End of the Age of Photography : Danny Lyon

<p>Yeah, these dumb stupid moronic <a href="http://jpgmag.com/people/jayxxbe">kids </a>with their 'digis'. Next thing you know they will be shooting with Kodaks instead of <em>real</em> cameras with wet collodion. It all started with that degenerate be-bop music. Then there were those 'Beatles' with that disgusting long hair--what were they, <em>girls</em>? These punks can't do anything with real <a href="http://jpgmag.com/people/Syndikit89">style</a> like we could. Yeah, with <a href="http://jpgmag.com/photos/2652439">them </a>it's just snap and go, no work. And their crap won't even last, like all the Kodacolor prints their parents made in the Seventies. "See that faded yellow smear? That was your Uncle Harry. Or maybe your Aunt Minnie. Or..." </p>

<p>You know, there are Middle Kingdom Egyptian texts that say essentially the same thing. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"…next to me was fiddling with his toy, reading something and then moving things around with the tip of his finger. Across the way another rider was playing with her toy, while three benign women sat next to him staring into space, glancing at him now and then, and wondering what they were missing. Next to me another young moron was rocking back and forth to audio coming into his brain via his plugged up ear hole and his iPod. What is it about these people that makes you want to assault them? Why can’t they just sit on the train and look around like everyone else? Why are they not more cases of people, like me, ripping these things from their users and stomping them to death? Or are there?"</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Grumpy elders are every bit as universal as moronic youth. I have had the same desire to rip a cell phone or ipod out of someone's hands and stomp upon it. The age of the owner makes no difference to me. "Moving things around with the tip of his finger..." I've even seen a commercial in which a floating hand appeared to be moving around real life objects. The commercal itself had nothing to do with ipods, ipads, touchscreens, or anything computer related. It is a cultural reference to some, in which hours of their time is spent "moving things around" with one's fingertips. It is ubiquitous and I do find it disturbing. But concurrent with my own grumpiness is the memory of my youth, and the impatience I felt toward grumpy elders. I imagine that most of us have been the moronic youth decried by Lyon. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>" I can still look through these albums, and most of the pictures look pretty much like they did when he put them inside eighty five years ago. I am his son. I am touching, and holding and looking at, and smelling something my father made with his eyes and hand, when he was younger than I and all my four children are today. He was then a young man I never knew, but I can see what he saw, and can own and can touch what he made."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I could not agree more. I have already embarked upon a personal project to make as many archival prints as I can afford of photos that are significant to me…for reasons of family, or reasons of aesthetics. But this does not negate the benefits of digital. And there are many. Regardless what someone may think of my photographic abilities, or lack thereof, it would have taken me much much longer to be where I am today if I had had to deal with the learning curve afforded by film. Due to time and cost, I may have never embarked upon photography as a creative endeavour in the first place. </p>

<p>I don't know that a reliance upon electrical digital devices is the modern equivalent of barbarian hordes at the gates of Rome, but it makes me uneasy that so much of what we rely upon exists in a realm that cannot be touched, felt, smelled, etc.</p>

<p>Years ago I read a film script that was never given a studio green light. It involved the comedic team of Cheech and Chong. There was a scene in which the duo were orbiting the Earth in a lowered 63 Chevy Impala that had been converted for space travel. They go from satellite to satellite, smashing them with beer bottles. Chaos in military and civilian communications ensued. Along the same lines, I've sometimes wished I could do something similar, creating a merry sort of chaos in which those who seem to live their lives in the world of tweets and texts and highly specialized dish broadcasts would be forced to face the world analog style. At the very least, every storm upon the face of our sun gives me hope that the resulting solar flares will disrupt cellular communications and expose how far removed we have become from self-reliance. But then, I don't go out and kill my own food, now do I? </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"…you can archive it on your hard drive. Make sure you do that, so they last at least two years. Then your hard drive will crash, as they apparently are supposed to do. But you will have back up, which will crash, and you will have progeny, your children or your sister’s children and their children – (trust me on this one, if they don’t care about your pictures, no body will), who will devote themselves to preserving all the forms of technology present and future, so that they can see your pictures. For example they might create a room devoted to electronic gizmos, with every generation of “stuff”, which they will call “The I-Museum” the sole purpose of which will be to look at your pictures. Your progeny will get together and after a B-BQ of organic veggies raised on the Moon, they will whip out a disk called DAD, and there you have it."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is convenient to view photos in a digital format, and I do not have a mindset against it. But I agree that it is not an adequate substitute for a print, anymore than Kindle or an iPad or any other text reader is an adequate substitute for a book or magazine that I can hold in my hands. My 11-year-old daughter, God bless her, feels the same way. We all use computers for work, school, photography, games, and information look-up. The genie is out of the bottle and there is no putting it back. But there are some things that just are not the same in digital format. </p>

<p>So I have mixed reactions to Lyon's article. I nod in agreement with much of it, while finding some of his pronouncements annoying. I understand his point about the properties he has purchased from selling his prints…but the founders of Facebook, Google, and Apple are light years beyond his purchasing power. And, no, no one is moronic simply because they listen to music on an ipod. But a heavy reliance upon such devices, to feel a "dis-ease" when one is not in constant digital touch...that may well qualify in my book. But then, I'm just another grumpy elder...or at least within shouting distance of that state. </p>

<p>Steve, what if a screen image is not a "substitute" for a print, but something unto itself? Are we thinking in an old language. It reminds me of so many contemporary philosophy books and articles I read that are rejecting the dualism of mind/body and subjective/objective, which dates back to Descartes in the 1600s and even beyond. The language can be tortured in these recent writings simply because the language of dualism is so ingrained in us. I don't think the next generation will think of virtual imagery as a <em>substitute</em> for prints any more than they think of ATMs as a substitute for face-to-face banter with a bank teller or texting as a substitute for "proper" writing. All these things may be somewhat relative to age and culture, but they are, in a very real sense, what they are. Texting is texting, ATMs are ATMs, and virtual images are just that. Everything <em>could be</em> something else but . . . so what?</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I have had the same desire to rip a cell phone or ipod out of someone's hands and stomp upon it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I recommend some time in the mosh pit. Much better place to get out your anger. Socially acceptable, and anyone you damage wants to be damaged.</p>

<p>I've never felt the desire to rip a cell phone or ipod out of someone's ear. I never flet like I wanted to assault one. Nor did I ever want them, or any of us to look alike.</p>

<p>Ahhh the good old days of the mosh pit. The smell, the vulgarity in freedom it represented, the sheer feeling of anarchism (sighs)....such moronic wasted youth! (thanks Jeff).<br>

I think Fred is onto something here. The reference to 'duality' is an important one because it does suggest a co-existence between the 'old' and the 'new' without necessarily undermining of being dysphemistic towards each other. All things new do not necessarily represent a substitute for...The can however represent an addition to... and there in lies the issue with Lyon's views regarding the so called 'end of the age of photography'. He simply refuses to accept the duality of the "digi" age</p>

<p>Les, thanks, exactly what I was thinking but many times funnier said.</p>

<p>Nobody asks Danny Lyon (or whoever else thinks that digital cameras mean the end to serious photography) to change his way of working, his preferences or his style. But in reverse, he thinks those of us using modern techniques are all doing something wrong. And that's the main point I see raised: a bit more open-minded and less judgemental approach.<br>

In a Dutch magazine, some time ago, the brother of Anton Corbijn (<a href="http://www.corbino.nl/" target="_new">Corb!no</a>, also photographer) made a remark in an interview much the same, that digital "gave us all the same STUFF and we all ate the crap", while with film it is possible to be all personal and unique. His photos, to me, were quite good. His pre-occupation with the recording medium impressed a lot less.<br>

Creative skills, then, have got nothing to do with being open minded to changes or other ways to do your craft or art. So be it. Let's enjoy with the creative expression, and ignore the rest. We don't have to agree, after all.</p>

<p>I have always preferred a football field or a boxing ring to a mosh pit. Perhaps I am interpreted too literally. Let he who has never wished to throttle an arrogant driver or cell phone user cast the first....etc. (And how many times have I been perceived as the "arrogant driver" by someone else? Point a finger and three point back…yes, I know.)</p>

<p>Fred -- I like your point regarding duality. No, that which is new need not be a substitute for something else. Reminds me a little of a discussion I had with Jack regarding ri hokkai and ji hokkai -- the concepts of seeing the world as separate things, and seeing the world as a unified whole. (Perhaps I reach?) I prefer that my descendants (provided that any of them reaching beyond my daughter exist and give a rat's derriere) view prints of family photos, and anything which I valued as a personal aesthetic expression (*carefully sidesteps the word "art"*) rather than cull through a labyrinth of folders on some outdated external drive. But that is a preference, not a judgement. The future may hold many currently unimagined technologies and world views. Word, thought, or pheromone sensitive devices that display images appropriate to a given mood or desire. Who knows.</p>

<p>Didn't read the comments here but I did read the articles offered bu John and Jeff. It pisses me off that when I say those things, everybody attacks me like I am some dumb idiot with a big ego and when someone "more distinguished" says the same things, he is some sort of a guru... That's all I have to say, bye bye.</p>

<p>I guess I like grumpy old men pretty good. I have met many of them. I have no names to call Lyon myself. As far as I am concerned he can dislike ipods and gadgets all he wants. I have an ipod myself and do not like it very much. It has a dead battery, no charger and no ear phones (the kids snagged all that stuff). I guess it's not likely I will hold it in my hand and bebop around a bus given it's sad state. I like cell phones ok but I don't have one. I have the verizon family plan and everybody has a phone except me. But if I did have one the only calls I would get wold be from the wife with honey-do's. So I figure just the whopping bill is enough cell phone pleasure for me.</p>

<p>Photography is fun however. I carried my F100 around all day in Berkely browsing bike shops for my daughter and never took a picture. I was going to snap a picture of my burrito at lunch but I ate it to quick. Unfortuneately I did not find a bike for my daughter but I found a good bike seat for me. It's $140.00 and I did not buy it. But it sure looked sweet. It's an English touring saddle made by Brooks. I would rather have the bike seat then an ipod with a dead battery. But the guy would not make a trade so I am keeping my ipod.</p>

<p>Thanks Ross for lightening it up. You have a good sense of humor. Alan.</p>

<p>Antonio Bassi wrote:<br />"Didn't read the comments here but I did read the articles offered bu John and Jeff. It pisses me off that when I say those things, everybody attacks me like I am some dumb idiot with a big ego and when someone "more distinguished" says the same things, he is some sort of a guru... That's all I have to say, bye bye."<br /><br />Antonio, as a person recently returned to Photo.net, I've not read any posts from you like that. But I have read most Danny Lyon's blog (I had to quit), and I assure you he is some dumb idiot with a big ego. He has killed any interest I have in seeing more his work. I don't believe you can separate the artist from the art and I will never be able to look at his work again without thinking about the apparent contempt he feels for the human race. <br /><br />There are morons and buffoons in the world to be sure, just look at Chicago politics. But there are heroes, and saints as well. I wonder if Lyons is capable of seeing them.<br /><br />Photography has NEVER been permanent. Silver Halide images fade in the light. Heck they fade in time! Photography is just a reservoir of time supported by a crumbling dam. <br /><br />There IS something special about a new print hanging on a wall that a digital display can't replicate. But did you ever go into a poorly maintained restaurant and see pictures hanging on a wall that were all faded and had the colors all wrong? All photography requires commitment and maintenance to share properly.</p>

<p>Antonio, actually had you read the comments here, you would have seen that most don't see Lyons as a guru at all, but rather the way you describe yourself, and I think you're being very unfair to yourself. Though I've disagreed with you, I've never seen you as a dumb idiot with a big ego.</p>

<p>I didn't read anywhere that Lyon is even <em>making</em> any of his own vaunted prints. How many of <em>you</em> have a personal printer? I'm convinced that a large part of creating photography in print form is to know how to <em>make </em>prints, not just dictate how and pay for someone else to do it for you. So, I have a little less regard for his rant about the demise of photography and the world in general, when it seems to me he's not doing much personally to preserve it. </p>

<p><br />Glen B, other than financially, there is absolutely no downside to the decay of a photographic print. That some are badly done or have suffered by being hung badly is of no importance.</p>

<p>Gary M, it sounds like you're unfamiliar with commercial photographers or photojournalists (such as Lyon). Few photo labs have ever had any experience with either profession for obvious reasons (quality, immediacy etc). Are you familiar with Cartier Bresson's work, or Robert Capa's? Does the fact that they didn't make their own prints suggest anything? </p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>"But there are heroes, and saints as well. I wonder if Lyons is capable of seeing them."</em></p>

<p>I wonder if you've bothered to look at Lyons' work? </p>