Your vote?

[Bill Pierce]

One of the changes I’ve noticed in photography since the opening up of the internet is the reduced number of books on some photographers’ shelves. Pre internet, when you wanted to see photographs not as ads, entertainment or news, you looked at prints on the walls of galleries and museums and in your home you had well produced books. Even those of us who were never home had rather full libraries. (After his death in Libya, Tim Hetherington’s parents gave his library to the Bronx Documentary Center. Others have added to it from their libraries. There are now 1200 books on the shelves.)

While many photographers still buy books, others seem to limit themselves to the web to look, enjoy and learn from others work. From what I see around, which is hardly an in-depth vision, it’s not a group defined by age, income, gender, intelligence or education. Some photographers are just stuck on their computer screens to the extent that it excludes other sources of good images. There are technical problems in that, unlike a print or a book page, a variety of computer screens will display the same image in a variety of ways. But more important, while it’s an economical, always available, huge source of images, there’s a lot out there that wouldn’t pass the entry test of a mean spirited curator or editor that is now being touted as really good, outstanding, exceptional and, of course, great. The web has not given us greatness; it has given us volume. And be it ad or “art,” unlike the images on a wall or in a book, most of the images are quickly dismissed and replaced.

I thought photography was accepted as an art in part because oil paintings had gotten so expensive. But I was happy because i thought there were some very good photographs that deserved the recognition. I’m not so happy that some less deserving images are getting the same recognition. Then. again, I’m a grouchy old person. We could have a vote. “Is beauty being replaced by volume?” The grouches vs. the innocents… Your vote?

 

[Mark A. Fisher]

Another grouchy old person here, and I’m in agreement. It has become far too easy to blast thru online images on Twitter, Facebook, and all the other sites with a simple “like”, or a “thumbs-up” emoji, rather than a considered response. My bookshelves are burgeoning with a wide variety of photographers books whom I admire greatly. Life is too short to drink cheap scotch, or support bad art. Just my 2 cents...

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Bill, That's a good question. I used to have a big book collection & I've given most of it away. Nowadays when i buy books, I read them and pass them on. I do have a small selection, Abbas, Bill Allard, Jay Dusard, Paul Strand (SW & Mexico), Peter Turnley. But i wouldn't hesitate to pass those along. I look at the internet as place to find things. I prefer to see the opus rather than an image & books are projects and show things as the photographer intended. Moreover, I go out of my way to see exhibitions. I've visited the V&A and a couple of galleries in London, seen HC Bresson's works in Tokyo, William Clift at the NM Museum of Fine Art, Adam Jahiel's work in a small gallery in Cody. practically camped out at the Andrew Smith Gallery when they were in Santa Fe. To me those are the places where photography breathes. Recently I've been interested in biographies of photographers, Frank, Avedon, Weston, Adams, Don McCullin....wherever i can find something written. I don't need to store it on my shelf..... but it does feed me. The internet.... not so much.
Thank you Mark! "Life is too short to drink cheap ****, or support bad art. Just my 2 cents.."

 

[shimokita]

“Is beauty being replaced by volume?”

Beauty is only one aspect of a photograph that makes it interesting... but the dichotomy is understandable.

The search for information has been replaced by a flood of data... big data and all that entails.

The issue seems to be the increasingly agenda driven nature of on-line criticism...
compared to 👍 / 👎 it doesn't take much longer to provide some background feedback.

.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I like quality photos on Flickr and I like photo-books of those whom I find to be worth to have a book of. It is never going to a thousand. Just a few.

 

[lynnb]

I enjoy photo books and have a small library. The internet has advantages and disadvantages - one can easily locate examples of a photographer's work (which I usually do when the work or a particular photographer is mentioned or recommended and I haven't heard of him/her before); but there's a lot of sifting required to find interesting images - which is where curated sites like BJP or American Suburb X are useful.

As to the gazillions of photos on sharing sites like Flickr, I agree with you, this is where fads like HDR and texture blending and cat photos (OK, cats aren't fads 🙂) entertain the masses with wows! and amazings!, soon to fade from popularity and collective consciousness. Exceptional work exists on these platforms, but is devilishly hard to find.

As to recognition.. by whom? Hasn't it always been the case that exceptional work can go unrecognized while other work is feted, but later disappears into ignominity?

 

[lynnb]

I forgot to mention, that sometimes photographs require time and thoughtful contemplation to fully appreciate, and internet culture doesn't support that.

 

[Rayt]

Is it really true only deserving images get published? I don’t believe that at all. If the bassist for the Sex Pistols wanted to publish his snaps I am sure many publishers will bite. There are many great images online from people we will never see if we relied only on traditional publishers.

 

[Ricoh]

Simon King (a London based photographer) recently published his thoughts related to the topic here (hosted on 35mmc.com): basically the philosophy of digital v physically printed images being released for consumption, and how to promote your work if you limit the amount you share on social media, eg Instagram.
https://www.35mmc.com/22/07/2020/limiting-and-reflecting-on-my-digital-output-by-simon-king/

 

[Out to Lunch]

The internet provides high volume exposure which translates into low-cost choice. Occasionally, you get lucky and stumble on a treasure trove like this one: https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/

 

[robert blu]

it's a complex matter, many different views on this. I spend time on the internet to look at pictures of photographers I like, or I find interesting even if their subject or approach is not among my preferences.

And this is the good part of it.
The bad part is what you call "beauty being replaced by volume". It is going more and more in that direction. Which makes time consuming looking for good works.

But books in general are my addiction. Photography books even more! The pleasure to sit at my desk, on a simple chair or a comfortable armchair leafing through a good book is a immeasurable 🙂 and it was a great help in the nine weeks of lockdown I went through.

But here internet comes in play again: browsing the catalogs of various editors is another pleasure even if not always (almost never) I can order all the books I would like to have, space an money are not unlimited!

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

If only good photographers published books, and only good photographers enjoyed looking at books published by good photographers. Why not just look at your own photographs… that is if you are a good photographer. It’s kind of like photography masturbation; yes? no? maybe so?

Just go out and shoot! Make pictures that make you happy! Leave the books to the others that need them.

All the best,
Mike

 

[jsrockit]

But I was happy because i thought there were some very good photographs that deserved the recognition. I’m not so happy that some less deserving images are getting the same recognition. Then. again, I’m a grouchy old person. We could have a vote. “Is beauty being replaced by volume?” The grouches vs. the innocents… Your vote?

I think it is just that we have access to volume and the democracy of the web has allowed some to achieve fame without going through the gallery and museum system. I'm not sure you or I are the gatekeepers of what is considered great or not. I see a lot of great photography on the internet. I have a lot of books by established artists. There is a lot of "crap" (only opinion) published by established book publishers too, but that is in every creative art form. You will not like everything. It does not make it bad. Sometimes, you only have to have one important person (gallery or museum curator, for example) enamored with your work. You cannot blame people for having a passion and trying though... only a select few can be considered great.

The other side of the coin is that art is always changing and evolving and obsessed with new ideas. If you are derivative, you are going to be trying to do your thing in what is perceived as the lower levels. There's still a lot of fun to be had in this realm. Also, photography is so wide ranging... there is a lot of conceptual photography and other non-traditional photographs being touted by the top organizations. If you are into traditional photography, this might seem horrible. I try to keep an open mind and find out why it is being presented as great. You cannot like everything...but that doesn't mean it is bad.

I still love photography and books...and great books come out every single year. You just have to accept that what is acceptable is always changing and that in Art... the idea can be more important than the execution of a traditional, aesthetically pleasing photo. I will add that sometimes I've changed my mind. That something I hated at first grew on me and became important to me and also something I thought was great has zero impact on me now.

Now, for me, what bothers me... is that the internet has given rise to experts who are not experts at all...but play the part on you tube. AND people buy into it...

 

[jsrockit]

Leave the books to the others that need them.

Ok, give them all to me...

 

[JohnBeeching]

This is an interesting question. Personally, I have always felt that the end result of the photographic process, regardless as to whether it it derives from a negative or a digital file, is something tangible that you can hold in your hands or put on the wall. So, prints or photobooks are what I aim for with my own work or acquire when I can afford them. Therefore, I have collected over the years over a hundred photobooks. Today, for example, I received a copy of Fucase's "Ravens" and am completely overwhelmed by the quality and impact of the photos together with the production of the book. While I do use Flickr and other social media to share photos it does not satisfy in the same way - a few rare gems amongst a flotsam of mediocrity - not the same experience as holding a print or turning the page of a book. In part this is due to the time and effort put into the editing, sequencing and production of something physical as opposed to the virtual instantaneous gratification(?) of the excessively digital.

 

[Out to Lunch]

Perhaps I should add the following: when I look at my teenage daughter's use of the internet, the median aged RFF users are dinosaurs in comparison. We just don't use the internet to its full potential, simply because we lack the skills to do so. Cheers, OtL

 

[Dogman]

I am an unrepentant photography book collector. My library is quite large and represents many of the greatest photographers of the past as well as some more recent photographers. When I go to the internet for photography, it's either for gear reviews or to look for books by photographers I admire and to research photographers who look/sound interesting. When I look at pictures on the internet, I'm struck by the quantity of absolute total dreck.

There are a few websites that I've visited for years that have, in the past, presented interesting and well done photography by talented, insightful photographers. Today, not so much. What passes for photography today appears to be concept, digital manipulation and poor examples of environmental portraiture. Occasionally there is a gem but most of what I see is a cesspool of floating excrement. Apparently the "democracy" of the internet has led to an anarchy of "anything goes".

And, yes, I'm an old fart and I'm ranting. This is an issue that's near and dear to my heart and I get passionate about it. The sheer quantity of photographs seen on the internet has devalued photography and apparently made the recognition of quality photography virtually impossible. (And, yes, dammit...I can recognize good photography and I am able to make the judgement on quality.)

 

[Deleted member 65559]

I forgot to mention, that sometimes photographs require time and thoughtful contemplation to fully appreciate, and internet culture doesn't support that.

Absolutely agree

 

[Out to Lunch]

I forgot to mention, that sometimes photographs require time and thoughtful contemplation to fully appreciate, and internet culture doesn't support that.

Nonsense. As with a printed picture, you can flip back the page and look at the picture, again, as many times as you like.

 

[Godfrey]

it's a complex matter, many different views on this. I spend time on the internet to look at pictures of photographers I like, or I find interesting even if their subject or approach is not among my preferences.

And this is the good part of it.
The bad part is what you call "beauty being replaced by volume". It is going more and more in that direction. Which makes time consuming looking for good works.

But books in general are my addiction. Photography books even more! The pleasure to sit at my desk, on a simple chair or a comfortable armchair leafing through a good book is a immeasurable 🙂 and it was a great help in the nine weeks of lockdown I went through.

But here internet comes in play again: browsing the catalogs of various editors is another pleasure even if not always (almost never) I can order all the books I would like to have, space an money are not unlimited!

This.

I love books, and I love photographs: I look at lots of photographs electronically from people's various online presence, and I buy books when I see something that I would like to have in hard copy. I also post lots of photos electronically through the various services and make photo books, most of which have been small production things that I've given away and not advertised.

A good photo book represents a lot of cross disciplinary work.

Just because other people ballyhoo various work (including their own) as "great" doesn't mean I have to accept that judgement. I have my own eyes and will make my own judgement. Out of all the art that has been produced over the ages, I think it's the same: Most doesn't survive the test of Time, and some does. The only way to know for sure what does is to let the Time elapse and look back at it.

The problem, if we want to call it that, in this era with photographs is that the world is now flooded with them. Every day there are hundreds of thousands of new photographs being made and posted ... how can any one person stand out from, even keep up with that floodwater? As photographers, the flood can devalue our work even to ourselves.

You just have to do what satisfies you and be secure in that. If you want to make a living at it, well, tough times for sure ... yet it's a two edged sword in that there are ways to make a living with photographs now that never existed before.

A complex thing. I don't choose to spend too much time or energy thinking about it. I'm past worrying about how to make a name, how to make a living at it. I'd rather pull out a camera and do what I do, enjoy it, then just post it so that maybe someone who connects to it will enjoy it. I'll make another book for sale some day soon, I think, and maybe someone will value it enough to buy it and enjoy it for what it is.

G