Is teaching photography obsolete?

Today, technology is making teaching the fundamentals of photography ever more complicated.

Sound a bit incredulous?

Fledgling photographers now rely almost entirely on the "auto-everything" features built into cameras. "Just tell me what button to push," a beginning photo student once asked.

With auto focus, auto exposure, auto image stabilizer, auto ISO settings, auto red-eye reducer, and a myriad of other features at our disposal, it's easy to think of photography as an increasingly mechanistic process -- one that is determined almost entirely by predetermined algorithms. Camera makers are already adding features to correct our compositions as well – something with a programmed voice telling us when to move left, right, up or down, or, when we are too close, when to use flash, or when to stop bouncing around.

While the technology allows us to feel more productive and have a greater percentage of pictures turn out fairly well, we must also consider where the rush to resolve our technical incompetencies is taking us.

Camera manufacturers are pitching things such as a Kodak's Smart Scene mode, Nikon's Best Shot Selector, D-Lighting, a One-Touch Portrait mode, Live View mode, built-in digital voice recorders, and even Canon's 45-point high density Area auto focus system.

With all this technology to do the work for us, why do we need teachers? Isn't it possible to simply pick up a camera and start making pictures -- lots of them -- without having to learn how it all works?

Digital photography appears to be keeping pace with our "get more now" culture -- one that is obsessed with immediate gratification.  Unfortunately, this means that when we get what we want and we get it when we want it, we begin to lose our appreciation for the vitality and ritual of the image-making process. So much of our capacity to understand the complexities of the times in which we live require deeper insight and reflection. Yet, digital technologies, although beneficial in so many ways, seem determined to subvert this need for concentration and self-reflection.

In other words, digital technologies may make it even harder for us to sharpen our faculties of observation, imagination and interpretation.

This is where teaching must fit in. Beyond the technologies, photography must continue to evolve as a means for defining “the real” with authenticity and compassion. Teachers must continue to promote making connections, at the highest levels of human consciousness, between emotions and intellect in ways in which we see as well as the ways in which we make the things we see.

In this way the teaching of photography will not become a victim of technological determinacy.

Instead, we must challenge ourselves to examine and redefine how we understand the interstice between productivity and creativity in our image-consciousness culture. We must become increasingly aware of the influences brought into play by the advances of technology so as to not lose the significance that ritual interaction has on humanity.

Pictures, without context and pictures without compassion, are just pictures.

The true value of images in society is that they provide the emotional glue for sustaining the collective memories of our every day existence. From this perspective, it would be difficult to find these capabilities all rolled-up into a fancy auto-everything package.

Comments

[milwjill]

We need to develop a better pedagogy around teaching digital imaging. The educational strategies we used for years in the wet darkroom don't necessaryily apply to the digital darkroom. Is anyone finding any good research on this? I don't want more "How to teach layers." I want more on learning styles, making connections between theory and practice, teaching technological flexibility and intuition, and so on. I look forward to any suggestions.

[r.e traughber]

*sigh*

some photographers are crappy regardless of what mode they shoot in, or how hard they try.

some photographers are brilliant in the same regard.

many photographers would be the last to call what they do 'art' and have built satisfying careers on technical skills alone.

many artists would smack you upside the head for calling what they do photography, even though they make their pieces with a camera and a darkroom.

it's always been this way, and there will always be some sort of debate over which new bits of technology are making some old world professionals feels threatened.
i'm sure someone out there somewhere griped and griped and griped about the advent of 35mm and its availability to the average joe...

the responsibility of the teacher is the same as it has always been, and that is to stay abreast of the trends in your industry and do everything in your power to educate and empower your students in regard to said industry so that they have the skill sets neccessary to build their careers in that industry if they so choose.
which, to me, suggests that you should flat out FORCE your students to milk their cameras for everything they can possibly make them do.

which means teaching them to know the difference between when you should shoot auto and when you should shoot manual for total control.

and frankly, if they can give you consistent Herb Ritts quality off of auto features on their camera, they are sooooooo wasting time taking your class.
and i want to meet them. they must be AMAZING.

in truth, the end all / be all will always be fantastic photographs, and if you are fulfilling your role as a teacher of photography, the work of your students will shine (for the most part... remember... there's always a few pits in the bowl of cherries)

i will, however, note that in a recent interview with an ad agency, the art director was THRILLED that i shoot manual in most sessions. apparently this is rare, and produces better photography.
actually her words were 'better photographer'
i agree with her 100%

you know, what really caught my attention here was the mention that a student had questioned the validity of still shooting manual. and that the question challenged the teacher's philosophy.
don't forget that the student is a student and doesn't know their butt from a hole in the ground. even when they think they do.
trust me, i know. i was that egotistical student from hell. and my professor was right and i was wrong as hell. granted the argument was about context and allegory and not technical issues or working methods, but the point is that you are a seasoned professional and it is your students responsibility to treat you with respect and listen to what you have to teach them.

gawd... if i were this kid's teacher i'd entertain sending him/her out with a view camera from the 1940's and a light meter and tell him/her 'don't come back to my class until you have ten perfect images out of this camera'
and when he/she challenges you tell him/her
'because someday you might be offered an on the spot assignment, but all you have to work with is some old pentax k1000 and a roll of fuji. i want you to knock their socks off instead of telling them the pics would have been better if you'd had your own gear to do the thinking for you'

i think they will get the drift.

wow - this turned into a rant...

[Joe Zammit-Lucia]

If digital technology is making teachers obsolete it's because they were bad teachers. In any subject, it has always been easier to spend time teaching the technical aspects of the subject. Any monkey can do that which is why most curricula are full of class after class of the technical aspects of photography. Things that could be compressed into two classes are bloated into a full term. Why? To make sure nobody has to get into the serious business of teaching about the 'soul' of a subject. If too much time were devoted to that it would become painfully obvious that most teachers would fall short. Yeah - let's all get back to worrying about apertures and shutter speeds and I'm sure that the world of photojournalism would be so much enriched.

[Elizabeth]

Teaching photography is always going to be important! It is still an art to set up the shot, the moods, everything! Even if the cameras are getting more and more advanced, the manual camera will always be viewed as a wonderful art tool.

[Shaminder Dulai]

Of course teachers will still be needed! What I learned from you wasn't: how to focus, how an aperture works or what a shutter does to a background. I had already learned all that in high school.

What I learned from you was waiting for the moment, to start thinking like a documentarian, the psychology of holding a camera (I still hold verticals with my elbow in) and your famous "3 I's"

That's what teachers are for, to take you beyond the gadgets. I wouldn't be the shooter I am today if it weren't for you.

[Karin]

I agree that digital photography has allowed picture taking to become more automated, but a day doesn't go by where I am asked questions about photography. I find that the fact that everything is automated has made people even more lazy... there might be a handful of auto functions on a camera, but no one takes the time to understand when to use which function. In my experience, the resulting photographs from "auto" everything pales in comparison to someone who truly understands photography and that's only touching upon the technical side of things. Master the technical side of photography is a skill while storytelling is another. As you mentioned, great photography is about the "emotional glue."

[Mário]

Teaching photography must never just be about the technical skills necessary. It is just the foundation to enable us to create the body of work that means something to us (be it artistic, journalistic or comercial, or documentary. Even if you are learning to became a picture editor, what is really important is tho learn observation and reflections skills. Technology evolves all the time, but all the other skills that are important, don't evolve that much.