And then what? Has technology made photography irrelevant?

Nescio said:
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...
Click to expand...

Nescio,

I think it's fashionable nowadays to deny the referent - to deny that there's any deeper meaning to a photograph, or to art, etc... I see many artists do this almost as a kind of reflexive response to inquiries from people who ask them about what they do. I would attribute this to a defense mechanism mostly - an artist protecting his muse or daemon whether consciously or in an unconscious attempt to avoid criticism.

Now as to whether or not there's a deeper meaning or pattern to our artistic expressions (ie. photography), I believe that there is NO DOUBT. However, being able to address this as a topic is very delicate because what I see in a photograph may be different from what you see or from what the photographer saw. AND YET, the photograph can also be seen as a expression of a collective and cultural pattern. The well known English photographer Jo Spence wrote many essays on photography from a Marxist class perspective, which is but one way to look at the cultural patterns. I myself would not choose this "lens" but there are a number of others as well. My point however, is that there may not be a single referent. For you that referent may be something quite personal (what Barthes called the "punctum") but collectively the referent will exist as well.

The problem in post-modernism is that the professional standard bearers for the art (high profile photographers, art museum curators, art historians, gallery owners, organizers of major art show such as the Art Basel exhibition which is coming soon to Miami, etc...) are themselves either denying the referent or ignoring it, or pointing to the shocking and ironic as a kind of inside joke on the viewer - the archetype of the iconoclast.

We can no longer rely on the professionals to tell us what things mean collectively. Each professional organization is doing their data mining of the collective meaning space and spinning it to further their own agendas. Advertisers data mine the collective meaning space in order to come up with more profitable ad campaigns, etc... Look at what Facebook is doing in this regard as well. BUT in our highly fragmented modern and post-modern world we are beginning to see through this.

So that was my main point. The meaning of an image or photograph is in each individual's response AND in the collective cultural unconscious. This is a matter of contexts and perspectives. As the democratization of image making proceeds, there will be a greater need to be able to data mine this collective space ourselves to see the chain of causation between sign-signified-referent both individually and collectively. This is learning how to communicate - how to navigate the collective meaning space in order to be more effective in whatever you're trying to accomplish with your images.

One does not need any of this if all they're trying to do is make a pretty picture for themselves, but the current trend in photography is sharing images via social media. But this is also how the owners of these channels obtain free content so that they can make money. If you want to follow the meaning, the referent, follow the money. What's happening is that the collective space is being carved up through corporate balkanization where we are allowed and encouraged to cluster into self-selected groups according to shared meaning and then advertised to accordingly. The fragmentation of the referent has given rise to niche marketing.

I don't know if we'll ever get back to a universally shared sense of meaning in our society. It would require the emergence of a higher order of complexity - a new paradigm in understanding and using images would have to emerge.
 
RedLion said:
Nescio,

I think it's fashionable nowadays to deny the referent - to deny that there's any deeper meaning to a photograph, or to art, etc... I see many artists do this almost as a kind of reflexive response to inquiries from people who ask them about what they do. I would attribute this to a defense mechanism mostly - an artist protecting his muse or daemon whether consciously or in an unconscious attempt to avoid criticism.

Now as to whether or not there's a deeper meaning or pattern to our artistic expressions (ie. photography), I believe that there is NO DOUBT. However, being able to address this as a topic is very delicate because what I see in a photograph may be different from what you see or from what the photographer saw. AND YET, the photograph can also be seen as a expression of a collective and cultural pattern. The well known English photographer Jo Spence wrote many essays on photography from a Marxist class perspective, which is but one way to look at the cultural patterns. I myself would not choose this "lens" but there are a number of others as well. My point however, is that there may not be a single referent. For you that referent may be something quite personal (what Barthes called the "punctum") but collectively the referent will exist as well.

The problem in post-modernism is that the professional standard bearers for the art (high profile photographers, art museum curators, art historians, gallery owners, organizers of major art show such as the Art Basel exhibition which is coming soon to Miami, etc...) are themselves either denying the referent or ignoring it, or pointing to the shocking and ironic as a kind of inside joke on the viewer - the archetype of the iconoclast.

We can no longer rely on the professionals to tell us what things mean collectively. Each professional organization is doing their data mining of the collective meaning space and spinning it to further their own agendas. Advertisers data mine the collective meaning space in order to come up with more profitable ad campaigns, etc... Look at what Facebook is doing in this regard as well. BUT in our highly fragmented modern and post-modern world we are beginning to see through this.

So that was my main point. The meaning of an image or photograph is in each individual's response AND in the collective cultural unconscious. This is a matter of contexts and perspectives. As the democratization of image making proceeds, there will be a greater need to be able to data mine this collective space ourselves to see the chain of causation between sign-signified-referent both individually and collectively. This is learning how to communicate - how to navigate the collective meaning space in order to be more effective in whatever you're trying to accomplish with your images.

One does not need any of this if all they're trying to do is make a pretty picture for themselves, but the current trend in photography is sharing images via social media. But this is also how the owners of these channels obtain free content so that they can make money. If you want to follow the meaning, the referent, follow the money. What's happening is that the collective space is being carved up through corporate balkanization where we are allowed and encouraged to cluster into self-selected groups according to shared meaning and then advertised to accordingly. The fragmentation of the referent has given rise to niche marketing.

I don't know if we'll ever get back to a universally shared sense of meaning in our society. It would require the emergence of a higher order of complexity - a new paradigm in understanding and using images would have to emerge.
Click to expand...

Dear RedLion,

Again, terminology is confusing. Referent in linguistics is nothing more than the object an expression refers to, right? Thus an artist denying there's no other object than what he just created negates the importance of any cultural or artistical expression made before. That's not just plain stupid, but what's even worse, it's a throwback towards 19th century romanticism in which the artist is the sole and exclusive genius behind his creation.

On the other hand, though, I sort of UNDERSTAND any artist's reaction towards contemporary (to him) criticism. I totally agree with you that there's always a "deeper meaning or pattern to (any) artistic expression", but I don't think this meaning can be found INMEDIATELY, at least as a definite (sic) judgement. I'm 100% sure that you agree on this and that we both consider the contemporary art critic as no more than another player in a field where "opinions" or "values" are as volatile and empty as a prostitute's kiss. The (apparent?) opposition you mentioned between the opinion of the individual (be it the artist itself or a mere observer) and the collective appreciation is as old as a bad joke. Stressing the point that we feel some sort of a need to understand the world around us and explain it to ourselves is a favorite hobby of mine (and why some even get paid to explain it to others...).
Obviously, post modernism recognized this, but it didn't resolve the basic dilemma, as it was just a negation of the possibility of the above affirmation.

But let's go back to the artist. Put yourself in one of these archetypical schemes:
A) young or unknown artist doing something "nice" that somehow falls into the great contemporary scheme of things.
B) famous or renowned artist tired of his "untitled nr. 101" series starts a "new line of investigation".

A. will have his first solo exhibition in - preferably - not his hometown. Then some curator or gallerist will send him to a few respected, but still 2nd rate art biennales like the ones held in Korea or Turkey. He or she will have a great time, perhaps get laid, meet future FB-friends etc. Some minor gallery will make a deal with his own for future's sake and with a bit of luck he'll be invited to another more important art fair.

B. has made a statement, and statements in the art world are more important than concepts, as long as you can afford them, that is. He'll be sent all over the world, but of course that is no guarantee his "statement" will be picked up as such. While on the trip, he or she will get laid with someone the age of his/her son, try the best of local gastronomy and, if lucky, some famous gallery, collector or museum will buy him a piece.

You see what I mean? Of course these examples are plain vulgar clichés, though not without some sense of truth (yes, I have friends who did the A route). I'm not confident of making my point clear, but what I'm hinting at is that "meaning" is much more complex than what critics, whether in- or outside the art world, would prefer it to be. "We" can only wait how art is justified. For some it only needs a second, others need 24 hours, but time is a very funny thing to judge man's behavior. So there's my reluctance to go with your discourse on meaning et al, without taking reality, or real life, or whatever you'd like it to call into account. As you stated before, meaning can be both individual and general, but collective in the sense that everyone, or at least a large interested group of individuals takes part into it, to me is not like an A-B thing, but something that opens up to the entire alphabet...


RedLion, I really do hope you're not offended with my down to earth tone of saying things. It' just that I'm afraid that things many a time need to be put with its feet on the ground.


Oh, before I forget, I think there never ever existed something like an "universally shared meaning in our society". That can't be anything else than one of two things: nostalgia for a more comprehensible world, or just elitist bull****.

Nescio

PS: never heard of Jo Spence before, but when I looked her up in Wikipedia, I saw she helped John Healy to publish "The grass Arena", which I have in my library.
 
daveleo said:
In my mind, it is wonderful that people (who are not even hobbysist photographers) can "take nice pictures" with automatic pocket and purse size cameras. That is not a problem for me.

Now, back to what others have implied so well in this thread . . . as a photographer / artist, armed with the same (hi-tek) tools as everyone else, how are YOU going to put the soul in your work?

Photographers really no longer have the advantage of better equipment (better cameras) and "processing knowledge" (lab skills) to make better pictures. Is that a "problem" or a "challenge" for you?
Click to expand...

Yes that is a good point. I also think that it's good to have these tools to make acceptable images and share them easily. After all, that's what people want to do, for the most part. The advent of photography didn't spell the end of painting, and the start of television didn't kill off radio. New technology is decreasing technical limitations and allowing greater access to photography as a medium to an ever-greater number of people. I think that's great.

The problem is if photographers, or artists, were relying on technical know-how or complex equipment to make meaningful images. These people will have quickly found out that there is more to a great image.

HCB didn't work on his own film in the darkroom. He made images that meant something, and left the technical details (for the most part) to someone else. Anyone know the name of the lab assistant who processed HCB's film? Yeah, me either.

Technology only gets you so far.
 
@Nescio,

Thank you for the reply. You make some excellent points and I am pretty much in agreement with them. The subject of "meaning" has many layers of nuance, and often are only revealed over the course of a lifetime. And yet the "differences" in meaning and interpretation between individuals and groups is something valuable and important in and of itself - not something to be resolved or papered over. The "difference" in itself is valuable and meaningful. (example: the movie "Minority Report")

@ D.J. ,
I don't have a blog yet. Some day soon!
 
In some ways the question ("has technology made photography irrelevant?") is a tautology. All answers eventually circle back on themselves.

Photography is a technology. Changes, some call them "advances," in the technology might make a previous iteration less useful, fun, profitable, etc. But the roots remain deep into the original function and intent.

IMO, nearly all photos (is that what we mean by "photography"?) I have ever seen or taken are irrelevant by the standards of nearly all humans, so why blame a newer technology? A better technology would only produce more oddly-framed, forgettable (if sharper) images taken in dark places. Which gets to a more relevant question, what makes a photo relevant?

So, if you are a Very Serious Artist and/or a Picture Seller, you have to ask what produces your best artistic and/or economic results in the short term, which is a question you can probably answer.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
And I thought, “and then what?” Once everyone knows how the magic trick is done, and once everyone has a shill coin and bang ring in their pocket, the magic is gone.

So, the question is, “And then what?”
Click to expand...

Some of the magic goes when you know how a work of art is made. But it shouldn't stop anyone having a go - maybe the bar has been raised and now that everyone can take a well exposed, sharp picture anywhere, anytime it's made it even more of a challenge to do something that works, at whatever level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom