The photographic print, Millennials, and "Peak Stuff"

[Corran]

Dan, I don't really like generational labels and don't consider myself aligned with the traditional "definition" of a Millennial. I'm not sure why you latched onto that. Anyway, I mentioned Millennials as a group as most of the people I see who seem to be adhering to this minimalist culture are in that age range. My GF and I have a lot of philosophical, political, and social discussion and that term (and other generations) are just a definition regarding age groups that we use a lot. Don't overthink it...I am most certainly "secure in being myself" and this post is merely a reflection on materialism.

You do bring up an excellent point about real prints not being "editable." I have had many clients go and add effects and weird stuff to my photos. It really doesn't bother me all that much but I do sometimes ask that they either remove my name from it or add that they edited it, when it's really egregious.

[bigdog]

... common with many artists. Consider Georgia O'Keeffe and Edward Weston.

I've been to Weston's Wildcat Hill. One whole wall of that minimalist cabin he built was cabinets for print storage.

[Stephen Willard]

It all quite simply. For those who are mesmerize by the virtual world of their cell phones, laptops, or desktops, and who are unaware of their real world surroundings, then viewing your prints in the virtual world is appropriate. For the rest of us who mostly reside in the real world, then viewing our prints framed on the wall or in albums is the appropriate answer.

I fall in the later demographic. I do big landscapes and throughout my home I hang prints that are 35x65 or 45x55 in size. At that size the prints no longer act as decorative wall art, but rather become windows with grand views of the world that I inhabit for many months with my llamas and cameras. My windows allow me to experience the wonder of our natural world right from the interior of my home, and that makes me happy.

[Corran]

For those who are mesmerize by the virtual world of their cell phones, laptops, or desktops, and who are unaware of their real world surroundings, then viewing your prints in the virtual world is appropriate. For the rest of us who mostly reside in the real world, then viewing our prints framed on the wall or in albums is the appropriate answer.

I think that's quite pretentious to say. For the vast majority of people, prints are only seen by local people if they show them, unless they get fairly popular or publish a book, etc. I doubt I'd have seen a single image posted on these forums in person, simply due to location. I can understand if you prefer one or the other but casting everyone who views digital images into some sub-culture of people engrossed in a "virtual world" is rather arrogant.

[Corran]

Let me add some more fuel to the fire here...

As I said before, I think we are fast approaching an age where potentially a large flat-screen monitor will supersede the "framed work of art," whatever that might be - painting, photograph, etc. Just see the trend to digital picture frames for family photos that autoscrolls through images on an SD card. So is a digital image on a monitor, hung up in a home, a "print?"

Just about every art gallery opening we have at the university here has some sort of digital work these days, displayed on a 50" TV. Sometimes animation, or short film, even 3D rendered architecture. Why not a photograph? In fact, I have also seen what I can only call an "enhanced" photograph on display via a monitor - usually what looks like a still photograph but is actually a subtly evolving image. I can certainly understand the allure of certain types of prints, such as carbon, which are more than just a flat 2D image on paper. And of course prints have a future, I am not advocated for an age where nothing is printed onto hard media, just discussing the inclusiveness of different display options.

[Sal Santamaura]

...is a digital image on a monitor, hung up in a home, a "print?"...

No. Words have specific meaning.

And that's as far as I'll wade into this discussion.

[lecarp]

I've been to Weston's Wildcat Hill. One whole wall of that minimalist cabin he built was cabinets for print storage.

My point exactly, only make room for the important things.

[Corran]

No. Words have specific meaning.

And that's as far as I'll wade into this discussion.

But why not? If you don't want to discuss anything, why bother posting?

[ic-racer]

real print be the only true way to experience a photograph?

No such thing as a NON-Real print. It would not exist by definition.

[Sal Santamaura]

No. Words have specific meaning.

And that's as far as I'll wade into this discussion.

But why not? If you don't want to discuss anything, why bother posting?

I did want to discuss something. Namely, the meaning of the word "print." That's why I posted.

The rest of the controversy borders on "religious" disagreement between opposing sides in the digital-vs-analog war. There's as much chance of accomplishing something useful in that "discussion" as there is of bridging the political divide. After multiple attempts over the course of years, I opt not to waste more time trying.

I feel much better since I gave up hope.