I have always been a huge music fan. A few years ago I bought a guitar and I've had a blast learning the basics. One day I would love to play professionally but I'm not exactly sure how to get paid for my music. I'm considering paying $100,000 for someone to teach me how to play guitar.
Now you may be thinking that I must be really rich to be willing to spend so much to learn to play guitar but I'm not. In fact, I don't have any money saved at all. Luckily I can get a loan for $100,000 and that should cover my guitar classes. Once I finish learning how to play guitar I will slowly pay this loan back with interest for the majority of the rest of my life but at least I will know how to play guitar better.
You might also be thinking that for $100,000 I'm going to be learning from a really famous and successful musician, but that isn't the case. Although I'm sure there are many legitimate guitar teachers out there, I'm going to learn from someone locally who tried to become a professional musician but could never make enough money in the music industry so they decided to teach guitar lessons instead. Sure I could assist local musicians, pay for workshops with established guitar players, or teach myself with much cheaper online content but I would prefer to pay $100,000 because I will be more motivated to learn if I spend the money.
I'm going to spend 4 years of my life working on chords and scales. I'm going to go to class every day with students just like me who are artists and want to make music for a living. Recording and marketing an album or planning and negotiating live performances is a very complicated business and we won't be focusing on that aspect of guitar. For 4 years I will mainly focus on the technical side of playing guitar. 99% of all recordings are digital these days but my classes are going to teach me the more "pure" analog recording techniques which are much more artistic.
After I graduate with over $100,000 in debt I will probably be asked to play guitar at events like my friends weddings but I would never take those jobs, they would be below me. I'm an artist now right? Instead, I'm going to get a job and Starbucks while I work on my music. Over time I will join and leave a few bands and as I gain more hours at Starbucks, I will slowly lose the ability to play guitar even for fun because I will be too busy working. Eventually I will give up on my dream of playing music because I'll realize things like "the industry isn't what it used to be." At this point I will have more debt than the day I left guitar school but at least I would know how to play guitar better and I'll have my guitar school degree.
Now I realize that nobody in the music industry cares if I've been to school for guitar and I know that the majority of the professional musicians working today also didn't go to school for their craft but I still think this is my best option.
So basically that's my plan. Should I do it? I really do love playing guitar.
I love this post! I went to film school in 1996 and had to drop out because my school wasn't teaching digital photography or non linear editing. The education I was paying through the nose for was out of date. When I was denied several internships because of my lack of education on industry standard digital platforms, I choose to save my money and drop out! It was financially the best move I've ever made. When I finally did land a job working as a photographer I wasn't facing a mountain of school loans that I had to pay back. In photography your judged by your demonstrated skills and no one really cares where you pick up those skills.
Great comparison.
very very clever awsome post, same thing about buying camera gear and stuff. its very tempting to get a loan and buy all the good stuff at first i think its good to learn and it is possible to creat awsome pics with very basic stuff!
Okay, definitely good stuff. I enjoyed the humor. I don't think that college is useless per se (nor do I think that was strictly the point) but dropping 100K on an "education" that can be had for a fraction of the cost, when you can't afford the payments? Seems foolish to me. No degree guarantees success, and if you have the money to burn, go for it. But I've seen the sales pitch from these art schools and they are selling a product, pure and simple. Is it a bad product? Not necessarily. Is it overpriced and ill adapted in certain subjects? I'll venture a yes.
Did the author go to school for photography? if not, what gives him the right to knock it off? I'm in school for photography now, it has afforded me opportunities I would of never gotten if I didn't go to school. I have daily access to dozens of strobes, professional equipment, and studio space. Going to school has also allowed me to focus 100% of my time to photography. I don't need to work and do photography on the side; my school work is photography related, my work is photography related, I am surrounded by like minded people 8-10 hours a day.
Most of the greatest modern day photographers (1980's - now) have formal training in either the arts or photography. Granted you don't need to be the most knowledgeable person to shooting weddings, but you do need to have to be well versed with your lighting in order to get the $15,000 for a single photo jobs.
But in the end who cares. You have made up your choice not to go to school, and you'll be competing with people who were able to dedicate 2 - 4 full years of their lives to understanding light and exposure. You could post an image to a forum hoping for a good critique, and I can ask my prof ( and get an instant reply). You can pay $300 for a few hours of studio time, and I can just use my schools studio for free ( we have multiple studios for student use)
Just my $0.02
Seriously? Guest writer and unsigned,
An opinion of a complete random dude nobody cares about because no one knows who it is!
People need to know who you are for your opinion to matter? Either your opinion has a point or it doesn't.
Seriously? And this is coming from anon?
The point is that you can learn how to become a photographer from a photography school but what they don't teach you at those schools is business or marketing. These students are spending 4 years learning how to make photographs but not how to run a business. How to run a business is what they need to be teaching along side of photography. When you are running your own photography business there are two sides to it, the photography know how and the business know how.
http://esferapublica.org/nfblog/?p=23857
The Teaching of Art as Fraud
(in Spanish)
But aside the business skills that are "required" to successfully hit the market, just in case you're making art as a product, the point would be, paraphrasing Nelson Goodman, not the amount of information you possess, but how you use it, arrange it and put it to work.
Of course, being lectured in lighting, composition, lenses, sensible surfaces, "the process" and "post-processing"; business skills, marketing, social networking, etc., gives you advantage over others, perhaps great advantage, but that does not imply that what you create will be trascendent.
The link I share to the article in Spanish gives interesting insights on this very topic.
Interesting how this "pseudo-Guitar" article generates so many comments. Guess we all learned the difference between the "real world" vs "school classes". Furthermore, play the guitar (or camera) a lot, meet many other musicians, play at concerts, at the pub, around bonfires... try a new guitar every now and then, record your creations, create some compositions for your friends, share them, go nuts and even create some for money while you're at it!! Go beyond, but definitely keep doing what you love!
This kind of mock op-ed is snide, snooty, and frankly, below the Fstoppers brand. I'm not surprised the author's name isn't on this "article". Because it's a weak play on a chickensh!t rant. Baiting your readership is lame tabloid hucksterism. Are the site's founders busy frying bigger fish these days? Who's minding the shop? I can't remember seeing a more snore-inducing piece of passive aggression on an otherwise quality publication.
I attended about 3 years of college, dropped out and went to make my fortune as a photographer, lol. With years of experience, I ended up producing cable TV commercials, getting the TV Commercial Producer (big title, little pay) due to my experience in lighting, writing, voice-over, and other skills I acquired over the years. My assistant editor, who possessed a four-year graphic design degree, did not qualify for my job even though she was a terrific editor, since part of the job qualifications included "the ability to haul tons of equipment." I am a big, strong guy. She was petite. The degree didn't matter. Same thing when I worked for a major retailer's corporate photography studio. Everyone wanted to go shoot on location. I was always assigned because I could carry a lot of equipment.
Fstoppers continues to insist that some of the articles they post and headlines they choose aren't just to promote site hits and increase site revenue - articles like this prove otherwise.
Honestly guys, 75% of your stuff is pure gold, but this stuff really brings you down.
I think you have pissed off any music majors that are here. They do however learn discipline, correct music theory, have insite, learn on multiple instruments, have peer review, and starting placement practicom or internships.
I understand what your article says buts lacks any real thought.
You can technically say the same about any job or field. I'm going through MIT's online lectures now to learn python programming and physic. Would I think it lesser of people who actually go there to learn and spend bank on school?
The thing is, I've played guitar since I was 9 years old. I have earned money playing guitar. I went to college to study classical guitar. I did all of it because I love guitar. I later changed my major to English because carpel tunnel got the better of me. Practicing 6 or 7 hours a day took its tool and I finished out my BA in English with a minor in music. Three years ago I got a DSLR for Christmas. I really got into it and bought another pro level DSLR. I've purchased several lenses since then as well. I really love photography as well. I have earned money taking photos and I have built up a portfolio. Thing is I love art. I love to play music, and I love to take photos. I feel kind of insulted by this article. I'm not even sure what kind of point you are making. I'm not sure I will be the best at anything but I do know that I love all the art I engage in. I have a college education. I'm actually working in IT these days as a Database Administrator. The only money I spent learning how to become a DBA was in the books I read and the lessons I learned on the job. I have a career as a DBA by only spending money on some books. No $100,000 investment in education required :) If you're trying to make the point that it's not the investment into something that makes you good or not it's your love and passion for it that drives you then you probably didn't have to be this subtle. However, your article is really raising some eyebrows so in some ways it is successful. If there is some sarcastic relation to photography you're trying to pitch like - "you don't need to invest a $100,000 into photography to be successful at it" then you might as well have said that ;) I can tell you this much, this article goes a long way towards saying "something." Too bad this article is too full of itself to know what it might be :)