Movers and fakers

[tim atherton]

An article from the Guardian (thanks to Joerg's "Conscientious" blog):

"How can the new generation of art photographers make their mark when almost anyone with the latest equipment can take excellent pictures? William A Ewing (of the Musée de l'Elysée - opne of the world premier photography museums), who has been seeking stars of the future across the world, identifies the new directions":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,1548026,00.html

As Joerg notes "The basic assumption of the article is wrong, though. Just because you can buy the latest equipment doesn't mean that you can take excellent pictures. It still takes a good photographer to take a good photo."

[Greg Miller]

Reminds me of many Camera Clubs and their participants. Their images are technically very good but artistically stale and boring (IMHO a result of rigid judging rules). New technology assists in the technical aspect of our craft but does not imbue us with artistic skills - those still need to be mastered the old fashioned way.

[John Kasaian]

True enough. Most beginners can expertly focus and nail the exposure soon into the learning process, even with 19th century view cameras. The content of the photograph is another matter. Consider the test pattern on your television screen---it's flawless, but not much for entertainment(unless you're my Bride's late basset hound---that was her favorite program!) It is amazing that the Director of an esteemed museum would say such a thing while sober. I can only hope the statement was taken out of context for sensationalism (which wouldn't be the first time for the Manchester Guardian.)

[Nick Morris]

Hello Tim,

My point is simple - you put paint in front of me, and you get your living room painted, and maybe not so well; you put paint in front of Monet, you get something that shakes your soul to its core. I think its safe to say that the paint isn't the the difference.

In the history of image making it has been the image that "made" the image maker. Generally, the images exhibited a necessary degree of creativity, craft, and the ability to communicate to a viewer, to "connect", with an appreciative audience. Even in this time of mass, high-tech image making, I believe it will still come down to that basic premise. There will be the best, and there will be the rest.

Now, everybody laugh.

[paulr]

i think this is a nice answer ..

"You know, photography has had a very interesting history. The technological and market impulse is to make photography more and more available, since the beginning. When it was discovered, it was rather arcane and only experts could make photographs, people who were somewhat expert in physics or chemistry. But, the evolution of it has been to make it a more and more public medium. So there's more and more photographs, so I see the future of photography as being greater in terms of quantity. But, the quality of photography, the number of photographs that are interesting or personal, or visually exciting, or innovative -- or characteristic, even -- is pretty constant. So, I don't see photography as changing in quality, I see it changing in technique and availability."

--Dr. Sandra S. Phillips
Curator of Photography, San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, San Francisco

[John Cook]

Thank you Tim. A very interesting article. A lot of truth, but not the whole story.

When I first began my career, a major portion of this business was based on the professional photographer’s ability to manage f-stops and shutter speeds, a light meter, exposure and development. All big mysteries to lay people.

That whole segment of professional photography has disappeared with the advent of digital photography which can be perfectly (technically) accomplished without skill or thought.

I would also add that resolution on a computer screen is so poor that there becomes no detectable technical difference between a print by AA and a simple vacation happy-snap off your kid’s CD. All the majesty of LF is eaten by the little pixels.

But where the article really comes up short is in the fact that great photographs are made out in front of the camera. Not inside it.

Pictures such as flat-art copy jobs or (virtual) photocopies of 3-D scenes can now be easily be made by novices. Putting lots of small-town photographers out of work forever.

But anything requiring balanced composition, tasteful lighting, model direction, set decoration or educated action anticipation (as in journalism) are still safely the domain of the professional.

Talent, education and experience in the root field of the photographic subject are also critical.

I was once embarrassed by an equestrian accessories catalogue shot by a NYC photographer who had before seen a horse. The agency learned their lesson and moved production out west. Permanently.

Can you imagine a sensitive French wine connoisseur designing a down-and-dirty beer commercial which would appeal to Texans in pick-ups?

Or a San Antonio studio doing delicate wine photography for the sophisticated esoteric Paris market?

Or a cookbook illustrated by someone who can’t cook? All good chefs and food photographers jiggle a little.

As long as that sort of photography is still in demand, I think we are safe. No matter how the results of the pro are captured.

What did they used to say about not selling the steak, but instead selling the sizzle?

[John Kasaian]

Perhaps this is a by-product of society in general. A colleague pointed out that society has become less stimulated intellectually and more stimulated by sensory MTV-oid input. This could be part of why LF is so interesting---to see a photograph where just the texture of moss or bark or peeling paint is enough to warrant a "wow!" from the viewer. This can be achieved adnauseum, especially with digis if the advertisements are accurate. But great photos I've seen have more to them than that. An abstract for might lean heavily on texture, but there is always more to the photograph than that---an intellectual element(like "it looks so familiar, but what the heck is it?) FWIW, the texture of snow is an important (and ellusive) element in some of my attempts, but texture is only one element, albeit an important one, for what I'm attempting to achieve.

Like motordrives on SLRs, you could burn up enough film to where you'd eventually get an interesting photo shotgun style (accidentally? shot gun accidents are baaaad!)---like the story of one hundred chimpanzees with typewriters eventually knockng out all the words contained in a shakespearean play. Such work, IMHO, would take the" art" out of "artistry." But I could be wrong.

Cheers!

[Eric Biggerstaff]

I read the article then took the link to the book about the "50" up and coming photographers.

Some of the article I agree with and some I think is art speak jabber that I can't stand.

However, I do agree that many of the one time "in" areas such as landscape, the nude, etc. are for sure "out" at the moment. And that color is "in" while B&W is "out". But these things run in cycles and sure enough, before you know it the old is new again.

I also agree that many young photographers are better marketers than in days past and are in a rush to get their work into the public. Sadly, I think, most of this work is not very good. It takes time to build a style, a voice all your own, and have something to say. Most of the work I see in books today or on the net or in many galleries leaves me cold and bored. There is very little soul in much of this work.

Like others have said on this thread, technology can create a picture but it takes soul to create art.

[paulr]

"But where the article really comes up short is in the fact that great photographs are made out in front of the camera. Not inside it."

Which is why any claims that some new tool/process/material/trend has the power to either raise or lower the bar has always just been a lot of noise.

[paulr]

For me the most unconvincing premise of the article is the idea that digital photography is revolutionary and not just evolutionary.

"The digital revolution is implicitly democratic, levelling the playing field and blurring the line between amateur and professional."

Which sounds a bit like a continuation of the path the medum has been on since the beginning ... the move to dry plates, then film, the invention of the Brownie (the first real democratizer .. "you take the picture, we do the rest"), 35mm, the light meter, polaroid, etc etc ...

"The cheapest camera on the market advises, questions, scolds, adjusts, corrects. The little electronic genie within tells us when we can do what we want, and when we can't. It makes a mockery of the expert. ("Shoot, don't think," is the clever, and apt, Sony slogan.)"

But hasn't this been going on since the advent of the point 'n shoot, or really since they started putting program modes in 35mm cameras?