The photographic print, Millennials, and "Peak Stuff"

[Corran]

I was listening to NPR this evening and they had a news story about "Peak Stuff." It reminded me about something I've been thinking about a lot lately.

I know there's been numerous discussions about real photographic prints vs. seeing an image on a computer or phone. These are centered around image quality, tactility, etcetera. But what I've wondered about lately is whether or not physical prints are as important as we might think (or want).

I've noticed a trend among my fellow Millennials to slim down and really own very little "stuff." Other than say a bike or car and a few personal items, and clothes, there are many who are eschewing large amounts of clutter in general. Renting a house, getting hand-me-down furniture and giving it away when they move, and other lifestyle choices. The NPR news story was a discussion about whether or not we as a society have reached "Peak Stuff," where people are not wanting to purchase more things. If true, would this not also pertain to art?

While many of my personal acquaintances who live like this are artists of some sort, very few actually own any art, or even keep their own! One friend of mine had a bonfire of most of his paintings he did over the course of a year, if they weren't given away. He keeps nothing. Meanwhile I personally have bought quite a bit of art lately, from friends and colleagues mostly. I've got about 15 pieces, from watercolors to ceramics to photographs, and while I do enjoy them they also present a burden for when I move later this year. So be it, but I admit the completely uncluttered lifestyle is one I envy, and do adhere to in some ways, such as renting and cheap furniture.

Of course here we toil away with our old-school gear making traditional darkroom prints, or at least hybrid, and perhaps we sell or give them away on occasion. Are we contributing to the hordes of "stuff" and clutter that besets our culture? Is the print really that important? Perhaps the mere dissemination of our photographs, if they are enjoyed, is enough? Regardless of the medium in which they are viewed, that is.

I have found that a great many acquaintances on Facebook and online in general tell me, face-to-face or via email, that they really love to see the photographs I post online. They don't want a print (well, sometimes), but simply being told my images were viewed, and enjoyed, is certainly a plus. Regardless of their merit, they definitely are seen by more eyes via the computer, rather than true prints, such as this very forum where I have only met a few of the members in person.

What do you think? Should we demand of ourselves that the real print be the only true way to experience a photograph? I want to hear your thoughts. I don't know what I think really but as I said, I've been thinking a lot about it.

[Randy]

I think about this from time to time. One of my promises to my self is to one day get rid of most of my gear (cameras and lenses) and just keep (what I would consider to be) the bare minimum. I know for a fact that having so many lenses for so many formats, and having so many formats is a huge distraction for me which is a hindrance to my creativity.
But, a character flaw is preventing me from doing what I sincerely believe I need to do...for I am a hoarder of most things photographic. I honestly believe I would be perfectly happy with one camera and one lens - and I honestly believe my creativity would not suffer for it.

As for the end result of any artistic endeavor - the marble sculpture, the oil painting, the photographic print - I could never consider them to be "clutter". I consider the vast amount of stuff a person sorts through every single day upon day on their email and texting machine, to be clutter - clutter of the brain - and that is the worst kind of clutter.

BTW, this past summer when I made my first cyanotype from my first attempt at hand coating my own paper, it almost brought me to tears. It was the first wet print I had made in about 15 years. I was finally home again.

[mdm]

I dont think there is anything wrong with having stuff, and its not better to not have stuff either. Its the motivation that counts. I have lots of stuff because I am richer than you. I have no stuff and I am obviously holier than you. I have lots of stuff and I actually use it enough to make owning it worthwhile. I have no stuff because I borrow other peoples stuff. I have no stuff because I am poor. In general photographers seem very materialistic so having less stuff is probably a good thing.

Its better to pay for art you will look at than art you wont, and its better to pay for art you will look at than cameras and lenses and crap you wont use. I like photo books myself, they are different to electronic images, but written books are all electronic for me if possible.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Bryan: What do you think? Should we demand of ourselves that the real print be the only true way to experience a photograph?

What do you mean 'we'?

Print-only narrows the image to in-person presentations which would of course limit the image to fine art photography - eliminating moment-critical photojournalism which is largely facsimile via the screen or newspaper quality prints.

[Oren Grad]

Should we demand of ourselves that the real print be the only true way to experience a photograph?

No, of course not. There's no one right way to do photography, and there's no virtue in insisting that there is and trying to bind oneself and others into a straitjacket.

Prints are what I care about for myself. Having put plenty of effort into both printing and displaying pictures on screen, I've learned from experience that for me the former is satisfying while the latter is... meh, though it certainly comes in handy now and then for various practical purposes.

But if your preferences are different, or you're working for someone else who has different tastes or requirements, more power to you. There's room for all of us. On the other hand, if you find yourself putting effort into things you don't really want to be doing, merely out of a sense of obligation - that's the way it's supposed to be done! - then it's time to re-think.

[Denny]

I don't really care what Millennials or anyone else is buying, I print to please myself because I think that's the best way to experience an image (and I enjoy printing). I'm happy to sell or give away prints, or just hang them on my walls. Real prints are important "stuff" to me.

Just my $.02

Denny

[lecarp]

"I've noticed a trend among my fellow Millennials to slim down and really own very little "stuff." Other than say a bike or car and a few personal items, and clothes, there are many who are eschewing large amounts of clutter in general. Renting a house, getting hand-me-down furniture and giving it away when they move, and other lifestyle choices."

This really is not unique to your generation (Millennial). This has been the norm for people your age most generations, in reality having as much to do with economics as anything despite declarations otherwise. If it is a planned lifestyle choice then they are minimalists, again nothing new, common with many artists. Consider Georgia O'Keeffe and Edward Weston.

[Corran]

Thanks for your comments guys. There is no right answer, so apologies if my questions/comments came across as leading or narrow-minded. Trying to create dialog, but I am a terrible writer.

Just been thinking about this a lot, and specifically how it pertains to "art" prints or experiences.

I am still printing traditionally myself in the darkroom because I like it, and also because I need physical prints for shows and exhibitions. However frankly sometimes I get depressed with the amount of prints I have sitting around already, which I can not hardly give away, due not to the quality (or lack thereof) of the image, but due to the disinterest in physical prints. Or perhaps art in general, at least here locally.

[Paul Metcalf]

Even if you rent, there's a lot of wall space to hang stuff. Why not prints? Sure beats dust.

[LabRat]

With new generations coming up, pendulums swing...

While it seems true that younger people seem less rooted, and might find some of the decadence of the past as excessive/perverse, there are material things that will peak their weaknesses... (Take LP's or "analog" photography for example...) If they are interested, likely anything they find related will be lugged home, and become a treasure... And don't forget that these people are just starting out in life with little, so it's natural that they have little at that stage... But once they settle down (and "nest") and feel better about being rooted somewhere, stuff will filter in over time and fill closets and garages...

Granted, many people think anything they see on the web should be free, (and "own" what they see) so why buy an image or something that is "free" on their phone now??? (Buy a print of it???) Maybe if they really love it, they really connect to it, and is an extension of themselves somehow... (Sadly/probably it has to be about "them" mostly...) And trends will help people "define" themselves... (Remember how Oprah started talking about books, and B/W photographs, and there was a renewed interest???) And remember that many young people think being "creative" means merely doing a 180 on conventional wisdom (or past trend), so things tend to go round and round and round....

I think the two "game changers" for print sales in the future will be if;

-If Bill Gates ever developed that system where panels in the home would put any image on the wall (and room/environment) so a high fidelity image of the Mona Lisa or anything else would appear on your wall on demand... (Seems it could end up like Ray Bradbury's "Martian Chronicles" with the stampede!!!) Better upload your images if this goes huge!!!

-Or I suspect a coming wave of tech that might involve "Total Immersion Cyberspace" where one literally "lives" on line, and creates cyberspace environments, where direct contact to some of the senses is replaced with an interface... So one would "see" the world through heads-up displays, or maybe later through implants... (I heard a story on NPR a while ago about DARPA developing this for the battlefield...) So if you think the cell/text zombies are bad now, this might be coming... (I think that "Google Glass" thing might have been a baby step towards that technology...)

The good news is that pendulums swing, and there would likely be a reaction to the above, so a print on a wall, made by honest "old fashioned" means might be cherished...

Steve K