People WILL ask to see it at your interview, and a good degree, from a good college or uni will get you the job. In my line of work, then no, they won't care, so it's easy for someone in your field to dismiss the degree as useless. However... what you fail to understand, is that getting a good degree in my field ENABLES you to PRODUCE the work that you have in your portfolio. The portfolio matters more than the degree, yes, I grant you that, but without the degree, you'll be just another amateur photographer, obsessed with lenses and shutter speeds, taking boring travel photos or some other pap. The education received enables you to have the skills and ability to SPEAK visually.

I can study a practical subject, get my degree... and promptly forget almost everything I've been taught... and still attain work on the strength of me having that piece of paper. I could probably still perform adequately in my job, and no one would care, because it's all factual, or technical... a job is right, or wrong.. a computer either works, or it doesn't... there's no grey area like there is in art. Plus... where art DOES enter the realm of computers... in graphics, animation, and game design, then again... it's your folio of work that matters... not a degree... but again... would you be able to produce the work WITHOUT the education?

If you expect me to check that lot for typos... you're mad... so if there are any, I apologise

 

as you know little about me please refrain from telling me what i think. Just because you infer something from something i have said means in no way that it has to be true....

do you deliberately try to misunderstand me? An A Level student is someone who is studying for their a levels. not an undergraduate (who is someone studying for a degree, before you tell me it is anyone without a degree). Incidentally alll undergraduate students are not A-level students due to large amounts of foreigners, and scots who have a different education system to the rest of the UK.

silly ? no , pragmatic? yes. its an opinion? oh really, congratulations for stating the obvious.

put it this way, if i have a degree from an old, well established, university, lets day Bristol Uni. And then someone else has the exact same degree with the same class, say a 2:1, from say some college, or even a "university" with a worse reputation, say UEA (no offence intended to anyone there )

Which do u think is more likely to get given an interview if they all apply for the same job? That is why a degree from a respected university has more worth than one from other institutions.

please, stop telling me what you think i think....

i do see a degree as more than simply getting a job. But that imho is the only way you can compare two degrees. Course content/teaching quality is clearly about the only difference between two degrees but that is far too subjective a quality to be able to attribute values to. So that leaves what the "piece of paper" can do for you over everyone elses "piece of paper"....

On the subject of photography/art degrees, yes clearly you dont go there an not learn anything. I never said you didnt learn new techniques or improve your knowledge of the subject in any way.

What i did say was that the actual degree itself was of not much value, and by the degree, i again mean the piece of paper. Due to the fact that the portfolio of any artist is more important than the qualification, one might ask why they bother giving a qualification in it in the first place...

I dont know where u launched into this diatribe from I just used the word "better".
did i comment on the technical skills of one artists vs another compared to what their work "says".
No, i didn't. But apparently im an uncultured philistine for not launching into an in depth critique of all artists ever!

also: yes there are jobs in photography: i dont know what else ud call say, someone like richard greenley who is a professional portrait photographer, or even they guys who take the photos for national geographic. If theys people arent in photography jobs i dont know what they do....

its seems here that you agree with me. I did a maths degree, and it would be a mental impossibility for me to deduce every single theorem i encountered during my education, for a subject like maths. as newton said it is all about "standing on the shoulders of giants" meaning that the work he did couldnt have been accomplished without the work of the great mathematicans before him.

Where as the most amazing peice of art (or even photograph) ever produced could far more easily be accomplished by someone with no formal education in art (or photography).

you cannot be at the top of the field in maths without some form of education whereas you can in art. One can infer from that, that a maths degree has more worth than an art one because the expansion in skills of the maths student will be arguably larger than that of the art student whose native artistic gifts theoretically would remain much the same.

likewise: sorry for spelling/grammar mistakes

 

I would think that in those circumstances, the one most demonstrably able to do the job, and who interviews the best would get it, not the one with the most prestigeous degree. There's more to interviews than dumbly sitting there whilst someone reviews your CV, as you well know.

With a purely academic subject perhaps, but if you look at the quality of portfolios leaving Blackpool vs. those leaving Bournmouth for example.. it's quite clear which is the best college, and hence degree. It is easier to measure such things with an art subject. The Blackpool Photographers are clearly better which is why it's regarded as the best photography course in Europe. I wonder how you arrive at your conclusions, as you already pointed out that with a purely academic subject, it's "too subjective a quality to be able to attribute values to".

No.. I didnt. I hardly learned any techniques at all. That's not what a photography degree is about. If you're not already technically competent, you won't get on the course. It's not about that at all. It's all about putting images into context.. how to USE them.

Simply because you have done the studying like everyone else... so why not? Yers, it IS about your work more than it is the degree.. of course, but we are debating the WORTH of a degree. Whilst the piece of paper is of far less importance in my field, the COURSE... the EDUCATION you attain whilst gaining that paper is supremely important... far more than in most other subjects.

Because you mentioned a street artist being as good as someone who graduated from a prestigeous uni, based on technical merit only. Art is not about how good you are technically. Was Malevich technically good? His greatest work is a white square on a white background... nothing clever about that in itself, but if you understand what he was trying to say, it suddenly becomes clever. Without the education behind you, you're just an idiot savant, making pretty pictures.

I'm sorry.. but there are no "jobs" in photography. These people are self-employed and freelance. No one employs them. The guys who shoot for NG are commissioned by them, yes, but they aren't employed by them... all photographers are freelance... unless you work for a crappy high street studio chain like Venture... which is the lowest of the low. Yes... being a photograoher is a job... but you're a self-employed, sole trader working on a freelance basis, and as such, you don't have to attend "interviews" in the same way you would have to, or be offered a permanent position. You show your book at an ad agency or whatever, and hope your work is better than the other guys they look at... they either call you or they dont. You may only work once a month.. which is why a top advertising photographer earns around £8000 per day plus expenses.

Being a photographer is 5% taking photos, and 95% marketing yourself... which is another aspect of the education you recieve. Media studies, semiotics and communication studies are the most valuable tools available to you in marketing. You think ad execs who create a killer ad campaign just dreamt it up over drinks one night in the pub? If so, don't belive the hype... these people are academics... they understand what buttons to push.. they pwn your ass! and it's the skills of the photographer or cinematographer to translate this. The study of semiotics is potentially one of the most important fields there is... ever. It won't discover new galaxies, or cure cancer, no.. but it helps to generate wealth and commerce, as well as be a good stodgy academic saw horse... and without money... the world grinds to a halt.

Sorry... went off on one then.. but it's all relevent.

Well. I don't agree with you. Whether it's formal or not is open to debate... all great artists have studied art. Van Gogh for instance, would not be what he is without Paul Gauguin. You'll find almost all renowned artists studied at some level, either at college, or under the tuteleage of someone else... as you say "Shoulders of Giants". It's incredibly rare that you get a raw talent created in a cultural, or academic vaccuum.

Again, it's unlikely that you can without an education in art of SOME form. I don't presume to lecture you on mathematics, because I'm not qualified to, yet you presume to debate points which you know little about with an authority ill suited to you. One's artistic gifts do NOT remain unchanged with education... FAR from it. By artistic gifts, I will assume you mean the ability to render marks on a surface with accuracy; technical ability. Well.. that too will change with education, but surprisingly little, what WILL change however, is how you use the medium, and that is what counts. A picture that says nothing is not art. Many impressionists painted landscapes, but just what is it that makes Monet so good at it? He understands colour, and what it means to us.. how we interpret it. He understand how juxtaposition of elements can create emotions in us. Without any of these skills... he's just a no mark that makes pretty pictures. This is a skill that comes with both life experience, and education!! By studying the worls of others in an intensive, controlled environment. This image of an artist living this bohemean, or perhaps a lonely existance is crap... they all studied... on an academic level, and they studied HARD!

meh... so long as i understand you, and you I.

 

And if you are both done making the most rediculously long forum posts known to man?

 

he he... he started it

 

think ull find u did in objecting to something i said
but i dont want to read another novela in response (i didnt even bother starting with the last one) ....

i guess were just gonna have to disagree......

 

Well my Dad's bigger than your Dad.

 

/shuts door