Nescio
Well-known
Didn't we got passed post modernism, or is that just a post modernist after thought...?
And then what? Has technology made photography irrelevant?
- Thread starter Pickett Wilson
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 126
- Views 13K
palmerfralick
Established
Personally, I'm not concerned with critiqueing what others photograph. If technology makes it easier to get a certain look, am I or you supposed to feel like we are cheating? Do you lose sleep because it's easier for amateurs to imitate your look?
Almost anyone can buy an exact replica of Jimi Hendrix's Stratocaster and Marshall amp but they cannot steal the art of his soul. Most people just "take" pictures because it's fun and they can show their friends what interests them.
A pro photographer that makes a living doing what he loves is indeed a lucky person and I would think they feel they are in a sort of new golden age because of the increased latitude the new technology allows their expression.
Really, what is there to criticize?
Almost anyone can buy an exact replica of Jimi Hendrix's Stratocaster and Marshall amp but they cannot steal the art of his soul. Most people just "take" pictures because it's fun and they can show their friends what interests them.
A pro photographer that makes a living doing what he loves is indeed a lucky person and I would think they feel they are in a sort of new golden age because of the increased latitude the new technology allows their expression.
Really, what is there to criticize?
paulfish4570
Veteran
deconstructivism failed to take apart postmodernism; it got a new name: neo-post-postmodernism ... 🙂
so, do you take the red pill or the blue pill? or both?
so, do you take the red pill or the blue pill? or both?
TXForester
Well-known
Yes, if for no other reason, it is time consuming and they need to make that time profitable.
I guess I'm not as negative about it. While that may be true in some cases, I'd bet that most of them are there to share knowledge. If you look at photography websites you will find people advertising their workshops, but on those same websites they are giving out advice for free. If they are bilking people, then why give advice for free on the web? I'd give them the benefit of the doubt unless their advertising promises or strongly suggests you will become the next Avedon or David Muench
paulfish4570
Veteran
deconstructivism didn't replace postmodernism; it is a form of criticism/analysis birthed by pm. pm/relativisim is still going strong, in my view.
paulfish4570
Veteran
aye. i'll agree with that ...
newsgrunt
Well-known
That's a very cynical view of workshops. Workshops some of my friends (who are established photojournalists in their own right) have attended.
There is no ulterior motive as far as I know of other than to teach photographers how to improve their work in an intensive week long session. Yes, some of the photographers are serious amateurs with deep pockets who want to say they workshopped with XXX XXXX but most are photographers looking for the knowledge that will allow them to take their work to the next level.
I have friends (WPP winners) who lead workshops and I don't doubt the sincerity of their motivations one iota so I find the notion that they're out to bilk rich amateurs insulting to be honest.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
You're letting your emotional attachment to your friends overrule rational analysis. First off, you cannot make anyone a better photographer, or 'take them to the next level' (whatever the hell that means) in a week, no matter how good the photographer leading the workshop is. Second, these workshops are priced at level that insure that almost no working photographer can afford them. You can take a semester of photography at a good art school or state university art program for what many of these workshops charge for a mere week of 'instruction'. They are an opportunity for wealthy amateurs to pay to say they met some famous photographer in an exotic location.
I understand why the photographers who lead these workshops do it; they're desperate for money. When guys like Peter Turnley, who spent decades making good livings, suddenly start teaching a bunch of workshops...its because their incomes have vanished. It sucks, and I don't blame them for doing what they have to do to make a living today, but I won't pretend its anything but what it is.
newsgrunt
Well-known
nope, no emotional attachment issues here. I think most people are realistic enough that one can not change overnight, let's get real here. a seed has to be planted and then the real work begins but they need something to begin with. obviously this is another revenue stream for photographers but I still don't consider it strictly a blatant cash grab. I also wouldn't put it past schools to think $$ first.
we'll have to agree to disagree I guess.
we'll have to agree to disagree I guess.
RedLion
Come to the Faire
@Nescio,
You make a number of valid points:
1. "But on what I disagree is your perception of a posible cognitive sublimational outturn or result of the popularization of photography."
YES, this is one of the bifurcation points, meaning things could go either way. We're being overrun with a sea of images a thousand miles wide and an inch thick. The old methods and forms of collective meaning making are being demythologized through their commodification, and so begin to lose their ability to generate affect. When this begins to happen to any kind of organism or dissipative structure, it begins to destabilize and become chaotic. It's an opportunity for new containers of meaning to emerge OR for the old repetition-compulsions to try harder to maintain their integrity. What I am saying about the emergence of a deeper cognitive understanding of images taking hold is but one possibility.
2. "Reading images of our time requires a lot more than that in the sense that there are no clear references anymore."
Yes, the references are not "clear." Therefore any possibility of a deeper understanding of the "image" will not be coming from any kind of external standards-setting authority, but from two places:
- From the individual viewer's subjective response to the images.
- From the "differences" between people regarding those images which carry a charge - where people hold passionate differences of opinion. Whether person A or person B's interpretation is correct is NOT important. What's important is the differences and how passionately they are being held. This "difference" describes a vector of magnitude and direction. This vector itself is one understanding of the image - a composite or complex signified.
john_s
Well-known
Why comply with the global monoculture? Take pictures the way you want to.
denizg7
Well-known
With technology we supposedly get more choice in cameras , but I keep seeing the same images over and over and Over again
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Going back to the thread title: "And then what? Has technology made photography irrelevant?"
Photography is tied to "technology". When Niepce and Daguerre introduced "photography" as we reasonably know it, there was a lot of dismay ("omg, is painting dead?"), just as much excitement ("omg, the limits for creativity are limitless"; yeah, like the lightness of light and the darkness of darkness in the outside outdoors...)
Technology has changed (as it constantly has since at least the Renaissance), and many can't seem to catch up. Those that can't or won't adapt, this will always be scary.
When the movable type printing press was invented, the Church choked-up at the thought of a monopoly being shattered. Books could be evil, just like the Internet can be evil (or scary and threatening, at best, as demonstrated in many news "reports").
McCormick's reaper left many asking if farming was dead (and "and now what?"). If they had Internet forums (fora), they'd be panicking about whether humans are irrelevant -- nevermind that humans need to eat.
The internal combustion aka horseless carriage probably had many wondering if it was the end of the horse or if it made walking irrelevant. The telephone didn't render us speechless and the invention of word processing software has not spelled the loss of handwriting. It means things are being done differently than before "technology" made the creation of any of it more accessible.
Photography is still being made, just like people are still harvesting grain and still walking, and g@wd knows far more books are being written than at least 20 years ago. That the bar has been lowered to produce any has meant that the bar for being "relevant" has been raised.
Supply and demand.
Photography is tied to "technology". When Niepce and Daguerre introduced "photography" as we reasonably know it, there was a lot of dismay ("omg, is painting dead?"), just as much excitement ("omg, the limits for creativity are limitless"; yeah, like the lightness of light and the darkness of darkness in the outside outdoors...)
Technology has changed (as it constantly has since at least the Renaissance), and many can't seem to catch up. Those that can't or won't adapt, this will always be scary.
When the movable type printing press was invented, the Church choked-up at the thought of a monopoly being shattered. Books could be evil, just like the Internet can be evil (or scary and threatening, at best, as demonstrated in many news "reports").
McCormick's reaper left many asking if farming was dead (and "and now what?"). If they had Internet forums (fora), they'd be panicking about whether humans are irrelevant -- nevermind that humans need to eat.
The internal combustion aka horseless carriage probably had many wondering if it was the end of the horse or if it made walking irrelevant. The telephone didn't render us speechless and the invention of word processing software has not spelled the loss of handwriting. It means things are being done differently than before "technology" made the creation of any of it more accessible.
Photography is still being made, just like people are still harvesting grain and still walking, and g@wd knows far more books are being written than at least 20 years ago. That the bar has been lowered to produce any has meant that the bar for being "relevant" has been raised.
Supply and demand.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
Gabriel, I think the rapidly accelerating rate of change in technology is what is different now. Related to that, I wonder how folks who have made Facebook or Instagram their primary storage for all of their photos will feel about photography in a few years when both have been replaced with the next new thing, and they have lost all of those photos?
Modern times.
Modern times.
emraphoto
Veteran
in agreement here. i am growing more of the mind that workshops are more valuable than some of the 'modern' college diploma programs. modern dripping with sarcasm of course.
in the photojournalism and documentary end of the industry, what do you need to succeed? where do you find money? who is going to help you and how do you develop a relationship with them? what is your media phone book?
hint - workshops.
a have lectured and taught in a handful of colleges and universities over the past few years and i quickly learnt that very few of the faculty members have much of a grasp on how the rapid change is unfolding. a few of them are actually sending students out looking for 'jobs'? without a body of work for an extra kick to the groin (parents pocket book)
Joakim Målare
Established
"And then what?"
Why is this important? Why is it important to "go forward"? I'm not saying we should go backwards or anywhere else in particular. I'm saying there is plenty material to analyse as it is, for figuring out where photography actually is and what role it does have today. Rather than wondering where to take it.
It is counter-productive to depreciate the achievements of any average hobby photographer based on their skills, their choice of tools, their choice of presentation or whether they have an artistic intent or not. Any given phenomena within the realm of, in this case, photography (applies to whatever really) contributes to the activity and the results thereof as a whole.
I think this thread is more about the competitive side of photography, the urge to be special and more and better and smarter than whoever. The real question is why is THAT important? And when you achieve your fame for some very special contribution of yours to photography - THEN what?
I agree that the internet is fantastic in many ways, but it has also made people more interested in comparing themselves to everyone else, all the time. It does you no good. The answer to our questions regarding what to do next is, as usual, best felt from your stomach. Do what you feel is the most rewarding for you. If photography is causing you a lot of headache, perhaps you should be doing something else?
And no, this post was not meant for anyone in particular. Interesting thread though.
Why is this important? Why is it important to "go forward"? I'm not saying we should go backwards or anywhere else in particular. I'm saying there is plenty material to analyse as it is, for figuring out where photography actually is and what role it does have today. Rather than wondering where to take it.
It is counter-productive to depreciate the achievements of any average hobby photographer based on their skills, their choice of tools, their choice of presentation or whether they have an artistic intent or not. Any given phenomena within the realm of, in this case, photography (applies to whatever really) contributes to the activity and the results thereof as a whole.
I think this thread is more about the competitive side of photography, the urge to be special and more and better and smarter than whoever. The real question is why is THAT important? And when you achieve your fame for some very special contribution of yours to photography - THEN what?
I agree that the internet is fantastic in many ways, but it has also made people more interested in comparing themselves to everyone else, all the time. It does you no good. The answer to our questions regarding what to do next is, as usual, best felt from your stomach. Do what you feel is the most rewarding for you. If photography is causing you a lot of headache, perhaps you should be doing something else?
And no, this post was not meant for anyone in particular. Interesting thread though.
Exdsc
Well-known
First post from a long-time lurker.
What has become irrelevant in the field of still photography is photography as a profession, other than that still photography has been given a new life by technology.
Technology has liberated still photography from the media institutions and political agendas (video is the preferred tool for propaganda today), not to mention the hold of organizations who set unwritten rules in regards to how photos should like like, such as National geographic, Magnum Photos and certain fashion magazines.
Today still photography is a completely free and horizontal activity that anyone can partake in, from the very poor to very rich, from the highly skilled to complete novice. With social media anyone who's half decent at taking photos could have an audience and admirers, they might not make any money but maybe the reason they're able to shoot creatively is with freedom that comes from not working for money.
As always in human history there is doom and gloom for some and new opportunities for others.
Still photography as an aid and extension of human memory will never become irrelevant, it will evolve and become more sophisticated.
What has become irrelevant in the field of still photography is photography as a profession, other than that still photography has been given a new life by technology.
Technology has liberated still photography from the media institutions and political agendas (video is the preferred tool for propaganda today), not to mention the hold of organizations who set unwritten rules in regards to how photos should like like, such as National geographic, Magnum Photos and certain fashion magazines.
Today still photography is a completely free and horizontal activity that anyone can partake in, from the very poor to very rich, from the highly skilled to complete novice. With social media anyone who's half decent at taking photos could have an audience and admirers, they might not make any money but maybe the reason they're able to shoot creatively is with freedom that comes from not working for money.
As always in human history there is doom and gloom for some and new opportunities for others.
Still photography as an aid and extension of human memory will never become irrelevant, it will evolve and become more sophisticated.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
"With social media anyone who's half decent at taking photos could have an audience and admirers"
Indeed. And if that is the limit of your aspiration, then it is a perfectly legitimate end.
Indeed. And if that is the limit of your aspiration, then it is a perfectly legitimate end.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Similar threads
- Article
- Featured
- Article
