I was listening to NPR this evening and they had a news story about "Peak Stuff." It reminded me about something I've been thinking about a lot lately.
I know there's been numerous discussions about real photographic prints vs. seeing an image on a computer or phone. These are centered around image quality, tactility, etcetera. But what I've wondered about lately is whether or not physical prints are as important as we might think (or want).
I've noticed a trend among my fellow Millennials to slim down and really own very little "stuff." Other than say a bike or car and a few personal items, and clothes, there are many who are eschewing large amounts of clutter in general. Renting a house, getting hand-me-down furniture and giving it away when they move, and other lifestyle choices. The NPR news story was a discussion about whether or not we as a society have reached "Peak Stuff," where people are not wanting to purchase more things. If true, would this not also pertain to art?
While many of my personal acquaintances who live like this are artists of some sort, very few actually own any art, or even keep their own! One friend of mine had a bonfire of most of his paintings he did over the course of a year, if they weren't given away. He keeps nothing. Meanwhile I personally have bought quite a bit of art lately, from friends and colleagues mostly. I've got about 15 pieces, from watercolors to ceramics to photographs, and while I do enjoy them they also present a burden for when I move later this year. So be it, but I admit the completely uncluttered lifestyle is one I envy, and do adhere to in some ways, such as renting and cheap furniture.
Of course here we toil away with our old-school gear making traditional darkroom prints, or at least hybrid, and perhaps we sell or give them away on occasion. Are we contributing to the hordes of "stuff" and clutter that besets our culture? Is the print really that important? Perhaps the mere dissemination of our photographs, if they are enjoyed, is enough? Regardless of the medium in which they are viewed, that is.
I have found that a great many acquaintances on Facebook and online in general tell me, face-to-face or via email, that they really love to see the photographs I post online. They don't want a print (well, sometimes), but simply being told my images were viewed, and enjoyed, is certainly a plus. Regardless of their merit, they definitely are seen by more eyes via the computer, rather than true prints, such as this very forum where I have only met a few of the members in person.
What do you think? Should we demand of ourselves that the real print be the only true way to experience a photograph? I want to hear your thoughts. I don't know what I think really but as I said, I've been thinking a lot about it.
Bookmarks