Do you need formal training to be great?

[tim]

Do you need formal training in photography to be a great photographer? Or do you just need to understand the basics? Could it even be that formal training hinders natural creativity, shoehorning budding photographers to take photos the same way everyone else does?

Can of worms, open.

[thomasrhee]

Simple answer to the question is NO you do not NEED formal training to be great. There are many examples of great self-taught artists, whether the art form is photography, music, fine arts, cinematography, dance, acting, etc... Also, the reverse is true as well. Formal training in an art form does not automatically make you great.

In any form of fine arts, there are 2 ingredients. Technical ability and creative artistry. IMO, the latter is far more important. Why was Andy Warhol famous/popular and considered a cult icon? Was it because of his technical ability? Or was it because of his immense creativity and individuality? Same holds true for Salvadore Dali, Keith Herring, Pablo Picasso, Vincent van Gogh, Piet Mondrian, etc... Although they all had the technical ability to produce what they envisioned, it was their creativity that sparked interest in their works.

Having said that, I don't believe formal training ever hinders you either. It's always a good thing to understand what the rules are and the theory behind the rules. Once you understand the theory, you can choose to follow the rules or break the rules to your advantage.

Any "art" school whether it be fine arts, music, acting, photography will produce "cookie cutter artists". What seperates the great ones from mediocrity is the creative vision.

tyr

[poke]

...Could it even be that formal training hinders natural creativity...

Its not the training that hinders natural creativity, its a persons inability to see past the training... and tap into their creative soul... and that can happen without training too!!!

[ssim]

I would think that some technical training of some sort would be an add-value to your experience but not necessarily mandatory. I think that Poke said it best, it's all about tapping into your creativity.

It would be interesting to see how many of the people on this board that are true pros, meaning that photography is their primary source of income, had taken any technical training. I would hazard to guess that alot of them started out like many on this board, had a love of photography, found they were good at it and then found out that people were actually willing to pay for their services.

[tim]

Good and interesting points and thoughts so far people :)

I did a basic class when I started getting serious about photography, learning what an aperture was, ISO, etc. It was a fantastic start that i'd recommend to anyone. I'm looking around for a lighing course right now, to teach me the basics of a complex subject.

The guy who ran my beginners course (8 weeks, 2 hours per week in the evening) is a full time professional, I still email him quite regularly for photography advice, and he asks me computer questions - I think I get the better deal there! Anyway, I was telling him a personal trainer at the gym I go to, she's a 5th gear photography student, who's never taken photos with a flash for a college project, and is kinda freaked out about it for her final year project. That just blew me away - flash photography's difficult, but I can get a reasonable shot most of the time, and i've been doing it 6 months not 5 years like her! My tutor passed on something someone told him, all the best students drop out after the first year, beacuse they get snapped up by industry.

Not sure why I told that rather long winded story!