Most of you probably are teaching some computer-based still imaging, either in your own lab or one you share with another discipline in your department. If you did what we at Northeastern University did, you added digital courses alongside the conventional courses you already teach. Shared labs worked for a while, but in our case teaching our courses using computers that are set up for graphic designers and animators was less than ideal. We were always reconfiguring them for use with Photoshop, and outputting was a nightmare.
When we got our own lab a couple of years ago, we set up the CPUs for our needs, loaded the applications we used, calibrated our monitors and scanners, and established the workflow for our printers.
We also began a process of looking at our curriculum. I brought the part-time teachers in for a series of meetings. These are some of the most superb and dedicated teachers the large photographic community of Boston has to offer, artists and working professionals all. I wanted to work toward ending the distinction between conventional and digital classes. Up to this point we offered two tracks. First was the conventional curriculum, which included black-and-white photography (intro and advanced), color photography (intro and advanced), the history of photography, alternative processes, the view camera, and, ultimately, preparation of a thesis in the form of a final portfolio. The second track consisted of introductory and advanced digital classes. The idea then was to provide parallel tracks, giving the student the option of emphasizing analog over digital or vice versa.
By two years ago it was clear that our photography majors couldn't afford the luxury of studying only conventional photography. If they were going to be well prepared for a career in photography, digital imaging had to become part of their core studies. In effect, they couldn’t neglect one form of photography for the other.
So, after several meetings in which we discussed our options, I introduced a curriculum that is grounded in analog photography, which allows us to teach photographic seeing, and incorporates digital imaging to bring students into the technology and the incredible flexibility of the outcome. For instance, our intro course, which we teach to majors and vast numbers of non-majors, begins with conventional black-and-white photography, then switches to RA4 color, and ends with digital capture, scanning, and inkjet printing. This is a great deal to get into one semester, and to pretend that this is perfect would be naïve. But what plays through my mind is the scenario of the business major who’s been trying take our intro class as an elective for several years. The student finally has a shot at enrolling in a class in which he or she will make pictures with black-and-white film, develop paper images in trays, and print a final project conventionally on RC paper. I don’t think so. Such a class bears absolutely no relationship to how that person will use photography in the future (or even in the present). If we have one opportunity to teach a non-major photography, don’t we have some responsibility to keep it relevant to the times?
I know. I've succeeded in making you apoplectic. I recognize that there are going to be many points of view on this matter, and there is a strong case to be made for teaching the fundamentals of photographic seeing with traditional photography. But we’re all going to have to change this eventually. The question is, when?
I indicated that our curriculum is far from being perfect. Let's remember that we are teaching to a moving target. Photography is still in transition. Printing is better, capture is improving, but we will still see major changes throughout the next several years to come. What are we going to do in the near future when we know we need to teach more digital, but are heavily invested in the facilities and budget needs of analog photography? My short-term solution is to get rid of RA4 color processing as soon as possible. No student will ever color print this way when he or she graduates. Graduates will need all the color management skills and color eye they developed while learning the RA4 process, but they won’t actually use that process to print again. They will use a computer and, for the foreseeable future, an inkjet printer to make color prints. Take RA4 out of the curriculum and you have a hole big enough to put computer-based still imaging right in its place. Teach color theory and application with the computer. Remove the processor, its heavy-duty maintenance by professional staff (or worse, you), and its color chemistry needs, and you have freed up a little of your tight budget, too.
Last year, Andy Grundberg and I did a pre-accreditation assessment of the Montserrat College of Art in Beverly, MA. They were limping along with a terminal color processor, a conventional 12-enlarger color lab, no dedicated computer lab, and no space. We advised them to kill the processor and convert the color darkroom into a computer lab or shooting studio. They did, and they haven't looked back since. Last year's group of die-hard RA4 students are pleased with the results they’re getting from the new Epson 9600, and the new studio space is benefiting everyone.
If this sounds a little like "What can you give up to get something," it is. Budgets are tight, funds are scarce, and the competition for dollars is always hard, whether you’re in a small school with few resources or a large one like ours. For example, we're competing for funds because my university keeps building new dorms.).
In conclusion, the photography curriculum can no longer teach one method of making pictures without the other. We can still use conventional photography as our base for learning photographic seeing and for addressing some of its tools, but our programming needs to reflect the real world. Here's one way of getting a sense of what I mean: In the first session of your intro course, ask by show of hands how many students have 35mm SLRs and you’ll get a few responses. Ask the same question about digital cameras, and almost everyone will raise their hands.
Because some of the ideas presented in this column may be controversial, we are starting a feedback section to which you may send your views. For example, I would like this column to reflect your views on the issues presented here, your thoughts about your own program, and so on. If you want me to use your response in a future edition, please keep it short. Also, if you have ideas for future topics, please e-mail me at: nrantoul@comcast.net
