Where is photography going?
- Thread starter rodfelici
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 83
- Views 12K
foto_mike
Established
I don't know.
I suspect if you get a group of writers together, amateur and professional, a good part of the conversation will center around the tools of their work. The same if you get a group of artists together.
I think it's because the actual process of writing a novel or a poem or painting a canvas is intensely personal. Every truly creative person I've known has his or her own way of working and isn't really interested in "picking up hints" or changing work styles. So they talk about the tools because it's easy and they share a common language and interest in them.
I don't think easy access to digital cameras, photoshop, and the internetz have changed art photography much at all. No more than easy access to computer word processors changed writing a novel, anyway. Lots of people have access to brushes and oil paints, but the tools are only a starting point for good art.
There was a lot of professional photography that was more a skill than art. Olan Mills Studios cranked out thousands of portraits by setting up a medium format camera with a backdrop in hotel rooms across the country. Cheesecake portrait photography and some of the wedding photography is being changed by the widespread access to the tools and the willingness of people to learn the skills.
Art photography will always be a rather personal pursuit of a vision more than a gear-oriented application of tools.
I suspect if you get a group of writers together, amateur and professional, a good part of the conversation will center around the tools of their work. The same if you get a group of artists together.
I think it's because the actual process of writing a novel or a poem or painting a canvas is intensely personal. Every truly creative person I've known has his or her own way of working and isn't really interested in "picking up hints" or changing work styles. So they talk about the tools because it's easy and they share a common language and interest in them.
I don't think easy access to digital cameras, photoshop, and the internetz have changed art photography much at all. No more than easy access to computer word processors changed writing a novel, anyway. Lots of people have access to brushes and oil paints, but the tools are only a starting point for good art.
There was a lot of professional photography that was more a skill than art. Olan Mills Studios cranked out thousands of portraits by setting up a medium format camera with a backdrop in hotel rooms across the country. Cheesecake portrait photography and some of the wedding photography is being changed by the widespread access to the tools and the willingness of people to learn the skills.
Art photography will always be a rather personal pursuit of a vision more than a gear-oriented application of tools.
FrankS
Registered User
jan normandale
Film is the other way
Having read both pages of posts I'll say this post is the best advice you'll get here. Americansuburbx alone is worth all the posts made to date if you want to see and understand what's gone on and what's going on. The other two links are also quality sites. Good luck!
Last edited:
luuca
Well-known
I think it's hard to completely separate art and technique when we talk about the medium "photography".
The results are strongly influenced by gear used...
There's another point: often a photographer is also a collector. It's natural (and easier) to talk about equipment
nonetheless, this forum section is a good starting point 😛
EDIT: I agree with jan normandale, I had a look to http://www.americansuburbx.com/ , very interesting, didn't know it...
The results are strongly influenced by gear used...
There's another point: often a photographer is also a collector. It's natural (and easier) to talk about equipment
nonetheless, this forum section is a good starting point 😛
EDIT: I agree with jan normandale, I had a look to http://www.americansuburbx.com/ , very interesting, didn't know it...
c.poulton
Well-known
luuca
Well-known
sorry Kievman, please explain me what does "Really good pure photography" mean 😀
I agree with you about (horrible) things like digital bokeh... but, man, it's all about buongusto...
Every photograph (old or new) is more or less "manipulated": how can we set a limit?
I agree with you about (horrible) things like digital bokeh... but, man, it's all about buongusto...
Every photograph (old or new) is more or less "manipulated": how can we set a limit?
d_ross
Registered User
I think there may be a certain amount of nostalgia in the original post and question. To the times he mentions where photography held a different place and purpose in society perhaps? In that sense I think it's a good question, but maybe he meant, where are photographers going, if so I would assume he meant serious photographers that approach their work as more than a hobby or even job. Harking back to a time when those serious photographers dreamt of taking their work to NY to show Mr Stieglitz for a critique, now though photography is so wide spread and diluted by clouds of images on the internet, and mindless magazines ( the ones in magazine shops everywhere, not the good ones) that really only serve the advertiser and seduce the reader with their sexy products, that a single figure like Stieglitz could not exist now.
Those photographers who do see their photography as more than a hobby, whether that be art or journalism etc it doesn't matter, now find themselves in a situation where it is getting incrementally harder every day to have their work seen, and I do believe the majority of people who take photography that seriously want their work seen, they want people to take notice of what they have to say. The idea that photography is self expression can only exist if there is an audience, and I wonder do people believe faceless people leaving anonymous comments on an internet site is an audience? Those photographers that are the heroes of most hobby photographers such as Winogrand and Adams etc etc were all photographers who took their work seriously, and I can understand anyone today with the same commitment questioning where photography is going, and it has nothing to do with analogue or digital, except that digital has allowed so many people in the pool that there's no room left to swim!
Those photographers who do see their photography as more than a hobby, whether that be art or journalism etc it doesn't matter, now find themselves in a situation where it is getting incrementally harder every day to have their work seen, and I do believe the majority of people who take photography that seriously want their work seen, they want people to take notice of what they have to say. The idea that photography is self expression can only exist if there is an audience, and I wonder do people believe faceless people leaving anonymous comments on an internet site is an audience? Those photographers that are the heroes of most hobby photographers such as Winogrand and Adams etc etc were all photographers who took their work seriously, and I can understand anyone today with the same commitment questioning where photography is going, and it has nothing to do with analogue or digital, except that digital has allowed so many people in the pool that there's no room left to swim!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Not that I've ever heard. What is there to talk about, after all?
I've earned a living from writing and photography since the late 70s; I've belonged to writers' groups in the UK and USA (amateurs and professionals); and I don't recall any significant amount of conversation about writing tools.
Cheers,
R.
jsrockit
Moderator
I don't think it's digital... I think it's the internet. People always made a lot of photos. Instead of them being in boxes, now they are online.
furcafe
Veteran
As I posted in another thread, the difference is that writing, as an activity or medium, isn't quite as bound up w/technology the way photography is. In many ways, photography is more like a mix of traditional arts like painting & gear-obsessed sports (like golf or shooting). That said, authors are known to be picky about their tools, e.g., Cormac McCarthy is well-known for his devotion to the Olivetti Lettera 32 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/books/01typewriter.html), the various word processing & screenwriting programs have their adherents, & fountain pens & ballpoints have their fans.
d_ross
Registered User
What I meant was digital technology not just digital capture, so yes. Hard to say people used to make a lot of photos before compared to digital though, compared to digital capture people I know at least never did nor could take any where near as many pictures on film as they do now.
doolittle
Well-known
Photography is inextricably tied to technology and the technology to a large extent influences how and what images can be captured. Since 1839 or so photography has gone regularly through many major shifts in technology which profoundly changed photographic output. Digital is the latest of such major shifts. I'm sure there will be more.
Much like Kierkegaard's quote 'Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards' it is very difficult to recognise great movements in photographic art or photographers in the present and much easier to see them in the past.
Yes, the internet does produce a lot of static in the signal to noise ratio. It can sometimes show up some gems though too. It is important to remember that much is out there not available on the internet. Though even here the internet can be a great tool for finding out about them.
In the past few years I have seen more photographic and art exhibitions of interest than I have ever seen before, mainly thanks to the internet that I found out about them.
It is a great time to be alive, we truly are living in an age of wonders.
Much like Kierkegaard's quote 'Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards' it is very difficult to recognise great movements in photographic art or photographers in the present and much easier to see them in the past.
Yes, the internet does produce a lot of static in the signal to noise ratio. It can sometimes show up some gems though too. It is important to remember that much is out there not available on the internet. Though even here the internet can be a great tool for finding out about them.
In the past few years I have seen more photographic and art exhibitions of interest than I have ever seen before, mainly thanks to the internet that I found out about them.
It is a great time to be alive, we truly are living in an age of wonders.
Jobin
Established
d_ross
Registered User
very funny though
d_ross
Registered User
True, but then every age is an age of wonder for the people of it's time!
Change simply because it happens, or change for changes sake is not by default a good thing, life can only be understood looking backwards, because history is the only thing we have to measure things against. I think maybe the original poster was comparing the photography world now with that of an earlier time, and thinking it was better back then because it was smaller and easier to access and understand, and as a result now it is much harder to find ones place in it.
Like you I have also seen more good exhibitions than ever before, but that's probably because there are more than ever before, as Ive also seen more bad exhibitions than ever before as well 🙂
Deep Fried
Established
The phrase, 'photography is the new painting' was often thrown around at Art Schools 15 years ago. I didn't disagree then or now. This was at a time when intermedia and video courses were becoming the new in thing.
It is the medium of the proletariat. The most accessible visual medium, the most prolific, the easiest to do poorly. The medium in which everyone who has nothing to say can say something. Just look at flickr; it's a bloated pig of self indulgent 'art'. It is truly the medium for our society today.
It is the medium of the proletariat. The most accessible visual medium, the most prolific, the easiest to do poorly. The medium in which everyone who has nothing to say can say something. Just look at flickr; it's a bloated pig of self indulgent 'art'. It is truly the medium for our society today.
d_ross
Registered User
That is a very sad picture of society you draw there! And I cant disagree or agree with you really, flickr is a bloated pig of self indulgence, how true is that, but the question is, its here and it, and others like it, will only get bigger, until of course the weight of all the pointless image clouds on the environment crushes us all, but until then you have to ask is it a good thing or a bad thing? for every one serious photographer there a million who happily don't give a ****, until that is, the falling cloud crushes us. 🙂
TXForester
Well-known
It's not going anyplace it has not already been. There were always good photographers and poor ones. The difference today is bad snapshots are easily viewed by the world; the internet is a public shoebox. 😛
Read old photography magazines. There were always magazines that were more oriented towards gear than photos, technique and general photographic education. As mentioned above, there are and were exceptions. Magazines like Popular Photography were more gear oriented. Outdoor Photographer was more image and location oriented. Both crossed over. Same applies today to magazines and internet sites. You just have to look harder to find what works for you.
Read old photography magazines. There were always magazines that were more oriented towards gear than photos, technique and general photographic education. As mentioned above, there are and were exceptions. Magazines like Popular Photography were more gear oriented. Outdoor Photographer was more image and location oriented. Both crossed over. Same applies today to magazines and internet sites. You just have to look harder to find what works for you.
Deep Fried
Established
The situation as has been pointed out by many already, is that we are recording, archiving, sharing, and praising an enormous volume of crap. There are some real beautiful works hidden in the waste, but nobody culls their work it seems. Learning the delete button may well be the best advice for many of us, myself included. It is just too easy to hang onto the waste. As users of the medium, we need to burn off the chaff in order to make sense of what we have that is worthwhile. I agree with others, that there is more good work being produced than ever before, but finding it and discerning it from the poor photographs is impossible. I should also note, I am speaking of the internet. We as a species have amassed and shared such a huge quantity of visual garbage in such a short time, I just can't imagine what my grandchildren will see when they google for images on a subject. The shear quantity dilutes the value of the very good ones in there. The value of an image in every sense erodes.
Similar threads
