Gentleman Villain wrote in post #10411035
It would provide a point of reference and a way for the intellect to counter-balance the senses.
Right now there is no point of reference for technical standards so buyers and up-n-coming photographers can only rely on their own randomn likes and dislikes based on the senses in order to make decisions. A sense or sensibility cannot (and should not) be measured. However, a reliance on the senses is basically anarchy because each person has a unique and personal sensibility. Artists should understand better than anyone the importance of balance. A sense of aesthetics is personal and random, but a technical standard can be universal and rigidly measured. It's important to understand that mastery of technique requires intellect while taste only requires a sensibility. The senses must be balanced with the intellect in order to create great work and possibly even high art through a union between the two.
Those that do not have a mastery of technique can only rely on the anarchy of their own personal random likes/dislikes and senses. They will never have the balance necessary to create great work. Right now, there is no measurable technical standard enforced by photographers to counter the senses and that this why photography is not taken very seriously as an art or as a profession.
You're totally right that a guild or an academic approach will never stop 300 dollar craigs list shooters. But that's not the point at all. Low art must exist in order for high art to exist. Bad photography must exist for good photography to exist. There must be balance. The purpose behind the creation of guilds and academic approaches is to provide a balance to the low end by creating a high end. An intellectual standard is required to balance the randomness of the senses.
The problem with the idea of a guild is that it will turn political -- guaranteed. By that I mean that membership will be decided based on a person's personal connections rather than any skill they might demonstrate (or, at the very least, the importance of demonstrating such skill will be greatly diminished in the face of personal connections). If mere knowledge of technique is sufficient then you haven't the need for a guild at all, as graduation from a photography school or a university with a major or minor in photography would clearly be more than sufficient demonstration of said knowledge.
What you fail to account for is the fact that as with equipment, knowledge and technique are not sufficient for producing a good photograph worthy of being called "professional". What we would call a good photograph goes beyond that, and intrudes well into the realm of aesthetics -- precisely the domain which you claim you do not intend the guild you propose to judge.
And just as certifications do not really tell you whether or not the certification holder really understands anything (I've interviewed more than enough people to know this all too well), so too will membership in the guild you propose similarly not tell you anything about whether or not the guild member is capable of taking good photographs.
No, as nice an idea it might be in theory, I guarantee it will fail spectacularly in practice. I'd rather let the free market do its thing.
?
.
(but substitute "Guild Worthy")
.... thanks.
