Something more to consider...
Photography represents a conversation with contemporary culture - it explores the here and now; and its outcome, photographs, end up showing us our history, what once happened in some other place.
For many years, the photograph was revered for what it is as much as for what it communicated. As Susan Sontag wrote in the 1970s: "Each still photograph is a privileged moment, turned into a slim object. "
Culture has changed in the half century since she wrote those words. Today, the medium - whether painting, literature or photography - is no longer revered. Today, the photograph is no longer Sontag's "slim object" but a symbol of our dialogue with culture; the photograph is no longer important for being an object but for its meaning as a code. Adherence to conventions that have become associated with photography - it's principles, rules, expectations - is seen as a restriction and regressive. Today, it can be impossible to label an object simply "a photograph" - it may perhaps be part sculpture, part painting, part photograph. Similarly, we can no longer pigeonhole "a photographer" easily either.
A recent photobook I bought is HG Wells's "The Time Machine" (by Andreas Schmidt). Wells's book was downloaded to a phone, and each "page" was photographed, so you can read the entire book in the photobook, one screen per page. As the book progresses, the table on which the phone lies becomes darker as twilight falls. This is a brilliant, witty commentary on culture, books, technology and photography ("time machine" is not only the title of the novel but describes a camera). But is this literature or photography? The answer is neither and both...
Jim Goldberg takes photographs, which he then writes on. Despite belonging to Magnum and being called a photographer, the objects he creates would lose their relevance if text and image were separated. So, his creations cannot be adequately defined as simply photographs, nor as literature.
Photographers who refuse to accept this paradigm shift will find themselves having a separate conversation about the past, increasingly irrelevant to the role of photography within our society.
If a photographer prefers to stay with tradition and convention, that's entirely their choice - and I certainly won't damn them for that. But I intend my own photography to be relevant to today’s culture, and if that - one day - results in my giving up the camera forever to create "photographs" in some other way with some other technology, so be it.
