Photography is a commitment...

[jb-avril]

Just a personal opinion...

I posted yesterday an old pic from my days in Bosnia wich I called "last minutes", about a poor kid about to

die in a Sarajevo hopsital. Almost 300 viewers, 4 ratings...

Nowadays, people buy a camera, and thank's to digital, shoot and shoot and shoot again. In the older

days, when films were expensives, people really cared about commiting themselves to record something

they tought really valuable.

Nowadays, CNN and all the crappy medias bring to out homes all the sillyness we can afford to watch, with

confort, on our plasma big screens while preparing dinner for the kids. I'm afraid we lost the sense of

"raising our voices".

Photography is a commitment, let's not forget that, and let's ourselves face this fact and take

responsability for it...

JB

[jtk]

JB, you're wrong and you know it. Nice try, though. And you're right about one thing, photography did once call for more committment...but when was that? Tintypes? Glass plates? Capa on D-Day? Did it die with C-41?

 

I've seen some great digicam stuff on Al Jazeera, and from US Marines. And some gawdawful Photoshopped stuff in P.N galleries, plus "prize winning" weddings that were stomach turning.

[geoffs1]

Bad photography has been around long before the advent of digital.

 

This kind of sophomoric whining ("the new thing is sooooo bad...") has also been around for even longer.

 

"Nice try" - perfect response!

[timzeipekis]

It says in your BIO, that you are "Not really looking for critics. Just willing to share parts of my life", so I am confused at why you would be bothered by how many ratings your images receive.

[justinblack]

Jean-Baptiste, don't give a thought to the people who simply heard you to mean that

digital has ruined photography and became instantly defensive, rather than listening to

and commenting on the real significance of your comment. Oh, and John, I can only

imagine that Jean-Baptiste doesn't "know" he's wrong, but you don't seem to mind being

patronizing.

 

Of course strong, meaningful photographs can be made with digital cameras. That isn't

the issue. The question really is, what broader impact has the advent of digital cameras

had on the attitude to photography as a cultural phenomenon? J-B feels that there has

been a change, and I tend to agree with him. We live in an age where we are overloaded

with images, and the general public is in some ways very sophisticated in terms of how

they process images. In my opinion, however, this sophistication is more a subconscious

method of processing visual stimulus to filter out "noise" than a conscious sophistication

that seeks the meaning or significance in photographs. This phenomenon has certainly

come about in parallel with digital imaging, but the degree to which digital imaging is

responsible is debatable. Ultimately, I think the multimedia culture in general is the factor

that has diminished the value of each and every photograph, regardless of how

meaningful it might have been at the moment it was made.

[Spearhead]

Very, very wrong. Here is a quote:<p>

 

<i>Today so many pictures are being taken that no one is really interested in what has gone on before. Man's witness of his own times dies with him. Added to that, the technological advances in camera design have made photography seem easy. It has become so popular - so used and abused - that because of its popularity, it is in danger of losing its own self-respect as well as the trust and confidence of viewers in its veracity and artistry.</i><p>

 

Now that is pretty much the same as what the original poster and the one directly above said, although it's much more eloquent. The problem here lies in the fact that this was published in 1968, almost forty years ago, and says exactly the same thing. (It was written by Cornell Capa, Robert Capa's brother.) Now what I see is a trend here. People always say what is new is ruining what came before. But if it was that bad in 1968, it can't be that much worse in 2007. It's just complaining, if it was a famous person complaining in 1968, and it has never meant anything.

[justinblack]

Jeff, sorry to challenge your holier-than-thou attitude, but both Cornell and Jean-Baptiste

are right in their assessment. Neither of them said that the world is ending, but that a

change, and perhaps a significant one, has been occuring in the way photographs are

perceived by society. They might be somewhat melodramatic in their tone, but when you

get down to it, that's all they're really trying to get across. And that, I'm afraid, is very, very

true. In fact, what Capa said is more true now than it has ever been if you think about it in

terms of society at-large, rather than from the point of view of photography buffs.

[Spearhead]

If you think about it, it was true in 1845, 1895, 1930, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2007. That makes it a big "so what". Photography is based in technology, technology constantly changes. That's the nature of it.

[justinblack]

Right, the way in which photography is perceived in society has changed as media has

changed with technology, which is exactly the point. No one is suggesting that

photography is going away, but that its meaning, its significance, and the value of an

individual photograph is being diminished over time, and it would seem that this has

accelerated in recent years. It may be inevitable, but I don't consider that a "so what"

matter or "whining" as another poster felt it necessary to say, at all. It is something worth

commenting on, because many have never given the issue much thought, and some

people find it disturbing. I'm not about to tell them it is wrong to be disturbed by a change

that may have a net negative impact on photography as a meaningful pursuit.

[justinblack]

By the way, I'd like to hear from Jean-Baptiste at this point, because it would be nice to

know if he thinks we are commenting in a meaningful way on the idea he proposed.

[boris c umanso]

"Photography is a commitment, let's not forget that, and let's ourselves face this fact and

take responsability for it..."

 

Photography is whatever we want it to be. It might be a commitment. It might not.

 

The notion that there was a golden era in which photographers "really cared" is a

ridiculous myth. Some photographers "care", some don't. Do you think that, taking

Vietnam as an example, Philip Jones Griffiths and Sean Flynn were motivated by the same

feelings?

 

If anything there are more photographers working today that "care" than ever before. This

is because we live in the age of the (cheap and expendable) local stringer who is directly

rooted into the story. I don't believe that there are many Iraqi photographers who "thank's

to digital, shoot and shoot and shoot again" without a thought as to the implications of

their coverage.

[justinblack]

"Some photographers "care", some don't."

 

Yes, but we are talking about tendencies and trends, not whether there are examples to

support either point of view. No one's talking about a golden era, just evolutionary

changes over time, so the thing that is ridiculous (and mildly offensive) is to suggest that

Jean-Baptiste is promoting a myth.

 

"I don't believe that there are many Iraqi photographers who "thank's to digital, shoot and

shoot and shoot again" without a thought as to the implications of their coverage."

 

Of course, but again, individual examples aren't at issue here.

 

That brings up an interesting point though. Why haven't photojournalists covering Iraq

been more vocal (in the U.S. anyway) about the restrictions and censorship they've had to

deal with? Though it is a minefield (so to speak) to question the motives and

professionalism of anyone who chooses to cover a war zone, I wonder if confronted with

the same limitations on journalistic freedom in the immediate aftermath of Vietnam they

wouldn't have been screaming bloody murder. One wonders if many of them haven't

allowed themselves to be marginalized out of the fear of losing what limited access they

do have, and therefore destroying their careers. One might argue that this suggests there

is a tendency to avoid truly "commiting themselves to record something they thought

really valuable."

[boris c umanso]

"we are talking about tendencies and trends, not whether there are examples to support

either point of view. No one's talking about a golden era, just evolutionary changes over

time"

 

In the words of Jean-Baptiste: "Nowadays, people buy a camera, and thank's to digital,

shoot and shoot and shoot again. In the older days, when films were expensives, people

really cared about commiting themselves". He began with the example of the former-

Yugoslavia (hardly ancient history) and contrasted it to "nowadays". It's perfectly

reasonable to conclude that he's asserting that there've been radical and recent changes

for the worse.

 

"so the thing that is ridiculous (and mildly offensive) is to suggest that Jean-Baptiste is

promoting a myth"

 

I'm not attributing the (all too frequently referenced) myth of the "golden era" to J-B,

although I do think he's trying to reinforce it. There's nothing remotely ridiculous (or

offensive) in highlighting the difficulty in standing up the assertion of a former era of

integrity - it's a discussion forum.

 

"individual examples aren't at issue here"

 

Individual examples are useful in any debate.

 

"That brings up an interesting point though. Why haven't photojournalists covering Iraq

been more vocal (in the U.S. anyway) about the restrictions and censorship they've had to

deal with?"

 

They have. Michael Kamber has recently highlighted the added difficulties (releases

needed from wounded soldiers, no identifiable pictures of Americans killed in action) for

photographers working there. You can see some of his very strong recent work here:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2007/05/22/world/

20070523_SEARCH_FEATURE.html

 

"One wonders if many of them haven't allowed themselves to be marginalized out of the

fear of losing what limited access they do have, and therefore destroying their careers."

 

The reality is that very few established photographers have been working consistently in

Iraq since the days of the initial invasion. A small number of photographers, like Yuri

Kozyrev, have established their careers with ongoing work there. As to the threat of

"destroying their careers", speaking out against censorship comes a poor second to the

destructive properties of roadside devices and high velocity rounds. People have spoken

out, the problem is that very few people sitting at home have chosen to listen.

 

"One might argue that this suggests there is a tendency to avoid truly "commiting

themselves to record something they thought really valuable."

 

One might argue that, but only from the comfort of a nice safe armchair back in the USA.

[albert_richardson1]

I'm not convinced that photographic technology or technique is Jean-Baptiste's real concern. His lament could come from anyone who feels that his life has become fatter, more comfortable and less socially responsive than in his youth. A photograph of a dying child in a war compared to the confort of his living room now. He owns the plasma flat screen TV. He has become complacent. Perhaps he feels that some of the drama and intensity of his youth in Sarajevo is gone now. Perhaps it is.

 

I think that everyone who responded to this post up to now who thinks that the question has something to do with photography has missed the point. Someone, somewhere is still documenting intense life-altering events and experiences using a camera of some sort. Just not Jean-Baptiste -- or me either. (I do wish he had asked a more pertinent question such as, "Where does one find fulfillment in photography after the glory days have faded, but the interest has not?")

 

Committment is widely misunderstood in my opinion. It describes a derivitave condition, not a passion. Committment, like an addiction in a way, occurs after an individual is exposed to a surrounding long enough to voluntarily give up his time and resources to it. You don't start off being committed to a person or interest, you wind up being committed to it as you realize how much of yourself you are investing in it. I'm not saying that this is in any way bad or undesirable. I'm just saying that it is not necessarily a bad thing to realize that as you have grown older you have lost some of the ties and committments (and yes, passions) that were important to you in the past. What else could life be like? (Don't martyrs have to die to keep their passions alive?)

[mharris]

I hate taking a bad digital shot just like I hate taking a bad film shot. When I have to shoot digital I still take my time, I hate going through 100 files and editing them.

 

When I first got my DSLR I thought, great I can shoot a ton of pictures. After a day or two of the boredom looking at the same thing at -1, +1, and all the other combinations I decided to just try and make the first one the best.

 

Wanna slow down? Find a 4x5, that'll slow you right on down. I love it. The commitment comes when you push the button, not in the number of frames you shot.

[Matt Laur]

<i>Photography is a commitment, let's not forget that, and let's ourselves face this fact and take responsability for it.</i>

<br><br>

Yeesh!

<br><br>

People with paintbrushes do Important Portraits AND paint people's kitchens. It's got NOTHING to do with the state of the technology or the tools, and everything to do with purpose. Some brilliant photographers specialize in <i>food</i>, you know? Or in showing off clothing. Or in capturing athletes at the height of their inspiring grace, power, and skill. MOST people take snapshots of their cats, their vacation spots, and their kids. Somehow lamenting that it's now a bit easier for the Soccer Mom to capture a high-res photo of Suzy scoring a goal, and cheaper because there isn't a bit financial commitment to the lab for processing... that scarcely changes the purpose of a more serious photographer's work, and I highly doubt that Soccer Mom's ubiquitous CDs full of image files in any way rob from the cultural power of a well-conceived professional photograph.

<br><br>

In fact, I'd argue the exact opposite. As more people DO grab a D40x and a cheapy zoom from Costco while they're picking up 10 pounds of burger meat for the picnic, the more that they'll realize they CAN'T produce really stunning images until they know what the heck they're doing. And if they don't have the intellectual chops to look at their images, side-by-side with the more nuanced, carefully crafted work of a professional and see the difference... well, that person isn't going to be listening to this debate anyway. And that person has ALWAYS existed. They're the ones that rolled their eyes at Picasso's non-representative portraits, or considered an impressionist's boat party painting to be that period's equivalent of being "out of focus."

<br><br>

Honestly, I detect - in posts like these - the same sort of frustration that the IT Priesthood used to complain about when end users could go out and buy a PC and start doing very sophisticated spreadsheets on their desktop without needing a terminal connected to a fancy mainframe (maintained by the priesthood). I find the overall tone ("now that EVERYONE has a nice computer/camera, I - who have spent longer learning to use it, or who was an early adopter and had to do it the hard/expensive way - am feeling less important and appreciated") to be almost a little embarassing. We could be having this conversation about the shift from only a few people having printing presses to everyone having a typewriter, or any other development that made a helpful technology available to a wider group at a liveable price. True artists and hard working professionals, or visionaries that know how to "see" that special image, or write that special novel... they're probably the same percentage of the population they always have been. And despite living in a sea of imagery, I don't think we're headed into some sort of photographic illiteracy just because now more people can skip having film developed.

[dickhilker]

To the extent the digital recording and transmission of images has broadened the base of participants, its counterpart can be found in the ease with which the written word can be shared. Both have seen an explosive growth in quantity, if not in quality.

 

I see the need for a commitment on the part of both photographers and writers to maintain a sense of responsibility for the power at their disposal. The "shoot 'til you drop" digital snapshooter and the indefatigable bloggers (and forum blabbers) should respect their audiences by greater care with their output.

[see_r]

We must learn to drink the new wine in the new wineskins. After all, it is still wine.

[aaron meyer]

I can sort of see where some would think that with the advent of digital photography more people are snapping away without thinking about the images and just getting lucky when they hit a good one, but that shows a lack of knowledge of the history of photography.

 

I grew up next to a woman who is a very talented photographer and who teaches at university. She shoots exclusively with an 8x10 view camera and has been lamenting the loss of Tech Pan. In a recent exhibition at the Toledo Museum of art, she had 35-40 photographs on display. Those 35-40 photographs represented what was worthwhile out of over 1,000 exposures.

 

A common refrain from a couple of WWII veterans who shot photos with Rollei cameras during the war is "film is cheap, take all the pictures you can".

 

The ratio of submissions or exposures to printed shots in National Geographic has been running around 1,000:1.

 

When I started shooting 35mm film I was told that I'd be lucky to get one worthwhile shot per roll of film (36 exposures, and "worthwhile" meaning a shot I liked, certainly not a National Geographic quality shot).

 

Every time something becomes more accessable to more people, there is a group that will believe that something has been lost. And to some extent they're correct. When something is rare or difficult then there's only a specific subset of people who will be interested in working with it and that dedication will show through.

 

That said I don't think I could ever call photography a "committment". Photojournalism certainly is, but there's a lot more to photography than just photojournalism. The OP talks about people "committing themselves to record something they tought really valuable" or of "raising our voices", but what voices are raised through landscape photographs? What was Ansel Adams committed to other than simply taking a beautiful photograph? What about wild animal photography? Or photography for things like automotive magazines?

 

The OP has taken photography and tried to claim that photojournalism encompasses the entirety of the field. Photography can simply be an appreciation of beauty. There doesn't have to be a message. There doesn't have to be a committment to something valuable. There doesn't have to be a voice being raised. Sometimes it's just pretty pictures. And that can be enough.

[aplumpton]

An uncommonly short reponse. Photography is three things, all quite different

from each other

 

1) A toy for humans to vainly amuse themselves with (from both equipment

and picture viewpoints);

 

2) A useful recording device;

 

3) Art

 

I guess each requires a certain committment, but I see that being strongest in

a reverse order of listing to that above.

[jtk]

ART-hur naturally likes #3 :-)

 

... but I hardly ever see "art" in the aesthetic sense in alleged art photography. That's mostly cuteness, fake social commentary (preying on beggers), decoration (another sunset!), veiled porn, technical games (Photoshopping, infared, cross processing etc).

 

Art should have included photography as communicative medium (eg journalism) and as vehicle for reflection on one's personal condition and outlook.

[fullmetalphotograper]

I hate to say this Jean-Baptiste AVRIL, but your post is 107 years to late. When the first Kodak Brownie was produced for the masses, the beast was unleashed. I just do not see how this is such a bad thing. But hey, I am just a dumb photographer anyway.

[m_j25]

I agree. Photography has such power. Power to influence, communicate, depict. And with that power comes a commitment and responsibility from the photographer.

[jtk]

"I agree. Photography has such power. Power to influence, communicate, depict. And with that power comes a commitment and responsibility from the photographer." MJ

 

Wrong. Photography is promiscuous and it has no power unless it happens to deliver something of consequence. It serves luck and irresponsibility (Twin Towers? Porn? Dead Diana?) as well as commitment and responsibility (Moonrise, Vietnam, Moon Landing).

[tommyyearginjr]

Photography, in the digital age, is now more accessible to the masses than ever before. That's why it has caught on the way it has, and while it has not rendered film completely obsolete, it is close to doing just that because of the ease of use.

 

Technology? Nothing wrong with it...especially in photography!