Purposeful Photography

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Yes. Even losers have purposes and sometimes losers are more significant than winners.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Never more true than in the arts, I should think. Examples abound!</p>

[kenneth_smith7]

<p>I wouldn't bother stacking the numbers up. The odds of getting good pictures, we used to say that about motor drives. You know that's not it. The visual sophistication of people today is exceptional enough alone to produce countless great images, even without all the technology to put it over the top. And as for being overwhelmed by it to the point where you lose the desire to do your own, that's just another one of those bugga boo's of art making. See the book, Art and Fear. A complete list of the minds doubt factory. </p>

<p>What might make for a good discussion however still might be purpose and significance, especially because IMO the tendency to become overtly photographic, with overly finished product gloss, has really taken the stage. Post production madness. So much of it looks fake. And I don't mean the stuff that embraces fake. Even journalism has to deal with the glorified beauty cameras bring to tragedy. So within all that mix from Flickr to Verve to a zillion more, who's really advancing truth and beauty and revelation, and the humble. You know, now that I think about it, I think it may be that couple at the world's fair.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"with overly finished product gloss, has really taken the stage."</em></p>

<p>Luckily, Kenneth, only in some circles. "Post production madness" seems just another way of stacking the numbers up. It's what a lot of people are talking about so it gets a lot of attention. Great photographers of the past were mad about post production but great numbers of people weren't mimicking that on PN or Flickr. Post production is not a problem. It's the ill uses of it that are.</p>

<p>I think good art has always been a combination of purpose, expression, and craft (which shouldn't be confused with "gloss").</p>

<p>One of my purposes is to look at myself. "Myself" includes others who I share something with. It's manifesting itself, so far, in many portraits of middle-aged gay men. Part of the purpose is to show, both within the community and outside of it, men who aren't typically photographed and shown. Part of it is an exploration of how we look and feel about our bodies and the aging process. Part of it is to establish intimacy with some around me. A lot of it is to look carefully at and relate in a significant way to individuals. I want to see them.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>I couldn't agree more Ken. No one I know with a camera is losing desire, or overwhelmed in the least by the countless, or boundless images. They are lusting larger cards and devouring their own terrabyte drives - no doubt - like fast food burgers. Can the viewer know anything about fake, beauty, truth and other values? That would be quite a challenge. The relevance of that is probably being challenged considering our job is to <em>consume</em> media. Well, that what Mr. Jobs says, anyway.</p>

[don_essedi]

"Today's no different, except for quantity."

 

I think that is a difference. Another difference is universal availability. Another is timely universal availability. Another is universal availibility persisting over time.

 

Thinking 'order of magnitude' increases in quantity, timeliness, and persistence change nothing is whistling past the graveyard.

[don_essedi]

To make my point another way: the economic motivation for becoming a photographer is vanishing. Anecdotal evidence suggest a correlation with the "democratization" of photography. By 'economic motivation' I mean earning a living, paying the mortgage, feeding the kids. It is not that photography is dead, it has just gotten 'thin', a skinny snapshot body with a big art head.

[alan_zinn]

<p>I have found more satisfaction with my work over the years by close association with artists and photographers. I'm not a joiner or club person but it is vital that I regularly meet with small cliques of productive friends. Even if it's only three guys having coffee, work becomes more rigorous and interesting. Two of my associations have gone on for over 25 years. One topic that comes up from time to time is "Why are we doing what we do?"<br>

Another remedy for anxiety is to add a new dimension to your interest (besides more equipment!) . I began making books several years ago and that is very rewarding and purposeful. Can't say enough good things about doing that.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Don Essedi astutely described photography as having "gotten 'thin,' a skinny snapshot body with a big art head." </p>

<p>Alan Zinn's description of his own sources of satisfaction rings bells for me. I wish I had more than a few of those, but their occasional thoughts and examples are important to me.</p>

<p>I think that if one respects photography's potential enough to refrain from identifying as an "artist" with a camera, and that if one has the guts to share one's work with people who have the potential to be influential (including one's subjects), there's some serious potential.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Anything that provides <em>content</em> for the web, other than things for sale, is now value-less. Content is user-provided -- for free. Everyone else makes money. And don't kid yourself: The art "head" has also become 'thin'. Not at the very top end, but at every other level, which are the rungs on the ladder to the top. The economic contretemps involved a mass extinction of middle and low level collectors and people who could afford a <$1k image to hang in their home. </p>

<p>Once again, the amateur is King. Thanks to the fact that one needs to be computer-proficient to stay alive in this culture, it's not surprising that the image-savvy people of today have become better photographers. The pro-as-shaman/guru thing, or critic/essayists guiding anything is doornail dead. Now is the time to do it because you love it. It always was, but now perhaps more than ever. Within the medium in its current state, there are aesthetics coalescing and ideological, if not bordering on theoretical cults (they're not 'schools') going on.</p>

 

[kenneth_smith7]

<p>Yikes. Check out the Life 2010 Best Photos. Full tilt boogie there. Scary stuff.</p>

<p>Me, I just walked four miles of my townie stomp doing New Topographic style blandsville. Which I love, but I think most people would think there's something wrong with me if they discovered years later photos of all the chain link, tar patches on deserted streets, machine rental property by railroad tracks, etc. etc. Doing it at as end in itself. I can do it. It's my ballet. It's my way on being in the world. An insider outsider.</p>

[m_stephens]

<blockquote>

<p>"Within the medium in its current state, there are aesthetics coalescing and ideological, if not bordering on theoretical cults (they're not 'schools') going on."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I still refer to them as "schools," but I do get the point. As any particular school progresses through the life-stages from avant-garde to cliche to retro, to post-x, and then finally maybe to ironic-hip, it seems that anyone can join at any phase (perhaps because no general agreement exists!). Thus, everything anyone does with a camera works at all times, and nothing is ever really over, or even new.</p>

[don_essedi]

Luis wrote: "The art "head" has also become 'thin'. "

 

and

 

"Once again, the amateur is King."

 

The disappearance of photography in between the snapshooter and the artist strands the "hobbyest", "amateur", "prosumer", "enthusiast" and former "pro" on the point of Alan Zinn's "Why are we doing what we do?...anxiety". Some get stuck (often happily stuck...no blame at all) replicating the genres of the vanishing center -- John's litany of kittycats and sunsets. For those not content with replication or snapshots, there will be nothing else but art. The democratization of photography is also the democratization of art photography (of course, the snapshot was democratic from the gitgo).

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Don E - "</strong>The disappearance of photography in between the snapshooter and the artist strands the "hobbyest", "amateur", "prosumer", "enthusiast" and former "pro" on the point of Alan Zinn's "Why are we doing what we do?...anxiety"</p>

<p>I think that anxiety has answers outside the ideal of a working pro. The hobbyist does it for enjoyment and as a pastime, the amateur, by definition, for the love of it. The others if hanging onto the old model <em>are </em>stranded until they evolve or die.</p>

<p> </p>

[don_essedi]

Luis, looking through family photo albums going back to the 1920s, I'm surprised at the number of professional photographs in them. They aren't all snapshots. For three generations an immigrant working class family commonly made use of the services of (local) professional photographers. These days, except sometimes for weddings, people take the pictures themselves. The petit bourgeois pro is vanishing. Times change. Absent this class, there is little else besides the snapshot and art, leaving the hobbiest or enthusiast with art or snapshots and nothing else as evidence of photographic culture. In a nearby forum here, someone writes as explanation of why they want advice on buying a better camera "I'm not a pro...but still I'm an artistic person". To distinguish oneself from merely taking snaps, there will be little besides 'art' for a descriptor.

 

Times change, but there are still backwaters where "street photographer" describes something other than what it means on photo.net.

 

One reason the art head is big is because the body is skinny; another reason is, there will be no place else for the amateur and beginner within photography, just snaps or art, and perhaps the occasional near minimum wage gig (for the "stage time").

 

Some bright bulb working on the Canon or Adobe account is likely responsible for the 'democratization' meme, but what I am seeing is atomization. Not the same thing, at all.

[m_stephens]

<p>The loss of the Main street photo studio conforms to similar losses in all crafts from shoemaking to TV repair. The reason is that craft doesn't roll up well into an industrial hierarchy. It's much easier to build a billion dollar corporation with mass merchandise (cheap cell phones and cameras) than by accumulating thousand of individual human craftsmen.</p>

<p>For like reasons, the journalist is nearly gone, and soon the doctor's office. Pills are sold on the Nightly News - where all the information is provided to tell you who needs it. The doctor will soon be as superfluous as the photographer. Here, buy this camera and sign on to FB and YouTube. In short, the formula is for quality to be exchanged for quantity and ubiquity in order to serve the need for absolute growth, which is the only viable diet for industrial consumerism. In other words, the Main Street photographer wasn't generating enough consumption to feed the beast.</p>

<p>Making a living with a camera is now like trying to make a living with a typewriter - - strictly on the margin.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Don E., </strong>mostly in agreement here. The number of people who call themselves 'artists' without having a clue as to what that means is going to balloon because to those ignorant of the history of photography that will be the only non-'snapper' default. At a time when art education is at a low point, are funding, exhibition spaces, etc. this is likely to be interesting. Will it mean a new and significantly large demographic will identify with being artists? What impact might that have in the future? Will they bootstrap themselves to learning about photographic arts? Or will they remain total photo-brut outsiders? Interesting times.</p>

<p> </p>

[kenneth_smith7]

<p> Brut and not so brut. Art became the domain of the idiosyncratic individual as opposed to a community purpose long ago, without reverting to ignorance. Quite the opposite. Now with so many people acting as a vigorous creative and not merely a consumer of images assuming an elite "artist" title would be seen as clueless and pretentious. And you still have to convince the tastemakers gatekeepers for institutional advance, regardless of how many hits you get on your own virtual gallery.</p>

<p>The absorption of the technology of image manipulation into a personal sphere coincides with all other abilities gained from the electric grid. We're good little consumers sating personal drives, and why not? Both professionalism and personal work, however artistic or not are certainly redefining themselves. My worry is that technology will runaway from us and become the new tastemaker. Only is some circles yes, but that's where the money will go. Like music, you'll have to be aware of better talents beneath the mainstream, because the real stuff isn't on the radio top twenty anymore.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Kenneth, I agree, but it seems like you're talking about artists vs. the wave of people that Don and I were talking about who will adopt the title by default. What else can they call themselves now that the scale no longer has the Pro at the top? No one wants to be like HCB, an 'amateur', let alone a 'duffer' or hobbyist. Too plebeian in a world where almost everyone is (or imagines themselves to be) above-average. I agree that professionalism is redefining itself as it heads towards extinction, and personal work seems to me to be broadening, and becoming even more personal. How does it look to you?</p>

<p> </p>

[don_essedi]

There's a thread titled Changing the World Through Art. I think the "world" changes art. We seem to agree that photography, no matter how personal, responds to social and economic changes. The developing situation in photography the past couple decades aligns well with the consummation of the consumer economic system where the ideal marketing niche is the unique and exceptional individual and the provision of a menu of choices specially designed for "you". The evidence of the past several years indicates this system has encountered headwinds, and one step forward can feel like two steps backward. The recent events in North Africa and the Gulf, and now Japan are occuring in regions foundational to the regnant economic and social systems. So, the interesting times are here. Times change. If the ideal model is now art, then I assume a radical change in esthetics will occur in photography, but what or how, I don't know.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>"Artist", like most words, gets its meaning and significance from the context and the way in which it's used. Many people on PN might well describe themselves as being <em>artistic</em> when they are talking about why they photograph or when they're considering what equipment to buy next. Those same people, when asked who they think they are or when asked at a party what they do, will say "I'm an accountant" and not even consider saying "I'm a photographer," let alone "I'm an <em>artist</em>." </p>

<p>I think there are still few who will claim to <em>be</em> artists. And there are few who are. I kind of think most people still know that. Maybe that's a hope on my part. Also, photographic web sites are probably not the best place to get a sense of how many people with cameras think of themselves as artists. I don't know if you guys are relying on that or not or if you're hearing it in other places as well. A lot of my friends go out shooting for the fun of it, they even frame a landscape or cityscape of theirs from time to time. They are interested in a little more than snap-shooting and taking birthday pics of their kids. But none of them calls him or herslef an artist.</p>

<p>I like to think that many if not most people have adopted artistic stances at times both as passive observers and as active doers. I've seen people do their mundane jobs with artistry and perform various tasks with artistry. An increased awareness of that is, I think, a good thing. It doesn't take away from those who deserve the title "artist" in the more traditional sense of the word.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Fred, </strong>not only do I think that the new wave considering themselves artists not detract anything from what we think of as artists, but that it will expand sympathy and support for the artist in the long run.</p>

[kenneth_smith7]

<p>Awful hard to get anything fixed into place with that squishist of squishy words art. On the one hand we live in an 'everyone's an artist" mindset, yet on the other hand, and despite the masses of practitioners and disseminators, you've got to be pretty deluded to flaunt the beret when way too many people know the difference between personal expression and career art status. They are aware of and most importantly willing to admit the distinction, because these socially savvy creatures do not want to be seen as fools.</p>

<p>I say I photograph and I paint. If someone responds with, "oh you're an artist"? I'll say, "yes and no. I'm out of step with the times, don't care to show much, hate careerism, and belong in no collections, but I do make pretty good stuff, all the time, and have all my life." My vote is we should leave the title "artist" where it belongs, and that is as a societally integrated contributor to timely commentary. </p>

[kenneth_smith7]

<p>Besides, why should the title artist be coveted anyway? Why imply virtue to artists? Buncha miscreants.</p>

[m_stephens]

<p>Unlike the title doctor, and very much like the title sportsman, 'artist' is, and should remain, self-conferred. Attempts are made too often to assign a qualitative barrier. But such attempts are doomed to failure, because art isn't a fixed set of skills, rules, secrets, or even a fixed aesthetic. Art is only a manifestation of personal self expression.</p>

<p>It is also a perversion of the expression to weigh it down with consideration, such as commercial value. Every one who uses intention to express themselves physically is committing to art. A dance move, a song, a paint stroke, exposing a piece of light sensitive material, the turning of a phrase, cutting away solids to reveal a hidden vision inside - it is all art. Who has not made art, might not have ever lived.</p>

<p>The desire to establish qualifications and a hierarchy is an exercise in psychology and class distinction. You can easily establish this by referring to the common process of retrospectively admiring art that was perhaps in the artist's life considered rubbish. An aesthetic that doesn't fit the social conscience one day, suddenly does - or vice versa. The art didn't change, the attitude did.</p>

<p>Photography and art are not interchangeable terms. Photography defines a set of learned procedures and skills which are rather widely agreed upon. e.g. knowing the exposure relationships of aperture, shutter and media sensitivity. But that has no immediate bearing on art. Art does not imply a specific skill, it implies intention. Photography might be a useful technique to produce art, or it might not. The difference between a raw beginning photographer and a highly skilled professional photographer is not that one has accrued the title of artists over some long period of learning specific skills, and the other isn't an artist owing to a lack of that specific skill. Either or neither might be producing art using photographic techniques. It can surely be argued that a high dollar commission to "go shoot the interior of my new office" may not be an act of creating art at all because it might not be self expression, but rather "other expression." While an intentional, but quixotic first exposure from a toy camera may be fabulous art (or not).</p>

<p>Self expression, and consequently art, is valuable to humanity quite independent of the establishment of markets, auctions and bazaars used to peddle artifacts of one kind or another. The crux here being the word "self" in self expression. There is no requirement in art to please anyone - not even the creator. Rather than having too many artists, I'd suggest we have too few.</p>