Herein lies the future

[kbg32]

http://petapixel.com/2013/05/22/on-the-constant-moment/

An interesting read where photography is headed. It also helps explain the one word I can't stand and how it has become appropriated, "curated", and how it has begun to be applied today.

 

[porktaco]

maybe. i don't think people want to wade through ten minutes of crappy lifecasting to see one beautiful view. the great thing about still photography is that you get to the f'ing point.

 

[jsrockit]

maybe. i don't think people want to wade through ten minutes of crappy lifecasting to see one beautiful view. the great thing about still photography is that you get to the f'ing point.

I agree. There will always be room for good composition / framing and precise editing of content.

 

[Exdsc]

That article is so bad, its good.

 

[kbg32]

You're missing the point. Of course there will always be, at least for now, some sort of editing, but we're getting to the point where the photographer doesn't even have to be there, present, to take the photo. One can sit at one's desk, and remotely, watch the world go by, editing "moments".

Is this something I want to do? No. Who was that gentleman who put together an exhibition by taking photographs off of Google world-wide street views??

 

[kbg32]

That article is so bad, its good.

Precisely. This is not my generation, but if you give pause and think about the possibilities, it can be mind blowing. The generation Xs and younger, understand the world differently then we do. I fear for my son's future. He's 4. Younger generations know nothing about or care about history. Just care about whatever is in front of them. I grew up watching technology develop. I remember the first color TV a neighbor got and he pointed it out his den window so everyone could watch. While it's a good thing, people forget how to interact with each other. Walk into any modern day IT department and try to have a conversation with an under 30 tech. Sure there are and will be exceptions. Painful.

 

[Aristophanes]

You're missing the point. Of there will always be, at least for now, some sort of editing, but we're getting to the point where the photographer doesn't even have to be there, present, to take the photo. One can sit at one's desk, and remotely, watch the world go by, editing "moments".

Is this something I want to do? No. Who was that gentleman who put together an exhibition by taking photographs off of Google world-wide street views??

Tethering by another name, except over the network.

I once watched a surgeon do a remote procedure over a network link. Works for medicine. Will certainly have applications for photography. I think some wildlife photography will benefit enormously from this.

 

[Exdsc]

Precisely. This is not my generation, but if you give pause and think about the possibilities, it can be mind blowing. The generation Xs and younger, understand the world differently then we do. I fear for my son's future. He's 4. Younger generations know nothing about or care about history. Just care about whatever is in front of them. I grew up watching technology develop. I remember the first color TV a neighbor got and he pointed it out his den window so everyone could watch. While it's a good thing, people forget how to interact with each other. Walk into any modern day IT department and try to have a conversation with an under 30 tech. Sure there are and will be exceptions. Painful.

The beauty of photography is that it liberates one from the tyranny of words and writing.

Photographers don't sit and write long articles about photography, photographers take photos, that is the discipline.

 

[shadowfox]

From the article:
"The Constant Moment eliminates dumb luck from photography."

I don't consider dumb-luck a bad thing in photography. I am marvelled by what I can produce from a shot that I didn't expect anything from.

Constant Moment... an oxymoron?

 

[Exdsc]

"Constant moment" is an oxymoron.

How could one take seriously an article that its premise starts with an oxymoron.... i mean common, seriously...

 

[S.H.]

maybe. i don't think people want to wade through ten minutes of crappy lifecasting to see one beautiful view. the great thing about still photography is that you get to the f'ing point.

Yes. And getting to the point is the really difficult part, the rest is just technicalities.

 

[kbg32]

The beauty of photography is that it liberates one from the tyranny of words and writing.

Photographers don't sit and write long articles about photography, photographers take photos, that is the discipline.

Isn't "discipline" a kind of tyranny?

 

[Exdsc]

Isn't "discipline" a kind of tyranny?

Its a framework that a photographer opts for, its not forced by an outside factor.

Writing is all rules and regulations that has been established and cannot be broken, in photography there are no rules. Photography thrives on breaking whatever rules gets established around it.

Photographers who have been prolific writers i. e. Ansel Adams, have written with pictures always being part of their text, others such as HCB, well, his photos are his 'writings'.

 

[MarylandBill]

http://petapixel.com/2013/05/22/on-the-constant-moment/

An interesting read where photography is headed. It also helps explain the one word I can't stand and how it has become appropriated, "curated", and how it has begun to be applied today.

If we want to describe what the author of that article is proposing as art, that is fine, but I wouldn't call it photography any more than I would call performance art painting (since in fact the author of the article seems to link painting and performance art).

From a photography perspective, it essentially removes any camera skill from the equation and replaces it with at most editing skill.

But another thought I have is that this world the author describes is about a world devoid of privacy. Its one thing to have a photographer intruding in someone's life for a moment and capturing one or two shots. It is quite another to essentially be watched every moment and then have the "artist" later select what they deem to be the best image. Sure perhaps it might be the best artistic images, but it might be the most salacious ones. Indeed, I could see this being used by neighborhood gossips and bullies as much as by artists.

--
Bill

 

[kbg32]

Its a framework that a photographer opts for, its not forced by an outside factor.

Writing is all rules and regulations that has been established and cannot be broken, in photography there are no rules. Photography thrives on breaking whatever rules gets established around it.

Photographers who have been prolific writers i. e. Ansel Adams, have written with pictures always being part of their text, others such as HCB, well, his photos are his 'writings'.

Your last sentence contradicts one of your previous posts. BTW, rules in writing, as well as photography, can be broken.

But we're getting far away from the origins of this post. I was hoping for an interesting discussion.

 

[Exdsc]

Your last sentence contradicts one of your previous posts. BTW, rules in writing, as well as photography, can be broken. Depends upon the context.

But we're getting far away from the origins of this post. I was hoping for an interesting discussion.

Writing rules cannot be broken, if you do people get upset. breaking writing rules, such as in some subcultures, hip hop, its almost like an act of rebellion.

Breaking the 'rules' is one of the essential components of all great photography works.

 

[kbg32]

Breaking the 'rules' is one of the essential components of all great photography works.

Writing as well. People get upset anyway.

 

[Sparrow]

Spank yourself. Take a photo doing so.

Now you are both disciplined and a photographer.

... now that's art 😀😀

 

[MarylandBill]

I lack talent so I practice, that is my discipline.

Except for a few (extremely rare) prodigies, talent and practice are essentially synonymous. No one becomes a great photographer, writer, painter or other sort of artist without practice (I think the general rule of thumb is something like 10,000 hours is necessary). Yes, some people seem to have a particular talent for a particular medium, but it is hard to say whether that is innate or because they simply practice more than their contemporaries.

--
Bill

 

[Papercut]

At the lowest common denominator level, the article is nothing more than a re-statement of "technology (broadly speaking) allows for new forms and methods of artistic work". I'll leave it to someone to decide whether the new work will still fall under "photography".

What I find fascinating, though, is the question of editing. Sifting through the amount of data from the kinds of image-making technology described in that article would seem to be a monumental task. I'm actually uninterested in the question of whether setting up remote capture stations and then sifting through the downloads is or is not art. (For me, that's a non-issue: editing and arranging is "art work" for me. After all, the notes and playable chords on a piano keyboard are rather limited; the art of composing is all in the sequencing of a limited number of already-known combinations.) I'm really more interested in how one would go about sifting through millions and millions of possible frames / moments in order to make one's choices. Perhaps not all that different than what we do when we press a shutter now? Or perhaps completely different?

I know for myself that the thrill of the hunt and possibility of connecting with my subject (human or not) would be gone, since the only "interaction" is with a computer screen instead of with a real space and real people in real time. But I suspect good art will be done with it anyway.