This is the title of an article in the current issue of Newsweek.
steve simmons
Printable View
This is the title of an article in the current issue of Newsweek.
steve simmons
No, Newsweek is dead. After several years of my not responding to renewal notices Newsweek has stopped turning up in my mailbox.
As if anyone cares what newsweek thinks.Quote:
Originally Posted by steve simmons
What's a "Newsweek"?
Uninspired journalism.
I think the author of the article has little understanding of what "art" photography is all about. It has never been about "reality" and this is specially true in B&W since the inherent nature of the medium alters reality from the get go.
I dare anybody to go to Yosemite and see what AA printed.... It does not exist, what he did by dodging and burning altered reality, so at best there is a tenuous link between what is captured in the negative and the final printed photograph.
I find it ironic that what he claims has killed photography is what I hope will be the future of digital. I hope to see those using digital to start calling themselves digital artists instead of photographers (pretty much like Crhis Jordan has done) and start bringing digital imaging into a different medium that bridges "photography" and painting.
Stop this "digital silver prints" or "digital platinum prints" and start developing their own medium with their own special attribuites.
Regardless of what I think of Jordan's motivation I think he did something very important. He created art that is significantly different from traditional photography, something that would have been extremely difficult to do in the traditional way, if not impossible. Like painting, digital has the possibility of giving free to the imagination of those who use it, I beleive this is where the strenght of digital resides (and it's weakness).
If you get past the title the article itself is actually pretty interesting and not exactly controversial or revolutionary. I don't think there's anything in it that's seriously subject to question. Its basic point is that because of the ease with which images can be created and manipulated digitally "photography is finally escaping any dependence on what is in front of a lens, but it comes at the price of its special claim on a viewer's attention as "evidence" rooted in reality." Hardly a novel thought, the effect of digital editing on the "believability" of photography has been discussed and acknowledged for years. Most of the article consists of a thumbnail sketch of the history of photography with a lot of omissions and oversimplifications but that's o.k. it's a magazine article, it doesn't purport to be a text book for a history of photography course, and it's a good read for someone unfamiliar with the history of photography.
I think SERIOUS photography is fading. Of people I know, probably 95% of them who say they are "into photography", they really mean that they take snap shots every now and then, or that they own some pentax k1000 somewhere in the attic (or a new DSLR that they don't know how to use). I know very few people who will actually plan a trip just to take photos, or spend any length of time with their photography. It's a little disheartening, but doesn't bother me to much.
I'm not old enough to know if this is how it's always been or not, but it seems to me that it must have been bigger in the past.
Headlines are often written by editors who have different goals from the ones of the writer. Seems like the closer a publication is to infotainment, the more the headlines are designed to rile people up and get them to read the article (and look at the ads!)
I think it would be more accurate to say that non-serious photography is rising (as it has been ever since Kodak introduced the Brownie ... every innovation that makes it easier or cheaper also makes it more democratic).Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel_Buck
But I see no sign of serious photography fading, if you define that as photography by people who are serious about it. There are more high end galleries than ever showing photography, more money being spent by collectors, more and larger museum collections, more people studying in bfa and mfa programs, and on the commercial end, I bet there's at least as much money as ever being spent on photography.
"I think the author of the article has little understanding of what "art" photography is all about. It has never been about "reality" and this is specially true in B&W since the inherent nature of the medium alters reality from the get go. I dare anybody to go to Yosemite and see what AA printed.... It does not exist, what he did by dodging and burning altered reality, so at best there is a tenuous link between what is captured in the negative and the final printed photograph."
Jorge - I don't think the author of the article would disagree with you. He or she said that pre-digital when you saw a photograph you assumed that what was in the photograph had at one time been in front of the photographer's lens, more or less. Of course that assumption wasn't necessarily correct, people merged images even in the darkroom ala Jerry Uelsmann, but it was correct for 99.9% of the photographs we saw. But now according to the author that's no longer true, we have no idea whether the things we see in a photograph (or a poster or whatever you want to call it) ever actually existed or that the photographer ever was actually "there" to photograph them.
I certainly agree with you about Adams but I think the author would as well. I think the author would say - "yes, Adams' photographs weren't just about "reality," but when we saw his photograph of the horse in the meadow with mountains in the background we knew that Adams had been to that meadow and while he was there that horse had been in that meadow and those mountains had been behind that meadow, etc. etc. As you say, the actual scene didn't look anything like Adams' photograph but we correctly assumed that Adams had actually been to that place and the objects that were in the photograph had actually been present while he was there. Today if we saw the same image for the first time we'd have no clue - for all we know he might have just sat in front of his computer and cobbled together three different photographs of a horse, a meadow, and some mountains and merged them in Photoshop.
So I think that's the basic point of the article, not that photography before digital was just documentation or "reality," but that it had an element of believability or actuality or whatever exactly one wants to call it that no longer exists. Since that's a pretty commonly accepted notion, I found the article interesting but not anything new or controversial. It just has a provocative title.
I understand what the author hinted at, but see here is the thing he is talking about photography as art and this has never been about straight reproduction of the site. For centuries painters have done landscapes where they would visit a site, maybe paint it straight, maybe pick and choose some elements of the site and paint the place in an entirely different manner. Just because a painter "enhanced" the landscpae with his/her imagination it does not mean painting has lost it's soul. Why should digital imaging and it's capability of altering the "reality" be any different? In fact, I wrote in my journals a similar piece but unlike the article my idea is that as long as those using digital insist on emulating traditional photography they are damaging both digital and traditional aceptance of photography as art and this is why I named it the end of photography as we know it.
Those who are using digital and making huge prints of mundane or cliched subject have only the WOW factor going for them, I consider this a fad which will eventually pass. Those who are using digital and "manufacturing" works that are totally different from what has been done in traditional photography are the ones in the vanguard of digital imaging and making it it's own medium, guys like Jordan, Fokos, Burkholder, etc.
We see from them work that has never been done before, some subtle like what Fokos does, some weird but beautiful like Burkholder does and some which is more concerned with the message like Jordan does. All of them have taken digital in a totally different direction that has nothing to do with reality but it is still "good" art and distinctly different from traditional photography.
This does not mean that photography is dead, heck it does not even mean that photography is changing, it means that there is a different medium out there that has not been completely exploited and developed. Unfortunatelly, since it evolved from photography and manufacturers insist on emulating old processes the medium is damaging both camps. As I wrote in my journal, it is a shame that someone 50 years form now will look at Weston's pepper #30 and exclaim "this guy was great using photoshop!" and I beleve this is what the author of the article is referring to.
Bang on. And it's just like when photography first landed in people's hands at its infancy...mostly the mundane or what was popular to paint was photographed. Digital will find "itself" eventually, but not by me as I love traditional/alternative photography too much...For me, photography is certainly not dead.Quote:
Those who are using digital and making huge prints of mundane or cliched subject have only the WOW factor going for them, I consider this a fad which will eventually pass.
What is clearly lacking, in my opinion, is a definition of photgraphy. Perhaps before we question its longevity, we should define it. What is photography? Man Ray named his images "Rayographs", although you will find his work in many collections of photography. The same is true for the works of Kepes and Moholy Nagy who labeled their output as photograms and photo montage. Again, you will find their works in collections of photography.
How then, as suggested in the Newsweek article, can the work of Fox Talbot and Andreas Gursky be considered under the same broad definition? I do not suggest that one has merit over the other, but surely a distinguishing definition is in order.
I tend to go more with the view expressed by Kirk Gittings in an earlier thread here, that photography is at a very good place in time at the moment. Opportunities abound and we have many choices of how to approach photography.
As has also been mentioned, there is an emergence of greater recognition for imaging that only uses photography as a start, or launching point. We also see in the consumer realm a situation of images everywhere, though many are quickly forgotten or discarded. Then the high end is really moving along, everything from high dollar art auctions of works by big name photographers, to commercial work commanding top dollar from advertising campaigns.
What seems to be under pressure is the middle ground. Photography for an enthusiast is becoming more expensive, and more elitist, with only a few exceptions. I also think the demographics of the middle ground are aging, and might well fade with the baby boomers who are now propping up many aspects of the industry. Younger individuals cannot often afford the latest D-SLR, so they stick with camera phones, maybe P&S cameras, or buy up old film SLRs for that retro old school style that takes them away from computers. The downside is that often it becomes a race to the bottom, with images only shared through e-mail or websites.
Rather than wonder if photography is dead, enthusiasts and professionals could become ambassadors. The Newsweek article seems too much like a slimmed down cause and effect piece, only hinting at some future. Maybe we should consider the demographics of the average Newsweek reader ... are they simply stating the obvious to their readers, and getting lots of nodding heads in agreement? I certainly have no interest in reading Newsweek on a regular basis.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat Photography
I read that article with genuine humor..........
as daily
me, my friends and colleagues produce the best work of our long careers.
new artists are producing inspired fresh work.
advanced and obscure technical knowledge is readily available from a simple series of keystrokes.
antique processes and new technologies are flourishing like never before.
I have spent more money on traditional and digital photo equipment in the last three years than I did in the first 26. This includes a complete new 4x5 camera lenses and field gear.
Photography is dead? not in my universe.
Kirk - Those are wonderful observations about the state of photography today and I would agree with them. But they have nothing to do with the article in question. If you read the article you surely saw that the author didn't say that photography was dead. The author of the article said that photography has lost something that it used to have, an element of believability or actuality, but that it has gained something too. I can't imagine that anyone would dispute the first part of that statement. Some people might dispute the second part but whether one agrees or disagrees, it's hardly an assertion that photography is dead.
Well, those who are engaged in creating totally non-realistic work, perhaps.Quote:
I hope to see those using digital to start calling themselves digital artists instead of photographers
Kirk, I agree. As a side note, my thirteen year-old nephew spent time with me last summer in the field and in my wet darkroom. He was truly excited with the process, developing the film and later watching the images appear in the developer. We mounted up the fruits of his labor and he proudly took them home to show family and friends.
Now he tells me that he has decided to do his term paper on the f:64 Group. Trust me, I had nothing to do with his decision, nor would have thought that a thirteen year-old would have interest in such a subject.
Using his enthusiasm as an indicator, I think that photography has a bright future. Surely, there are others his age with the same fire.
Brian,
I didn't address that aspect because I am so tired of that debate. IMO it is such obvious nonsense. In the Victorian age this questionable veracity was debated too. Remember the fairies (not that you were around then!)? So what? This article? So what is new? This has been debated periodically for as long as I can remember. It is just a general part of the current photography doomsayers, no film, no truth, no craftsmanship, blah, blah. Nonsense. Look at how vibrant all aspects of LF, technically and aesthetically, are on this forum and we are a small part of the medium.
That is a great story Merg.
I retain my optimism for all aspects of the medium.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings
Great and succinct observation, as usual. :)
If anything kills photography, it is not going to be lack of film or lack of craftsmanship, it is going to be lack of imagination among its practitioners. But I doubt it's going to happen any time soon, because younger generations keep demonstrating better grasp on reality and keener imagination than the older ones ever had. The one that's currently growing up on cellphones and texting is no exception, it's just that we fail to recognize the fact.
you are probably correct :)Quote:
Originally Posted by paulr
I retain my optimism too. So does the author of the article. He just thinks photography is changing, not that it's dead. I don't plan to go back and re-read the article but I don't remember anything in it about doomsaying or film or truth or craftsmanship or anything else you mention in this message. You seem to be looking only at the headline and assuming the article says things that it didn't say (at least as I remember it).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings
I am talking about much broader phenomena than this article.
OT: Kirk, please empty your inbox, I tried to PM you but it's full. Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings
Done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Antonio Corcuera
I read that short shallow article today while standing in front of the magazine rack at our corner Walgreens. As others have said, the title at the top of the page overstates what the article tends to discuss. My guess is a change by higher up editors in order to be more controversial, thus annoy readers enough to bother reading the piece. I think Brian essentially summarized the intent of the story. That in a short period of years as digital photography has now been embraced by the masses, what we used to consider photographer to be in recent decades has once again lurched forward reinventing itself so radically that its identity in the artworld has forever changed with maybe something of value lost. Thus the title might have better been posed, "Is Photography as we recently knew it dead?" A title like that would not raise much interest because the target readership masses are all going around pushing buttons on their compact digi-cameras and then processing and printing those images radically differently than just a few years ago when film still reigned. But the article barely moves in that direction but rather how that is reflected in high end art photography one tends to publicly see in places like New York. Intentionally shallow in scope with nothing new here except how it works as boring filler between ads.
Now if they really want to stir the pot about some of the directions of photography today they might simply lurk a bit at this and a few other prominent web forums and find out what real photographers are actually thinking. I certainly could give them a whole lot to easily entertain their audience. ...David
A (non-photographer) friend had an interesting take on the state of photography -- he said that with the rise of digital imaging, (traditional) photography would actually come full circle and return to how it started...a very specialized pursuit by artists and craftspeople.
People can lose perspective with digital imaging being so democratized (great term, BTW, and a very sharp observation to compare it to the introduction of the Brownie)...but I guarantee you, once they see the sort of results one can get from a well made print -- whether it's a collodion or platinum print, the spectacular range of a LF neg, or just the notion that properly stored it's shelf life is almost indefinite -- they will be spellbound.
My $0.02, anyway.
I'm seeing the opposite: people who would have just owned a plastic 35mm P&S are now running around with $6000 worth of pro glass and high end bodies. I see dozens of top end Canon "L" lenses every weekend (I'm doing a short stint in a touristy location). Most of them would probably consider themselves "serious photographers", including the guy I saw at the camera store last week who owned a top end pro Nikon DSLR (D2x maybe?) & 70-200VR but didn't know what to look for in a tripod ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel_Buck
You know what level of photography a person is at by his tripod. ;) Ever notice that when a couple of seasoned photogs get together they talk about tripods? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by walter23
Interesting that you see this as "serious" photography fading. From my point of view this has never been any different. Until the last few years when I began to frequent sites like these, I could count on one hand how many "serious" photographers I knew. It was a pretty lonely business in my experience. I now know more serious photographers than ever and am lucky enough to call a lot of them friends. We've shared ideas, processes and photographic trips. There are processes I am now using that I never would have thought about or pursued in the first 20 years of my career. Like Kirk, I too have spent more money in the last 5 years on equipment, chemicals, ink and technology than ever before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel_Buck
I think if there is a problem, it is that there are too many serious photographers. Everybody and his brother now has a website and the place is thick with "art" photographers. Sure... there is a fair amount of work that leaves a lot to be desired, but there are also a lot of very talented people out there. I don't think there has ever been a time in the history of photography when there was this much attention to photography as an art form or this many people pursuing it as such.
Bill
Yay, photography's dead. Long live photography.
Very timelyQuote:
Originally Posted by paulr
One more museum to avoid.
Note the end paragraph:
“Virtual art will never psychologically replace the real,” said Ms. Merritt of the Center for the Future of Museums, “because a piece of the creator is attached to the object itself.”
Thomas
Well, I thought that was rather ignorant, as why cannot our digital creation be a piece of us? Also all digital does exist in physical form, even the 'Cloud' is entirely physical.Quote:
Originally Posted by tgtaylor
Art is really manifest ideas and can take any form, as thoughts, memories...
A couple of weeks back our group had a meetup at Kim Weston's studio in Carmel. Kim explained how he managed to save some of the negatives that Brett Weston had punched holes (4 in fact- two on each side) in and passed one around for us to see up close and touch. I thought that it was special to see and actually handle a negative that was shot, developed and printed by Brett Weston.
Thomas
What's the point of a museum even existing in any mode other than a storage locker unless people can see tangible things? And I for one wouldn't want have a lot
of unnecessary distraction trying to contemplate some special piece of art. Leave your paintball guns and cell phones at home. People can read about food on the
web too, but does anyone actually eat virtual food? Don't imagine a "virtual restaurant" would be in business very long.
Drew seems to be arguing with an article he didn't read.
No. I commenting on a tendency, which the article itself takes into account. Which is exactly the reason I'm not going to join the new obscenely expensive art museum being built right up the street. Which is why I rarely visit some the existing ones. If I want to go to a theme park with flashing lights and filled with
neurotic electrical, I know where to go. And the tech industry has its own museum, and science fair themes their own excellent venues in this area. Yes, museums
need to use the web for educational purposes and to advertise events. But overdo it, and they'll find their doors closed at a certain point.
Drew, when I visit most museums, I try to experience art first hand, I usually ignore all printed or audio material available. If I cannot grok art one to one, I move on. Later I will investigate. I had a great time with an art critic at the 2001 Venice Biennale, she was a whirlwind who swept into a gallery, examined and absorbed the contents in glance. Since departed and dearly missed, Kathryn Hixson, Art Institute of Chicago, always had accurate and enlightening commentary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew Wiley
I have no problem with optional forms of information accessory to museum content, like a bookstore or website, or even loaning out headsets to people who enjoy walk-thru recorded lectures. I just don't want it in my face, like the neon lights of Vegas, which is exactly what is starting to happen, presumably to attract more zippy-zappy youth who can't seem to be seeking a video game experience. I was into blowing up toy ships with firecrackers and shotguns on the duck pond when I was a kid; but I never did it in a museum. Yeah, generational values change. But they have all along. And there isn't much sense trying to understand a Holbein painting with flashing lights right down the hall. Ironically, what seems to keep the SFMMA going is that it's an ideal place for young downtown professionals to shop for a mate. I wonder how many of them are just pretending to look at the art.
Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Moe
Art was a plumber.
He's dead now---I went to his funeral last weekend and downed shots of Old Crow, his favorite Bourbon, in his memory.
So now we are Art less.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Kasaian
This is correct!Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Moe
Have a shot of Old Crow and get over it.
Art would have wanted it that way.:rolleyes: