robbie_robertson Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 <p>Saw this article titled, "31 Photographs That Will Show You The Future Of Photography." Of course I was thrilled to get a peek into the future... I don't get it. Maybe a bad prediction? Remember, we were all supposed to be making only video calls by the late 1960's...<br> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/01/young-photographers-photo_n_6391900.html</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 <blockquote> <p>Remember, we were all supposed to be making only video calls by the late 1960's...</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> So it took a little longer than expected for the technology to develop. Video calls are common now. Lousy analogy.</p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q.g._de_bakker Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 If you want to see the future of photography, you will have to wait until that future arrives.<br>If you can't wait, there's nothing stopping us to form the future of photography by doing what we want to do using photography (hopefully imaginative stuff) right here and now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn McCreery Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 <p>I find most the photographs to have a forced creativity at the expense of not being aesthetically pleasing. The only ones that I would hang on my wall are perhaps the one by Foglia, but only if I knew the woman, or the abstract one by Schonfeld. There are better bird photos posted each week in PN, Monday in Nature Weekly Photo, than the parrot by Mizutani. My prediction for the future is that people will still be hanging Ansel Adams posters on their walls a hundred years from now. Beyond tha, I have no predictions. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 It's just HuffPo clickbait, so I wouldn't take it too seriously. Too many mainstream news and views sites have adopted the hyped up tactics of clickbait sites. Hopefully that's only the present of the internuts and not the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 <p>While I would agree with Lex that the post is clickbait, the response to anything different on forums (including this one) seem quite reactionary and historically doomed to the dustbin. Just like impressionism initially received a hostile reaction from the public, like photography itself initially received a hostile reaction from the art community, like pop art initially received a hostile reaction from just about everyone, changes in recent photography due to both technology (always a factor in photography and often in other arts) and style/technique are receiving a hostile reaction from traditionalists. In five years, these may be considered "mainstream," and in thirty years, as "traditional." </p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aplumpton Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 <p>Nothing particularly new in these examples, and none with memorable meaning that might make them notable at some future date. Delete button examples. At least other future trends or movements like expressionism, impressionism, surrealism or pop art were about the approach or philosophy of expression that you could accept or reject. Mrs. Huff is pulling our leg (again) and seeking our personal site for advertisement purposes.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GerrySiegel Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 Random thoughts in the new year....The history of photography may or may not be a good guide to what we can expect, or rather what we can expect to be commonplace. When Muybridge did his mechanical linking of shutters to capture movement, we might have looked forward to the moving picture being a Nickelodeon peep show, but not the kind of video in the handheld phone. Solid state electronics and micro miniaturization was still an idea in a lab or not even that. Kobal's book on the history of color showed how three color separation could be done in the early part of the last century, but it was clumsy and who could have predicted this gorgeous and expensive technology would now become as common as Froot Loops cereal and that we would go Back To the Future by seeking out ways to use monochrome. Look at photo Number 7. A dual representation that fuses into a stereo photo. So Kobal in history of color processes said film got there(relatively fast after 1935) fast but we have YET to see what he called a " viable stereography." With, to my thinking the viable part being the key. But I discern realism is not what the article is getting at, not the Edgerton look into the moment but something more fantastic in creation and more transcendent, if you will. So old day collaging such things is now being built into cameras and we can almost select a "transcendental mode." Does this mean that creativity(lower case creativity) will be a button push away? Yeah, I think so. Although it wounds me some...... As to miniaturization we have no way reached the end point. The transcorder in Star Trek has come about. Now how about the future of battery technology to power all the gizmos we use in photoland. I predict that as storage will mean greater shooting of things, we will see a new battery technology like lithium sulfide. And Ansel will always be with us. As will more upcoming artists who choose photography as their medium. What do you think? Afterthought for the hipsters. In the future, all library computers will block photos of violence and gore and warfare and weaponry. Nude photos will be fully available without warnings and get no special alarms. I mean why not.....for a wild and crazy age ahead (by a decade or two):-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damon DAmato Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 <p>I agree with Arthur in that there is nothing new here at all.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Helmke Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 <p>Clickbait, never heard that one before. I like it which is more than I can say for anything I saw in that article. Same boring stuff passing itself off as art that I used to see in the 70's. Ho hum.</p> <p>Rick H.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 <blockquote> <p>Same boring stuff passing itself off as art that I used to see in the 70's. </p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Can you give an example of that same-ness for <a href="http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/392580/slide_392580_4789160_free.jpg">this photo</a> from that page.</p> <p> </p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjmurray Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 <p>Colleges, portraying the mundane, painting on images or destroying them, etc. Nothing new!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 <blockquote> <p>Nothing new!</p> </blockquote> <p><br /> Can you give an example of that non-newness for <a href="http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/392580/slide_392580_4789160_free.jpg" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this photo</a> from that page.</p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjoseph7 Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 <p>" <em>Same boring stuff passing itself off as art that I used to see in the 70's. Ho hum</em>."</p> <p>Yes but as a true Art Connoisseur you were supposed to be bowled over if not totally amazed by the newness, the uniqueness, the deep meaning, but inside you were really scratching your head...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_pierlot Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 <blockquote> <p>Can you give an example of that non-newness for <a href="http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/392580/slide_392580_4789160_free.jpg" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this photo</a> from that page.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> It looks very much like any number of the surrealist collage pieces that my grade 5-7 students have done.<br> <br> Jeff, would you ever be impressed with some of the artwork my students do. I should scan some of it, and send it to you.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 <p>Hey if you want to do art, you really need to be certified. And how.</p> <p>Here are my two (2, deux, count them) artistic licenses:<br /> [You can get one for yourself at http://www.artybollocks.com/#abg_full , scroll down, as well as a very useful artist's statement.]</p> <p>If you want the one on the left, you need certification of a certain kind of realism.</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 <p>If someone can actually post a link to something that would justify the comments, that would be very useful. Otherwise, it's just web yakety-yak.</p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 <blockquote> <p>It looks very much like any number of the surrealist collage pieces that my grade 5-7 students have done. . . . I should scan some of it, and send it to you.</p> </blockquote> <p>Mark, you really should scan some of it and post it. Then we could have a substantive discussion. Otherwise, I'm skeptical of the ubiquitous claims I read particularly on the pages of PN that either my kid or my students could do what Mark Rothko or Jackson Pollock or some of the linked photographers can do. If you posted something from your kids, we could then have an intelligent discussion and look at some of the differences and similarities and see if there was some difference in degree of visual and emotional sophistication.<br> <br> As for the photo Jeff linked to, I immediately felt a similarity to Arbus's sensibility, though it's not in black and white.<br> <br> I was not blown away by this collection as a whole but still think there's something to get from looking at the photos with an unprejudiced eye. I found Glenn's comment curious, since the parrot was about my favorite of the collection. No, it has very little in common with most of the nature stuff I see posted to the pages of PN (which is one reason I liked it), which are much more traditionally pretty and concerned with technical elegance and lens sharpness than with anything that smacks of a creative sensibility or unique personality or voice. I look at that parrot and see more Henri Rousseau than, say, John Shaw or Galen Rowell who seem to have the more "beautiful" and traditional landscape down pat. The Mizutani, on the other hand, is an exploration of flat design and color nuance and isolation. It has quite a unique feel and, for me, turns the parrot into an interesting sort of still life (rather than something I'd think of in terms of "nature photography"). Mizutani's take on the parrot reminds me of the original French sense of still life (<em>nature morte</em>) which literally translates as dead nature. And, as importantly, I don't put much stock in what I or anyone else would hang on our walls in terms of assessing the significance of photos or works of art. There are myriads of photos I think are important to the world and to history that I wouldn't want hanging on my walls, among them <a href="http://img2-1.timeinc.net/people/i/2014/sandbox/news/140616/nick-ut/napalm-nick-ut-600x450.jpg">THIS ONE</a> by Nick Ut. There's also a significant body of work by Larry Clark which I wouldn't want to come home to every day. And, though I think Mapplethorpe did something important with both his homoerotic/s&m stuff as well as with his flowers, none of those would get hung on my walls either. But that's got nothing to do with their importance in terms of photography or art.</p> We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wogears Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 <p>I like Lucas Foglia, but seeing his work out of context is perhaps not a good thing,</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_s Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 <p>None of this stuff does much for me either, but <em>chacun a son gout</em>. I felt sorry for the steer. (No, I'm not joking.)</p> <p>The photo cited by Jeff is disturbing, but it doesn't have a lot of meaning for me other than it's arresting and dislocating. It strikes me as derivative of <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=meatyard&biw=1440&bih=777&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=IzSqVM1bi-ygBKuCgdAJ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ">the work of Gene Meatyard</a>, and I suspect a few of you saw it that way. Anyway, that's my evidence for non-newness, and yes, I've posted a link.</p> <p>We stand on the shoulders of giants, and whether there's anything really original in photography is another question. Twice, without meaning to, I've taken photos of women who happened to have pearl earrings, looking to the left. Then, when I was editing them, I thought <a href="/casual-conversations-forum/">'Damn!'</a></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_s Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 <p>Sorry, that last link should have been (of course) <a href="http://www.essentialvermeer.com/catalogue/image-paintings/girl_with_a_pearl_earring.jpg">to this image.</a> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karim Ghantous Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 <blockquote> <p>If someone can actually post a link to something that would justify the comments, that would be very useful. Otherwise, it's just web yakety-yak.</p> </blockquote> <p>By "comments" you mean the comments in this thread? If so, then you have the cart before the horse. I cannot for the life of me see anything pleasing or prophetic about any of those photographs in the Huffington Post article. Not one. I have seen no evidence that these images are the 'future of photography'. Maybe photographers like Peter Lik overprice their photographs, but at least they are very pleasing.</p> <p>It might be worth mentioning that Hollywood movie producers candidly admit that despite their experience, "nobody knows anything". But in this specific case, we're supposed to just accept the 'future of photography'. And we're supposed to accept that the burden of proof is now on he who questions the claim, not the one who makes the claim. Right. Got it.</p> <p>Oh, and about impressionism. The word at the time was that impressionists (not yet called that) were sub-par. They were not supposed to be the future. But they were. Here, we're supposed to believe it when the Huffington Post says that it knows the future. Watch: nobody will care about this stuff except small bands of very wealthy collectors who already spend millions on very ordinary yet expensive mediocrity.</p> <p>As for Jackson Pollock, I've seen a few of his paintings that are used as drop sheets by one of my clients, a theatre company. They're certainly attractive - of that there is no doubt. I rather like them. But they are used to keep the paint off the carpet. I could probably obtain one if I replaced it with a new drop sheet. If they'll let me.</p> <p>Nobody can predict the future intellectually. Intuitively: yes, I think so. Intellectually, no. Michael Crichton makes the case against speculation in this essay, which I urge all of you to read (PDF):</p> <p>http://www.thegreatideas.org/aww/TGIO332.pdf</p> <p>It's such a gold mine that I can't decide what to quote from it. But here's one nugget:</p> <blockquote> <p>Talk is cheap. And speculation shows are the cheapest thing you can put on television, They’re almost as cheap as running a test pattern. Speculation requires no research, no big staff. Minimal set. Just get the talking host, book the talking guests — of which there is no shortage — and you’re done! Instant show. No reporters in different cities around the world, no film crews on location. No deadlines, no footage to edit, no editors...nothing! Just talk. Cheap.</p> </blockquote> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norma Desmond Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 <blockquote> <p>As for Jackson Pollock, I've seen a few of his paintings that are used as drop sheets by one of my clients, a theatre company. They're certainly attractive - of that there is no doubt. I rather like them. But they are used to keep the paint off the carpet. I could probably obtain one if I replaced it with a new drop sheet. If they'll let me.</p> </blockquote> <p> </p> <blockquote> <p>Talk is cheap.</p> </blockquote> <p>Well illustrated!</p> We didn't need dialogue. We had faces! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 <blockquote> <p>I cannot for the life of me see anything pleasing or prophetic about any of those photographs in the Huffington Post article.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> That wasn't what I was asking about. It was the "lack of newness" that I was asking about. <br> <br> It also doesn't matter if photos are pleasing or prophetic. Impressionism wasn't considered pleasing or prophetic when it first appeared. Nobody can say what the future will really be for photography, but whether anyone likes or dislikes these is irrelevant to that question.<br> </p> <blockquote> <p>It strikes me as derivative of <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=meatyard&biw=1440&bih=777&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=IzSqVM1bi-ygBKuCgdAJ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">the work of Gene Meatyard</a></p> </blockquote> <p> <br> I've seen Meatyard's prints a number of times and also have a quite a few monographs of his. I suspect you are referring to his mask photos. There is a superficial resemblance, but those were tied to something specific in his life and actually come across quite differently in several ways.</p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_s Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Please explain. I think I'm about to learn something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now