Photography Is Dead. Long Live Photography

[Norma Desmond]

I almost absolutely agree with you, written in sand, of course. :)

[jtk]

There's a telling amount of fantasizing here about what "they" and "folks" and "the other guy" is all about ...and an amusingly small amount of personal expression of ideas.

 

I like Devin's honesty and risk-taking openness, and dislike the cowardice shown when we/I attack others for expressing themselves.

 

As for Plagens, he had a few stimulating things to say, evidently. Strangely, we mostly tripped off...hardly any of us responded to his ideas.

[devin]

john kelly said:<i>"As for Plagens, he had a few stimulating things to say, evidently. Strangely, we mostly tripped off...hardly any of us responded to his ideas."</i><br /><br />

OK, I'll bite. Although, some of these ideas have already been touched on above, I'm just trying to fit it all together in a way that makes sense for me. So, I'm warning you that it might come out as utter nonsense. :)<br /><br />

I don't know very much about art history, but I'm pretty sure that photography isn't the first art to go through this democratization, and it certainly won't be the last. However, that doesn't mean that this is all a bad thing. Numerous forms of art have gone through the same thing, painting, sculpture, music. During each of those periods, I'm certain that the established artists all looked down on the "common person" taking up their once exclusive domain.<br /><br />

However, nobody can say that the democratization of art has killed off sculpture, painting, music, or any other art form. Walk through a museum and you will see any number of art pieces that are just as good as anything done during the "great" periods in the history of art. Of course, we can also just as many great pieces of art in our own neighborhoods and towns.<br /><br />

Art has always survived. It is constantly changing and taking many different forms, but it always survives. Photography is no different. Right now it is going through a significant upheaval at the hands of the digital age. When I'm old and gray, there will be some new form or art, something new, something other than photography. Holography was mentioned by Steve Gubin earlier in the thread. Right now, researchers are able to make crude holograms. Maybe in ten or twenty years the technology will be good enough for artists to begin expressing themselves in this medium. Ten, twenty, fifty years after that, the artists will be complaining that any Joe Blow can put together a holographic system for a few thousand bucks. They will also be complaining that the newfangled quantum based projectors don't have the same character or dynamic range as the old electronic equipment.<br /><br />

I guess the point is that there isn't any point in getting our undies in a twist. The storm will pass, and in the end the great artists will still be able to distinguish themselves.

[jtk]

Devin, I just looked at your P.N gallery. You've countered Plagens' hypothesis with some of your images.

 

It strikes me that your Charles & Nani and Ethan & Natalie images would be extremely unlikely, in your casual simplicity and sensitivity, with film...my longtime medium.

 

I'm envisioning the bracketing necessary to explore the candles, or without first making Polaroids in C&N, and without the sheer good fortune required to capture E&N's moments without shooting many motorized frames of film (unless set up and directed like film).

 

Another angle on E&N: The central image is a transition or passing shot, not strong enough in itself to be worth posting or printing, but crucial in your trio. Why? Because that frame ("capture")makes the three images into a sort of film.

 

I think most who have non-digital roots, or worse, who have been handicapped by "academic photography," would edit that shot out, discard it. They (we!) would miss an opportunity you didn't miss because, as an apparently-born-digital photographer, you feel no monetary or time "value" when making individual exposures. That's profoundly important, and Plagens misses it.

 

Ultimately, there's something ephemeral and positive in those sets of images, and to be sappy about it I'll call it "life force".

 

That life force gets crushed by the cynicism and fear-of-other that typifies a major genre of "street photos," little more than grim happy snaps that characteristically victimize and ridicule. They record the homeless, aged, insane, intentionally bizarre, and "foreign" as distant objects...and worse, some even pretend sympathy to a non-person's plight.

 

Those "others" aren't like "us" after all, are they? Not bored or cynical or sophisticated like "us" with our expensive toys, spare time, and abstract theories about "reality" and change! Vampires, "we"

feed on their life force, which is exactly what anthropologists with cameras heard as a concern from their "subjects" when they first showed Polaroids.

 

Devin, happily your couple are like "us" and happily your candles illuminate something subtle and tender.

 

I didn't say anything about your scenic photos because they seem just to depict attractive phenomena, whereas the couple and the candles involve something much more significant, something you (we) are "about" when we're not being cynical.

[kristina_kraft]

It's nice article and Plagens said objectively. In my opinion, photography has taken many forms through photographer's expression, identity, spirituality and, of course, techniques.

Will the future bring radical changes in that media is very speculative. In the technology, there are pixels as a media. And after that, who knows. The pixels are already unnatural, giving a crystal clear human face and other objects. My eyes didn't accustom to digital photos. I'm working with negatives and dia. And I love it. I love the chemistry and points of raster (grid) of a film. Because the points are natural. Everything in nature is round and spherical.

There is more soul to feel in chemical photo then in digital.

Digital photographer must try very hard to produce very artistic photography.

So, definitely, photography can't be dead. It's all that in our human mind and we must look at the facts through history of photography.

Vintage photos will always be of the highest value. It is a food for mind and soul.

[fate_faith_change_chains]

What's new today will become vintage tomorrow and what's vintage now once was new.

Having soul or not is just a matter of perspective me thinks, and changing perspectives

every now and then makes for a clearer viewpoint.

[sam_motskin]

God help us if we are to rely on Newsweek to form our opinions. Photography is just one branch of image making, perhaps the newest one, and may be most technology dependent. I think as technology develops photography develops and expands to new applications. Sometimes it overlaps or replaces some types of traditional art and sometimes it opens up new frontiers.

[jtk]

Sam, it seems to have stimulated you and many others to comment. "Stimulate" is the point, not "form."

 

I think the most interesting aspect of this thread is the resistance to speaking directly to the points he addressed. One poster wanted us to know how much he'd read here and there, another wanted to make digital vs film an old fogies vs young space cadets issue.

 

Sam, although you've said very little, you've come closer than most to actually addressing the OT when you mention "frontiers."

 

Plagens seems to think frontiers are like hymens (cherries)...perhaps significant, perhaps making the difference between one state and another. You (Sam) see the opportunity in that cherry, Plagens feels trepidation. :-)

[Allen Herbert]

That life force gets crushed by the cynicism and fear-of-other that typifies a major genre of "street photos," little more than grim happy snaps that characteristically victimize and ridicule. They record the homeless, aged, insane, intentionally bizarre, and "foreign" as distant objects...and worse, some even pretend sympathy to a non-person's plight.

 

With respect, John, a rather sweeping savage attack on a genre of photography. Who are these street photographers who you feel are crushing life forces? Please cite some examples mate.

[Allen Herbert]

Have a look at this street photographer,John. Perhaps his work will help modify your thoughts. Hey,and he's a film user.

 

 

http://www.newyorkstreetphotography.com

[Norma Desmond]

"and dislike the cowardice shown when we/I attack others for expressing themselves."

 

John, you wanna take the high ground, then lead by example.

 

Speak not of anyone's writing style, agendas, and avoid pejorative adjectives like

"schoolmarmish" and "passe." Especially avoid grading anyone on their ability to express

themselves. Don't accuse others of fantasizing. Don't call others lazy and try not to refer

to their personal deficiencies. Avoid mentioning and referencing books and authors

ubiquitously yourself if

you're going to suggest that others do so for no good reason (that one got my biggest

laugh).

 

I will be happy to join you in showing no further cowardice myself.

[jtk]

Fred,

 

This thread seems largely comprised of attacks and ridicule of Plagens and others, for ideas they express.

 

There has been little exploration.

 

Worse, there's cynicism: a nasty variant on suicide, more malignant than boredom since it's directed at others. Heroes are often angry, rarely bored or cynical.

 

The difference between cowardice, expressed as desire to crush Plagens ideas rather than considering them, and my revulsion at that shouldn't be hard to appreciate.

 

I differ with Plagens, as I've detailed. However I respect his thinking.

[Allen Herbert]

John,

 

A lot of name calling, angst, and huge sweeping hackneyed generalisations, John. Why, because folks either do not share your thoughts on photographic 'reality? or they refuse to participate in the way that suits you......tears and tantrums, John. It would also help if you tried to write in plain English (pot calling the kettle black here ;)) instead of a weird rigmarole style you have made up. Remember, this is an International Website, and mid-west middle school English is not the language of the world.

 

Chill out, mate, and have another cream cake ;) Another link for you, not as interesting as the earlier one I gave you, in my opinion. But you might find it so.

 

http://www.nancyhoffmangallery.com/plag/view.html

[jtk]

Allen, you're full of opinions, but you rarely express ideas.

 

Are you aware of the difference?

 

Why not respond to the OT?

[jtk]

...thanks for the Plagens link. It adds weight to his thinking.

 

http://www.nancyhoffmangallery.com/plag/view.html

 

Plagens work comes from an individual. He's personally responsible for his images, is exploring, isn't claiming ownership of visual accidents "captured" with a device.

 

Rather than "street photographers," I prefer the less pretentious, but often wildly original work I see on Flikr, digicams and cellphones...value is rarely attached to catching unsophisticated folks unaware. Maybe it's a generational thing, as you claim.

 

Allen, somewhere above you wanted me to look at Orville Robertson's statement. It's hot air.

 

Here's a random young woman, same 2005 Ohio State Fair, whose images are more to my liking, and I like the way she spells:

 

[Allen Herbert]

Allen, you're full of opinions, but you rarely express ideas.

Are you aware of the difference?

 

 

John, I'm only up to page 687 on my 'John Kelly Companion Rule Book' so you might have to be a bit patient mate. I think the next Chapter is entitled 'Rules and Regulations for young men regarding the difference between opinions, thoughts, and ideas'. There's a sub chapter explaining percentages of use in polite society.

 

Why not respond to the OT?

 

I thought I did, John. Obviously you would like me to elucidate a bit more. So....

 

Photography is an Art form. Art does not worry about method, form, or shape. It only needs imagination, perception, and feeling.

 

Now, to say the soul (a hackneyed word), or the essence of Photography is lost because a new creative palate is discovered is a simplistic though. To claim photography is about the tactile feel of film, the honesty of image is codswallop. Indeed the author of the article is not even a photographer.

 

 

Rather than "street photographers," I prefer the less pretentious, but often wildly original work I see on Flikr, digicams and cellphones...value is rarely attached to catching unsophisticated folks unaware.

 

Street photography is about capturing life in all it's moments. There are different styles of street photography; to lump them together and claim a general dislike is naive, John.

[Allen Herbert]

John,has the cat got your tongue.

 

Thought we might have bit more of a in depth discussion. Maybe a few links. Don't be shy.

[soonerpa]

It is what it is. You decide. And you. And I will to.