The photographic print, Millennials, and "Peak Stuff"

[Corran]

I don't think it has anything to do with analog vs. digital, in the capture medium. One could display images on a screen from scanned film just as easily as digital captures.

Regarding the meaning of the word...well words and meaning evolve and change. Why does the word "print" have to entail a physical object?

[BetterSense]

Another factor is that people do not view their houses as places of community like they used to. The house party is all but dead nowadays. Inviting people over for dinner is slightly odd now. Whereas my grandfather was all but expected to invite his boss over for dinner at some point, this would be strange now. You can see the results in people wanting Ikea furniture instead of expensive dining sets, the disappearance of the stereo system, disappearance of the previously obligatory china cabinet. Maybe it's peak stuff, maybe it's people are poor, maybe it's a change in how people socialize, maybe it's the disappearance of the dedicated homemaker, but I see a drop in demand for wall-art as part of this trend.

[Ironage]

I like the large scenic prints being like windows, but large prints are beyond my the means of my space. I also like the concept of exchanging mounted prints into a frame. Thanks guys for your ideas and thoughts.

I am totally there on minimalism. I personally find stuff and clutter uncomfortable, and since moving a couple of months ago I am forced to get rid of stuff which I found fun to accumulate in the past, but can no longer use or even store. It is a good thing to think about objects and their purposes, and what is really needed by us.

[Sal Santamaura]

I don't think it has anything to do with analog vs. digital, in the capture medium. One could display images on a screen from scanned film just as easily as digital captures...

The analog vs. digital war is just as intense with respect to output medium as it is in the capture arena.

...Regarding the meaning of the word...well words and meaning evolve and change. Why does the word "print" have to entail a physical object?

Because that's what the word means. There's already a noun for the alternative you suggested: "display."

[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 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.

Corona, You are correct that there was an arrogance on my part, and for that, I would like to apologize. However, from a person who once made a living as a research software engineer in the virtual world, I have very little desire to spend my free time staring at a box. It is my belief that there is a very large demographic of people that have become addicted to living in the virtual world whether it is playing video games or for social and sexual interactions, and I suspect that is not a good thing for ones emotional, social, intellectual, and creative development.

It is my belief that profound art is derived not from the virtual world, but rather from real world experiences. The more time one spends in front of a computer the less time he spends in the real world and the less time he will spend making amazing art. I do believe that the virtual world is a great tool just like the camera, paint brushes, or any other tool, but tools do not create an expressive idea. They are only used to transform the creative thought into something that is real.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Displays via LCD, CRT, LED are backlit. Prints are highly susceptible to ambient lighting. Does the digital display democratize the image? The answer is Yes, But.

I am conflicted largely because I still fuss over the qualities of the paper: its texture, fundamental color (reflectance of ambient light, whiteness or not), all of which give different kinds of depth, all of which are absent on a monitor. "Yes, but" becomes "No"

[Peter Lewin]

A slight digression based on something that happened at a party a week ago: One of my friends (it was his birthday party) brought out some old photographs for nostalgia sake. A younger woman took one print, and laughed, saying that her first instinct was to use her fingers to enlarge the print, the way one does the image on a smartphone or an iPad, but then she realized that she couldn't do that with a photographic print. Being old, I would just bring the print closer, in order to see greater detail; younger generations have different instinctive reactions. This rather feeds into some of Corran's thoughts about the future of photography being on displays, rather than in prints. (In fact, the print the young woman was looking at was one that I had made, so you can tell which camp my loyalties lie, but then since I've mentioned that I have two millennials (or one of those generations denoted "x" or "y") for daughters, I'm clearly in a different age cohort!)

[Tin Can]

I run my digital images off my drives, through Chromecast to my 48" TV. It randomizes them and is basically a slide show. Intermixed are 'professional' images paid for by Google, all images including mine have the artist name. Makes a good mix and I see images of my own I haven't seen in years and a lot of fantastic landscapes done by Artists.

It's always on for any visitors with low level classical music. I have it running before they get here. They often comment.

I have traditional prints all over my walls, but few are framed and most just pinned up. EU museum style. Some are hard to find.

This conversation gave me the idea, especially 'tgtaylor's' to start treating my prints to a better exhibition.

I will be clearing 30 ft of walls for big frames, which will be hinged so I can easily change prints and have better empty/negative space.

For me this has been a good thread and I will combine 'display' and 'print'. Aesthetic improvement! I just have to find a spot for this 10 ft Whitehall Jr I think it's going on the ceiling of the bathroom. Water world.

[A_Tabor]

Being old, I would just bring the print closer, in order to see greater detail; younger generations have different instinctive reactions.

This kind of plays into the differences in the media and how they work, and that in turn plays into what one can do as an artist. My phone has a screen that is in the range of ~800x1200-1300px, but because it is a live display I can explore detail of nearly unlimited sized images by choosing to zoom in on a specific section. And with Augmented Reality style controls I can move around the image just by moving the whole hand held device around as if it were a small magnifying glass looking at a much larger piece.

I would much rather have massive high detailed prints that could take up an entire table dining room table, and still have a resolution that makes a magnifying glass useful, but I don't really have anywhere to store such art safely at this time, nor do I really want to rob my hobby budget of funds to create or buy such images.

An 8x10 print can only ever show at most an 8x10 image. With a live display you have the benefit of holding it at a comfortable viewing image, and then adjusting what is shown on the display itself to see more detail.

But where things get really interesting with a live display is when you consider what more can be done with it. Art is about sharing thought, emotion, and their expressions, and a live digital display of that opens up entire new realms to explore. But I feel that this line of thinking may be easier for sculptors and such to embrace than many photographers seem willing to consider. With a live and motion tracking display you can let the viewer step into a work, and not only that you can allow them to also interact with the piece in ways that are completely unthinkable in any other medium. Sure, sculptures can be made to have mobile and active components, but as physical things they're still at risk of damage. Plus while they can move their existence is still very much static.

With digital art you can have a far more dynamic creation by allowing colours and shapes within the work to shift over time or change as the viewer moves through it. As an artist you can embed far more 'little secrets' into it, such as standing at a specific location 'in' the piece at the right time will show the viewer something that can't be seen any other time. Or maybe on specific days the work is completely different, or even non-accessible.



As for the subject of 'peak stuff', well we have had minimalists of various kinds all throughout human history. It just becomes a little more obvious and visible in the current times because now we can vlog about it, and tell 'all our friends' (aka, random people we've never met all across the globe) how great life is even if all we own is enough clothes to fill a reasonable suitcase rather than a dozen closets, a few small pieces of furniture, bit of kitchenware, a bike, and some camera gear. A thousand years ago that kind of person probably would have been a monk or something.

But in my personal view modern humans generate a lot of garbage. Useless junk that we don't really need or have any use for, and for some of us most of it comes in the form of gifts from the holidays, because "People have to give gifts!" so part of environmental movements et drawn to trying to counter 'more things', which more often than not simply end up being 'more trash' rather than items which have a useful lasting value. (My mother's desk is solid hardwood that my father and I refinished a decade ago. At this point it might be 100 years old, and probably will stay useful for 100 more, if not longer, if it doesn't get caught in a house fire or something. Compare that to the cheap fibre board desks you can pick up in a flat-pack, which are clearly designed to never be moved and to be thrown out and replaced in a few years.)

[jp]

Technology and life aren't making photography one-or-the-other (print versus digital file). It's sort of like books. You make a new book these days, and it's apt to be both an E-book and print book. Bookshelves and libraries don't go away. My photos live sort of a dual life which are both useful. Some get scanned from negative and go online and are never actually wet printed. Some are wet printed and become a print. Both are useful. Print as a finished product. Digital file as something to disseminate around the world to other photographers or family or as a proof to check my negative making skills.

Sometimes an 8x10 print is the right size print for the image. It may not work as a 4x5 foot print or digital display. It may not work as a cell phone screen image. Other times it can. I'm not going generalize. Advantage goes to the print for an artist who is particular about how the work will display.

I don't think their is "peak stuff". Materialism fluctuates. Priorities fluctuate.

These people who have minimal stuff right now will someday inherit or upcycle or make quality stuff that is meant to stick around, like A_tabor references with furniture.