And then what? Has technology made photography irrelevant?

[Pickett Wilson]

More in if you want to shoot photos of kids and cats and food, there is nothing wrong with that. It will get you a huge number of Likes on FB.

 

[Exdsc]

"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.

The sort of ambition that drove photographers in the past and still does today is irrelevant.

Not to mention ambition is a socially inherited conditioning, it has nothing to do with talent and creativity.

 

[Nescio]

More in if you want to shoot photos of kids and cats and food, there is nothing wrong with that. It will get you a huge number of Likes on FB.

Just have a look at Karl Lagerfeld's Choupette...:angel:

 

[Pickett Wilson]

I don't understand, Exdsc. Do you think we should all aspire to mediocrity?

 

[Exdsc]

I don't understand, Exdsc. Do you think we should all aspire to mediocrity?

We should enjoy photography and keep our day jobs (or find one).

Photography without any expectation of fame and fortune is the present and future of photography, we must accept that and enjoy photography for purely personal pleasure, a way of exploring the world and recording memories -that is all.

 

[Roger Hicks]

We should enjoy photography and keep our day jobs (or find one).

Photography without any expectation of fame and fortune is the present and future of photography, we must accept that and enjoy photography for purely personal pleasure, a way of exploring the world and recording memories -that is all.

Not all, no. There can after be hope as well as (or instead of) expectation. SOME can earn a crust from photography (or writing, or anything else that some do purely for pleasure).

But it's a good idea to be realistic about how much one can earn, and what one will have to do in order to earn it. Why does the Oldest Profession spring to mind?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

Exdsc, what if, tomorrow, 10 million people suddenly decided to do whatever it is you do for a living, for free! And as a result freed you from having to do it for a paycheck. Would you be so casual about that as you are about photography?

 

[Ming Rider]

Exdsc, what if, tomorrow, 10 million people suddenly decided to do whatever it is you do for a living, for free! And as a result freed you from having to do it for a paycheck. Would you be so casual about that as you are about photography?

If that happened in any profession, quality of product would become a lottery.

 

[it'sawhat?]

Not sure what the original rant was about. the speed of technological change Moore's law covers that and it's been known since the 1960's. If it's the one trick pony thing god there are always fads accept it. And then what who knows and does it matter nope. Quality is as quality does. I have to admit I look at almost no photographs online because I can't stand wasting time sorting through the crap to get to something I like.

 

[Nescio]

If that happened in any profession, quality of product would become a lottery.

Off topic, but, well, it actually happens a lot. And I'm not referring to outsourcing only. I work as a translator, and you wouldn't like to see the s**t I have to edit sometimes. And what's even worse, many end clients don't even care...
Fortunately, I'm Dutch, so at least the competition is somewhat limited.

Nescio

 

[sanmich]

Exdsc, what if, tomorrow, 10 million people suddenly decided to do whatever it is you do for a living, for free! And as a result freed you from having to do it for a paycheck. Would you be so casual about that as you are about photography?

Frankly, I feel for all the professional photographers these days.
Yes, photography as a craft have been democratized to a point where it does impact heavily on the profession. It surely happened to copyist monks after printing have been invented by Gutenberg. I saw it happened at the (late) business of my parents who, in the 80's, where preparing, for good money, presentations and slide shows for big corporations on huge computers (Genigraphics) until powerpoint happened. Every new available technology, specially available to all like we see (video editing, book printing) surely jeopardizes lots of jobs.
Does that mean that there is less meaningful, personal photography?
I doubt it. A camera is still a way of expression and talented artists will always show us something new from time to time. It may only be harder and harder to live from it.

 

[newsgrunt]

Those without the skillset or talent will always go for the low hanging fruit and frankly that's a segment that's really not worth pursuing since the money isn't to be had. There's still a market (smaller yes) for photographers who target those who demand and expect quality work.

 

[Jack Conrad]

This is a very enjoyable thread. Thanks for all the great contributions to it.

 

[Nescio]

@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:

1. From the individual viewer's subjective response to the images.
2. 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.

First, thanks for replying.

Second, I'm utterly pessimistic about "cognitive progress". And not because I'm an old fart - which I am or becoming more quickly as I'd like - but because I have been so since my "Ramones" days (put that just for fun in my other post, some of my all time musical heroes include David Thomas, Nick Cave, Shostakovich, Zappa or Fela Kuti; no joking here). There was a time when I was younger and as an expat had to make a living here in Barcelona as a construction worker. When telling so, many people turned their back on me, so sometimes I mention The Ramones as an innocent private joke).

Having said that - no idea if this was a good idea in the first place, but I won't delete it - I'll try to respond to your points:

1) Bifurcation means there are only two possible ways to go. I don't think there's no more than choosing between two alternatives. Starting to discuss concepts like "meaning" and "significance" is like opening a can of worms, unless we get these very clear from the outset (though I suspect you're riding the semiotic train). What I see and percieve in real life, and that includes the academic world, is a total loss of ANY reference. Not in the sense that references are being questioned, but as being absent. If that's ok with you, I profoundly disagree. There's no future whithout a past.

2) 2.1: That's as it always has been and will continue to be so.
2.2: Nor was it before, unless you mean it to be in a social context. And that hasn't changed, as far as I know. Bloomsbury group perhaps?

Here's my (re)reading list (they're on the top of my desk right now) for the coming months if work gives me a chance and for anyone interested in the subject: The Revolt of the Masses + The Dehumanization of art and Ideas about the Novel, (Ortega y Gasset); The Transfiguration of the Commonplace (Arthur C. Danto); A Philosophy of Mass Art (Noël Carrol).

And please, anyone who reads this, don't think I'm trying to be priggish. I really do like this type of discussion and would like to be able to put some more wood on the fire. For the sake of enlightment.

Nescio

EDIT: electronic music en general bores me to death, but listening to COIL suddenly all is forgiven...

 

[RObert Budding]

Modern cameras are phenomenal, but the fact remains that the vast majority of people take really crappy photos. So don't worry - shoot what you like with cameras that please you.

 

[charjohncarter]

I think the problem is not the technology, but the artist.

As we all know, Shakespeare (a true artist) said, 'there in lies the rub.' But I do see so many photos now that it is overwhelming. I question, that in the last 10 years, if I've lost my ability to say, 'that is a artist.' I'm confused by it all.

 

[rkm]

As we all know, Shakespeare (a true artist) said, 'there in lies the rub.' But I do see so many photos now that it is overwhelming. I question, that in the last 10 years, if I've lost my ability to say, 'that is a artist.' I confused by it all.

I wonder if it is necessary these days to become somewhat of a digital recluse in order to be an artist, in order to drown out the overwhelming clutter of images and messages.

 

[charjohncarter]

I wonder if it is necessary these days to become somewhat of a digital recluse in order to be an artist, in order to drown out the overwhelming clutter of images and messages.

Hey, that is a good idea. In fact, I've been doing that for about 3 months. But not on purpose, I had a surgery and some collateral problems. And now that I see the light of day, I feel more inspired. Thanks for the affirmation. I'll continue to turn off flickr, and read even more than I have over the last 3+ months, look at selected 'artists' and try to be original. Good thoughts, and easy for me; I've always been a loner.

Of course, I'll still be here.

 

[JoeV]

I wonder if it is necessary these days to become somewhat of a digital recluse in order to be an artist, in order to drown out the overwhelming clutter of images and messages.

It's a double-edged sword, in the sense that over-saturation of photographic images might cause one to unintentionally create work that's more than similar to someone else's, perhaps subliminally, while isolation from the art world might also cause one to unintentionally create work that's more than similar to someone else's, through innocent ignorance.

I agree that the volume of imagery being created is a problem, perhaps devaluing all further (and past?) work; yet that's what artists do, create, and I wouldn't want to see it diminish, either. Is it therefore an economic problem, supply and demand? If that be the case, one might expect the "market" (in a broader sense) will sort it out. Let the starving artists starve? Sounds brutal, but art has always had its patrons that serve as a selective process.

~Joe

 

[charjohncarter]

It's a double-edged sword, in the sense that over-saturation of photographic images might cause one to unintentionally create work that's more than similar to someone else's, perhaps subliminally, while isolation from the art world might also cause one to unintentionally create work that's more than similar to someone else's, through innocent ignorance.
~Joe

I guess that the impressionist period is an example of this, with every artist trying to HRD with their brushes to look just a little different than the guy sitting next to them on the Seine. I can't imagine that gorging all that garlic and sucking all those snails was the reason all their work looks the same. Or is too much garlic the reason why the only one I can identify had his ear fall off? Who knows? I guess just do your best and hope you are the one with talent.