Anything left to photograph?

Given that every conceivable physical subject has been photographed

to the point of cliche and that reflexive approaches are now passe,

is the only innovation left to be technological? That is to say in

the tools rather than applications?

 

Where are the <i>visual</i> frontiers of the medium?

You are probably right...everything has been tried at least once. Fortunately, nobody has taken the PERFECT photograph yet of ANYTHING and so there is plenty of opportunity to go back over the list and try for the perfect shot.

you are starting from a false premise.

How can you say "everything" has been photographed? that's not neccesarrily true, now is it? Have all the tallest peaks of all the tallest mountains been photographed? Have all the deepest trenches in the deepest oceans been photographed? Every plant and animal on the earth? Every person? Every expression?

 

Every angle? Every light source? On every subject?

 

There are still plants and animals "waiting" to be discovered. How can you say everything has been photographed? There are still atrocities being committed every day. There are still sunsets every evening. Just because there are 500,000 pictures of sunsets already- doesn't mean you can't be the one to do it differently. \

 

Don't say there is nothing left. That simply isn't true. If you're bored with your prospects, be a little creative. If you simply need something new and exciting to photograph, take a scuba diving course, and start with all the unfound glories beneath us. You could also become an astronaut and start with all the unfound glories above us, but that might take a bit more work.

 

Good luck. Now get out there.

Yes, St. Pauls in London looks distinctly different today then it did a year ago (part white, part in scaafolding, as opposed to completely covered in 400 years of pollution), so do the subtle changes in the fashion the tourists in front of it wear. Travel guides need to be updated for that.

 

And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Yes, maybe Saint Pauls hasn't changed a bit. But, maybe "you" could change the way you look at it. It's not a church* it's a home for a zillion pigeons. It's not a church, it's a sanctuary for "sinners". If you keep the same perspective, you're going to get the same shot. If you try looking at things a different way, you may be surprised at what you get. The same with those "tourists". If that's how you view them, thats what they'll be.

 

 

 

* I do not know that Saint Pauls is a church, I'm assuming it is. If I'm wrong and it's really a brothel belonging to George St. Paul, then just alter my comparisons to fit.

Erin, yes, St Pauls is a church - well a cathedral. It's the one with the big dome.

 

John. There is a zen like dimension to your question - the "if a tree falls in a forest with no-one to hear it, does it make a sound" type. Every class of subject has been photographed. Most have been photographed at some time or other in most of the ways they can be photographed. But we haven't seen them all. We may not be truely inovating by re-inventing things we have not seen before. But do we really care.

<i>What are the visual frontiers of the medium?</i><p>

 

The frontiers of any individual photographer we can all agree are there to be stretched by re-visiting known subjects, exploring an extant genre, etc. I am as fascinated and excited as the next person about doing this.</p>

 

I guess what I am wondering is whether the medium is now fully matured in terms of its visual language or is it still evolving and if so in what ways?

 

A new genre, new visual devices, metaphorical devices, visual symbols, etc. that become part of the shared grammar with which we communicate.

Is it really necessary to be original?<p>I tend to work with the question in mind 'can I make photographs of the things I like and think are beautiful'. Even when million other pictures have been made of a sunset, why shouldn't I make my version?

<p>

If you get bored by your own work, then it is time to explore something <i>you</i> never did before.

<p>

<a href="http://www.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl">Wim</a>

Ellis - please explain.

�Where are the visual frontiers of the medium?

We will never reach the frontiers of the medium. We will create the way while

walking on it!

Its a horror to imagine that anybody could shoot the ultimative picture of a

subject. That would implicate, that every viewer would see the picture in the

same way.

This question comes up all the time, and it just seems silly. It's like saying, well some

one else has been to (name famous location) before, why should I bother going there.

Other eyes have already seen it. If you take that approach, how could you even get up

and out of bed each morning?

 

Yeh, someone else might have done something before. What do you care about that!?

Have *YOU* done it before? Is it something you want to experience? something you

want to see or explore?

It doesn't matter if it's been done before. Every song has been played before too but it is the person playing the song or taking the picture that makes something meaningful.

It is your own unique vision and the experience of the moment that makes the samethings different. It is kinda like a performer like Johnny Cash doing somebody elses song,,but he makes it his song,, and something new to the listener, even though you heard the song before ,,but not the way Cash did it.

Who cares? I know that 1,542,236,483 pictures of roses already exist, but I took a few shots of my mother's roses last week anyway. Will they be featured on the news tomorrow, maybe not, but I think they will be better than my last flower pictures and hopefully my mom will enjoy them.

 

My philosophy is to photograph people and things that I enjoy photographing. If others like them too, that's a bonus, but I do not avoid things like flowers and sunsets simply because they have been shot billions of times.

 

If you want to be a famous photographer you certainly need a different vision or a unique passion. One perfect picture is not likely to make you famous, but if you spend the next 20 years photographing a few specific subject, you may indeed have a chance at having the best portfolio for one niche market.

OK, I'll give it one more try.

 

WHAT I AM NOT ASKING: Is there any point photographing what has already been photographed? (Answer, yes for all the reasons stated so far and many more.)

 

WHAT I AM TRYING TO ASK: Does anyone know of any really ground breaking artists working in this medium?

John, I don't think that question can be asked untill someone comes up with the eternal question "is photography art". Right after someone comes up with a clear definition of what art really is.

I was listening to the radio this morning nd NPR had Richard thompson on doing a

cover of "oops! I did it Again" (yes, the Britney Spears hit from a few years back) . I

have heard Thompson perform this song about three or four times. I don't think I

have heard the same interpretation of it twice. I've heard it as a fairly straight pop

song, I've heard him do it in a pretty straight forward Renaissance type arrangement,

and I've heard him do a fairly ominous version and a fairly snarly version too. Each

time It has een just just Thompson and an acoustic guitar. Now granted that Richard

Thompson is a better songwriter and musician than 99.99 % of the people on the

planet, probably means that he can dig deeper into what appears to be a disposable

lightweight pop song and find a way to spin it differently

 

My point is: just because the same subject matter is in front of your cmera that has

been in front of someone else's camera -- or even yours at a different time -- doesn't

mean mean that you can't revisit that "subject" and see something you haven't seen

beforeor find some way of using that "subject" to express something else , or maybe

just to find a different way to express what you want to communicate.

John

 

Though I'm sure it will cause howls of anguish, I'd say that the evolution of photography and "ground breaking" advances are likely to come through the use of digital techniques (manipulations).

 

If I knew what they were, I'd be out there leading the pack, so I can't cite examples. I just have a feeling that the creative space which digital enables is where photography will find it's "next big thing".

 

I don't see this as an advancement in the tools. The tools simply allow greater creative freedom for those with the vision to use them.

 

Perhaps you could cite some examples from the past where you think the visual frontiers of photography have been expanded?

I can think of plenty of physical subjects that have never been photographed at all, and an overwhelming multitude that have not been photographed much.

 

But photographing something that hasn't been photographed before doesn't do much for photography as art. I think what you're asking is wether anybody manages to express things in novel ways visually, and I really don't know.

 

It happens to me often that I see something where I'm astounded because I hadn't thought of such a photograph before, but I have only seen a small selection of all photographs.

 

As far as technological innovations are concerned, I wouldn't get my hopes up. Three colour film was invented something like a hundred years ago. Nothing much has happened since then, and nothing much is going to happen in the foreseeable future. The only improvement I can think of is genuine colour reproduction, but the largest harddiscs in the world could contain just a tiny image with a good approximation to true colours, and no possible method of reproducing it occurs in my imagination, so it'll be a while.

 

But I can think of many things I'd like to photograph, and that to my mind have never been photographed like that before. Like what? I may not even know yet :)

On photo.net, the two sets of photographs that have been most "groundbreaking" to me are Emil Schlidt's light painting photographs (and yes, I've now seen 20 different good photographers do it, but the styles have almost all been distinctive and interesting) and Carl Root's rust photographs. I'm sure there are many others, but those are some that come to mind that you can access with the click of your mouse.

 

As to the abstract question of is there innovation left, I'd respond that the world is an infinite place in every dimension. There is always something new. While one would think the Red Sox have found every possible way to choke, but yet Red Sox fans everywhere know that next season they will find another one.

What matters is not whether it is original, but whether it is an improvement. Of course, one has to define what "improvement" means, but that is part of the fun ...

Ellis - I hear what you say but was wondering who is writing the songs these days.

 

Bob - the list is long.

 

Strand - street photography.

Adams - darkroom technique.

Porter - colour.

Weston (Brett) - abstraction.

Arbus - social exclusion.

etc, etc.

 

I am totally in agreement with everyone over the issue of new interpretations of old themes and subjects. The originality is as much from within as without.

 

I guess the answer to my question as to whether there are any radical artists in photography is: not at present. I wouldn't rule it out though. Developments in technology are placing control over production of creative works more firmly in the hands of image makers than ever before. Accessibility to the medium is widening and I believe we will see some dramatic work sooner rather than later. The creators will, of course, challenge our understanding of the medium and be branded graphic artists or some such.

There is always be the opportunity to document how locales change over time, even if those locales have been photographed countless times. For example, a photographic documentary study of Manhattan in the 1920's would differ significantly from a similar study done in the 1930's or in the 1940's. While the Empire State Building will always look the same, the ethnic mix of the City, as well as its fashions in clothing and its social mores, will continually change and evolve.

I suspect there are always radical artists working in any medium. Whether they ever break out to a large audience is another matter. All it takes is sponsorship form an influential critic or a show at an influential gallery to bring a new "artist" to the fore.

 

Photography has always been limited by the fact that, by and large, more or less, it's limited to things that actually exist. Other art forms don't have that limitation. You can paint or sculpt anything you want - but you can't take a picture of an idea.

 

Ot at least you couldn't before the digital age. Now you can and I suspect that either the definition of "photography" will have to change or a new art form will have to be given a name.