It has been interesting to me to watch how the essence of this thread has shifted as the discussion has matured and evolved. It has at least been a useful exercise to consider why we do what we do as photographers. It has also been refreshing to see a discussion with many different views remain so civil.
It seems to me that we have all discussed how photography has changed without stating the obvious - YES - there has been a pardigm shift. Photography in a digital age is different than it was 5, 10, 20 years ago. I don't know why anyone is really surprised, we live metaphorically on an ever shifting sand; change is the one thing that is inevitable. The printing press didn't kill handwriting and the computer hasn't killed books. It has changed their role and importance. Technological change does not alter our purpose as people who record images, it just gives us more tools with which to chose how we do things.
To say that our resons for viewing still images is diminished day by day is accurate but at the same time incorrect, at least in my opinion. Yes, video may be a better way to absorb news, I watched video from the earthquake in Japan. People watch video clips of a friday night football game on the local internet news site. Players buy digital images from me for facebook or their screen saver. Moms buy 16x20 posters at the end of the year to hang on their walls.
For sure an exclusive "print as an end product" mentality is dead. GSN, you brought up a good point earlier mentioning that at one time artists were paid for their time. I see those who are successful locally following that model. People pay for the skill of a professional photographer - there are choices as to the medium of the delivered product.
Lastly, our goals as photographers are the same as they have always been - in my opinion. We now just have more options for how to present our work. It is similar to what I see as an educator. Technology has transformed my classroom. All my students have laptops, I have an interactive white board, I have a document camera, digital camers, and video camera available. I certainly have more tools available and use them all. But guess what? Sometimes an old fashioned pencil and a piece of paper are the BEST tool for the job at hand. That's how I see a print - at times it is the best way to present an image - it's just not the only way.
As an educator if this thread and the questions it raised has resonated with you, hopefully its a good sign.
A majority of people take photos these days as a 'creative outlet' to compensate for their day jobs, which are usually very rationalistic and devoid of feelings and emotions (check career thread statistics) and they're keen that the best way to go about taking photos is to stop thinking, because that's what they do in their real jobs, they think too much. This phenomenon has created a sort of illusionary bubble where it really does not matter whats going, the theme is to lets just carry on like before and go through the same routines and follow the same procedures even if those are by now defunct and even what we're actually doing, taking photos is rather questionable from a creative stand point because the only creative part of this so called creative process of taking pictures is the thought that its creative, which in fact its not. Pointing the camera at something and clicking is not the same as pouring down one's imagination in a canvas or carving it in stone. No matter how one sugar coat it with 'decisive moment', light, composition and post-processing whether analogue/digital... This goes back to my assertion that there is less need and time to look at still photos and one of the biggest reason for that is that its mostly recycled stuff. When people stop thinking they simply recycle what they like and that is more apparent in photography than any other medium. People simply go out to take photos that they like because they have seen it before somewhere, there is no impetus to 'think' because then that would be like work and boring, so here we're awash with recycled images of decent quality but nothing more and nothing less, a sort of mediocre stasis.
When you click on a news link about a demonstration you already know what sort of picture will accompany it, so why bother? why not just watch the video because at least it has sound, ambiance and inevitably emotions. The still has been recycled so much that you know before hand what sort of picture you will see simply by knowing the context.
Lets take for example the scared cow, street photography. The moment I use that word b&w images of people and a certain mood that accompany it automatically fills my mind. I still like it but I don't look at it. Why not? Well I have seen it all, and the very best still is Robert Frank so why should I bother? But I do take street photos of similar kind, its self-contradictory, but I don't know any better... However, I do know this much, I'm not an artist, what I do is not art and that keeps me grounded and sane. Because I know that my 'creative urges' could suddenly turn from taking photos to GAS...
... And now going back to the print. A painting is an original work, you can look at it and see every brush stroke of the artist, so its great as it is and it will lose its 'feel' in a digital display. A photograph is something else, especially a digital one where even its original can be copied infinitum, imagine De Vinci painting Mona Lisa on his iphone and sharing it with his friends on facebook, something that David Hackney a British painter does... If one starts digging all this comfy photography bubble that we've created around us crumbles, but its also hopeful because something new might come up. and in that positive note I think I'm done with this thread.
