PDA

View Full Version : "Is photography over?" A short article



Erik Larsen
11-Sep-2014, 19:39
Here's a link to an article I stumbled upon, forgive me if it has been posted before. Just something to ponder.
http://blog.fotomuseum.ch/2014/03/i-is-photography-over/

paulr
11-Sep-2014, 20:37
"From my point of view, the fact that the world’s leading photo-curators would even pose such a question turned out to be more illuminating than most of the symposium’s content."

This is where I disagree. The title of the topic was deliberately provocative ... an attempt to draw people into a discussion that might otherwise only appeal to academics.

The content itself was smart, varied, and interesting. More interesting than any summary could be (spoiler alert: no, it's not over). There were interesting perspectives on why we might perceive a crisis in photography, what in photography continues to be vital (or is becoming newly vital), and what the evolution of the medium means for anyone interested in a definition of photography.

It's worth checking out the transcripts.

Tin Can
11-Sep-2014, 23:44
paulr, I skimmed it only because I usually agree with your opinions.

I have been calling this the 'Image Generation' for some time now.


"From my point of view, the fact that the world’s leading photo-curators would even pose such a question turned out to be more illuminating than most of the symposium’s content."

This is where I disagree. The title of the topic was deliberately provocative ... an attempt to draw people into a discussion that might otherwise only appeal to academics.

The content itself was smart, varied, and interesting. More interesting than any summary could be (spoiler alert: no, it's not over). There were interesting perspectives on why we might perceive a crisis in photography, what in photography continues to be vital (or is becoming newly vital), and what the evolution of the medium means for anyone interested in a definition of photography.

It's worth checking out the transcripts.

analoguey
11-Sep-2014, 23:49
any link to the transcripts?

paulr
12-Sep-2014, 06:36
Links: http://www.sfmoma.org/about/research_projects/research_projects_photography_over

DrTang
12-Sep-2014, 08:23
meh


if photographers are people who can't paint


then people who deconstruct photography in symposiums are people who can't even photograph

goamules
12-Sep-2014, 09:10
DrTang, have you ever seen the people who draw shapes on classic, acknowledged photographs in an attempt to show the photographer was applying classic rules of perspective, the golden triangle, etc? It's a hoot. Maybe it was done somewhat, subconsciously....

Some examples:
http://www.adammarelliphoto.com/2011/05/your-shot-003/
https://www.pinterest.com/indiapiedaterre/golden-ratio/
https://fstoppers.com/architecture/ultimate-guide-composition-part-one-just-say-nokeh-31359

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.fstoppers.com/styles/full/s3/Times-Square-Kiss.jpg

I could draw any number of squares, spirals, or triangles on any picture, and SOMETHING will line up.

analoguey
12-Sep-2014, 09:11
Hehe good one, Dr!

paulr
12-Sep-2014, 09:57
I've never understood the hostility toward people who think and write about art.

It's all that goes on in this forum, isn't it?

I personally favor the insights of people who have studied their subject.

gregmo
12-Sep-2014, 11:06
I think it just allows for some sort of justification to have a "job." Not really much different from the analysts on ESPN to fill airtime for most of the day when the only thing that matters is the game itself.

Jac@stafford.net
12-Sep-2014, 11:36
I've never understood the hostility toward people who think and write about art.
It's all that goes on in this forum, isn't it?
I personally favor the insights of people who have studied their subject.

Art and photo criticism is dialog largely concerned with finding works' place history; it is not really concerned with making qualitative statements about the artist's craft, while most people here are so concerned. I can understand the angst.

I am still reading the SFMOMA conference transcripts, but I'm hooked. Attendees posed some questions and made statements that do not, for the most part, serve to draw attention to themselves. They have some of the same concerns I have, but I cannot, and do not care to apply their dialog as a guide to my own involvement in photography. Writing, thinking, yes, but not for photography.

Thanks for the links.

Heroique
12-Sep-2014, 12:01
"Trevor Paglen's work deliberately blurs lines between science, contemporary art, journalism, and other disciplines to construct unfamiliar, yet meticulously researched ways to see and interpret the world around us."

So says the 1st sentence of the article writer's own biography.

Sounds like new ways to see for Mr. Paglen should never be inspired, clear, or in any sense familiar.

But his article is still worth a read, and I'll pay attention to his follow-ups.

invisibleflash
12-Sep-2014, 13:39
meh


if photographers are people who can't paint


then people who deconstruct photography in symposiums are people who can't even photograph

Curators are not museum quality photogs, they are academics.

invisibleflash
12-Sep-2014, 13:41
Art and photo criticism is dialog largely concerned with finding works' place history; it is not really concerned with making qualitative statements about the artist's craft, while most people here are so concerned. I can understand the angst.

I am still reading the SFMOMA conference transcripts, but I'm hooked. Attendees posed some questions and made statements that do not, for the most part, serve to draw attention to themselves. They have some of the same concerns I have, but I cannot, and do not care to apply their dialog as a guide to my own involvement in photography. Writing, thinking, yes, but not for photography.

Thanks for the links.

finding works' place history?

If that is the case it explains why so many crappy photogs have had curators place them in established high art circles.

invisibleflash
12-Sep-2014, 13:45
DrTang, have you ever seen the people who draw shapes on classic, acknowledged photographs in an attempt to show the photographer was applying classic rules of perspective, the golden triangle, etc? It's a hoot. Maybe it was done somewhat, subconsciously....

Some examples:
http://www.adammarelliphoto.com/2011/05/your-shot-003/
https://www.pinterest.com/indiapiedaterre/golden-ratio/
https://fstoppers.com/architecture/ultimate-guide-composition-part-one-just-say-nokeh-31359

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.fstoppers.com/styles/full/s3/Times-Square-Kiss.jpg

I could draw any number of squares, spirals, or triangles on any picture, and SOMETHING will line up.

Yes, it is bullshit to think the street photog set it all up ahead of time with the design lines. Sure, sometime there is time for playing with comp. And classic lines do work. But when I get them it is not so much like I am a genius, they just happen and I pick the best comp from the choices.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:26_Roadkills_18_Copyright_2013_Daniel_Teoli_Jr_lr.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:26_Roadkills_8_copyright_2013_Daniel_Teoli_Jr_lr.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:26_Roadkills_11_Copyright_2013_Daniel_Teoli_Jr_lr.jpg

Academics must always have explanations.

Jac@stafford.net
12-Sep-2014, 14:28
finding works' place history?

If that is the case it explains why so many crappy photogs have had curators place them in established high art circles.

A typo. "works' place in history"
That's right.
.

Darin Boville
12-Sep-2014, 15:10
I've never understood the hostility toward people who think and write about art.

It's all that goes on in this forum, isn't it?

I personally favor the insights of people who have studied their subject.

Trum but there certainly is a gulf between practitioners and academics (and often, curators). It can be fun to reread all that stuff about Cindy Sherman's work way back at the beginning of here career--so many articles--and ten to read later on the Sherman herself hadn't a clue what they were were talking about.

There's a worry, too, that the art schools teach art students to dance the academic dance, artists who really don't get the visual art part of their chosen field so much as they get the visual studies part of their chosen field.

On the other hand, the "Is Photography Over" event was interesting. I watched big chunks of the videos when they first came out. Some of the participants seemed to be talking about something else other than photography (something over in the English department, maybe) but others had interesting thoughts. Certainly well worth the time to explore.

--Darin

paulr
12-Sep-2014, 16:03
Trum but there certainly is a gulf between practitioners and academics (and often, curators)

Sometimes there is, sometimes not. I don't necessarily think it's a problem if there is such a gulf, nor do I think there needs to be one. Szarkowsky was a practitioner and a great critic. So is Robert Adams. Likewise plenty of good critics are not practitioners. And I think we'd agree (based on the evidence of internet chatter and artist's statements) most practitioners are lousy critics.


It can be fun to reread all that stuff about Cindy Sherman's work way back at the beginning of here career--so many articles--and ten to read later on the Sherman herself hadn't a clue what they were were talking about.

We'd have to adhere to to a very old-fashioned idea of art to think that something means what an artist intends it to mean, and nothing else. These are the Humpty Dumpty Schools of criticism:

121758

It's a kind of authoritarianism that presumes omnipotence on the part of the artist. It's especially questionable with art forms that can duplicate or mimic big chunks of the world (photography, literature).


There's a worry, too, that the art schools teach art students to dance the academic dance, artists who really don't get the visual art part of their chosen field so much as they get the visual studies part of their chosen field.

There's lots of worry, but have you ever actually met anyone like that? All the MFAs I know came out of programs strongly centered on practice. There's always some kind of theoretical foundation (in a critique, you need a ground to stand on ... something beyond individual taste with which to evaluate things) but I've never any MFA theory-heads. Maybe there were programs like that in the '80s.

Jac@stafford.net
12-Sep-2014, 16:16
[emoji21]

Darin Boville
12-Sep-2014, 17:42
Sometimes there is, sometimes not. I don't necessarily think it's a problem if there is such a gulf, nor do I think there needs to be one. Szarkowsky was a practitioner and a great critic. So is Robert Adams. Likewise plenty of good critics are not practitioners. And I think we'd agree (based on the evidence of internet chatter and artist's statements) most practitioners are lousy critics.

Szarkowski was a rare creature who was from a different era, before the MFA rot had set in. :) Robert Adams is made of some of the same material as Szarkowski. But who else would you place on this list? On a related note, I have no trouble finding science journals of worth--even at a mall bookstore. What about art magazines of worth--one with intelligent art writing? They've gotten better since the 80s, I admit, but still...



We'd have to adhere to to a very old-fashioned idea of art to think that something means what an artist intends it to mean, and nothing else. These are the Humpty Dumpty Schools of criticism:

121758

It's a kind of authoritarianism that presumes omnipotence on the part of the artist. It's especially questionable with art forms that can duplicate or mimic big chunks of the world (photography, literature).

No, but I think most artists really do have something particular in mind when the create a work of art, whether or not they can articulate what that thing is (or even if it can be put usefully into words). I don't give critics so much credit as you (or so much of a blank check). I see lot so charlatans, more so than in other fields, but also there are good people doing what they can. And at the end of they day there is no denying that this thing we do, this thing called art, has some sort of power no matter how difficult to define.




There's lots of worry, but have you ever actually met anyone like that? All the MFAs I know came out of programs strongly centered on practice. There's always some kind of theoretical foundation (in a critique, you need a ground to stand on ... something beyond individual taste with which to evaluate things) but I've never any MFA theory-heads. Maybe there were programs like that in the '80s.

You know more about the current MFA programs than I do, I'm sure. But I haven't the sense that there has been any renaissance in the MFA world. But based on your worlds I'll keep my eyes open...

--Darin

paulr
12-Sep-2014, 17:57
Szarkowski was a rare creature who was from a different era, before the MFA rot had set in. :) Robert Adams is made of some of the same material as Szarkowski. But who else would you place on this list? On a related note, I have no trouble finding science journals of worth--even at a mall bookstore. What about art magazines of worth--one with intelligent art writing? They've gotten better since the 80s, I admit, but still...

It's true that Mr Adams and Mr. Szarkowski are exceptional in being good at both. But I think it's more significant that the better practitioners are rarely good critics, and vice-versa. Different job descriptions, different folks.


I don't give critics so much credit as you (or so much of a blank check).

I wouldn't give anyone a blank check. A good critical argument needs to be supported. It's not one that you accept because you're wowed by someone's authority, it's one that actually helps you see more. Good critics and curators and editors sometimes see more in a work (or at least see something different) than the person who made it. Same with good teachers. I've had all kinds of things pointed out to me about my own work. By people who, most significantly, were not me.

This isn't to dispute your point that there are charlatans. I just think we need to be careful about calling people that based on nothing but their job description.


You know more about the current MFA programs than I do, I'm sure. But I haven't the sense that there has been any renaissance in the MFA world.

I don't know much about the programs, just people who have been through some of them. As individuals, they don't conform to very many stereotypes.

I also don't know about any kind of renaissance ... but if the programs were as dubious as their reputations back in the '80s, then anything that came after might look like a renaissance.

Ken Lee
13-Sep-2014, 11:18
...have you ever seen the people who draw shapes on classic, acknowledged photographs in an attempt to show the photographer was applying classic rules of perspective, the golden triangle, etc? It's a hoot.



http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/AnselGolden.jpg

Like this one ?



http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/AnselGolden2.jpg

Under the ground glass it might have been a bit more obvious :rolleyes:

Christopher Barrett
13-Sep-2014, 11:54
I confess, I have a Golden Ratio grid printed out on acetate mounted over the ground glass of my Hasselblad.

David_Senesac
30-Sep-2014, 21:55
An interesting short essay thankyou. The real title should have been posed:

Is Traditional Photography Over?

And the answer would be a resounding YES. One thing that does is make the high end photography art world less relevant so no wonder there is uneasiness and reassessments. But being at the knee of change is not a time to be able to easily predict what is to come. And it affects not just the audience the author addressed.

For instance as the economy began to collapse in 2008, I exited my modest small business selling prints and went back to my hi tech career that was a more certain source of steady income. Thus from my tiny perspective it has been over on that level for a time. But it was not just because of the economy collapsing that I bailed. The rise of digital photography and especially the rise of digital cameras with the Internet awash in myriad images makes commercial notions too much a gamble for those with small resources.

But I also think we may be on a threshold of a new way to present photography. Ultra hi definition 4k by 2k pixel computer display monitor products are appearing on the consumer electronics marketplace. 5k by 3k have also just appeared. Video wall technology using multiple display panels ie 2x2, 2x3, 3x3 is already a reality. Thus for the first time those with large format work will have the potential to actually display at near pixel resolution on such displays that is going impress and surprise. We older folks with large bodies of work have a potential to leverage that commercially as exhibits in ways one might only speculate on.

Darin Boville
1-Oct-2014, 00:43
But I also think we may be on a threshold of a new way to present photography. Ultra hi definition 4k by 2k pixel computer display monitor products are appearing on the consumer electronics marketplace.

I cannot agree more. I have a 55-inch 4k display. Looking at a still image on it is simply stunning. You can walk right up to it and be impressed. Couldn't do that at that size with 1080p. I run slideshows on it all the time. Just amazing.

--Darin

paulr
1-Oct-2014, 06:04
Is Traditional Photography Over?

And the answer would be a resounding YES.

I think ideas like this are sneaky ... they don't admit it, but they're really about the power struggle for defining "traditional" photography.

When I look at the history of the medium, I see many, many branches of it, each looking different, with each one changing and evolving along the way, whether in response to cultural changes, technical ones, or to the work that had been done previously. I don't see some linear thing, where where there was a kind of photography that everyone agreed was the real deal—one that went unchanged for a long time before some sudden break.

Drew Wiley
1-Oct-2014, 10:39
Viewing images on a digital screen, no matter how fancy, has about as much appeal to me as looking at a backlit Hamm's beer logo in the window of some redneck dive. People will buy a ticket and stand in long lines to see real painting by old masters. If you showed them to them on a display, they might as well be shopping at Costco for a big screen TV they can watch then next Superbowl on with all their buddies. A 1950's slide projector will give a better show.

paulr
1-Oct-2014, 19:48
Thank you Drew for speaking on behalf of not just everyone, but everyone of the future. A rare gift.

Drew Wiley
2-Oct-2014, 09:04
You're welcome. You know the difference between new money and old money, and why the old money people despise the new money crowd? (I can address this
objectively because I'm in the "no money" middle-caste myself). Bill Gates spendt a ton of money to put digital display panels in the bedrooms of his big house so
his guests could choose whatever famous painting they preferred on any given day. Now of course just about everyone can afford something like that, but back then
they were really really expensive to make. Now here's a guy that can afford to buy the real deal from time to time, and he does that???? Cannibal in a tophat syndrome. But my remark was in reference to what Darin suggested. He's at a location where the potential clientele are rich techies. They're not going to be impressed with anyone's latest monitor or whatever, because they design and market those things and are already fifteeen steps ahead of us. But hopefully, what they cannot do is make interesting actual prints, even though they design a lot of that technology too. And frankly, some of them covet handmade rather than digital work because they admire it - it's something different from their day job. Just reviewing a portfolios alias might be logically done on a laptop today, just like it was with a slide projector in days of yore, but unless it's an interior decorator just shopping for color above a sofa, I'm skeptical of its effectiveness. If people wanted
virtual prints - essentially glorified screensavers - they can just download them for free, or almost free.

Mark Sawyer
2-Oct-2014, 10:24
Photography has been "over" since Karsh photographed Audrey Hepburn. Nothing worthwhile has been done since. Maybe nothing before, either...

Tin Can
2-Oct-2014, 10:28
Yep and looked at image yesterday, printed in book...

Then I bought 2 more old Karsh books.

Now I have 2 of her by Karsh.


Photography has been "over" since Karsh photographed Audrey Hepburn. Nothing worthwhile has been done since. Maybe nothing before, either...

David_Senesac
2-Oct-2014, 13:50
Drew, what you seem to be critical about potential with large pixel screens is selling digital images so they can be displayed. Thus larger and sort of a more sophisticated version of consumer digital photo frames. Toys that show as much detail as a stack of 3x5 color prints from the corner drugstore. And with pc monitors there are already programs out that instead of using screen savers, slideshow through a list of whatever images a person has. And some have ported that to output such screen shows onto the big 2k x 1k HDTV's which we all use now. Of course when UHDTV's at 4k x 2k hit the market there will be more aps for that sort of thing and they will also do the same. At that point the resolution will be adequately do justice to resolution of compact digital and DSLR images so it will be more than a toy. Yet still not fit for large format.

However my ideas are not about those things. Something I actually posted on this board in the news sub-forum a year or three ago when 4k and 8k was in its infancy. For one thing if a photographer gives out digital images to consumers as a file to run even if supposedly just on the buyers machines, in this era it is hopelessly likely to be pirated. Of course that is why many of us post such puny images on boards like this or our online galleries. Producing, matting, framing, shipping, and transporting large prints is a can of worms. Exhibiting more than just a few likewise. Like consider the pain and cost of transporting dozens of 32x40 inch framed prints around just to exhibit. But with a modular portable panel of 4 each 5k x 3k digital in a 2x2 matrix of panels (effective 10k x 6k) something new that just a few that go to the big technology trade shows have yet got much a look at. Thus one could just have a real print or three plus a digital panels. But there is more though not something to kick around in this thread as is off subject though appropriate to mention in this thread as one new direction photography might go.

Drew Wiley
2-Oct-2014, 15:21
Well that's been tried many times in one form or another, and I doubt it would make much difference at this stage of the game
whether it was simply a laptop or big high resolution screen if people are just picking subject matter. It could even be the stupid web. Only real prints show what real prints look like, if that is what someone is actually trying to sell. A car dealer might have some optional fabric samples or paint chips on hand, but he sure as hell better have a good selection of hands-on real cars in stock for people to look at or he'll be out of business in no time flat. Trade shows are a different subject. They don't give a damn. A couple days later and everything either goes to the dump or moves somewhere else. It doesn't impress anyone. If you want impact then you either visually hog a lot of space with real product or else make a lot of noise. I learned that a long time
back. I'm obviously not presuming to write rules for anyone here, but do have enough track record with analogous things to
know what gives bang for the buck, and what probably does not. Even a high-quality virtual image is just that, and more likely
to say to people, just download and print it yourself, rather than purchase an original. Sure, you can't just show everything
everywhere to everyone. Some sort of digital cataloging might be useful. I sure hasn't been for me, either in present form or
back in the days when slide presentation with standard tools for art reps. People would rather see twelve real prints and select
from them, instead of twelve thousand repros, at least at any price level I'm interested in batting at.

Drew Wiley
2-Oct-2014, 15:25
... Oh, and I have no problem framing, transporting, and installing any number of 30x40 prints. I even have a customized handtruck with a story pole and laser directly attached which could throw a level beam across a whole damn exhibit hall if it needed to. The complete hanging kit with all tools and fasteners is also on board. I do know how to do this kind of stuff! But
trade shows are places where someone spends fifty grand to show off snow shovels and fluorescent bird seed, as far as I'm concerned. Hope I never have to go to another one in my life, let alone set up another one!

Bruce Wehman
2-Oct-2014, 17:33
Yesterday afternoon I went out, my camera in tow, and found a huge maple whose lower branches were stretching out and barely touching the softly flowing water of the Pecatonica River. The light was perfect; my jaw dropped and my arms had goose bumps. Photography is not over...at least for me.

riooso
27-Oct-2014, 22:53
Yesterday afternoon I went out, my camera in tow, and found a huge maple whose lower branches were stretching out and barely touching the softly flowing water of the Pecatonica River. The light was perfect; my jaw dropped and my arms had goose bumps. Photography is not over...at least for me.

I am the same way. Somehow....I seem to leave behind just as much as I take away! Go figure!

R

Jac@stafford.net
30-Oct-2014, 14:42
Photography is over.
And over,
And over...

Like war is over...