Photography as an art form - will it endure?

<p>At the beginning of each new school year I receive and respond to questions asked by budding photography students at local universities and colleges. Without fail, I always get asked one of two things: a) "Is it hard to make a living when 'everyone's a photographer'?" or b) "Do you think advancements in technology have hurt or bettered photography?"</p>

<p>It's interesting to read such questions from students. Here they are in school studying and paying thousands of dollars in order to become something they are already doubtful of. I try my best to stay positive, yet realistic, and my answers usually go something like this: a) http://www.formspring.me/mattvardy/q/1400930743 b) http://www.formspring.me/mattvardy/q/917494614</p>

<p>Sometimes it feels like a month or so later my own opinions have changed - maybe I said the wrong thing, or gave the wrong advice? Things seem to evolve so quickly in our profession, it's hard to judge what's really going on sometimes - and most importantly where we stand and where we're headed.</p>

<p>Take for example the Nokia N8 which I recently became aware of. A cell phone available this winter all across North America that comes standard with a built-in 12MP camera. That's more megapixels than my Canon 40D - at less than half the cost! And to think this is only the beginning...</p>

<p>Every day I see on Twitter photos taken with iPhones, edited on-the-fly using Photoshop Express, with Polaroid and other digital effects added - like artificial colour casts and vintage blurs. The quality of these images, the majority of which are simple snapshots, is actually unbelievable.</p>

<p>Which brings me to the point of this post. I wanted to pick your brain on the topic and would love to hear your views as an artist. As digital technology continues to advance with no foreseeable end in sight - how does this affect the art of photography - will it endure? Or will it become so commonplace that it morphs into nothing more than a 'digital game' for all to play with?</p>

<p>Looking forward to reading your responses. -MV.</p>

<p>Why would it stop being art if everyone does it?</p>

<p>Never said that. Why don't you explain your thoughts?</p>

<p>Art will remain as long as art is perceived as "art" .. colleges and universities can teach theory, history, technology, law and a variety of other disciplines, even photography, but what the student does with such acquired learning is what determines if the student becomes viable as a practitioner of a craft. I am not at all certain that art can be taught .. technique certainly, but art is more elusive. Art is psychology with technology offering us to shape a narrative into an image that communicates with a viewer. It is a perceptual skill conveyed by means of psychological projection .. I don't think that can be taught as much as perceived and realized.</p>

<p>Mere image capture is not art unless of course, the student or the observer has very low expectations of artistic talent. Art for me is reaction to the image, or what I want to convey in an image, and how I or others perceive it. I don't call myself an artist - and some who do, should not. I generally think I have never achieved art but have just been lucky enough to capture it from time to time with the camera technology I had in my hands when the light was right and my limited skill-set culminated in the setting/capture of an image. But I have to be honest, I've thrown more digital capture away than I've printed because it did not match my perception of what the scene should or could be. Perhaps technology, and the paint brush or pencil are wasted on me. ;) And, then again, I do surprise myself from time to time with actually obtaining "intended consequences" of photgraphy</p>

<p>Another thing to consider is that art is a very "niche" market .. those who seem to be successful at producing art do so in a very small confine of style and color (or lack thereof). If we are to consider photographers .. we have to acknowledge that their style and subject matter is what makes them liked or disliked; not their technology. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Photography is about <strong>Photo</strong>graphy......not <strong>Gear</strong>ography........</p>

<p>Clients who want images want<strong> IMAGES </strong>be they created with Digital Cameras, Film Cameras, or crayons on a cave wall.</p>

<p>This is such an utterly <em><strong>tiresome </strong></em>theme.....really.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Steve: Why would it stop being art if everyone does it?<br>

Matt: Never said that.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes you did... <em>A"s digital technology continues to advance with no foreseeable end in sight - how does this affect the art of photography - will it endure? Or will it become so commonplace that it morphs into nothing more than a 'digital game' for all to play with?"</em><br>

<em><br /></em><br>

You offered an assumption that more and more people are going to engage in photography and ask if that means it will mean that art will end in photography. It doesn't make any sense unless you assume it means the new photographers will not engage in artistic photography as well as many current ones stopping their art photography activities. That doesn't make much sense either<em>. </em></p>

<p>Are you talking about something else like film vs. digital? We've been down that route all too often.<em><br /></em></p>

<p>Well said Mike! Hit the nail on the head. And I agree whole-heartedly with those who feel this topic has been beaten to death. I'm just thinking out loud and if you read my formspring links I shared above you'd see the advice I share with people is that more photographers/cameras is not necessarily a bad thing. Film vs. digital = old news for sure.</p>

<p>So one thing I'm wondering, if we take the Nokia cell phone for example (and probably other more advanced phones [in Japan?] I'm not even aware of)... it doesn't bother you that a credit card sized device sitting in someone's pocket with a pinhole sized lens will produce the same resolution image as your Nikon D series or Canon EOS, if not larger? $500-$1000 vs. FREE on a 3 year contract lol. It's a bit bizarre, no?</p>

<p>I really don't see why a high quality credit card sized camera should change the game any more than, for example, the arrival of high quality industrially produced tube paints changed the game for painting.<br /> Any art/craft/whatever depends not on the tools but on what is done with them. Greater ease and convenience democratises the means of production, but not the skills/vision/imagination/determination required to best utilise them.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>doesn't bother you that a credit card sized device sitting in someone's pocket with a pinhole sized lens will produce the same resolution image as your Nikon D series or Canon EOS, if not larger? $500-$1000 vs. FREE on a 3 year contract lol. It's a bit bizarre, no?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It bothers me but probably for completely different reasons than you think. I think it's great that there are cameras in cellphones. A cellphone camera is great for when you forgot or can't take a larger camera. So what if it is higher resolution than my DSLR? Resolution is not equal to image quality. The tiny sensor and short focal length lens gives too much depth of field. The high ISO quality is crap. Can i zoom? Where is the ultra wide angle and super telephoto support in a cellphone camera? Where are the manual controls? I am disappointed that the resolution has gotten so high due to marketing requirements that it actually decreases the overall image quality. </p>

<p>As for your art and photography questions go to the Philosophy of Photography forum and you'll find similar questions posted about every 2-3 weeks almost like clockwork.</p>

 

It is only a problem, as Robert Cossar points out, if you equate photography with equipment, which the OP

apparently does.

 

It seems that there are a lot of people that don't know much about the history of photography, because the

history of photography has been about the ever-increasing "democratization" of photography. If you really

believe that, then you should walk everything back to when you had to be a chemist on-site.

<p>I've said this in other threads, but I'll say it again, the art is in the eye, not in the camera.</p>

<p>In terms of visual communication, still photographic images were far and away the most important medium of the first 70 or so years of the 20^th century; both still and moving photographic images are certain to remain so in the 21^st century. Art depends on having something to say – the ubiquity of cameras today makes it vastly simpler to create an image, but also considerably harder to get anyone to look at it (with all the billions of images online). This is, however, not a reason why photographic art should die. A lot of what the OP is saying relates not to art but to craft – and the changes here have obviously been vast. This, combined with the fact that the number of students on photography courses bears no relation to the work opportunities in the industry, means that the profession of photographer in the traditional sense has largely ceased to exist, and that any young person interested in photography who wants to be employable should understand that photography is one skill among many, others being familiarity with videography, sound recording and numerous computer software packages.</p>

<p>I agree with those that mention the obvious confusion between technology, democratization and art. But as far as I understood the thread the main question was about job opportunities and the democratization of high-end photographic technology.</p>

<p>I think there is a real and worrying question, which by the way has been discussed numerous times here on PN, from young people starting an often costly education leading to what? The number of marked niches open for bright photographers must be narrowing as fast as those of other professions that disappeared due to technological development in other fields throughout recent history.</p>

<p>So what is there to give as advice?</p>

<p><strong>Education, education, education</strong> is surely one. It will only be the most gifted young photographers that will have any hope of making a living in the profession in the future.</p>

<p><strong>Technical superiority </strong>is despite the advance, or maybe because, in new photographical technologies even more important that it has been before. Professional photographers will also in the future continue to be forced to be just that much better than any amateur, what ever the technologies easily available for all.</p>

<p><strong>Creativity</strong> will be a must both as concerns getting the right ideas on where the marked demands for photography (often very local demands) are unsatisfied. I don't know to which degree schools of photography actually are teaching marketing knowledge but it will be urgently needed. </p>

<p><strong>Creativity</strong> in artistic terms will be even more determining factor for making a difference between those that live of it and those that just shoot. To which degree is creativity on the curricula in schools or is it left to have come in by the genes or the family background? </p>

<p><strong>Passion</strong> for the craft. This is obviously the case for all professions that passion for the future profession is certainly needed. Most "professional" photographers do already today struggle making a living out of it. Future photographers will probably not have more chance. It is for the majority of cases not a goldmine to be photographer. But it is a hell of a profession for those that prevail and survives.</p>

<p>Just some preliminary thoughts I, as non professional photographer, would share with new students in the field. Now I'll read the link above.</p>

 

<p>Technology has nothing to do with determining the fate of an art form. It seems to me that the more advanced technology becomes, with respect to making photographic images in this case, the more absolute crap floods the market. The abundance of crap actually makes the art stand out with stark resolution, no pun intended.<br /> The fact is that digital technology has not created, but <strong>increased</strong> the number of artist wannabees fancying themselves as photographers, artists, and art photographers. They are hung up on gear and/or the technology associated with said gear, and try like hell to make the conversation about these things. This is because they are generally devoid of anything remotely resembling talent.<br /> These are the people who interrupt your conversations at camera stores, insisting that the lens you are looking for is no better than the Sigma version that Photodo likes. They are the ones who immediately trade up their $2000-plus dlsrs for the -x or -s version of the same thing, pumping additional thousands into the pockets of large Japanese and German corporations. They are the people who manage somehow to get press passes and sneak up behind you to ask you if you know that the Hasselblad you are using to photograph that bassist on stage is compatible with a digital back made by Imacon. They are the people that are hell bent on turning a conversation about a photo excursion to Alaska into one about how film is going away in a year or two. They are the camera store counter jockeys who will tell you, at length, about how they developed film in a commercial lab for 30 years, only to sum up the lecture by insisting that the Olympus E-whatever has a sensor superior to medium format film. They are the people who invest in Leica M9s and Noctilux lenses to make photographs of their cats. They are people who assemble various makes and models of cameras made throughout the last century and photograph test patterns to determine which camera/lens combination is sharper, and, in their tiny tortured minds, better.<br /> They are legion, and chaos follows at their heels.<br /> They are also the reason I absolutely <strong>loathe</strong> the company of "photographers", generally speaking.<br /> So... pick up whatever works for you best, and make the best damned pictures you can. To hell with the pixelographers, the pyro saturated purists, and, bane of my existence, the collectors. Go makes some photographs. Show them here. Or any damn where you please.</p>

<p>Quite a rant, F Ph! I don't care for the people you describe, either, but they really aren't photographers - many of them never take a single picture! And they are all amateurs - I never heard pros going on about equipment.</p>

<p>Art is made by humans with a purpose and with work. The means, whether a piece of paper and a brush or a camera or a cellphone or a broomstick painting in the sand, ... , these do not define nor defeat the purpose and the desire of making art.</p>

<p>It may seem doubtful if or whether all PS digital "art" games and uses actually lead to art, some just lead to kitsch or poor art and doldrum pics. Some lead to serious advances in our seeing and vision, however.</p>

<p>Who then cares about gear? It is what is inside the top of our head, i.e., between our ears that makes art. Art does not have to be permanent, museum kept. Much art comes from doodling on a fogged-over window pane!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I never heard pros going on about equipment.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really?</p>

<p>It's quite possible that views on the topic will vary depending on where we live/work. Personally my environment is over saturated with said "wannabe" photographers with no true passion or lasting interest in the field. My original post did sort of come from the standpoint of a student... even though I personally skipped college and made my own path and fortunately make a living at this. The problem I see and was alluding to would be that as photography continues to grow and becomes a household hobby, do you think people's perception of photography as "art" will change? In my environment, I feel like it is already starting to warp into something of less "value" both culturally and economically. Will people still go to school and study it? (I'm talking decades from now....)<br>

<br>

I guess if we compare photography to other arts like painting for example; any toddler can own a watercolour painting book with outlines as guides. They can screw up the entire thing... it's commonplace and fun. Yet painting is still considered art. So why would photography change - just because there's more users and it's easier to do? Hmph. I'm stumped... ;)</p>

<p>Photography in it's various forms is a creative process. It is Art. I do not know how people will respond to digital photography as Art in the future. I like to view old B/W photographs myself. Outside of that I have other things I would rather do.</p>

<blockquote>A cellphone camera is great for when you forgot or can't take a larger camera. So what if it is higher resolution than my DSLR? Resolution is not equal to image quality. The tiny sensor and short focal length lens gives too much depth of field. The high ISO quality is crap. Can i zoom? Where is the ultra wide angle and super telephoto support in a cellphone camera? Where are the manual controls? I am disappointed that the resolution has gotten so high due to marketing requirements that it actually decreases the overall image quality.</blockquote>

<p>I don't have a cellphone camera, but if I did I'd rather have a 3MP sensor with two stops better low-light capability than have a 12MP sensor that sounds impressive. My old 3MP Canon A510 was fine for snapshots and web use. 12MP for snapshots just means you need to squeeze the file way back down before using it or sending it anywhere. Capture the same amount of light on 1/4 as many pixels instead and get better performance in the end!</p>

<p>If I want to get more serious with my photography on a given occasion then I want a much bigger sensor/film, much bigger lenses, manual controls, etc. In other words, bulk and weight. ;-)</p>

<p> </p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p><<I never heard pros going on about equipment.>><br>

<<Really?>><br>

Believe it or not - really! In my experience I am fairly typical in that I study camera and lens specs closely when I am thinking of buying new gear to make sure that it will do what I want. I will also happily talk camera gear but only with someone who asks a direct question (either face to face or on a forum) about some piece of equipment that I know (which in 55 years of taking pix is quite a lot). Aside from that, I take the attitude that talking about gear will not make it any better, so it's best to say nothing and just use it! Most pros I know talk about other photographers they admire/dislike/think are ****, clients ditto, and the interesting new ways in which the world at large is conspiring to prevent them from earning a living!</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p> </p>