View Full Version : Robert Frank: "There are too many images."
Brian C. Miller
4-Aug-2014, 21:48
From an interview in Vanity Fair, Robert Frank’s Unsentimental Journey (http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/04/frank200804), April 2008:
There are too many images. Too many cameras now. We’re all being watched. It gets sillier and sillier. As if all action is meaningful. Nothing is really all that special. It’s just life. If all moments are recorded, then nothing is beautiful and maybe photography isn't an art anymore. Maybe it never was.
Quite provocative, eh? What value is there for the watcher, when all that is watched is equal?
For myself, that means that the dedicated photographer becomes more important. The photographer must not only see, but the images must be seen, and rise above the noise. Without that, it all becomes lost. While there is value for the creator, the real creator who is dedicated to creating, the value for the watcher diminishes because there is an overloading avalanche of information. Moonrise, puppy dog, Mona Lisa, lunch food on the plate, all the same, all delivered the same way.
"It is the same with him about photography. Digital photography destroys memory, he believes, with its ability to erase. Art school is another problem, teaching students to be blind. Editors are worse—they poke the artist’s eyes out. Photography: one minute it’s not art at all. Then perhaps it is. And then again it is not. That’s Robert Frank."
Darin Boville
4-Aug-2014, 22:08
Photographs used to be very special things. They put them in little folding cases with velvet lining. Then they put them in photo albums. Then digital hit and there wee so many photographs, everything it seemed was photographed. Photographs were not so special.
But I've noticed recently that photographs are becoming special again. People see fewer physical prints than than used to. They are becoming special.
--Darin
johnmsanderson
4-Aug-2014, 22:19
There are too many images. I go through websites like Flak Photo and the ease of moving onto the next image or 'series' just ends up detracting from my own ability in being present with a body of work... the next click away might be more interesting! I end up avoiding too much of this visual noise, to the point where I'm sick of looking at photography on screens. I go to other mediums: music, painting, literature. I often find those to be just as helpful to my photography. Seeing photography shows is another matter. Seeing Burtynsky's Manufactured Landscapes at the Brooklyn Museum is still embedded in my memory as the point in which I decided to dedicate myself to large format photography.
johnmsanderson
4-Aug-2014, 22:23
But I've noticed recently that photographs are becoming special again. People see fewer physical prints than than used to. They are becoming special.
--Darin
I am looking forward to this. I feel there will be a return to the appreciation of a finely-crafted objects: prints, pinball machines... steam locomotives!
In the "good ole days" there weren't many photographs and the consumer ate whatever dogfood they were fed. Call it special, or not.
Good stuff is still presently being made, online and on paper, perhaps more than ever. But finding it and viewing it is a whole different game which requires more focus and intention rather than entertainment, Perhaps the same focus required of an artist picking out a subject from the noise of life.
Thus art is moving from curated "this is good" small volume popular stuff to finding what is special for photography is completely like finding what's special in real life. No problem with that here, but it's not for everyone, especially pundits.
Photographs used to be very special things. They put them in little folding cases with velvet lining. Then they put them in photo albums. Then digital hit and there wee so many photographs, everything it seemed was photographed. Photographs were not so special.
But I've noticed recently that photographs are becoming special again. People see fewer physical prints than than used to. They are becoming special.
--Darin
I agree. Beautiful prints of adequate size - especially when matted and framed in a way that further enhances their impact - stand apart from the countless transient images to which we're exposed every day.
As you say, a fine print has become even more fine today.
I agree. Beautiful prints of adequate size - especially when matted and framed in a way that further enhances their impact - stand apart from the countless transient images to which we're exposed every day.
As you say, a fine print has become even more fine today.
Yes, but there is a difference between the darkroom print and the digital print. The darkroom print is the real thing, the result of light striking and altering the chemical makeup of the substrate. Digital prints, on the other hand are a reproduction of the events that occurred on a photographic sensor. It is one step removed from the actual process. I have no doubt that this difference means little to nothing to the majority of viewers. But it is a critical difference to me. It may be to others.
I suppose many of us here, still use a real computer and monitor for everything. I prefer a comfy chair, a fast computer and a nice monitor, but I find most people are using only Smart phones for everything. I sent a couple digital images to a some models, that were good as large prints, but they looked at them for maybe 2 seconds each on a tiny phone. and moved on with their busy lives. I had both digital and wet prints for them, but they don't even want to see them. I don't see? how they can judge a print, even on a Retina iPhone, perhaps on a Retina iPad. Image overload.
I think it's humorous to see how many people are staring at their device constantly, but I now know they are dealing with a slow connections, balky websites, et al. And most of the viewing time is spent waiting for the damn thing to deliver. For a while I actually thought the youngsters were all geniuses, doing important business on their Smart phone. No, they are texting nonsense, looking at FB stupidity, playing solitaire, examining selfies and... These same people often ask me to look up shit for them, or even buy shit for them, because they don't know how to Google, don't use Paypal, or Amazon Prime, or credit cards or...Now I have one couple asking me where to go see waterfalls, I found many decades ago, easily. Very little imagination left, said this old man.
Not an angry old man, just wondering what's next. I bet I get to it before they do.
How that's that phrase go, 'old age, money and treachery beats youthful exuberance'. Never!
Bill_1856
5-Aug-2014, 14:56
Sour Grapes.
Robert Frank's photographs were never about the individual images, but of his insight and brilliant presentation of that point of view in his books and films.
Sal Santamaura
5-Aug-2014, 16:59
...there is a difference between the darkroom print and the digital print. The darkroom print is the real thing, the result of light striking and altering the chemical makeup of the substrate. Digital prints, on the other hand are a reproduction of the events that occurred on a photographic sensor. It is one step removed from the actual process...I vastly prefer a completely gelatin silver workflow. I enjoy the darkroom environment/process and like my prints made that way. So far, I've only used digital for snapshots and occasional publication illustrations. Nonetheless, what you've posted strikes me as absolute nonsense. You're not the first or only one to make these claims, and you probably won't be the last. I usually don't respond. That ends now.
Silver halide in gelatin on plastic substrates is no less a "sensor" than the electro-optical sensors in digital cameras are. Digital prints are no more reproductions of events that occurred on a photographic sensor than optically made gelatin silver prints are. It's time to move on from this so-called debate and face reality. Photography is photography. The mechanism(s) used to practice it do not define photography. They are mere tools. Like "artspeak," I contend that denigrating any specific mechanism(s) of photography is meaningless babble. I don't think it's possible to utter a more meaningful statement, whether discussing photography toolsets or any given work of "art," than "I like it" or "I don't like it."
Can we all get along? Without trashing each other's methods?
Greg Miller
5-Aug-2014, 18:05
I vastly prefer a completely gelatin silver workflow. I enjoy the darkroom environment/process and like my prints made that way. So far, I've only used digital for snapshots and occasional publication illustrations. Nonetheless, what you've posted strikes me as absolute nonsense. You're not the first or only one to make these claims, and you probably won't be the last. I usually don't respond. That ends now.
Silver halide in gelatin on plastic substrates is no less a "sensor" than the electro-optical sensors in digital cameras are. Digital prints are no more reproductions of events that occurred on a photographic sensor than optically made gelatin silver prints are. It's time to move on from this so-called debate and face reality. Photography is photography. The mechanism(s) used to practice it do not define photography. They are mere tools. Like "artspeak," I contend that denigrating any specific mechanism(s) of photography is meaningless babble. I don't think it's possible to utter a more meaningful statement, whether discussing photography toolsets or any given work of "art," than "I like it" or "I don't like it."
Can we all get along? Without trashing each other's methods?
Bravo. Where's the like button on this forum?!?!?!?!
pdmoylan
5-Aug-2014, 18:37
I admit a degree of intense selfishness in taking images. So I am little concerned about the accessabilty and ease of others taking very good images. It is the process of finding something different/new to say that buoys my love of this craft. When I was teaching photography I found many individuals could and did create an occasionally brilliant image, albeit perhaps unknowingly. It is the dedicated visionary who seeks out new options, ideas and brings home frequent successes that makes this an endlessly endearing form of expression.
Visualising the world with a keenly new perspective is like drinking a freezing cold porter after shooting in 90+ degree temps for hours, it's like opening the sun roof of your car near dusk with a cool evening breeze over your head while listening to Miles in the CD player - shooting images is that break from the physical and mental oppression that we feel from having to function in a challenging world. Who cares how many images there are, I only care about the ones that inspire me including the few that I bring home and view with a huge smile. It's all about the process and the freedom to think differently.
Again, who cares whether we are overwhelmed with cameras, images, even with numbers of people; my subjective experience is all that concerns me and if others like it so be it.
If I wanted to make a business of this I could not easily bridge my emotional attachment to the images with what I believe the public might want. Yet for a modest amount of effort I have been somewhat successful.
IMHO it's the journey that counts and bringing home an occasional winner. Let others enjoy the same experience and perhaps it will make them happy enough to co-exist in a tough and for some treacherous world.
PDM
Silver halide in gelatin on plastic substrates is no less a "sensor" than the electro-optical sensors in digital cameras are. Digital prints are no more reproductions of events that occurred on a photographic sensor than optically made gelatin silver prints are. It's time to move on from this so-called debate and face reality. Photography is photography. The mechanism(s) used to practice it do not define photography. They are mere tools. Like "artspeak," I contend that denigrating any specific mechanism(s) of photography is meaningless babble. I don't think it's possible to utter a more meaningful statement, whether discussing photography toolsets or any given work of "art," than "I like it" or "I don't like it."
Can we all get along? Without trashing each other's methods?
Nicely said! I couldn't agree more.
--P
invisibleflash
5-Aug-2014, 20:19
Yes, but there is a difference between the darkroom print and the digital print. The darkroom print is the real thing, the result of light striking and altering the chemical makeup of the substrate. Digital prints, on the other hand are a reproduction of the events that occurred on a photographic sensor. It is one step removed from the actual process. I have no doubt that this difference means little to nothing to the majority of viewers. But it is a critical difference to me. It may be to others.
Yes, this is true. But the ease and quality of digital photography makes up for the 'removed' step. If you want to get closer to the original then go for tintypes. Film and wet prints are one step removed from tintypes. But does that really matter?
Digital opened up a whole different world for me. I shot this project a week ago.
(NSFW)
http://whoopwhoopartistsbook.tumblr.com/
http://familyicp.tumblr.com/
I could have never done the same with film. And digital printing makes hand printed artists' books feasible.
As far as Frank? Yes, we are overloaded with images. Our world I polluted with images. One has to work hard to produce images that stand above the rest. It is tough work, but it IS still our love.
Robert Frank sounds wise in this quote, but some moments are more meaningful and universal than others. Are the photojournalists the artists who best use the medium?
There are too many written (and spoken) words, as well :), but I don't know that we all need to keep our thoughts to ourselves.
It is up to the consumers of words and images (and all other stimuli, I suppose) to determine how to "use" them. We all set the thresholds of our filters to some level, then determine how long to engage with whatever passes through that filter.
I think I'm just babbling, so I'll stop!
Brian C. Miller
6-Aug-2014, 07:33
Can we all get along? Without trashing each other's methods?
I think there's a difference between "trashing" and upholding something that does have virtues.
Martin Scorsese's statement in regards to the recent deal made with Kodak (Entertainment Weekly (http://insidemovies.ew.com/2014/08/04/martin-scorsese-kodak-film-letter/)) could be seen as "trashing" digital, but I really think that he's upholding the virtues of film (emphasis added):
But film is also an art form, and young people who are driven to make films should have access to the tools and materials that were the building blocks of that art form. Would anyone dream of telling young artists to throw away their paints and canvases because iPads are so much easier to carry? Of course not. In the history of motion pictures, only a minuscule percentage of the works comprising our art form was not shot on film. Everything we do in HD is an effort to recreate the look of film. Film, even now, offers a richer visual palette than HD.
Mr. Scorsese is addressing what he sees as a fact: Film has superior visual and archival qualities over HD. It is also an art form in and of itself. I don't view him as some kind of fanatical APUGer. I'm sure that if HD were superior to film, he would honestly say that.
Robert Frank sounds wise in this quote, but some moments are more meaningful and universal than others. Are the photojournalists the artists who best use the medium?
Is directed and deliberate photojournalism less valid than selfies? Foodies? Lunchies? Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat? Cat videos? Security cameras?
Robert Frank wasn't addressing Ansel Adams in that comment. I really recommend that you read the entire Vanity Fair article. The search term "cat video" on YouTube results in "About 41,000,000 results." Forty one MILLION videos. Approximately, give or take. Does quantity equal to "best use?"
Sal Santamaura
6-Aug-2014, 08:08
...Can we all get along? Without trashing each other's methods?
I think there's a difference between "trashing" and upholding something that does have virtues...Indeed there is. What Toyon posted isn't "upholding" anything. It's directly trashing digital.
...The darkroom print is the real thing...Digital prints, on the other hand are a reproduction...Choice of words is very important. This construction states that gelatin silver is real, digital is not. Utter nonsense.
...Martin Scorsese's statement...could be seen as "trashing" digital...No, it can't be. You ignore another important part of his statement, namely:
"...HD isn’t coming, it’s here. The advantages are numerous..."
...I don't view him as some kind of fanatical APUGer. I'm sure that if HD were superior to film, he would honestly say that...First, why trash APUG? Some people enjoy that Web forum dedicated solely to gelatin silver photography. Nobody is forced to visit there or participate. Why the negative aspersions? Not just you, Brian, others here too.
Second, although the discussion was about still photography and you took us down this cinema tangent, Scorcese enumerated the advantages of film and the advantages of digital. As a smart and articulate person, he made a balanced case, praising film's continued availability, but not even remotely trashing digital.
Again, can we all get along? Without trashing each other's methods?
they are all over (photos) because they are cheap
see something? pull out the phone and take 27 pix of it in a hurry
even in the days before the big silver rush, it was still 3 or 4 bucks for film and processing
now..there is no 'hurt' to shooting as much as you can
then txting 14 photos of your breakfast to all your friends and posting it to face book
one reason I like film.. and BIG FILM..is there is a hurt to pushing the button - at 10 bucks a shutter click.. what you are aiming at better be reasonably good
Are the photojournalists the artists who best use the medium?
Nope - that would be crime scene photographers, Scientists documenting specimens and police mug shot photographers
everyone else is just wanna be painters
Nope - that would be crime scene photographers, Scientists documenting specimens and police mug shot photographers
everyone else is just wanna be painters
Great, Dr.Tang, I recall Henry Cartier-Bresson - on n'est pas des paintres ratés...
Gentleman, there are two different questions about what Frank sad: the lack of filter and the amount of photos.
When young, I remember had crossed millions of newspapers with zillions of photos and the publication chain was very very large. But there was the filter chain: publishers, photography editors, as today, but there was no other way to publish - or almost - without passing trough the visual/criteria filter.
What's happening and maybe annoying situation is the lack of filter, criteria. The "popular" criteria is an expanding sea where I don't pretend to be drowned... The internet is a damned horizontal platform where much more then we need is shared, from the good and from the bad.
Cheers,
RSalles
I vastly prefer a completely gelatin silver workflow. I enjoy the darkroom environment/process and like my prints made that way. So far, I've only used digital for snapshots and occasional publication illustrations. Nonetheless, what you've posted strikes me as absolute nonsense. You're not the first or only one to make these claims, and you probably won't be the last. I usually don't respond. That ends now.
Silver halide in gelatin on plastic substrates is no less a "sensor" than the electro-optical sensors in digital cameras are. Digital prints are no more reproductions of events that occurred on a photographic sensor than optically made gelatin silver prints are. It's time to move on from this so-called debate and face reality. Photography is photography. The mechanism(s) used to practice it do not define photography. They are mere tools. Like "artspeak," I contend that denigrating any specific mechanism(s) of photography is meaningless babble. I don't think it's possible to utter a more meaningful statement, whether discussing photography toolsets or any given work of "art," than "I like it" or "I don't like it."
Can we all get along? Without trashing each other's methods?
Anyone who makes a comparison of digital versus analog gets trashed by the intolerance of the "digivangelists". Seems to me you could not have uttered a less tolerant or more oblivious misstatement. Why don't you try thinking about things rather than speaking from your gut. Frankly, if you felt your work was equivalent you wouldn't make such an inflamed and intemperate statement.
It is notable that those who began their careers in digital don't seem to care about looking at the difference. But those who converted to digital production are suspiciously quick to condemn those who question the value of their choice.
The statement "photography is photography" is a particularly specious, yet familiar statement. It means nothing, all photography is not equivalent. We don't all have to agree, nor accord unearned and unwarranted respect on processes some feel are of lesser value.
Greg Miller
6-Aug-2014, 19:20
Anyone who makes a comparison of digital versus analog gets trashed by the intolerance of the "digivangelists". Seems to me you could not have uttered a less tolerant or more oblivious misstatement. Why don't you try thinking about things rather than speaking from your gut. Frankly, if you felt your work was equivalent you wouldn't make such an inflamed and intemperate statement.
It is notable that those who began their careers in digital don't seem to care about looking at the difference. But those who converted to digital production are suspiciously quick to condemn those who question the value of their choice.
The statement "photography is photography" is a particularly specious, yet familiar statement. It means nothing, all photography is not equivalent. We don't all have to agree, nor accord unearned and unwarranted respect on processes some feel are of lesser value.
Oh you darkroom printers think you are photographers but you are not. The print is a reproduction that is a second generation product; the negative is the first generation product. The print is one step removed from the actual process of capturing the light striking the capture medium. Only a process direct to the display medium which is the result of light striking and altering the chemical makeup of the substrate can be the real thing. You should switch to a collodian plate process, or an equivalent, if you want your product the be considered the real thing. The plate is the real thing; not like a print which is not the real thing but in fact a reproduction.
Sal Santamaura
6-Aug-2014, 20:41
Anyone who makes a comparison of digital versus analog gets trashed by the intolerance of the "digivangelists". Seems to me you could not have uttered a less tolerant or more oblivious misstatement...That's not just nonsense, it's baffling. My post, which you quoted, explains that I enjoy the darkroom environment/process and like my prints made that way. So far, I've only used digital for snapshots and occasional publication illustrations. What could be further from "digivangelism?"
...Frankly, if you felt your work was equivalent you wouldn't make such an inflamed and intemperate statement...If I felt my work (again, gelatin silver almost exclusively) was equivalent to what?
...It is notable that those who began their careers in digital don't seem to care about looking at the difference. But those who converted to digital production are suspiciously quick to condemn those who question the value of their choice...I don't have a career in photography and never did. I've been alive for six decades, photographing for pleasure through nearly five of them. There's no "production" associated with my photographic activities, digital or otherwise. I continuously evaluate the state of digital methods in comparison to gelatin silver methods using the only criterion that matters, i.e. looking at the difference. I don't condemn those who question the value of choosing to use digital. I don't condemn those who question the value of choosing to use gelatin silver. I am railing against those who, with almost religious fervor, trash one photography method while elevating the other to exalted status.
...The statement "photography is photography" is a particularly specious, yet familiar statement. It means nothing, all photography is not equivalent...Red herring. Words have specific meaning. Photography is photography. It's all the capture of images using a lens in front of a chemical or electronic sensor. The statement neither explicitly nor implicitly says all photography is equivalent. Gelatin silver photography using a disk camera, with its 8x10mm image area, cannot be considered remotely equivalent to gelatin silver photography using an 8x10" view camera. Nor is making negatives with that 8x10" view camera equivalent to capturing a snapshot using my Canon G9. Yet, all three are photography. We're each entitled to our own opinions, but can't make up our own facts.
...We don't all have to agree, nor accord unearned and unwarranted respect on processes some feel are of lesser value.Again, this insistent trashing of digital methods smacks of religious zeal. "Gelatin silver, the one, true way." I suggest that anyone who doesn't want to use digital should simply avoid doing so. There's no need to accord the technology "respect" in an Internet forum. There's also no need, nor is it civil/respectful, to trash it at every opportunity. Running digital down might motivate a few from your same "sect" to chime in, but it mostly has the effect of causing others to conclude that your opinions don't warrant respect.
Please bear in mind that I'm almost exclusively a film/darkroom worker. So far, I like gelatin silver better. And I'm put off by the digital trashing. After nearly 15 years as a member of this community, I've had enough and plan to do whatever I can to counter it from now on.
Brian C. Miller
6-Aug-2014, 20:49
Hey, guys, I started the thread to discuss Robert Frank's statement and observations. If you're going to post in the thread, could you please keep it on topic? I have no interest in another Mobius strip about digital and photo-chemistry unraveled into a few thousand posts. If you are set on that topic, then could someone start a new thread??
Sal Santamaura
6-Aug-2014, 20:53
Hey, guys, I started the thread to discuss Robert Frank's statement and observations. If you're going to post in the thread, could you please keep it on topic? I have no interest in another Mobius strip unraveled into a few thousand posts...It might have been good to consider that lack of interest before submitting post #17. :D
...If you are set on that topic, then could someone start a new thread??I'm not interested in starting a new, useless thread. My posts in this one are simply intended to counterbalance the digital trashing where it occurred.
Greg Miller
7-Aug-2014, 07:03
From an interview in Vanity Fair, Robert Frank’s Unsentimental Journey (http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/04/frank200804), April 2008:
Quite provocative, eh? What value is there for the watcher, when all that is watched is equal?
For myself, that means that the dedicated photographer becomes more important. The photographer must not only see, but the images must be seen, and rise above the noise. Without that, it all becomes lost. While there is value for the creator, the real creator who is dedicated to creating, the value for the watcher diminishes because there is an overloading avalanche of information. Moonrise, puppy dog, Mona Lisa, lunch food on the plate, all the same, all delivered the same way.
"It is the same with him about photography. Digital photography destroys memory, he believes, with its ability to erase. Art school is another problem, teaching students to be blind. Editors are worse—they poke the artist’s eyes out. Photography: one minute it’s not art at all. Then perhaps it is. And then again it is not. That’s Robert Frank."
I really don't buy Frank's position. We are bombarded by many things, not just imagery. Food, music, TV shows, clothing styles, ... Yet the general public generally is pretty good at recognizing food of a higher standard, music of a higher standard, movies of a higher standard. In my experience, the bombardment of average or low quality products actually makes it easier for high quality to stand out and be appreciated.
We also have to keep in mind that our medium has the unique quality of be available for many purposes. The vast majority of people making photos with the camera phones or point-and-shoots is not for art. They are making photos as a recording of a personal moment for them. Then we have other people with cameras, doing commercial assignments for advertising, fashion, editorial,... all with different purposes. THen we have people making art. All different purposes, and many not intending or pretending to be art.
And last but not least, one must consider that Frank has a very specific perspective. He was a recorder of American society. He would naturally things differently than a Uellsman or a John Paul Caponigro. Frank isn't exactly an optimist either.
Frank is a very smart and insightful guy, but I see nothing smart or insightful in his remark. What's the right number of photographs for the world? Once upon a time, when Nicephor Niepce made the first image, there's was only one. Was that better? The numbers jumped by orders of magnitude with the invention of the daguerrotype, and again with the wet plate, and again with the dry plate, and again with film, and again with the brownie, and again with the minilab, and again with digital, and again with phone cameras. Is scarcity or exclusivity the only source of value? Of "specialness?"
That's a pretty shallow well from which to draw value.
I think "The Americans" would have been no less special if there had been a thousand times as many photographers and photographs in the 1950s. Getting the book seen and published might have have been harder, but that's a different subject. And Frank may have made more pictures of sad old cowboys in gas station restrooms taking selfies ... also a different subject.
Eric Biggerstaff
7-Aug-2014, 10:04
I agree with some of what Frank is saying. As photographers, we have a different take on the art we love than does the general public and at times it might be hard for us to separate what we feel to be true from what the non-photographer public feels.
I get the sense that the general public has grown tired of all of the imagery out there and no longer places much value on a photograph. Gallery owners have told me, as have several photographers, that the middle market has sort of been wiped out (I think of this as the work priced between $500 and $1,000) and many people who might have started collecting art by purchasing photography no longer do so. I rarely see good photography at art fairs any more and what good is there has to compete with low end work being sold everywhere so pricing has taken a hit. In addition, I feel that many younger, talented photographers are having a more difficult time getting noticed and selling work (maybe not in major art hubs but elsewhere) and cannot make enough money to cover true cost.
So in many ways, I get what Frank is saying. There is so much out there today, the general public is getting to where they really don't care about photography.
On the other hand, I do believe photography when practiced at it's highest levels is art and the fact that major museums all collect it and show it lends credibility to photography being art. We may be the young sibling to other art forms but we will not be turned away. I am happy that we are seeing many younger photographers taking up historical processes and learning about the non-digital forms of the art. Digital is great but to many who are serious about photography, learning other ways of creating images is an important tool in the ability to express themselves creatively.
I see nothing but evidence that the public cares about photography (as art) more than ever. I see higher prices paid for photography at galleries and auctions, I see more photography-only galleries and more galleries that include photography among other mediums. I see more photography books published than ever, more photography grants, more photography programs in schools, more photography web sites. And more interest in participation.
This year I've also sold more work than I have before, and it's been to people with no formal art collecting background.
I have not seen evidence of the gutting of the mid-range (but I also wonder what era people making these claims are comparing with ... have they adjusted for inflation? $500 in 1988 equals $1000 today ...). If there is indeed a loss of the middle-market, this could be interpreted in different ways. An obvious one is that the price disparity between photography and other media is eroding. How often do you see a $500 painting at a commercial gallery in a big city?
Frames for my prints cost more today than my prints did back when I was in college. So I'm glad to see expectations for cost on the rise.
None of this has anything to do with the commercial photography world, which indeed seems to have been gutted. Part of that is everyone having a camera, part of it is the move to stock imagery, and part is just the internet culture of not valuing "content."
From an interview in Vanity Fair, Robert Frank’s Unsentimental Journey (http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/04/frank200804), April 2008:
Quite provocative, eh? What value is there for the watcher, when all that is watched is equal?
For myself, that means that the dedicated photographer becomes more important. The photographer must not only see, but the images must be seen, and rise above the noise. Without that, it all becomes lost. While there is value for the creator, the real creator who is dedicated to creating, the value for the watcher diminishes because there is an overloading avalanche of information. Moonrise, puppy dog, Mona Lisa, lunch food on the plate, all the same, all delivered the same way.
"It is the same with him about photography. Digital photography destroys memory, he believes, with its ability to erase. Art school is another problem, teaching students to be blind. Editors are worse—they poke the artist’s eyes out. Photography: one minute it’s not art at all. Then perhaps it is. And then again it is not. That’s Robert Frank."
It is not a great argument by Frank. There has been an exponential increase in images in recent years, probably on the same order again as that enabled by cheap Kodak photography. But, as long as great images have the power to stop people in their tracks and elicit strong emotions, there will be photography as an art. Furthermore, his connection between the much lower volumes of imagery in the past and the credibility of photography as an art seems tenuous. It seems that he is an old man feeling overwhelmed by the magnitude of change in his world.
My fear is a little different, that young people may no longer be able to comprehend imagery that does not move or respond to their touch, or that is manipulated to serve their personal data profile. It seems many have already lost the ability to look at art for a sustained period of time (more than momentary). Looking at art is not only instinct, there are aspects to be learned and skills to be developed.
...My fear is a little different, that young people may no longer be able to comprehend imagery that does not move or respond to their touch, or that is manipulated to serve their personal data profile. It seems many have already lost the ability to look at art for a sustained period of time (more than momentary). Looking at art is not only instinct, there are aspects to be learned and skills to be developed.
I wouldn't worry about this too much, at least from what I'm observing. In Toronto, a number of small galleries were opened up by young photographers/curators and they hang work produced by other young/emerging photographers who work in either media (film and digital). From my personal experience, they're discussing the work as well and not just superficially.
Might it be because Toronto has the Contact photo festival and there *might* be more photographic literacy here, I don't know. Exhibition spaces run from high end galleries to very public, large outdoor displays. There have also been guerrilla displays as well (some friends did this a few years ago).
I tend to agree with the 'filtering' concept. There are fewer filters now as people can post what they please without any critical walls to pass through.
VictoriaPerelet
22-Aug-2014, 21:03
From an interview in Vanity Fair, Robert Frank’s Unsentimental Journey (http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/04/frank200804), April 2008:
April 2008? Too many images? At that time only few selected hardcore Apple fans had iPhone and "selfie" was not part of everyday lexicon. 1st Android phone was sold in small quantities. I'm not sure if instagram was around either. In April 2008 portraiture busines was listed in Yellow pages.
That was long time ago:) Now everybody has camera in the pocket and selfie is preferred way of capturing personality.
Car driver was very specialized profession at the beginning of the last century. Nobody complains about too many cars today, except environmentalists.
Tin Can
22-Aug-2014, 22:04
April 2008? Too many images?....Nobody complains about too many cars today, except environmentalists.
And retired mechanics.
It's directly trashing digital.
Why should we presume a thing to be above its true name?
Sal Santamaura
23-Aug-2014, 08:15
...Can we all get along? Without trashing each other's methods?
I think there's a difference between "trashing" and upholding something that does have virtues...
Indeed there is. What Toyon posted isn't "upholding" anything. It's directly trashing digital...
Why should we presume a thing to be above its true name?OK, now that the sequence of posts and replies from which you elected to take a small snippet out of context has been made clear, let's see if there is any meaning in what you posted.
Your wording, in response to "It's directly trashing digital," asks a rhetorical question about whether digital is being held above its true name. That construction is utter nonsense. Chemical photography is a tool set. Digital photography is a tool set. These are English language words for tool sets. Neither tool set is intrinsically better or worse than the other; they're merely different. It is impossible to hold digital above its true name because the name is simply a description of it.
Implicit in your "question" is the claim that digital photography is inferior to chemical photography. It isn't. It's just different. Again, can we all get along? Without trashing each other's methods?
Maris Rusis
23-Aug-2014, 20:38
[QUOTE=Sal Santamaura;1164883] ...Chemical photography is a tool set. Digital photography is a tool set. These are English language words for tool sets. Neither tool set is intrinsically better or worse than the other; they're merely different. It is impossible to hold digital above its true name because the name is simply a description of it...
[/QUOTE
Sal, that concept of "tool set" is brilliant. It gets to the heart of all picture-making processes, not just photography, and enables media to be distinctly identified. One doesn't need a degree in cybernetics or information theory to follow the work flow of a very familiar "tool set" I'll try to describe. Please forgive any obscure lapses into abstraction.
First there is illuminated subject matter that sends light to a lens mounted in front of a megapixel sensor. The lens focusses an image of the subject onto the sensor and the sensor transduces the light energy, pixel by pixel, into a stream of electrical impulses that travel up a cable. The electrical impulses are accumulated in a memory from whence they are processed. Processing can include editing the memory by deleting things, adding things, stitching together memories obtained at different times, or summing memories of bright and dark things (HDR if you like) to compensate for sensor limitations, or summing memories at different focus settings (focus stacking if you like) to defeat optical law.
The end result of all the editing, stitching, summing, and subtracting is a picture file ready to be turned into visible form. This is done by a mark-making "engine" operating under the control of a set of instructions that link the picture file with the actions of the mark-maker. Marks are accordingly placed on a flat surface and the pattern of marks is interpreted by a viewer as a picture.
The previous two hard to read paragraphs describe the "tool set" that has generated a large proportion of the world's greatest art treasures namely Western Realist Painting. The lens and sensor system is of course the artist's eye and optic nerve, the memories and processing happen in the artist's brain, and the mark-making engine is the artist's hand wielding a paint brush.
For the purposes of debate I'll suggest that the parallel between realist painting and modern digital picture-making is stunning and persuasive. People today working in the digital domain are standing in the same creative stream as Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Vincent van Gogh. It's just that they don't realise it yet.
Then there are people making pictures out of light-sensitive substances who start with illuminated subject matter but have a radically different "tool set". Their creative stream is so far rather less grand.
Sal Santamaura is dead right about one thing: "Neither tool set is intrinsically better or worse than the other; they're merely different..." And Robert Frank might have worried less about too many images if he realised they weren't endless instances of the same thing.
Sal Santamaura
23-Aug-2014, 20:57
...Robert Frank might have worried less about too many images if he realised they weren't endless instances of the same thing.Posting a lot of obfuscatory, vaguely positive-sounding "stuff" about digital photography before subtly repeating the "they're just multiple copies resulting from pressing the print button" attack won't work.
Can we all get along? Without trashing each other's methods?
Re: the toolsets being different ...
I think they're different primarily in how the user interacts with them.
If you compare them carefully enough, the fundamental differences seem rather insignificant. Semiotically, as image-making tools, they are identical. And on molecular and quantum levels, I think a lot of people would be surprised to see how similar the light/energy state reactions are between a silver halide crystal and and silicon sensor cell. The differences lie almost entirely in how we work with that captured information.
We may differ in which working methods we prefer. We may even differ in how how important we consider our working styles. It's silly to try to elevate either of these subjective preferences to something of general importance.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.