Carlsen Highway
Well-known
Sometimes disturbing thoughts occur to me.
It occured to me to consider how relevant photography both as an art form and as documentary or photojournalism might be to the average person.
I considered this for a while, and hesitatly came to the conclusion - not very.
I considered the place where I work for example. Out of the 400 odd, perfectly normal, average middle class people that work here, how many of them have seen or would recognise or think "special" any of Cartier Bressons' pictures?
The answer is none of them. It is not relevant.
Out of the modern art photographers....also none of them.
Out of the photographers that are practicing photojournalists whos work transends documentary so that it may also be described as art to some degree as well, say Eugene Richards, or Saldago, or simply the successful documentary pjotographers whether their work is considered art or not - how relevant to these average people is it, how aware of it, and how much impact or influence it might have on them?
The real answer is that it is not relevant and has no impact at all as for as I can see.
A good documentary picture may illustrate an article in a magazine, but to be brutally frank, to most people it is another news shot of something.
In a medium where we claim much of our work to reflect life, to inform people, to express our own views of the world - who are we actually reaching in any meaningful way?
Does our interest and passion really equate to a niche interest much the same relevance for anyone else as stamp collecting?
Are we imagining an audience?
I did a lot of painting and eventually came to the conclusion that painting was a meaningless art form nowadays becasue it has no real audience other than for those who have a specialist interest in art.
The only thing that I can think of that has an impact on the average person, and does that through both its craft and art, is cinema.
Do you think I am wrong?
It occured to me to consider how relevant photography both as an art form and as documentary or photojournalism might be to the average person.
I considered this for a while, and hesitatly came to the conclusion - not very.
I considered the place where I work for example. Out of the 400 odd, perfectly normal, average middle class people that work here, how many of them have seen or would recognise or think "special" any of Cartier Bressons' pictures?
The answer is none of them. It is not relevant.
Out of the modern art photographers....also none of them.
Out of the photographers that are practicing photojournalists whos work transends documentary so that it may also be described as art to some degree as well, say Eugene Richards, or Saldago, or simply the successful documentary pjotographers whether their work is considered art or not - how relevant to these average people is it, how aware of it, and how much impact or influence it might have on them?
The real answer is that it is not relevant and has no impact at all as for as I can see.
A good documentary picture may illustrate an article in a magazine, but to be brutally frank, to most people it is another news shot of something.
In a medium where we claim much of our work to reflect life, to inform people, to express our own views of the world - who are we actually reaching in any meaningful way?
Does our interest and passion really equate to a niche interest much the same relevance for anyone else as stamp collecting?
Are we imagining an audience?
I did a lot of painting and eventually came to the conclusion that painting was a meaningless art form nowadays becasue it has no real audience other than for those who have a specialist interest in art.
The only thing that I can think of that has an impact on the average person, and does that through both its craft and art, is cinema.
Do you think I am wrong?
FrankS
Registered User
Maybe it depends if you think our hobby photography is done primarily to satisfy the photographer or an audience.
gns
Well-known
"The only thing that I can think of that has an impact on the average person, and does that through both its craft and art, is cinema".
Not music? Or literature?
I didn't choose to try photography because of any impact I thought I might have on others. It was really just my own fascination with it.
Cheers,
Gary
Not music? Or literature?
I didn't choose to try photography because of any impact I thought I might have on others. It was really just my own fascination with it.
Cheers,
Gary
Carlsen Highway
Well-known
Music and literature - I was thinking visual arts to be honest, but cinema would eclipse literature certainly, but music is a valid one to bring up.
But perhaps I am mistaking the powerful impact of cinema with its moving pictures and music combined with superior reach.
Art without an audience, is like building a house and never living in it I suppose thats how it feels to me. Without communication, then by definition it can't be art surely - just an activity that you enjoy performing? Like yoga?
I am not challenging what you do, I just had a depressing thought. There is no point in being depressed on your own in the internet age.
Am I confusing mass appeal and the size of the audience with relevance?
If I am then TV would have to be the most valid art form of all obviously. Which is where my hypothesis breaks down.
Do you need an audience for your pictures? Do you need to show people? If so, does the amount of people you actually show justify what you have done? Need it?
I am getting my thoughts tangled here.
But perhaps I am mistaking the powerful impact of cinema with its moving pictures and music combined with superior reach.
Art without an audience, is like building a house and never living in it I suppose thats how it feels to me. Without communication, then by definition it can't be art surely - just an activity that you enjoy performing? Like yoga?
I am not challenging what you do, I just had a depressing thought. There is no point in being depressed on your own in the internet age.
Am I confusing mass appeal and the size of the audience with relevance?
If I am then TV would have to be the most valid art form of all obviously. Which is where my hypothesis breaks down.
Do you need an audience for your pictures? Do you need to show people? If so, does the amount of people you actually show justify what you have done? Need it?
I am getting my thoughts tangled here.
Last edited:
Al Kaplan
Veteran
I started doing it because it was the easiest way I could find to make a living without really working. It was a way to do a bit of traveling and meet people. It was saleable, or it made me saleable anyway, because I had to produce what others would pay money for. Most of what I've shot over the years I consider crap, but it satisfied the editor or art director. I think that a lot of photographers get to the point where they're being praised for photographs that were crap when they were shot decades ago, but now they either conjure up nostalgia for a bygone era in the viewer's brain or are photographs of famous people or events. One thing that makes a photo of a well known person more valuable is if it was made very early in their career, long before they'd achieved fame. Another type of photography is documentation of a way of life that no longer exists. The historical value trumps whether or not it's a great photo. Save all your negatives. You never know...
Last edited:
gns
Well-known
Well, I understand the sharing part. But for me that's secondary. I do it for myself. The same as you might enjoy casting for trout in a stream all by yourself.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I mostly do it because it feels good. If somebody sees my stuff on flickr, or this forum, or at one the small shows I've done, or will do, I'll be delighted. But I just like photography.
FrankS
Registered User
In order to do good and satisfying work, you have to please yourself first, IMO.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
In the long run we are all dead: Keynes.
'Relevance' must generally be considered on the small scale. If I kill you tomorrow, it affects both of us significantly, but probably doesn't matter a whole hell of a lot on the grand scale. The question is, how grand a scale to you want to think on?
Or as Voltaire put it, "Il faut cultiver notre jardin"; we each have to cultivate our own gardens.
Cheers,
Roger
'Relevance' must generally be considered on the small scale. If I kill you tomorrow, it affects both of us significantly, but probably doesn't matter a whole hell of a lot on the grand scale. The question is, how grand a scale to you want to think on?
Or as Voltaire put it, "Il faut cultiver notre jardin"; we each have to cultivate our own gardens.
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
I have a photograph taken about two years ago...I have never shown it to the person to whom it will, in time, go to...
It is a photograph of her husband taken just three months before he passed, after an eight year battle with ALS...
It's not Art by any stretch of the imagination, it will never be published or viewed by the masses, it's just a decent and loving photo...
The copy I have will go to one person, what she does with it is up to her...if no one else ever sees it means nothing to me...does the photo have relevance...you might want to ask Sue...
It is a photograph of her husband taken just three months before he passed, after an eight year battle with ALS...
It's not Art by any stretch of the imagination, it will never be published or viewed by the masses, it's just a decent and loving photo...
The copy I have will go to one person, what she does with it is up to her...if no one else ever sees it means nothing to me...does the photo have relevance...you might want to ask Sue...
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Carlsen,
If you see Roger in New Zealand...run.
If you see Roger in New Zealand...run.
Carlsen Highway
Well-known
I will be watching for him on his motorbike.....as I go under the wheel he will note the passing of another photographer who's self importance was out of proportion to his relevance...
I like the Voltaire quote very much.
I think Roger and Sam said the same thing in different ways, and both nicely put too.
I just wrote another big post, but confused the hell out of myself, contradicted my self several times, and had trouble even being coherent so I deleted it.
Very well, I will tend to my own garden.
I like the Voltaire quote very much.
I think Roger and Sam said the same thing in different ways, and both nicely put too.
I just wrote another big post, but confused the hell out of myself, contradicted my self several times, and had trouble even being coherent so I deleted it.
Very well, I will tend to my own garden.
Last edited:
Al Kaplan
Veteran
These days I enjoy writing and politics more than photography. I have fun with photography in a very tongue in cheek manner. I mostly shoot pictures with an ultra wide angle 15mm lens. I'm in the photographs. I carry around a toy monkey and incorporate her into the photos and the stories. Sometimes I let her write the stories...it makes for an interesting blog... www.thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
Last edited:
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Carlsen, photography is relevant in many different ways. I, like you, used to think I was the only one practitioner of a disappearing art... and then I learned that people carry cameras with all the time, and they're snapping photos here and there. They use their cellphone cameras, or small digital P&S, but their aim is to keep a memory, immortalize a moment, preserve something they witnessed... and, in the end, if they're consistent enough, they'll see what photography can be.
In the end, photography is very relevant. When I was growing up, we got out a camera to photograph birthdays and special ocassions. Now, it's there in a bar, restaurant, anywhere... Think about it.
In the end, photography is very relevant. When I was growing up, we got out a camera to photograph birthdays and special ocassions. Now, it's there in a bar, restaurant, anywhere... Think about it.
Sparrow
Veteran
I enjoy being irrelevant...... I feel it's a role I was destined to fulfil
kevin m
Veteran
No fun eating your veggies by yourself, though.
dave lackey
Veteran
Are we (photographers) relevant?
Change that question to, "Am I as a photographer relevant?"
Up until a few months ago, I thought I was relevant. But that was before I lost my job. Now, I am not so sure.
As each day drags by with an occasional email, I become less certain that my relevancy ever existed. Now, as I immerse myself in all things photographic, I find myself torn between trying to find a way to make a living in photography and being creative in my own quest for self expression.
In the former, I feel I must be relevant or my wife and I will not have food to eat or a home in which to live. The success of my relevancy is indeed in doubt. In the latter, I feel that I am relevant but only to myself, and to my wife who is enthusiastic of my photography. Am I relevant to the outside world? I suppose to a handful of people around the world I may be relevant as a person. Do I feel relevant to the outside world as a photographer? No. But then, at this stage of my continuing development, I probably should not be.
Each individual has to work things out for himself/herself. We are all different with different circumstances. Overall, though, yes, photography in general is very relevant. How else can we pass what we see down to our grandchildren and their grandchildren except with pictures? Holograms, maybe? I suspect that, too, will be looked at as another form of photography. It will all be relevant.
Change that question to, "Am I as a photographer relevant?"
Up until a few months ago, I thought I was relevant. But that was before I lost my job. Now, I am not so sure.
As each day drags by with an occasional email, I become less certain that my relevancy ever existed. Now, as I immerse myself in all things photographic, I find myself torn between trying to find a way to make a living in photography and being creative in my own quest for self expression.
In the former, I feel I must be relevant or my wife and I will not have food to eat or a home in which to live. The success of my relevancy is indeed in doubt. In the latter, I feel that I am relevant but only to myself, and to my wife who is enthusiastic of my photography. Am I relevant to the outside world? I suppose to a handful of people around the world I may be relevant as a person. Do I feel relevant to the outside world as a photographer? No. But then, at this stage of my continuing development, I probably should not be.
Each individual has to work things out for himself/herself. We are all different with different circumstances. Overall, though, yes, photography in general is very relevant. How else can we pass what we see down to our grandchildren and their grandchildren except with pictures? Holograms, maybe? I suspect that, too, will be looked at as another form of photography. It will all be relevant.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
No fun eating your veggies by yourself, though.
Then you're growing the wrong veggies, my friend.
Carlsen Highway
Well-known
Dave, I am truly sorry to hear about your difficulties. I have been unemplyed a couple of times due to unfortuante cicrumstances, and for me personally, the desire to make anything arty or personal projects evaporated until I could get some security back.
I guess the essence of my question if I boil it down, is that if no one is seeing your pictures, or very few people, are they still meaningful, are they still art.
(I am less interested in historical or documentary recording, just for the kind of guy I am. )
Am I asking is photogrpahy still art? I suppose what I am getting at, is how relevant, meaningful, or useful is art of any kind in our modern lives?
On the other hand, when was it ever? Most people in France did not go to the salon des refuses and see the first impressionists.
Most people have not seen Citizen Kane, or the Bicycle Thief, much less any of Robert Franks films nor En Chien Underlou - nor would really want to. Landscapes rule as the most preferred painting subject for 90% of the population and pictures of flowers sell like hot cakes, despite the abstract works and constructions that are lauded as cutting edge and sell for thousands of dollars to a few individuals.
I am thinking out loud.
Why?
Why are we working in a medium which is about being seen by people, which is about comuunication, when we must admit that very few people indeed will eveer see them? Surely this must affect the success of teh work as a piece of art? What value the Mona Lisa if no one except saw it except Da Vinci?
And if we do it for ourselves only then it seems curious and inexplicable to create such things, like writing a novel and then burning it, writing a melody on paper but never playing it. If this is the case why are we not boat builders or collecting pigeons?
I guess the essence of my question if I boil it down, is that if no one is seeing your pictures, or very few people, are they still meaningful, are they still art.
(I am less interested in historical or documentary recording, just for the kind of guy I am. )
Am I asking is photogrpahy still art? I suppose what I am getting at, is how relevant, meaningful, or useful is art of any kind in our modern lives?
On the other hand, when was it ever? Most people in France did not go to the salon des refuses and see the first impressionists.
Most people have not seen Citizen Kane, or the Bicycle Thief, much less any of Robert Franks films nor En Chien Underlou - nor would really want to. Landscapes rule as the most preferred painting subject for 90% of the population and pictures of flowers sell like hot cakes, despite the abstract works and constructions that are lauded as cutting edge and sell for thousands of dollars to a few individuals.
I am thinking out loud.
Why?
Why are we working in a medium which is about being seen by people, which is about comuunication, when we must admit that very few people indeed will eveer see them? Surely this must affect the success of teh work as a piece of art? What value the Mona Lisa if no one except saw it except Da Vinci?
And if we do it for ourselves only then it seems curious and inexplicable to create such things, like writing a novel and then burning it, writing a melody on paper but never playing it. If this is the case why are we not boat builders or collecting pigeons?
Last edited:
dave lackey
Veteran
Hmmm...well, it is art to me even though I do not post my work. Some of it is good, most of it is not so good, but I enjoy it and it satisfies my need for creating something that evokes emotion from my innerself. I agree with your mentioning cinema where music and pictures really speak to people. And that is where truly good photography shines because it speaks to the viewer with the image itself and without help from music.
I have spent my whole life in universities within the technical fields of engineering and architecture... and only dabbled in art a bit here and there. Now, since I am no longer teaching, I have become immersed in my desire to learn more about art and how to create it myself. But, maybe, first I need to answer your questions about the very basics of art. That is indeed worthy of a thread and I thank you for posting it.
I look forward to the discussion from our colleagues who are better qualified to venture into that realm.
I have spent my whole life in universities within the technical fields of engineering and architecture... and only dabbled in art a bit here and there. Now, since I am no longer teaching, I have become immersed in my desire to learn more about art and how to create it myself. But, maybe, first I need to answer your questions about the very basics of art. That is indeed worthy of a thread and I thank you for posting it.
I look forward to the discussion from our colleagues who are better qualified to venture into that realm.