| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/11/2012 04:24:41 AM · #1 |
"A photograph is no longer predominantly a way of keeping a treasured family memory or even of learning about places or people that we would otherwise not encounter. It is now mainly a chintzy currency in a social interaction and a way of gazing even further into one̢۪s navel."
Thoughts?
Here's the full read, off a blog I regular and very much enjoy. NYT LensBlog |
|
|
|
09/11/2012 05:30:40 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
"It is now mainly a chintzy currency in a social interaction and a way of gazing even further into one̢۪s navel."
Thoughts? |
Alas, i believe this is exact. Nowadays most of everything that's happening within social interaction is just gazing into one's navel, we live in a big void of uncertainty and fear of being nothing, our technological advances in the social sphere are mainly made to mask that, we communicate, we get feed back, the more we hear our own voice, see our own stuff, the more real we feel. Its all surface junk that will create a generation of shallow beings who will not appreciate much, for the illusion of well being to continue, these shallow beings will have to make even shallower entertainment.
Anything will do, but not this, not here, not the simplicity and boring beauty of the now, without thinking of self. It would do good to sit silently and feel this quivering sensation of doubt and the ensuing lust to be something, someone. We know we are not but we so want to be, putting off and not asking, that's what we do best.
Thanks Derek, felt like a rant this morning.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2012 06:17:04 AM · #3 |
While I don't disagree that the place of many photos is navel gazing, I can't really agree with the statement I quoted.
For instance, it's curious that vacation photos are not navel gazing, but food photos are. Escalating the experience of your family above that of the world is navel gazing at its best (worst, if you will).
For me, people describe the cheapening of photography, but it's been around since photography went beyond daguerreotypes. That we can capture easier does not mean those captures which are not easy are robbed of their wonder, their glory. They are and can still readily be iconic, incredible. Alas, the argument of this post would well be identical to when the Polarioid debuted, but my how things have changed...
Just seems like a very narrow conception of the field, to me.
Technology doesn't choose sides, it just is, and while there is plenty of shit out there, there is just as much that is great. I tire of "glory days' articles, myself, which seek to have us hang up our cameras and call it a lost battle. Perhaps I'm too optimistic, but there's far more to things than public appreciation. Why do I take and enter a photo I know will score low? Because I value it. In any case, all photography is navel gazing- the assumption that your view of what is important is shared by others. It hasn't changed from then until now, we're just complaining more.
ETA: I second your rant and raise you!
Message edited by author 2012-09-11 06:17:23. |
|
|
|
09/11/2012 06:31:21 AM · #4 |
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place
of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their
households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They
contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties
at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."
It's attributed to Socrates - whatever the source, the problem seems to be with mankind since eons, and is not likely to leave.
Earth will continue turning, let's get a life. |
|
|
|
09/11/2012 07:20:22 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Technology doesn't choose sides, it just is |
I would have to say that it's totally the opposite, we create for a purpose and technology is no exception, that purpose is sown in our minds, we wish to escape from the quiver of being, quickly without effort, having many friends along the way so we don't feel the vacuity of it all. Even if technological advances were stumbled upon by accident, we soon mold them into a getaway car. Of course I'm exaggerating (slightly) for the sake of rant but life in general is navel gazing, photography is no different, we all do it. Try examining honestly just for one day, every desire and motivation you have, this will be nearly impossible because we get lost so quickly, if we do though, we soon realize the belly button nature of our world and the one we live in.
and the rant goes on ;-)
Message edited by author 2012-09-11 07:43:13. |
|
|
|
09/11/2012 08:17:12 AM · #6 |
| I suppose I don't actually disagree with you here, but for the bit that photography has suddenly become such. We seem to agree that the basic premise of photography is inherently navel gazing, so it's not a sudden change. That's what I aim to argue., that photography has and always been what it is now, not pleased audiences and such. There is approval and disapproval, but at the end of the day, art under your description is all equally navel gazing. |
|
|
|
09/11/2012 08:38:43 AM · #7 |
The only problem with the proliferation of photography is that people no longer recognize good photography. Heck -- anyone can do it! (but not necessarily well).
Their photos are silly, useless and have no artistic merit.
However, they have something that I no longer have. They have photos of life. They have photos that have meaning to them.
I don't know about anyone else, but I find that I have a tendency to skip every day snapshots. I don't catalog life anymore, unless it's going to be a stellar shot. We went on a three week trip this summer -- massive road trip out to yellowstone. I tried taking the buffalo with birds on their back. I took the beautiful landscapes, the backlit gysers, but I didn't bother taking a shot of my family roasting marshmallows over the fire. I didn't take shots of setting up camp. Because they weren't artistic or photographically interesting.
The proliferation of photography gives us a huge number of kids pointing a cell phone at themselves and taking a picture, but they have a catalog of life.
My favorite picture isn't an awesome bird shot, or a funky b&w abstract. I'm proud of them. I'm proud of myself for being able to do them. My favorite picture is the snapshot of my kids out on the lawn -- one grinning from ear to ear, the other one pouting. My favorite picture is the snapshot of my dad being show and tell for my son's kindergarten class.
Both sides have problems. The boring, useless snapshot people should start paying a little more attention to details, backgrounds, lighting, and get something worthwhile.
The photographers need to step back and take more snapshots, and remember life.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2012 09:12:11 AM · #8 |
The boring, useless snapshot people should start paying a little more attention to details, backgrounds, lighting, and get something worthwhile.
Perfect! My new mantra!! :-)
Message edited by author 2012-09-11 20:01:05. |
|
|
|
09/11/2012 09:23:36 AM · #9 |
I guess it all depends on your philosophy regarding photographers as artists. My theory is that anyone can make a masterpiece, it may be harder for the technically less savvy, but just as every exposure of the best photographer in the world may not be a keeper, the next snap of an instamatic may be the finest picture ever taken.
The "give a pen and paper to everyone and you won't get more Shakespeares" is a fallacious argument and a bad analogy, loosely based upon the "sit a million monkeys in front of typewriters and won't get Shakespeare"- old quip.
When only the "elite" can participate- you don't get the diversity and quality that could be possible. More participation and ease of use of camera's and essentially "free processing" compared to prior methods can and will result in more underprivileged kids and diverse groups participating. Give people a chance and they may rise above previous generations of photographers- perhaps not with their iphones, but maybe. Where would women's tennis be if inner city kids never got rackets? A lot less diverse on the winner's podium.
But the author of this article may be correct, just like photography, journalism is diluted and anybody can write a schlocky, chintzy article.
Message edited by author 2012-09-11 09:27:09. |
|
|
|
09/11/2012 09:52:44 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
But the author of this article may be correct, just like photography, journalism is diluted and anybody can write a schlocky, chintzy article. |
Touche!
And this is what I'm getting at. Perhaps I had bristled at the idea that photography was purely and always intended to preserve family events. Back when photography began, this was most certainly NOT the case.
It's a blog that normally has great info and content, but this one was odd so I was curious what others thought.
As  jagar said, we are all navel gazers, pretending we have an importance to our work and views, but I don't endorse quite that cynical of a view, as that would mean (to me) that art is completely pointless and meaningless. |
|
|
|
09/11/2012 09:53:25 AM · #11 |
You folks are too cerebral for me. My head hurts from this. I just like taking photos that I like.
|
|
|
|
09/11/2012 09:59:44 AM · #12 |
| The trap people fall into is that they start to take photgraphs instead of living. |
|
|
|
09/11/2012 10:39:41 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
But the author of this article may be correct, just like photography, journalism is diluted and anybody can write a schlocky, chintzy article. |
Touche!
And this is what I'm getting at. Perhaps I had bristled at the idea that photography was purely and always intended to preserve family events. Back when photography began, this was most certainly NOT the case.
It's a blog that normally has great info and content, but this one was odd so I was curious what others thought.
As jagar said, we are all navel gazers, pretending we have an importance to our work and views, but I don't endorse quite that cynical of a view, as that would mean (to me) that art is completely pointless and meaningless. |
Ha! It wasn't a bad article. I was just making the point that opening up the floodgates can be a good and bad thing.
But for me I take snapshots. Thats all.
And the "photographs instead of living" - never a truer comment made. Put down the social media and actually live life! |
|
|
|
09/11/2012 12:45:56 PM · #14 |
| Aha! I figured it out. Too many people over the age of 30 on this site. As everybody knows, old people complain a lot, about everything. |
|
|
|
09/11/2012 12:58:03 PM · #15 |
| Maybe Art is a subconscious effort to get to the essential, our external way of voicing the questions we don't want to ask, whatever, it felt good to rant this morning, I'll take photos tomorrow. |
|
|
|
09/11/2012 01:00:57 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Aha! I figured it out. Too many people over the age of 30 on this site. As everybody knows, old people complain a lot, about everything. |
That's what I thought but didn't say,guess its alright for us young ones !! |
|
|
|
09/11/2012 01:11:39 PM · #17 |
I find the fixation with recording and sharing events amazing. As one comic put it "I think this moment is great, but now is not a good time. I'll save it for later."
I think of all the Olympians walking into the stadium in London, holding their phones up, recording the moment, rather than fully being in the moment. I think of kids at parties posing with fingers thrown into signs and mouths agape, taking image after image to post on social media, to show their friends what fun the party was, perfecting the party image, while never really settling into the party itself.
With the proliferation of technology that can easily record moments, we now seem to need to capture those fleeting moments to share with those not present, as if life not documented is somehow not real. Reality television has supplanted reality. |
|
|
|
09/11/2012 01:24:45 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
I find the fixation with recording and sharing events amazing. As one comic put it "I think this moment is great, but now is not a good time. I'll save it for later." |
And this is different from using a DVR or listening to podcasts instead of broadcasts? Time-shifting has been with us as a regular feature at least since the end of the VHS/BETAMAX war ...
As we become overloaded with information our (perceived?) capacity for memory is challenged, and photos are one way* to reinforce the ability to remember events, and obviously an efficient way to share them with others.
*I think the proliferation of "self-storage" facilities, so we can keep all the junk associated with past events, is another manifestation of the same phenomenon.
Message edited by author 2012-09-11 13:26:36. |
|
|
|
09/11/2012 01:42:57 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
And this is different from using a DVR or listening to podcasts instead of broadcasts? |
The difference is that we can now see our own lives as entertainment vehicles. Time shifting consumer electronic entertainment that has been packaged for our consumption, is quite different from recording our own lives. When we act as documentarian of our own lives, we must step back from deeply involving ourselves in the action of our lives, we give up being, for recording. The lives of others sent to us through television ought to be seen very differently than we see our own lives. When we see the cast of Jersey Shore as being fungible with our own friends, we have lost the ability to discern reality. When we see the sum of our lives as being our electronic foot print on Tumbler and Facebook, we have confined our existence in a very narrow space.
Message edited by author 2012-09-11 13:43:48. |
|
|
|
09/11/2012 02:07:31 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
I find the fixation with recording and sharing events amazing. As one comic put it "I think this moment is great, but now is not a good time. I'll save it for later."
I think of all the Olympians walking into the stadium in London, holding their phones up, recording the moment, rather than fully being in the moment. I think of kids at parties posing with fingers thrown into signs and mouths agape, taking image after image to post on social media, to show their friends what fun the party was, perfecting the party image, while never really settling into the party itself.
With the proliferation of technology that can easily record moments, we now seem to need to capture those fleeting moments to share with those not present, as if life not documented is somehow not real. Reality television has supplanted reality. |
Unless pictures are posted all over facebook, it didn't really happen. |
|
|
|
09/11/2012 03:57:33 PM · #21 |
I have to chuckle, because back in the good ol days of film, Mum might trot out the Kodak 110 and take a grand total of 6 images of a family gathering, party, etc. And she would always chop off heads and/or feet. Of course, back then it cost $$ to develop film. But now with the potential to shoot unlimited images (though she now rocks a little Vivitar) over 40 years later, she STILL tends to take only a scant handful of shots...and can STILL be relied on to chop off a head or some feet :-)
Meanwhile once I got my grubby little paws on a 110, I spent a lot of my allowance on film and getting it processed. Once, when I was in college, I dated a student from the Photography program and we had a shooting day. I shot 1 roll of slide and 2 rolls of film. I think he took 3 frames. Go figure.
But yeah...there are far too many fauxtogs out there. People get their very first dslr, they start snapping away and toss a handful of pp into the pot too, then post everything on Facebook. Everyone goes 'OMG!!! That is such an AMAZING photo! You should be a photographer!!' that they soon hang out their shingle as a photog. Sadly it's a trend that shows no sign of slowing. |
|
|
|
09/11/2012 04:01:26 PM · #22 |
| im trying to find the problem with people taking pictures. |
|
|
|
09/11/2012 06:24:43 PM · #23 |
Nothing at all wrong with people taking pictures. It's the number of people who then think that because they're sooo awesome - they know so, cause all their Facebook friends said so - that they go and set up shop. Then they wonder why they end up on sites like YANAP.
As a little segue, I know some people argue that just being able to press the shutter makes you a photographer, because you're taking a photo. Ergo, you are a photographer. Right? Well if we follow that rationale, then my shutter release is a photographer because it tripped the shutter. It didn't have anything to do with lighting or comp or exposure.
I own a car and have a general idea as to how it works. That makes me a car owner, not a mechanic. If I dared to call myself a mechanic right now and started charging to fix cars, I'd be called out in a heartbeat. I'm also a pretty safe driver, but if I began calling myself a taxi driver and began shuttling people all over the place, again I'm pretty sure I would be called out in no time. Lots of people own horses; anyone can buy one or even get one for free. That only makes them horse owners, it does not automatically make them a horseman or horsewoman, let alone a professional trainer.
So. If you own a camera, then yes you DO have the potential to become a photographer, provided that you actually learned somewhere along the way how to compose, something about lighting etc and your resulting work reflects that. But if you're just randomly firing off shots in all directions, whether it's with a cellphone or a Nikon D3 without paying heed to lighting/comp etc, then you're just taking snapshots.
Nothing wrong with snaps either, just don't watermark and post them as supposedly professional-calibre work. Fauxtogs don't seem to use the delete button very often, and have no problem posting all manner of crap in their Facebook pages as *professional* work.
*sigh*
Message edited by author 2012-09-11 18:27:12. |
|
|
|
09/11/2012 07:48:12 PM · #24 |
If you own a car and do nothing with it, you are a car owner. If you drive it, you are a driver - good, bad or middling. If someone owns a camera and does nothing with it, they are a camera owner. If they take photos with it they are a photographer - good, bad or middling. You are no more a mechanic than they are a camera technician - are they claiming to be that?
Message edited by author 2012-09-11 19:48:33.
|
|
