Would you still shoot...?

Have been thinking about how photography has sort of "blown up" in the past few years or so, even while camera sales have contracted and cameras within cell phones have improved..

 

This begs the question I posed on reddit yesterday. I was surprised at the volume and passion of responses, so I ask here once more:

 

 

"Thinking of the life and work of Vivian Maier leads to the serious question: If, for some reason, you could not post images somewhere online, would you continue to make them? If your work was for your own satisfaction alone?

 

In the arts generally, it is not unknown that people sketch, paint, write, etc., out of personal drive, and for the sheer solitary pleasure of it. How true is that of people who make pictures, absent audience and feedback? What is the "mix" of motivation for you: sheerly personal satisfaction vs. the acknowledgement of others?"

If, for some reason, you could not post images somewhere online, would you continue to make them? If your work was for your own satisfaction alone?

Hell yes! Photography is (and has been) primarily for my own satisfaction; the fact that I can share only is just icing on the cake.

The internet has been present for a small portion of my years as a photographer. If it were gone tomorrow, nothing would change except that No Words would be gone.

In the arts generally, it is not unknown that people sketch, paint, write, etc., out of personal drive, and for the sheer solitary pleasure of it. How true is that of people who make pictures, absent audience and feedback? What is the "mix" of motivation for you: sheerly personal satisfaction vs. the acknowledgement of others?

i've never met any artist who worked in isolation (apart from that time in Gaol but that's another story) but I am sure there are people out there who are into the "process" of making art, nice cameras, crayons, plasticine, etc who would carry on regardless of any human feedback.

i've never met any artist who worked in isolation (apart from that time in Gaol but that's another story) but I am sure there are people out there who are into the "process" of making art, nice cameras, crayons, plasticine, etc who would carry on regardless of any human feedback.

 

I have, but by chance, because they did not "identify" (to use the current parlance) as being an "artist."

 

But, to expand on the thought, I was interested to know how younger persons who are the demographic 'blowing up' photography (say, 'GenX' and forward) were engaged with picture making: for its own sake, or as adjunct or even gateway to the their social media presence, or some of both, and what the proportionate mix might be. So I asked on Reddit, where the members were younger than other photo sites I frequent (or so it seemed. I am just south of 71).

 

While generally responses showed that folks were enjoying photography for its own sake, I was surprised at a few respondents who strongly expressed a growing distaste for what seemed to them to be the overweening pursuit for 'likes' and followers. That autoreflexive chase is part and parcel of the social media milieu; its own reward.

YES

Photography has been and is primarily for me and my family.

Posting for the internet community is a minor reason for shooting.

But then as a senior citizen, I'm an old fogey who started in the film days, and remember using an Instamatic.

While generally responses showed that folks were enjoying photography for its own sake

i am very pleased to read that. until recently i struggled with photography but i persevered because, let's be honest, cameras are beautiful. so it's good to know people are getting into making pictures and aren't just gear heads like I was.

Certainly. I did before the internet & I see no reason not to even now.

I was surprised at a few respondents who strongly expressed a growing distaste for what seemed to them to be the overweening pursuit for 'likes' and followers.

i don't have a problem with the pursuit of likes. a like is a like, not a marriage proposal and photographers have always sought followers.

I like sharing my photos. Happy to print and invite people to my gallery. Have done one book which I've shared with many people. Online is good, too.

Hell no. I despise Vivian Maier precisely because she did not share her work while she was alive. I am not one to suggest the idea that you need to choose between massive success and total failure. But there is no point in taking photographs if you can't show at least a few people. What's the f****** point, otherwise? Slide shows existed for a reason. People didn't take photos on their trips only for them to be hidden from friends.

 

My work has not been in galleries, but it has been viewed by diverse audiences. I'm glad about that.

Looks like the internet is forever, so is anything posted on it including photos. The web also serves as a background checker for those wanting to know what I do with my time and find as valuable. I don't seek recognition because there's too many participants looking at their own stuff, other poster's stuff and not mine or yours.

 

If there wasn't a venue to display my photos I'ld still make them because digital has opened up a new craft in post processing that provides more opportunities on what and how I capture/reproduce scenes that weren't there shooting film or painting/drawing pictures.

 

The internet is easy to show one's work. It's still a PITA to show prints of photos at a local venue whether hanging in a local restaurant or gallery. And it's more expensive.

I thought the OP didn't mean sharing exclusively over the internet? I shared my photos, in print form, by showing and giving them to friends and relatives, long before I started posting them on the internet. I know that friends generally like me to take photos of them/their kids, and part of my motivation to take those photos comes from them liking my photos. If I had no one to show my photos to, I would still take photos, but fewer and of different subjects.

Back in the old days, we called these things you youngin's term galleries "albums." We had lots of them, and boxes full of negatives and extra prints. Some family member sometimes has slides and a projector--which they used to torment viewers for hours. Sometimes at special events albums were dragged out--but indeed mostly pored over in singular pursuit from time to time to remind us. They were also a useful tool in moving past grief, or something to show that first boyfriend or girlfriend you brought home to meet the family. :cool:

 

For all practical purposes, this is what Kodak built the industry on--something that was succinctly coalesced into "A Kodak Moment." Film required a bit of conservation--a limited resource. Now people take photos of their food, shoes, private parts, anything they see--and vomit billions of them out on the innernutz. Good, bad, ugly--with little curation. I read somewhere that perhaps two-thirds of images never leave the device they were taken on (such as a smartphone), or get dumped on a disk and completely lost several years down the line when the disk fails and there was no backup...

 

Except what I have been paid for, nothing I do is particularly for anyone else. It has always been that way. I love capturing images, am captivated by the equipment, challenged by the production techniques, and enthralled by the result. Good, bad, or ugly. It was not until just under 10 years ago that I publicly (outside of friends & family) represented any of my so called 'art' to any contest, display, or sale. That was not the purpose. I made images simply to make images of interesting things. Been part of PN for too long to remember now--it was not until last year that I posted a single image here.

 

Take away from this what you will! ;)

I enjoy the process of making a photograph and I also enjoy sharing the end result. The internet has not changed that.

My camera is with me all the time. I can't imagine not making photographs everyday. Yes, I like showing them to other people, even on the internet. But for me, the real joy is being out there, taking in the energy and rhythm of the street, contemplating what I see before me, hoping it might turn into a decent photograph, and then releasing the shutter.

I would. Most of my pictures never get shown, or are shown to few. I just like doing it. I like trying to do it well, as a mental exercise, and photography is an ideal art for the introvert. In misguided moments I sometimes fantasize about a successor finding my archive and saying ooh and ah, but in reality I'm no Vivian Maier, and I imagine most of my pictures will die with me, having served some purpose if not the highest.

I have, but by chance, because they did not "identify" (to use the current parlance) as being an "artist."

 

But, to expand on the thought, I was interested to know how younger persons who are the demographic 'blowing up' photography (say, 'GenX' and forward) were engaged with picture making: for its own sake, or as adjunct or even gateway to the their social media presence, or some of both, and what the proportionate mix might be. So I asked on Reddit, where the members were younger than other photo sites I frequent (or so it seemed. I am just south of 71).

 

While generally responses showed that folks were enjoying photography for its own sake, I was surprised at a few respondents who strongly expressed a growing distaste for what seemed to them to be the overweening pursuit for 'likes' and followers. That autoreflexive chase is part and parcel of the social media milieu; its own reward.

 

IMHO, the likes and followers want the gratification of people liking them.

For some/many of us, I/we could care less about that. I am confident in myself, and don't need likes and followers to boost my confidence in myself.

There is a BIG difference between the past and now.

 

In the past with albums and galleries, people could look at your photos, but they could not take copies of them.

 

Today on the internet, people can easily take copies of your photos for themselves.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

Well if they want it for themselves to display in their house, they should BUY a print, not filch an image from someone. But that is an ethics discussion.

 

* * * * *

 

I see nothing wrong with someone NOT wanting to share their photos. The decision is theirs to make.

Yes the following generations may be upset that they never got to see those good photos, but that is not THEIR decision to make.

 

Now IF a photographer WANTS to share his/her photos, different story.

Gary -- I am the custodian of generations of family photos going back to slightly before the turn of the century. There are some people I know, and many I don't. I am one of the last who would know any but my parents generation and after. Though I appreciate the view of the past, the emotional content is missing when the people are unknown. I wonder how significant any older images will be to my children's children.

My photographs are for one audience, ME. I don't expect others to like them and I never show them to anyone except when asked and then only reluctantly. There are times when I do have client, unpaid, like my wife asked me to take some pictures for her. Then I would try to make photographs that she would like, regardless of how I think about it.

IMHO, the likes and followers want the gratification of people liking them.

For some/many of us, I/we could care less about that. I am confident in myself, and don't need likes and followers to boost my confidence in myself.

This is a very unfortunate and not a very kind assumption. LIKES and FOLLOWERS can also be a sign of empathy, community, and sharing, especially on the Internet, a quick way of letting someone know you came by and saw their photos. I'm not saying everyone should appreciate likes or give them. We should each do what we want. What I think we shouldn't do is project motives that may not be there onto others we don't even know.

 

It's not necessarily a matter of boosting confidence. I happen to appreciate when someone tells me they looked at my photo and don't like it terribly much, sometimes more than when I get a praise, because I learn from it. I actually advocated for a DISLIKE BUTTON, and was obviously ignored! A LIKE tells me a friend looked at my photo. I like the sharing aspect of photography for the camaraderie and sense of community it provides, rather than for the judgment you're assuming those who get likes crave.

Fred,

I admit that it is kinda strong, and was not meant to be.

 

Some people WANT to be liked and friended. It reminds me of that TV commercial when a kid says they have X many thousands of "friends" and their parents have only a few as she holds her smart phone, then the shot of the parents having fun with a lot of people at a party. There are friends and there are friends.

 

As you say liking someone or someones pix is different, as it is coming from the giving side.

 

Now from the perspective of photographs and reviews, then IMHO the picture (pun intended) changes, as these are hopefully constructive likes and reviews of your pix. What I would rather have than a "like" button is a text comment about their feelings and opinions, as this is stuff that you can act on and improve from, rather than a simple "like."

Gary -- I am the custodian of generations of family photos going back to slightly before the turn of the century. There are some people I know, and many I don't. I am one of the last who would know any but my parents generation and after. Though I appreciate the view of the past, the emotional content is missing when the people are unknown. I wonder how significant any older images will be to my children's children.

 

Here too. My sister and I are the custodians of my parents pictures and albums.

Unfortunately, my mother and I were the victim of marketing in the 60s. We took MANY photos out of nice archival albums, and put them into the new "magnetic" albums. Years later, I discovered that some/many of those magnetic albums used something like rubber cement to hold the photo and the plastic sheet :-(

When I move back home to retire, one of my projects will be to digitize, "fix", and organize those photos.

I can recognize my parents, but I have no idea who most of the other people in the photos are.

I don't even know the people in my parent's wedding photo.

The connection is even less in the next generation, and maybe non-existent in the one after that.

Gary, I was about to LIKE your post when I thought better of it, and will just tell you in words that I appreciate your response to me!