Is Photography screaming?

[tim atherton]

I think it's a two edged sword Domenico.

There's 200 billion images out there or whatever and at least 90% of it is crap. But I think the percentages have always been roughly the same (if you look at all the vintage photographs for sale on eBay several thousand or more on nay one day- at least 90% of those are just bloody awful).

I think it's always been about 90-95% crap since well before the Brownie.

Trouble is 90% of 200 billion is a hell of a lot - a lot more than say 90% of 5 million images.

But then there's also a lot more really good, challenging, inspiring, cool, neat stuff out there to see as well.

But photography has become a stream and we are becoming rapidly submerged in it. People don't actually see photographs anymore - they inhale them.

People may or may not like what I feature on my blog, but I've actually been quite encouraged by what I've found out there - sure, finding info and pictures by the "greats" is also a lot easier, but I've found some really interesting work I would never otherwise have found and I'm heartened - you just need to know where to look and it takes a little bit of work....

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I'm a firm believer in Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap. Given that, when it so happens that I've spent too long in the 90% zone and overloaded on 'way too much crap, I get to feeling as you seem to be feeling.

It takes me some time in the presence of that 10% of work which I perceive to be worthwhile to get over it. I urge you to find something you'd place into the worthwhile category and spend some time enjoying it. Best of luck and work on that sense of humor: it helps.

Mike

You know, I would agree with you if it was someone else who posted this. But IMO Domenico is one of the few (at least in this forum) who is very consitent in producing beautiful work. I am sure he does some brutal editing, but so far I have yet to see a photograph from him that I did not like, and in some cases I envy..

Maybe that is his problem, too much beautiful work not enough art speak BS...

Go do a project on out of focus dog turds on the street Domenico and you will be the toast of the town...just don't print them with your usual mastery..

[domenico Foschi]

Jorge, I am blushing,

I don't know who gave you idea that I am a very good printer, and I am not trying to be falsely modest.
My printing "style" if you will, was born in the beginning from laziness because I didn't care to learn all the subtle techniques that I am slowly learning now.
If I have one merit is the one of having used that disregard to find my own way to express myself.
Enough.

Taking picture of turds? In downtown LA? No thanks!

Tim: " I think it's always been about 90-95% crap since well before the Brownie.

Trouble is 90% of 200 billion is a hell of a lot - a lot more than say 90% of 5 million images"

I think that the real difference is that at those times people were not exposed to that "visual surplus": television wasn't as aggressive as it is now, the internet wasn't even a concept.
My point is that people who are not educated in photography and see this inflation of visual caos can form an opinion on photography based on their ignorance and the emptiness of the image they see.
I realize that we see it roughly the same way, though.

[tim atherton]

Tim: " I think it's always been about 90-95% crap since well before the Brownie.

Trouble is 90% of 200 billion is a hell of a lot - a lot more than say 90% of 5 million images"

I think that the real difference is that at those times people were not exposed to that "visual surplus": television wasn't as aggressive as it is now, the Internet wasn't even a concept.
My point is that people who are not educated in photography and see this inflation of visual caos can form an opinion on photography based on their ignorance and the emptiness of the image they see.
I realize that we see it roughly the same way, though.

yes, that was this part

But photography has become a stream and we are becoming rapidly submerged in it. People don't actually see photographs anymore - they inhale them.

It's not just attention span, it's being submerged in them

I read a very good article a while back about how people really don't see images/pictures/photographs anymore - in a similar way people will scan words in newspapers or articles

(wish I could remeber where I read it though - it was sort of Oliver Sachs in style - but I don't think it was him)

[Mike Chini]

Boy, what a can of worms...I understand the term, "good art" is subjective but I think we can all agree what is "not good" art (and that there's a heck of a lot of it out there).

My point is that when you dumb down the standards of our society - in any genre of art, truly great work goes unsupported and unappreciated while so much nonsense gets funding, encouragement, support etc. with the end result being that there is so much less "truly great work" out there for everyone to enjoy. In other words, instead of society growing and progressing, things stay the same or even revert backwards. It's late and I'm rambling now but I think I've made sense of myself...or not.

[N Dhananjay]

Part of this probably reflects the greater lesiure enjoyed by the average person these days. When the whole day is not given over to a struggle for survival, one can indulge in avocations. Sunday painters, annual pilgrimages to national parks etc. And there will always spring up a lively market to cater to this trend - workshops, tools that will help you paint/photograph a masterpiece. For most people, it may never really get beyond this - creating art seems romantic and something we would like to do. I do think at least a part of it is just ego - we want to be able to imitate something famous or something that made an impression on us - whether it is making photographs like Adams, or to play the guitar like Hendrix or whatever. And it is certainly exciting initially and you learn stuff and get facility with a medium. But once you get past this, you are typically in a place where the rewards are few and nebulous, and the process is extremely frustrating. So, it may not be surprising that people retire back to doing competent work that may not have much more to it than being competent. They have time and effort invested into getting competent and one is so loath to give up what one has facility with. And so you have a great mass of competent work being produced.

So you certainly could argue that visual images have become so ubiquitous that they have become banal. I think human defences against this are typical human defences against information overload. We become ever more parsimonious about what we will pay attention to. So things have to get strident to get through to us and make us pay attention. And when we pay attention, we are often not happy about what we paid attention to because it turned out to have just used a cheap trick to get us to pay attention. So you have an arms race with ever withering attention spans and increasingly strident techniques to get through those miniscule attention spans. Take advertising as an example. The increasing amount of persuasive attempts we are subjected to makes advertiing banal - so we start tuning it out and ads have to get increasingly strident/clever/funny/extreme to get to us. I think that is the real danger with this mass banality. We lose appreciation for subtlety and quieter but equally engaging things in life. You just have a wall of defenses around you and somewhere inside, you wonder why there doesn't seem to be much good work around.

I know the topic of marketing comes up often but at some point, we have to recognize that art and marketing are concepts that are not only alien to each other, but are incompatible, in some sense. Marketing would exhort you to understand your consumer and develop an offering for him/her - the Thomas Kincaid approach, if you will, at the extreme. You have to be able to make your art without regard to the other stuff - whether it will sell, whether you can make a living from it, will I be famous etc. You have to do the work - the work cannot be instrumental or a means to an end. Of course, that means it may not sell, you may not make a living, you may not become famous in your lifetime or after. And you may still not have any brilliant work to show for it. You may end up in an asylum and cut your ear off and finally shoot yourself. (Sorry, but I had to end on a melodramatic note to get your attention)...:-)

[Joseph O'Neil]

I read a very good article a while back about how people really don't see images/pictures/photographs anymore - in a similar way people will scan words in newspapers or articles

-snip-

That makes sense to me when you look at the covers of magazines anymore. Specifcially when you are standing in line at Wal_mart or the grocery store, all the magazines on display have the exact same "face".

By this I mean, it's more often than not a blonde, there are maybe three different poses used, but bascially the hair, makeup, lighting, expression on the face, the proportions of the face, the skin tone range, etc, etc is all pretty much similar.

I was thinking to myself the other day that all the people who do photoshop anymore for the major magazine covers learn how to do "one" style of face and everyone ends up looking the same. Kinda like that old "Twilight Zone" episode where everyone had the same "beautiful face", no individual uniqueness.

joe

[Dick Hilker]

It seems that creating uniquely stimulating and expressive images is becoming the luxury of amateurs who can afford to make pictures that satisfy their own standards, whereas professionals will only succeed to the extent that they satisfy the demands of the marketplace. Perhaps it's unrealistic to expect otherwise. As business establishments, galleries must show work that sells, regardless of how much they might prefer to give space to artists who are ahead of the curve.

One possible solution might be the establishment of a a cooperative gallery, independently funded, where work could be shown without a primary concern for its saleability. I'm currently involved in setting up such a gallery as part of the newly formed non-profit Plymouth Center for the Arts in Massachusetts, hoping to attract those photographers interested in having a venue for high quality work who may not yet have established themselves with major galleries. Naturally, we hope for enough sales to keep the lights on, but are primarily interested in providing a means for showcasing the work of such photographers.

[Patrik Roseen]

Thought I would add my 2 cents to this thread but suddenly hesitate where to start.

Photography as an art form vs photography for commercial business?
One time see and instantly understand vs long time viewing with changing experiences?
One isolated photograph vs a complete project/portfolio?
Documentary photographs of today vs documentary of the future past?

Why am I taking a photograph and what do I want to achieve by publishing it?
Why am I looking at a photograph and what do I want to achieve by buying it?

Like many others here I look at tons of photographs to learn, get inspiration and to feel something. I admit I also add to the 90% of lousy photographs but hopefully also to the remaining 10%. As do most other people.

I do not think that photography is 'screaming', the 'noise' simply builds up to a high level since so many photographers are 'talking' at the same time.

[paulr]

It's not just attention span, it's being submerged in them

i think this true, and it's not about photography specifically but images in general. we are surrounded by images all the time that are designed to influence us in one way or another. if the world has changed in this regard, it's in the sense that there are so many more venues for bombarding us with images ... conventional billboards and posters, tv commercials, internet ads, image websites, direct mail, magazines ads, magazine inserts ...

photography isn't screaming, but more people than ever before are screaming, and using photographic images as their most powerful voice.

so of course we get good at tuning it out, so we don't go crazy. and of course they get better at crafting images that scream louder, and that can be takin in with a shorter glance.

the casualty of this may be people's appreciation for subtlety. When I see someone glance at a body of work that deserves hours of investigation, i wonder if media culture is to blame.