Is Photography Dead?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

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.

[Andrew O'Neill]

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.

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.

[Merg Ross]

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.

[Gordon Moat]

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

[Kirk Gittings]

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.

[Brian Ellis]

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.

[RDKirk]

I hope to see those using digital to start calling themselves digital artists instead of photographers

Well, those who are engaged in creating totally non-realistic work, perhaps.

[Merg Ross]

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.

[Kirk Gittings]

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.

[Marko]

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.

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.