Re: [Leica] Formal education needed?

["Greg J. Lorenzo" <gregj.lorenzo@home.com>]

Amen!

I look forward to your new R Lens book. Where is it sold in Canada?

Regards,

Greg J. Lorenzo
Calgary, Alberta
CANADA

Erwin Puts wrote:
> 
> It is quite remarkable that the insistence of formal education has popped up
> recently and even more remarkable seems to apply to one individual only.
> If we stay in the realm of testing lenses, which according to that ad hoc
> criterium can be done reliably only when having a university degree in
> optics and/or a long working life in a company that designs lenses, we
> should discard all lens testing in the photographic world:
> None of the testers of Chasseurs d'Images has such a degree or working
> experience, nor the Modern Photography testers (Herbert Keppler as example),
> nor the Photo Techniques people (has Mike Johnston (I have forgotten more
> about photography that you will ever know) a degree in these topics?), nor
> has Popular Photography, Photodo, Shutterbug etc, Color Photo, Photo
> Magazin, even the super famous Geoffrey Crawley, cited often in Viewfinder,
> does not have these requirements.
> And to stay on a personal level: have Tom Abrahamson, the staff of
> Viewfinder, and all of the other respected Luggers who occassionally present
> their test results these qualifications? Not to forget Mr Gandy himself!
> What is his track record in these topics?
> It is well known that most photographers do not have formal education in
> their craft or art and still can produce outstanding work.
> To drift a bit: the mechanical clock and  and the invention of the latitude
> as a tool for navigation were invented by amateurs against the formally
> educated university professors who argued against their knowledge.
> Fraunhofer, of the famous glass works and Fraunhofer lines was an amateur
> etc.
> The topic of the necessity of a formal education as a prerequisite for being
> taken serious or being able to perform at all, has a long cultural history.
> The balance of history is in favour of the amateurs. But that as an aside.
> 
> It is quite strange that the individual(s) who demand formal expertise from
> others, do not possess it themselves, and in the same sentence  refer to
> others as reliable and trustworthy sources, who do not qualify either.
> 
> It is evidently the case that this demand for qualifications is not
> introduced as a serious safeguard against quaks or charlatans, but as a very
> blunt and conspicious instrument to fend off and discredit the work of one
> specific individual only.
> 
> Luckely for me the reviews of my book in all magazines are quite positive,
> if not raving. So are the readers. And I did state that I am not formally
> trained in these topics. Some at least are less blinded and more open minded
> than others.
> But you need to have some quality to recognize quality in some body else.
> Read Pirsig: Zen and the Art of Motorcycling for a discussion of these
> topics.
> 
> Erwin
> 
>