End of the Age of Photography : Danny Lyon

<p> Just some guy having trouble adjusting to the new world. His world of photography is slipping away and it's probably a hard thing for him. I was watching a kid walk down the street the other day and his pants were so large he had to hitch them up every 3 steps. It had a certain flow to it. Better him then me on that one. However I would not want to call him a name or anything. Just some kid with big pants.</p>

<p>seems to me that many of us are oblivious to the pink elephant in the room:<br /> the man seems to be pointing out the damage done to the art of photography, not by the mere<br /> introduction of the new technology itself, but by how easily it is perverted into a vehicle for the production<br /> of comparatively hollow substitutes for fine art. whether most of us want to admit it or not, digital photography is<br /> far easier than doing things with film. It allows one to make a crap load of.... crap... in hopes that there is a good picture in<br /> there somewhere. Even when that good picture is realized and printed, it very often pales in comparison to what could have been<br /> done by traditional means. Rather than admit the inconvenient fact that photographers of the past actually had to know what they were doing, and<br /> that is not so much the case today, some of us turn to ridicule in order to give our mockery of a once fine craft some semblance of substance.</p>

<p>ridiculing him does not make him wrong.</p>

<p>just my take.</p>

<p>John, I *am* a college student! But being a f/t college student at age 48 may not be typical.... though there are a lot of mature students learning new skills at my college right now, while unemployed. Just like me.</p>

<p>F Ph--</p>

<p>Actually, my parents and their friends (back in the 30s and 40s) already ruined photography. I have shoe boxes filled with their black and white snapshots. They did incredible damage to the art of photography. All those needless, useless photos at the 1939 New York City World's Fair. All those wasted shots of my brother and me and my cousins at our little birthday parties in the 50s. Those dumb shots of my grandmother in her stylish beaver coat in front of the New York brownstone where my mother was born. Those faux fashion shots of my mother in a mirror putting on lipstick while a friend looks on. I tell you, it was the ruination of photography. I don't know how Avedon or Arbus or Weston survived it all. Actually, they probably would have been so much better if it hadn't been for those dang Kodaks and Polaroids messing everything up.</p>

<p>I think I will go burn those shoe boxes full of "comparatively hollow substitutes for fine art." And all those photo labs all these years should have been burned to the ground. They simply made it too easy for people who should have been doing their own processing in the darkroom. And anyone who had a darkroom in their house, shame on you. You should have had to trudge miles through the snow, barefoot, to process your film. Then you'd know the true hardship and suffering of the Artist.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>" The sign at the entrance to my gym locker room says “no cell phones please, cell phones are cameras.” They are not. A camera is a Nikon or a Leica or Rollieflex and when you strike someone with one, that is take your camera and use it as a weapon, they know they have been hit with something substantial. When I was a civil rights photographer (two Nikon Reflexes), I recall a news camera man who had a 16mm (wind up) cast iron camera. When I admired it he said it was “good to hit people with”. That’s a camera." Danny Lyon</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, hard to argue with that...</p>

<p>"Why are they not more cases of people, like me, ripping these things from their users and stomping them to death?"</p>

<p>Nice. Note to self: the only thing more embarrassing than being an old man proclaiming "The end is nigh!" is including violent fantasies in the article.</p>

<p>"Whether a watercolor is inferior to an oil, or whether a drawing, an etching, or a photograph is not as important as either, is inconsequent. To have to despise something in order to respect something else is a sign of impotence." - Paul Strand<br>

<br /></p>

<p><em>"To have to despise something in order to respect something else is a sign of impotence."</em></p>

<p>I just thought it was worth repeating. ESPECIALLY HERE.</p>

<p>"seems to me that many of us are oblivious to the pink elephant in the room:<br />the man seems to be pointing out the damage done to the art of photography, not by the mere<br />introduction of the new technology itself, but by how easily it is perverted into a vehicle for the production of comparatively hollow substitutes for fine art. whether most of us want to admit it or not, digital photography is far easier than doing things with film. It allows one to make a crap load of.... crap... in hopes that there is a good picture in there somewhere. Even when that good picture is realized and printed, it very often pales in comparison to what could have been<br />done by traditional means. Rather than admit the inconvenient fact that photographers of the past actually had to know what they were doing, and that is not so much the case today, some of us turn to ridicule in order to give our mockery of a once fine craft some semblance of substance.<br>

ridiculing him does not make him wrong.<br>

just my take."</p>

<p>i stand by my mockery (well it wasn't intended as such).<br>

it is a flawed attack really. what he is eluding too, and yourself inadvertently, may apply to the hobby crowd however it remains a myth amongst the documentary. photojournalist, art, commercial etc. crowd. specifically the ones either at the top of their game or striving to be.<br>

an inordinate amount of skill, drive and commitment is needed to succeed in 2011. perhaps more than ever with the reduction in funding available. to get myself from my desk at home, to the Niger Delta take approximately 6 months of pedal to the floor work. it takes enough skill to convince the people with the cake to fund it. it takes skill and vision to stand out in a saturated market. it takes skill, courage and a degree of insightfulness/people skills to work in the environments. without boring everyone, skill is required at every step of the way.<br>

digital is really only a method of capture. a new sort of film really. the d3's of today aren't too far off from an f5 of yesterday. when one really whittles away at it the real difference is cost per frame and the ability to show the whole world your slides versus the unsuspecting neighbor. delivery speed of course in wire service etc.<br>

if anything has the power to "end an age" it is us. our willingness (or lack of) to support photography. our willingness to pursue and create the new work, mediums and means of delivery the world wants to see.<br>

if anything has the power to "end an age" it's attitudes like the one expressed in the article.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Again, it's telling when old men of no fame (or evidence of accomplishment or societal contribution) attack another old man FOR his pride in fame and societal contribution, neglecting of course the implications of his relatively low profile name-wise. Jealousy was one of Shakespeare's favorite explorations :-)</p>

<p>Another telling thing is when those jealous ancients pretend still photography is a permanently separate entity from video, despite what's obviously happening with cellular and gizmos like 5DII. </p>

<p>Nobody capable of minimally clear thinking would question someone else's "relevance" without using the term properly: "relevance" to what? Relevant to morons? To monsters who steal Oxycontin from their grandparents? To young people who hope to distinguish themselves by wandering Manhattan streets in 2011? (no comment here on what Davidson seems to be doing today).</p>

<p>People who invest their lives with family-funded, tat-emblazened nobodies rather than with people who might elevate them? ("elevate" as in "helping them be more, rather than less")</p>

<p>I doubt I'd "like" Danny Lyon personally, based on his screed, but liking him isn't "relevant" to my needs. I'd like to hang with him, hoping to know more about the value system that enabled so much of his exalted career. Of course, "exalted" is just a personal value kind of thing. What's the difference between punk and Bach, after all?</p>

>>> whether most of us want to admit it or not, digital photography is

far easier than doing things with film.

 

Broad brush nonsense.

 

>>> Even when that good picture is realized and printed, it very often pales in comparison to what could have been

done by traditional means.

 

Ditto.

 

>>> Rather than admit the inconvenient fact that photographers of the past actually had to know what they were

doing, and that is not so much the case today, ...

 

And you're saying that's not true today, with respect to capturing/processing digitally and creating quality work? That

people who capture digitally don't need to know what they're doing? Such as not needing any concept of composition,

exposure, focus, dof, etc on the capture side. And having little technical skill on the post processing side to create a

great print? Puhlease...

<blockquote>

<p>it's telling when old men of no fame (or evidence of accomplishment or societal contribution) attack</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />It's better not to make this kind of statement. It could easily be applied to the statement itself.</p>

<p><strong>irrelevant</strong> - not connected to, or applicable.<br>

i believe i used the term accurately. being of the "not old" spectrum and admittedly covered with tattoo's from wrist to shoulder (both arms) i can only assume you are directing your comments at other gentlemen of advanced age. i would also add that none of the individuals i have documented, struggling with addictions to Oxycontin, have stolen it (Oxy) from their grandparents nor are they "morons". to add to that; Oxycontin, while widely labeled as the street drug of choice, lags behind in popularity when compared to things like hydro-morphine. this is <em><strong>relevant </strong></em>to the regions i have worked. FYI to some of the "old geezers", with illicit pharmaceutical opiate use being the number two killer in youth in my particular region i would argue that the particular subject matter is of the utmost <em><strong>relevance</strong></em>.<br>

<em>this last sentiment is derived from what i can only assume is a thinly veiled address to myself.</em><br>

now, back to the point... where it all becomes "<em><strong>irrelevant</strong></em>" is when one chooses to use a over generalized, stereotypical example (tattooed, "family funded" [perhaps an explanation is in order for this one?}, headphone wearing etc. etc. etc.) to prove a point that when considered, in context is patently untrue OR... <em><strong>irrelevant</strong></em>.<br>

the article wasn't written with a tone of celebration and sentimentality, whilst looking forward to and commending the work of the next generations contributions. it was written with nothing more than condescension despite, as i recall, the guggenheim still being distributed. this of course can be verified by Donald Webber who is also of the "not old" spectrum and i suspect might have a tattoo or two of his own. (will follow up on that). <br>

just as there was when Mr. Lyon was plying his craft, there is today, a large amateur contingent happily snapping away. it would have been just as erroneous<em><strong> </strong></em>in that era to use one as a signpost for the other. <br>

perhaps it is the end of an era? perhaps the monolithic names of yesteryear have finally made way for the next generation of photographers. photographers just as skilled, dedicated and sincere as the Cappas, Lyons and McCullins of an age passed. <em><strong>relevant</strong></em> names like Pellegrin, Nahr, Subotzky, Delano and Hoagland. now that would be an article i would not only deem <em><strong>relevant</strong></em>, but long overdue. try and understand that not as derision of those those that went before more a further example of my understanding of the term.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I wonder if many here have actually spoken recently to many college students?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Not that this really deserves a response, it was obviously not intended as a serious question, but I do every week. And most of the people I know are from 20 to 40. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> I've been amazed by the blythe ignorance of any recent history, the basics of scientific method, and lack of more than one language.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm always amazed by how much they know. But I spend several hours with them at a time, which makes it difficult to stick by one's snap judgements. I'm kind of amazed, a lot of them have been on trips to Asia, Africa, Latin America, to build schools or work on other projects in the community. All of them have at least passing capability with two languages, I know some that speak four. Nobody I knew growing up could speak four languages except my father.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It tells the story when someone compares "modernity" (iPhones etc) unfavorably to history-moving commitments, as Lyon made to Civil Rights. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>It tells the story when you talk to a 16 year old who spent three months in Sudan working in a village, just as well. Maybe better, it involved a lot more sacrifice and danger. No discussion of iPhones, etc. It's only the cranks who think that they did it better so many years ago that seem to relate iPhones to Civil Rights.</p>

I speak daily with my wife (further proof of my distance from the "old geezer" crowd) and she is currently the top of her

class (masters in social work). This is even more extraordinary considering she is doing concurrent degrees (theology

as well).

 

She is bewilderingly clever despite her youth.

<p>I don't think anyone attacked his work. Many have commented on his apparent bitterness. It's a shame when you reach old age and haven't accepted the fact you won't be President or "master". We all have to go through that and it's painful. A good read of Ecclesiastes might comfort his soul.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think anyone attacked his work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not even a matter of "think". Nobody attacked his work. Nobody expressed any "jealousy" of his work.</p>

<p>Jeff, you're laboring. Chill.</p>

<p>Some folks dislike the opinionated views and self-regard of a widely acclaimed photographer, so they've aggressively claimed his work is itself irrelevant, ancient history (open demonstration of jealousy). They've anxiously painted him into age-ist cartoons, directly comparable to racism. Welcome to 2011.</p>

<p>Jon, you've learned something crucial about the word you used as a weapon against Lyon earlier. As you've discovered "relevant" does require a full phrase to mean anything at all. "Relevant to ...what?" Good work.</p>

<p>The determination to elevate ourselves above Lyon as if we're one happily clicking kumbayah blob is interesting in itself. No disagreements or individual attitudes or states of mind allowed! Think Tea Party. Have you met those folks? They wear themselves out patting each other on their backs for agreeing so urgently.</p>

<p>As to Oxycontin, I'm thinking of local police reports and Rush Limbaugh. Most Oxycontin is stolen, like his allegedly was, from people suffering things like liver cancer or bone cancer: nursing home residents. It's harder to steal from Walgreens. I guess I'd rather have irrelevant geezers be pain-free than have short-lived kids or talk show hosts stealing from them, directly or indirectly. BTW, there are plenty of geezers with tats in those places, more every day. Times change, but morons do abide.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Some folks dislike the opinionated views and self-regard of a widely acclaimed photographer, so they've aggressively claimed his work is itself irrelevant, ancient history (open demonstration of jealousy). They've anxiously painted him into age-ist cartoons, directly comparable to racism. Welcome to 2011.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> You've interpreted what people posted here all wrong. Maybe you've read that stuff somewhere else but not here. People are seeing his article not his photos as negative, a real downer. Who wants to be around bitter people? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Some folks dislike the opinionated views and self-regard of a widely acclaimed photographer</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It doesn't matter who said that, it's not worth listening to. You seem to keep trying to connect people's comments to his profession, but you could have put "plumber" in place of "photographer" and everyone would say the same thing. You would probably join in. Nobody cares that a photographer said that, it's arrogant and elitist. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The determination to elevate ourselves above Lyon </p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're not getting it. Nobody here except you cares about being above, below, or sidewise to Lyon. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Times change, but morons do abide.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good to know your view of humanity. </p>

<p>as Jeff has already commented on, Lyon is not a point on any measurement scale for me. curmudgeon is curmudgeon, be it a photographer or a garbage man.<br /><br /><br>

"irrelevant" was a distinction, not an attack. it had nothing to do with is past work. it was entirely related to the article at hand. isn't that what we are discussing? if it's his past accomplishments then i have seriously misunderstood the point of the article and i argue that Lyon is at best disingenuous. </p>

<p>as per the Tea Party comment and hints of attack, i reckon you might want to re-read your posts. we could shift our focus to the word "hypocrite". </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Think Tea Party. Have you met those folks? They wear themselves out patting each other on their backs for agreeing so urgently.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And thank God for the tea party. Just saying. Since it was brought up.... There is a crime in agreeing with something fresh and right, apparently.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ed, Michelle Bachman will be giving a response to the President's State of the Union address as the representative of the Tea Party. Here's what she said about slavery and the founding of the U.S. this weekend:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"We know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States."</p>

<p>Here's how she described the first settlers in America: "It didn't matter the color of their skin. It didn't matter their language. It didn't matter their economic status. It didn't matter whether they descended from known royalty or are of a higher class or a lower class. It made no difference. Once you got here, we were all the same. Isn't that remarkable? It is absolutely remarkable."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What's remarkable is either her state of delusion or her willingness to lie. In either case, I suppose one might consider this a "fresh" approach to U.S. history. Apparently, she is, indeed, fresh and right. Far to the right of sanity.</p>

<p>Off topic.</p>

<p>"These Digis are very attractive little buggers. The cameras have made “photography” as ubiquitous as mosquitoes, they are everywhere. It’s hard to believe that they are part of the collapse of our civilization." (Lyon)<br>

The sarcasms of his very first line and the cynicism of his subsequent two lines set the scene for what this article represents and the intent with which it is written. Perhaps Lyon should spend less time reminiscing and trying to hold onto a past that is long gone, even if it is evidently fresh and present in his own mind, and embrace the inevitable truth about the innate nature of humane existence; that being the need for progress and all things stemming from it.<br>

The suggestive nature with which he proceeds to describe the scene around him only serves to portray him as a luddite, techno-phobic and ignorant photographer incapable of identifying with or willing to objectively consider the world through the eyes of 'moronic' youth (as he puts it). And yet so much of his work is subjected towards the youth of his era. He himself was a member of an outlaw motorcycle gang. I suspect those in positions of authority and mainstream "good christian folk" would have viewed him and his 'gang' with equal moronic status.<br>

Let me make an important distinction here. <br>

As a photojournalist, self taught I might add, his work is inspirational and visionary for its time. As a writer sharing his views on "the end of the age of photography.." he has done nothing short of undermine much of that vision evident in his photographic works.<br>

Photography like all things are subject to the influences of the ever changing world we live in. Romanticising it won't stop or change that. In his attempt to do so, Lyon only serves to undermine the digital age and the creative world it has opened up to current and would be photographers.<br>

"the end of the age of photography"? I think not</p>

<p>Fred,</p>

<p>Funny thing is that you can go by quotes, or you can go by ideas for the country. Speaks for itself.</p>