Art cannot be taught; it can only be focused. Artists cannot be made; they can only be born. All true, very true, at least according to popular principle. But if so, why then should any artist attend an art school (let alone pay for it, too)? The answer is almost always the same: to mingle with other artists and to have a good time. But with expenses soaring, and with the concept of art itself constantly in flux, the compromise of being schooled in the arts has never been more prevalent than in the film industry.

Aspiring filmmakers, unlike artists in other mediums, must swim in a sea of self-doubt. Not only is the craft of filmmaking considered a passionate art form to some, but it also considered to be a business to others; no less driven by money and statistics. This confused and diluted divergence prevents the medium from collecting into a more united front compared to, say, the art of classical music. No classical musician will disagree that form and composition are of importance. In the film industry, passionate stories are interchangeable with more marketable ones. So then, what are the benefits of film school? Is it good for aspiring artists, or for instilling sound business ethics?

Both, actually. Diluted as it may be, that may very well be the only way to properly "teach" this medium, a medium comprised of artists and businessmen. It's an uneasy coexistence, but the most successful filmmakers are hybrid artists who can manage their successes. That's not to say that film school is a must for anyone who seeks a successful career. Indeed, the controversy of being schooled stems from anti-film school mentality. But 'anti' is such a strong word. There is a need for film schools just as much as there isn't. This is to say that both are solid, even choices. Film school does teach, perhaps more so than being self-taught. Because what film schools do, good film schools, is provide more networking options, options that would otherwise be less accessible to non-students.

The question is not whether film schools teach. They certainly do. They teach at least equally to being self-taught; at least they provide the same opportunities. But the advantages of film school present themselves almost abstractedly. It provides an open forum in which to input and output information. Unlike being self-taught, schools create a sound environment in which to accelerate learning and, just as well, to network students, professors, and professionals. Counter this with a lack of film school, and fewer opportunities present themselves. Not that being self-taught is a bad thing; aspiring filmmakers can get along fine on their own. But with the exception of expenses, film school presents no hard detractions to anyone who wishes to fully absorb the experience. This forum of related pursuits with fellow filmmakers generates the number one principle of career building: networking. Those who do not attend film school can benefit the same thing, but certainly at a respective loss.