I agree with a lot of what he said. My primary audiences are at art shows and festivals. I have a few images that some question whether or not they are even real. This bugs me a lot, but at this point you can't blame them for asking. It's hard to tell what you are looking at anymore.
The photographer who inspired me the most when I first started was Thomas Mangelson. I look at some of his images now and imagine what reaction they would get if they were posted on the Avian forum of this site. I'm sure, some would say, clone out that branch or add more canvas so the bird has more room to fly into, or add a catchlight. This kind of thing has really started to turn me off. Does everything always have to be so "perfect"?
When I first got a digital camera, I vowed that I would do zero in terms of manipulation. I finally realized I did need USM, along with contrast and maybe a little "fill flash". I only use these because I pretty much have to. I don't even like to crop. I used to think I didn't buy photoshop CS because I couldn't afford it and didn't have the time to learn it. But I figured someday I'd be able to do all sorts of cool things to my images too, and all of my stuff would be flawless. I've now come to the conclusion that I'll probably never go down that route, because I'm a photographer, not a computer technician.
Some people enjoy the digital workflow and PS in general. More power to them. In short, photography is one art form and digital imaging is another. Just one guy's opinion. Dan
Interesting read...some of what he is saying is true..but some seems a little bit out there. I could grab a paintbrush and a piece of paper and make the painting equivelent of a snapshot..but is that art? No..defining something as art has much more to do with what it communicates to an individual..no the way it was created or where some other cynical person thinks it is fake.
I'm not a believer in "image fatigue" either. Everyone does see a ton of images everyday..but I think that most people are able to separate the different between their family snapshots and good photography.
In terms of nature photography..we all use our cameras as simply the means to communicate our feelings on the natural world..the camera is simply a tool that we need. I think that everyone would agree that if we could capture these moments without a camera...we wouldn't have it!
In the same online newspaper there is a story about how Iguazu Falls has suffered from drought, and some of the cataracts are completely dry. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19924789-30417,00.html
But the reason for photography's eclipse as an art form has not just to do with the astonishing superabundance of photographs; it has to do with dramatic recent changes to the medium. Thanks to the digital revolution, there is virtually nothing that can't be done to a photograph to alter its once unique relationship to reality.
There is much to amaze in what is suddenly possible but the amazement is largely technical. In terms of art, something profound has been lost. People sense it. Art-loving audiences are fast losing interest in the medium
Heaven forbid any art form should depart from reality!. To follow that line of reasoning, painting was killed off as a fine art once the impressionists came on the scene, and nothing that follows can be taken seriously. The guilt must be making old Pablo Picasso roll in his grave!!!
"I'm not a believer in "image fatigue" either. Everyone does see a ton of images everyday..but I think that most people are able to separate the different between their family snapshots and good photography."
I would agree with this. There is so many "snapshot photography" out there, that now when I see a good photo it captures my attention even more. It's kind of like driving through a plain desert enviornment for hours and then finally seeing a very unique setting or object. It tends to really grab your attention. Just my 2 cents.
Brian
Posted by Paul Grecian on July 26, 2006 at 3:55 PM
I think the article is very weak and as noted above, he presents no proof of any kind. He poses a question but gives a meaningless answer. My own experience is that he is totally off base. Indeed, if photographers were producing better imagery because of the digital format, there would be more interest, not less, by the public.
To me the most distressing point is not so much the veracity of any factual information in the article, but that it represents the perception of at least part of the photo-viewing population. Whether it's accurate or not, some people do feel that way and it is up to us as photographers and/or artists to gain back some credibility.
Similar sentiments led to the formation of the f/64 group a while back. Do you see such movements forming or achieving similar recognition today?
I consider it another signal to noise situation. Don't worry, the signal is very low frequency compared to the noise's high (and increasing) frequency. A simple cut-off filter works (also called ignoring all the crappy images we see). Ever onward!
Image fatigue? I say EVERYTHING fatigue. We're constantly bombarded by sensory information, and our populace is becoming (or has become?) one without leisure. We're too 'plugged in', and I don't see this being a good thing for photography or any art that requires study, contemplation, and thought. Heck, people don't even read books anymore, and we want them to hang up their c-phones, Ipods, and Blackberry's and give the time of day to photographs?
Paul: I thought the article was very strong (although not perfect). Articles such as this - filled with rhetorical questions - are intended to get us thinking. They don't always have to provide facts and answers. This one will keep me thinking for a while....
The article is just that. Interesting and provacative. It may be a bit scattered and lacks hard data - but who wants that anyway. It makes you think. And it raises several valid and well presented points.
This paragraph, resonates deeply with my personal feelings regarding my struggles with today's digital medium.
So photography today has been thrown back on itself and the question of what it must do to retain interest as art is once again freshly alive. The problem is that, thanks to the digital revolution, the frisson of excitement that used to accompany photographs (the knowledge that the image was evidence for something real, a trace of something that happened) is slowly disappearing. It's not as if photographers haven't been involved in fabrications and manipulations since the outset. The early days of the medium were full of trickery and theatre, cases of day being turned into night just to suit the photographer's purposes. But today the whole context has shifted: the layers of artifice seem unending and the thread connecting photography to the real has been snapped.
This "thread connecting photography with the real" is what I always strive to express in conversations centered on digital manipulations, and their inevitable ties to the public perception of photography. There has been a great shift over the last several years. Public skepticism of all photography is at the center of it's reduced lasting interest. However, I also believe it is photography's transition rather than it's demise. Photography is more art now than it ever was, with limitless creative possibilities.....but in the end it has still lost a unique connection with reality that cannot be denied.
I spend most of my life capturing, not purely creating. I don't fantasize about photoshop manipulations, I seek out the magic moments and attempt to preserve them. This is the joy, the addiction even. Finding those special moments. I have no interest in painting fiction. Of course I want to present my images in the best light possible - I'll tweak the levels, contrasts and use strong filters to control light, but stop short of distorting the very subjects I depict in my images. My photographs would mean very little to me if there was no base in reality. While digital tools allow me to record more accuately than ever before, they have also introduced a new and irrevocable public distrust in the photographic medium as a form of capture. A trust that was previously there. When I show work in public, the most common inquires are related to digital manipulation. People want to be assured that what I've captured was a real place, at a real moment not some ficticious PS creation. I have no desire to put a sunset sky and a beautiful mountian together in Photoshop.
That all said, photography isn't going away forever. Perhaps it's hey-day in art galleries worldwide has waned and perhaps it's transitioning towards a period of rediscovery and resurgence as an art form. There will always be a demand for still images depicting real places in my opinion. There is still no substitute for a photograph, digital or film, for many applications.
I'm a believer in image fatigue but perhaps not for exactly the reasons outlined in the article. There is, as some have mentioned, the constant bombardment of media images. What is not mentioned the Internet.
Most of my viewing of images is now done on the Internet, which doesn't have the quality of print, but also exposes more images that wouldn't have been seen otherwise. There are a great many who will put pictures up on the net who would not have seen publication in traditional methods. It isn't, to my mind, a case of digital lowering the quality of photography as much as the ability of newer technology allowing people to show work that would have been confined to their house earlier.
From time to time I will mutter to myself, "Seen it before." Don't mean it to sound condescending, it is a case of many people trying to find their own style by studying and following the examples of others. It is what most people starting out in any art forum do. The critiques and discussions many of us have had in classrooms and among colleagues is now happening more publicly with the advent of the Internet.
"Branding" to has had its effect on photography as it has other disciplines. You can now go from town to town, and in certain commercial areas, not know what country you might be in let alone city the buildings are so uniform. The arguments this article makes might also be used for architecture. Commercial photography, which was at one time bolder than it is today, has become 'blanded' by formula marketing.
There is also the effect of absorbing any new technology. After the invention of the printing press it took half a century before the first original work was printed. I'm not against digital manipulation, but I haven't seen a lot that makes me say 'Wow!' Not the ability to alter exposure, colour and other post production work, which while makes life easier, isn't the same thing as a Robert Frank innovation.
If there is image fatigue, the argument might better be made that it is a reflection of a fatigued society. The counter position to this gentleman's point of view is still increasing popularity of reality game shows.
There is a lot of good work going on. It just may be harder to see it. What will be facinating to see is the work of the younger people who have grown up in a digital world and know nothing else.
I'm guessing the context of the article's author is that of art photography one has historically seen this last century in the better museums and galleries. Importantly that is almost always not of a scenic nature. Of course for decades only a few of the most talented scenic and nature photographers were accepted along with such art, journalistic, and especially portraiture photography artists. That status quo has been demolished the last couple decades due to the explosion of equipment and technology that has unleashed nature and scenic photography to the extent it cannot be anymore ignored or constrained. Thus the article is a maybe a reflection on how the resulting abundance of new photography and that especially means outdoor nature and scenic has crowded into their realm to the extent gallery and museum curators and directors no longer see attraction to their traditional model.
In any case the more general arguments are all too true. And I have to quite agree with Michael and Marks points. The realism issue is of course central to the acceptance of outdoor landscape, scenic, and nature photography. Despite a tendency of photographers to want that to go away and to deny such, I submit that will not be the case. As I continue to say, there is nothing ethically wrong with being creative and less than natural at any point in the creative process as long as one is up front with that. I've just been a posting member of the group a few months now and have come away with the perception the status quo ethic here like it is elsewhere is squarely in the court of anything goes as long as it looks aesthetic. No questions asked and no explanation required. That individual photographers do not wish to admit up front what they are doing in terms of being less than experienced reality. That a great many here admire images that one would never come close to seeing in nature but are certainly aesthetic. Is there anything wrong with our new creative art photography? No and yes. Much of the public will openly accept such creations just like any art. Others will reject otherwise very aesthetic looking images simply because they know such is manipulated often over saturated reality. And some who buy what they think represents an experienced moment in time without the artist indicating what they did, may feel betrayed later on when they are later told by reliable persons they could never hope to see such in a natural experience. Sewing of ill seeds for all of us. Thus I'd speculate some of the increasing negative clammer from the gallery and museum directors and their experts is due to the unbounded unknown untrustable path we are rolling down. ...David
Posted by Paul Grecian on July 26, 2006 at 8:29 PM
If someone is going to make the remarkable claim that "PHOTOGRAPHY as an art form is on the wane" then they better well make a case for it with some facts that include some substance. I'd want to see interviews with museum directors, gallery owners, photographers who sell their work as art, polls of the general public ( and not just in Australia). There is no question posed in this article that hasn't been addressed since the beginning of digital format, just more blatant conclusions. I love how we now talk about "creative art photography" as if that were something new. I wonder how many people think that "Moonrise" was made to faithfully represent what Ansel saw. He always argued that color was too real for his tastes anyway. Now we're conccerned that photography isn't real enough? There are some real issues here that should be discussed. I however, don't see the crisis as presented in this article. I also would like to think that people have admired photography for many reasons other than an absolute "unique relationship with reality".
If all of this requires an educating of the public and art-buyer than that's great. The more discussion with them the better. The least this article could do, if indeed it represents a concern of the writer, is to make the case that digital photography is fundamentally the same as photography has always been, which I contend it is.
Frankly, I'm much more interested in what it is Michael Gordon is thinking than in this Mr. Smee's diatribe.
Guy, as always, you lead us down a path of good discussion, thanks. P.S. philosophically, I disagree with the contention of the f64 group as well, but I still enjoy much of their work.
Anything that dares confront the undeniable changes in the public perception towards photography is met with comments like 'manipulations have been done forever'. Yes, but not like they are today. Heck, today we can create an intire image from scratch. There is almost nothing you can't do digitally anymore. The lines are blurred and the public knows it. After they go see Pixar's latest movie, how can they go visit an art fair and have the same appreciation for the photographic artist they once did? Not all of them do. They once did because they recognized photographic images have that unique relationship with reality.
Sure, Ansel manipulated images but to say it's the same now as it's ever been is deeply flawed. Fundamentally there are similarities but not quite as much when it comes to processing. We have plenty of tools at our disposal past generations of photographers never even dreamed of. Ansel never combined five images in HDR, never cloned lens flare or an annoying passerby and never took an entire sky from a separate image to create the right mood. While digital photographers all use Photoshop or similar to process images, everyone draws the manipulation line somewhere and leaves the public very confused.
Just as recently as a few months ago, there was a contest winning image on a popular website where the photographer had added a mountain to a winter scene from a completely seperate location. Everyone wondered aloud, where is this place? how can I find it? I want to see this place myself! The photographer was reluctant to explain his deception, and this type of digital manipulation causes some to loose the interest they once had in the photograph.
The art form has shifted. The public is as divided as the photographic community. Some want to see art and purely art - they don't care how it came to be. Others consider photographs manipulated digitally to be a completely separate art form. Many walk the line somewhere in between and simply want to know how it was made.
It's simply human nature to take a while to adjust, understand and grow to enjoy new aspects in art. The impressionism movement was met with great resistance from traditionalists just as one example. I maintain photography is in a transitional state. No one knows where it's headed and our best tool to aid the preservation and lasting appeal of the photograph is to push it's acceptance as art and not fall back on comparisons to what has been done in the past. If people want a more realistic photograph, they will always be able to find it. If they don't care how the end result was acheived, no problems there either. I feel a certain resposibility to at least let people know what their getting because sometimes it's obvious and sometimes it's not.
Posted by Robert Helms on July 26, 2006 at 10:27 PM
I have to agree a lot with what Marc is saying in his above comments and have really enjoyed his input on the subject.
Everyone should view this subject out of their realm and get into the mindset of the viewer i.e. the general public. The people who know very little about photography, but have heard the word manipulation often in the same sentence.
Photography has always been on the edge of the radar in terms of an art form, more so now than ever. Should it fall completely off the radar photographers will be the one's to blame. As people keep selling out their images for little to nothing the medium starts to get rated as something anyone can do. When I think of the word art I think of something that holds at least some monetary value.
The more people manipulate their images the more this devalues the medium. In order for photography to remain on the radar reality still has to be present. One of the largest issues is the way people manipulate, but then do not disclose. I've said it before and I'll say it again I , too, would feel very deceived if I purchased an image that was a composite passed off as the real thing. I'm not sure if it is the manipulations that are the problem or if it is more the deceptive way in which some choose to try and pass it off.
Just wait til that wonder cam comes out many are waiting for. The one that does it all while the photographers job will be to only point it in the correct direction. I predict a rock bottom for photography at this time. Photography has to retain some difficultly or I wouldn't call it art myself. For now there is still a techical difficulty in photography regardless of whether one shoots film or digital. It still takes more than just being in the right place at the right time.
I find Marcs digital images exceptional and his film images are just the same. So, if someone with the ability that Marc has for being in the right place at the right time, in order to capture that special moment, and then he is asked about manipulations what direction does it appear we are headed?
The general public just doesn't know how much work we go through in order to capture that moment. I calculated one time that I spent over 12 hours in the field for ever image that I feel is worthy of printing.Your mileage may vary. The general public doesn't know this because we fail to make it known. However, they know too well the word manipulate. They don't know that alot of us struggle under heavy packs in inclement weather in order to bring them an image we hope they would like to own. Whose to blame? We should make it known the things we go through in order to capture an image. Then again how many magazine articles have any of us read that are centered on the trials of the nature photographer? Now how many have we read that center on photoshop manipulations? People aren't stupid and if I didn't do photography I'd be a skeptic, too.
In my opinion, image fatigue is not the fault of the medium (photography, digital photography, or otherwise). Rather is is because there is too much of the same things out there for the public to see. As photographers we tend to make too many images that are identical (or almost identical) in nature. I have not seen this in other mediums - be it painting, writing, etc. And if someone were to attempt something like this in those other mediums they would be deemed a failure right from the start. Somehow, when one is armed with a camera it seems ok to go out there and make a photograph of something that has already been photographed in "almost" the same manner by countless other photographers. In fact, many photographers have mutilple images that are again almost identical in their very own portfolios. So now, why do we blame the viewing public when they start loosing interest in the medium.
I would like to ask this question - what is it about your work that you think others should find interesting enough to consider viewing? Should they fall in love with one of your pieces just because you fell in love with the location, or because you think you are bringing something worthwhile (from the wild and inaccessible places) to them? What if they have seen similar images (even if not exactly the same) before? Should they still be interested in seeing your work?
I haven't seen a painter make dozens of painting of almost similar scenes year after year. However, I see photographers doing this all the time. What right do we have to complain then, when folks start bringing up the issue of "image fatigue".
I say show something different, something worthwhile, something that will make people forget about the medium (and all the fuss about manupilations, etc.) and focus entirely on the content. Suddenly, we are faced with the question - so what are we going to show? We as artists need to ponder on this question instead of simply picking up our cameras and making yet another technically perfect sunset photo.
"Image Fatigue"?? I think "rejectoin of digital fatigue" is more appropriate. It seems that because it is "photography" people are prone to denounce manipulation as "bad". I agree with Hank, Picaso and Dali along with Vangough certainly manipulated reality with selective painting of the elements in their work. Tell me DaVinchi didn't chose not to paint a blemish on the face of the Mona Lisa?
I just can't understand why our medium is subjected to so much criticism for presenting the world the way we see it through the camera lens when some of the so called greats in painting have done exactly the same thing.
BTW 0 how many of these greats merely traced projections of subjects so the right to left persspective is reversed? I recently read an article that this was quite common in the 1600's. Is this reality?
Posted by David Redding on July 26, 2006 at 11:24 PM
Sorry its late so I didnt read all the responses, so if I touch upon something someone else has already said, then forgive me.
I think there was a few points touched upon in that article 1) that the general seems to be tiring of photography as an art form and 2) that we as photographer (of all stages) are lossing the trust of our art form.
Well for 1) The General public tends to sway from one direction to the next. This week, month, year reality shows are the hit and the next its crime shows........Im not to worried about that because they always swing back. I must admit that photography to the general public has always been kind of a mystery, they didnt/dont understand the work that went on in the darkroom. There has always been this great divide between the everyday snap shot of you favorite pet and the great works of art that hang in the museums. All people knew was that you took the shot and then disapeared into a darkroom then come out with this great work of art, but now that has all changed. With a large majority of people that are or think they are good on the computer, the mystery has been removed from the world of photography. They think its just a matter of spending a few grand on a camera, take a picture, slap it into a program on the computer and you get a pro level photo (*note: The advertising for the Canon entry line of dSLRs is evidence of this "Shoot like a pro").
number 2) is the same old argument of digital manipulation, but this time on one side you have the general public and there ignorence with film photography. They had no idea that everything we do now on the computer was done with film, just it took more work in some cases.....same manipulation, just a different method..........Sat/hue, contarst, levels, curves done on the computer today was done with the choice of film you used.....you want low contrast and muted colour.......you choose one kind of film. You want high contrast with high saturation you choose another kind of film. Instead of using a GND filter and fill flashes to get that great sky with those bright flowers in the FG you use layers and HDR on the computer.
What does this mean to me as an amateur? Nothing, so I have to tell some know nothing joe blow that the picture he is looking at really was what I saw on scene. What does this mean for the pro that makes his living of his photography? Well since so many people think that photography is so easy now, sales of prosumer cameras have gone up, that means more people are gonna learn the truth real fast and that means you pros out there are gonna have a lot of wannabes knocking on your doors for your workshops
Posted by Marc Adamus on July 26, 2006 at 11:37 PM
Of couse if there is image fatigue it's not entirely the fault of changes in the medium, but it would also be naive to belive that these changes in our digital world don't at least have some effect. It's easier than ever for someone to go out and capture a technically perfect sunset photograph - and it's the transition to digital processing that allows that to happen. This results in an abundance of strong images, reducing their value and lasting appeal.
As a landscape photographer, I see the landscape as everything. It's possiblities limitless and absolutely never get fatigued of seeing it's many faces captured.
Often but not always, I want to show a grand sense of place that resonates and connects with viewers. I spend hundreds or thousands of hours each year seeking out beautiful natural scenes and compositions and then often need to master a difficult range of light to render the scene photographicly. I pour my heart and all my energy into finding the magic moments that define a place for me. These are by far my most popular photos and even more so among the general public. You have to evoke a feeling, an emotion, a connection with your viewers no matter what. One great way to do this is to portray a place they can envision standing, maybe one they have been to, and to have the pacience and skill to capture it in it's finest light. No one can do this well, even with the advances in technologies without commitment and dedication. While most can capture a technically perfect sunset, few spend the energy to capture a place like I do. I will trek 30 miles in winter to get the shot. It's all part of the fun and does distiguish my photography on some level.
That said, there are so many ways to make people think, make people "forget about the medium". Whatever you do though, it must be evocative. It must capture the viewers attention on some level or it fails. There is likely the potential for unique images in my back yard right now. I'm amazed at some photographers ability to find telling images in almost any situation. Anil, you have many such photographs. Photographs that don't always have a "wow" factor but tell a story and paint a portrait of the photographers vision as well as the image captured. As I grow older I find a desire to express more than just a big, dramatic landscape at times. The creativity to make people think, tell a story and evoke emotion without saturated colors and dramatic subject matter is certainly every bit as much of a challenge as treking 30 miles in winter to get the shot. It's something I strive for more and more.
I couldn't help but notice the irony of the thesis that seems--to me, in any event--to underlie this article; it's a real Catch-22. The presence of the very thing that has historically kept photography from being fully accepted by many as a recognizable artform and reduced it in the minds of many to a banal medium--its presumed inherent umbilical cord link to "reality" (presumably we can avoid a metaphysical discussion at this point)--is what is now apparently denying the medium its unique identifying mark by its creeping absence.
It seems to me that, by this line of thinking, photography can't win for losing.
I think it was a good article. There is no doubt that Photoshop has had an impact on the general publics view of photography. The romantic notion of a photographer taking unmanipulated images and spending days in the darkroom to make a perfect print of them, is still the benchmark for "valuable" photography. But then again, It isn't easy being a painter, sculpturer, musician or any typeof artist these days. While the market is bigger than ever, the number of artists are also at an all time high. I think the only way forward is to become good at relationship marketing.
bored yesterday,, went to B&N bookstore, ck out any new mags on anthing,, found a B&W photo magazine, lots of ads for galeries for B&W stuff,, all looked very professional,,,i assume many big names/egos involved,, there was a note here and there for prices for different stuff,,,100s to many thousands,,,,but quite frankly,, if that is the "art" that is being diminished,,,,a bw of a wine glass on a table in a dark room,,, an oof kid somewhere in boznia,,a plant and shadow in the corner,,i dont know, other types of stuff,,rather obscure stuff, to me,,,,ran under the classification of "well if thats art,,, and a guy gets 3k for something like that,,,,people are buying lake property in the desert!!!!
i, in my what some may call limited appreciation for such a style,, just couldnt see the appeal in 150 pages of ads, specials, articles, spotlight on the photographer, 2 pictures i might roll up on the toilet wheel in the bath,,,the rest,, well,, good for fish wrap,,,,so if that is the "art" that people are tired of,,, well, i can certainly see why,,,,
i was somehwhere recently and someone used that pear shot from someone in spot/shadow,,,, i m sure you classic folks know the one,, i think some lady years ago took it,,anyway, folks oohed about the depth, the though it evolked, the shape,,,,man!! i surely kept my mouth shut,, because,,i really just didnt see the fascination!!!,,,
there are some,, like JP Capinegro(sp) who are solely adding pieces to make a whole,,and he will tell you outright,,i want you to see that,,,I was with him in the antarctic,, he sits and makes drawings of forms, textures, and things he hopes to see while on zodiacs looking at icebergs,,thinking of a way to combine for his style of art,,,PS being a major factor in his process, i have not seen his showings from the trip yet, but given the subjuect,, i would assume someting very interesting,,
boy this has been all over the place,, to sum up,,, personally,, some of old BW stuff seems soooo stuffy, that only a manhattanite could possilbly interpret,,, Is that the art the guy is hoping to save???
or,, is using the PS tools of Campanegro the art that he is suggesting the world is afraid of or averse to,,,,where by, in fact,, he is simpley a painter, using pieces of stuff to make a thought,,,
if i had to chose, i like Campinegro,,,,that old stuff is just deppressing to my eyes,,,,
The article certainly has aroused some strong feelings as expressed by those responding.
My personal feeling is that art is art, no matter what medium is used. A good photograph is a good photograph whether strictly presented as taken or whether enhanced to become an artistic masterpiece. The oil painter uses their talent to portray what he/she sees, and so does the photographer. Both should have an "artistic license" to portray their interpretation of any subject. That does not mean one is better than the other... just different. As most of you will agree, send several photographers out to take the same subject and you come back with as many different interpretations.
Photoshop or any other manipulation, either in the darkroom or on the computer, muliplies our options and gives us the ability to express those artistic talents. I say THANKS to those who have developed the software to enable me to express myself in ways that were not available several years before. That does not mean I use all the software available or even like it all, but it is there if ever I decide to try it. I never tire of looking at great images in whatever medium presented. All give me incentive to try harder.
It is true that the competition to produce an image that stands out among the masses has become more and more difficult, but there lies the challenge for all of us to develop and grow in our medium.
Excellent discussion. Good job stirring the pot, Guy. Only in the stirring are the flavors mingled, enriching the stew of humanity.
In the end, all it does for me is make me focus intensely on my art. So much of what I've done the last couple of years is more about making images that sell in a stock setting, images that I know my publication clients will want.
Is that art? Considering my publication clients, no.
I have to satisfy clients to make a living. I have to satisfy myself to make a life. I'll be out in the woods soon. We have a festival here that draws 40,000 people to our small town this weekend, and how can a nature photographer clear his or her mind in such a situation but go to the woods?
This weekend I will not think once about clients, but will be selfish. I will strive for art. I will seek something that shouts to the world: This is Steve Foss, no one else sees the world as this man does. I will to some degree fail, because I am a human being and such failure is inherent in our condition. But I will work to discard the useless baggage of everyday life that stands between me and vision.
Is that striving not the striving for artistry, regardless of the medium?
So, because of the digital age, there are 44,502,749 new digital "photographers" out there worldwide in the last five years (yeah, dudes and dudettes, I just made that number up). So what. It just means I have to refine my thinking and consider with more meaningful intent what makes my images my own.
In the end, isn't that doing me a favor? Isn't that doing us all a favor?
Posted by Scott Hussey on July 27, 2006 at 9:57 PM
I agree that we are constantly bombarded with imagery, but I think this guy just has it in for photography.
I won't rehash the authenticity argument, because to me it is not relevant. Art can be used to document, but it does not have to document to be art. It is art, and art is what it is.
I don't think he has a clear understanding of some of the artists that he references. For example, I don't think of Gary Winogrand as someone that just took a bunch of random snap shots. To me there is art and composition in his pictures, but apparently this is lost on the author of the essay.
I think the comments on Bresson completely miss the point as well. The decisive moment is when all the elements in the frame come together, not because of the drama of the moment.
The comments about Salgado also seem off the mark to me. To me photography is about grabbing that moment. It is that moment when everything comes together, and the light is right, and all of the elements of the composition work together. In my mind, someone complaining about a photographer 'snatching a single moment from the flow of time' is kind of missing the point.
This article and discussion has peaked my interest too so I thought I'd add an opinion to the broth as well.
First, the author accomplished exactly what he set out to do which was to sell an article: it was published and (presumably) he was paid. Like all critics he too has to make a living and making controversial statements is a pretty surefire way of getting attention and in his case, publication.
My assumption is that some of his audience agrees with him and some others won't. For me, and I think for those of you on NPN who participated in this discussion, the question is does any of this matter in terms of how we approach our own photography? I won't be changing my pursuit of images based on what Mr. Smee writes or thinks. Photography for me is not about trying to get approval from those I have never had any contact with but rather a personal expression of what I see and how I elect to portray that. If the art galleries of the world ever decide they simply must show my photos as examples of some form of art...
To my mind photography is a mixture of art and craft. The mechanical aspects of the equipment and various processing steps tend to be mostly craft; the art comes in the seeing and deciding how to present the subject. While a number of styles and schools of photography are mentioned the author does tend to dismiss them all as being past their time. He also appears to base this dismissal on his knowldge of their sales. If Van Gogh were alive when this article was written I'm sure Mr. Smee would have dismissed him immediately as Vincent could barely give his images away during his lifetime: must be that image fatigue problem because anyone could get an easle, a canvass and some paint.
Smee's argument that viewers no longer can trust a photograph to represent reality seems an odd one. Did anyone really believe that a two dimensional image on a piece of paper (or other medium) was the real thing? Similarly the suggestion that there is a problem with the use of the decisive moment because it's an idea that comes from literature seems peculiar as well.
All of us have learned what we know through ideas being passed down to us by people who came before us plus our own observations. Some of our knowledge comes from books, be they text or literature, some from observation and some from the use of any other combination of our senses. Our perceptions of what makes an image effective are based on the knowledge we've accumulated about how to interpret what we see. From medieval and later art (which is mostly religous because the churches could pay) we have our ideas of composition and perspective. From literature and other written materials we learned our culturally-based ways of seeing the world. Our art classes taught us how images were to be put together to gain acceptance from our peers. Now we participate in NPN where we get reinforcement for producing images that fit our peers' ideas of how the topic should be presented. Given that every culture uses education, socialization, religion and law to raise it's young to become a conforming part of their society, I hardly feel that Smee can criticize Bresson or anyone else for using selected ideas as part of their art. Smee's own criticism reflects the same western upbringing: look closely and you'll see that every opinion he presents appears to have come from another (cited) source. This to me is one of those old undergrad tricks from university days. Never give an opinion in an essay without having someone else's published words to say it for you.
Nevertheless it is interesting to think about his ideas. As I mentioned before nothing in Smee's article will change my approach to photography. Nor am I likely to enjoy myself any less because there are people who have "image fatigue" or who don't believe that my photos reflect reality. Sorry Smee.
Posted by Mark Hobson on August 1, 2006 at 7:45 PM
is there anyone in the room who can speak/write coherently about the formal characteristics of the medium of photography rather than the inane "manipulation good"/manipulation bad" babble ?...
to state what should be obvious (but evidently is not) - photography is NOT painting, sculpture, or any other of the visual arts...the one distinguishing formal characteristic that separates it from the other visual arts is its "unique relationship to reality"...
the point of the article is clear and simple - blur or erase that formal characteristic and photography becomes a mere imitative shadow of the other visual arts...it loses its only legitimate claim that it be taken seriously as unique "art" rather than as a form of entertainment...
"image fatigue" is the result of not just the endless sea of look-alike "digital-age-ease-of-creation and manipulation" photographs, but also the looks-like-another-art-form effect...consider the color saturated dramascapes so popular in nature photography...they are very old repetitive "art" stuff indeed and none of them hold a candle to the original Hudson River School paintings that they so blatantly (and poorly) plagiarize...
again, therein is the point of the article - once photography loses its "unique relationship to reality" - something the HRS artists did not claim - and merely imitates other visual arts - most often painting - then it becomes nothing more than a fatiguing and repetitive shadow of other "legitimate" art forms...
the guy has a very legitmate point...most photographers are very ignorant of how photography came to be accepted as a "legitimate" and unique art form with its own unique formal characteristics and voice...it has little or nothing to do with "manipulation" analog or digital...it has everything to do with those who struggled mightily to work with the formal characteristics of the medium to create works with affecting content that is unique because of photography's unique relationship to reality...
Discussion
27 repliesJust thought I'd share a very interesting and provocative article:
Image Fatigue
What are your thoughts on the credibility of photography as art and whether it is indeed diminished in the digital age?
Guy
The photographer who inspired me the most when I first started was Thomas Mangelson. I look at some of his images now and imagine what reaction they would get if they were posted on the Avian forum of this site. I'm sure, some would say, clone out that branch or add more canvas so the bird has more room to fly into, or add a catchlight. This kind of thing has really started to turn me off. Does everything always have to be so "perfect"?
When I first got a digital camera, I vowed that I would do zero in terms of manipulation. I finally realized I did need USM, along with contrast and maybe a little "fill flash". I only use these because I pretty much have to. I don't even like to crop. I used to think I didn't buy photoshop CS because I couldn't afford it and didn't have the time to learn it. But I figured someday I'd be able to do all sorts of cool things to my images too, and all of my stuff would be flawless. I've now come to the conclusion that I'll probably never go down that route, because I'm a photographer, not a computer technician.
Some people enjoy the digital workflow and PS in general. More power to them. In short, photography is one art form and digital imaging is another. Just one guy's opinion. Dan
I'm not a believer in "image fatigue" either. Everyone does see a ton of images everyday..but I think that most people are able to separate the different between their family snapshots and good photography.
In terms of nature photography..we all use our cameras as simply the means to communicate our feelings on the natural world..the camera is simply a tool that we need. I think that everyone would agree that if we could capture these moments without a camera...we wouldn't have it!
But the reason for photography's eclipse as an art form has not just to do with the astonishing superabundance of photographs; it has to do with dramatic recent changes to the medium. Thanks to the digital revolution, there is virtually nothing that can't be done to a photograph to alter its once unique relationship to reality.
There is much to amaze in what is suddenly possible but the amazement is largely technical. In terms of art, something profound has been lost. People sense it. Art-loving audiences are fast losing interest in the medium
Heaven forbid any art form should depart from reality!. To follow that line of reasoning, painting was killed off as a fine art once the impressionists came on the scene, and nothing that follows can be taken seriously. The guilt must be making old Pablo Picasso roll in his grave!!!
I would agree with this. There is so many "snapshot photography" out there, that now when I see a good photo it captures my attention even more. It's kind of like driving through a plain desert enviornment for hours and then finally seeing a very unique setting or object. It tends to really grab your attention. Just my 2 cents.
Brian
Paul
Similar sentiments led to the formation of the f/64 group a while back. Do you see such movements forming or achieving similar recognition today?
Guy
Pete D.
Paul: I thought the article was very strong (although not perfect). Articles such as this - filled with rhetorical questions - are intended to get us thinking. They don't always have to provide facts and answers. This one will keep me thinking for a while....
This paragraph, resonates deeply with my personal feelings regarding my struggles with today's digital medium.
This "thread connecting photography with the real" is what I always strive to express in conversations centered on digital manipulations, and their inevitable ties to the public perception of photography. There has been a great shift over the last several years. Public skepticism of all photography is at the center of it's reduced lasting interest. However, I also believe it is photography's transition rather than it's demise. Photography is more art now than it ever was, with limitless creative possibilities.....but in the end it has still lost a unique connection with reality that cannot be denied.
I spend most of my life capturing, not purely creating. I don't fantasize about photoshop manipulations, I seek out the magic moments and attempt to preserve them. This is the joy, the addiction even. Finding those special moments. I have no interest in painting fiction. Of course I want to present my images in the best light possible - I'll tweak the levels, contrasts and use strong filters to control light, but stop short of distorting the very subjects I depict in my images. My photographs would mean very little to me if there was no base in reality. While digital tools allow me to record more accuately than ever before, they have also introduced a new and irrevocable public distrust in the photographic medium as a form of capture. A trust that was previously there. When I show work in public, the most common inquires are related to digital manipulation. People want to be assured that what I've captured was a real place, at a real moment not some ficticious PS creation. I have no desire to put a sunset sky and a beautiful mountian together in Photoshop.
That all said, photography isn't going away forever. Perhaps it's hey-day in art galleries worldwide has waned and perhaps it's transitioning towards a period of rediscovery and resurgence as an art form. There will always be a demand for still images depicting real places in my opinion. There is still no substitute for a photograph, digital or film, for many applications.
Most of my viewing of images is now done on the Internet, which doesn't have the quality of print, but also exposes more images that wouldn't have been seen otherwise. There are a great many who will put pictures up on the net who would not have seen publication in traditional methods. It isn't, to my mind, a case of digital lowering the quality of photography as much as the ability of newer technology allowing people to show work that would have been confined to their house earlier.
From time to time I will mutter to myself, "Seen it before." Don't mean it to sound condescending, it is a case of many people trying to find their own style by studying and following the examples of others. It is what most people starting out in any art forum do. The critiques and discussions many of us have had in classrooms and among colleagues is now happening more publicly with the advent of the Internet.
"Branding" to has had its effect on photography as it has other disciplines. You can now go from town to town, and in certain commercial areas, not know what country you might be in let alone city the buildings are so uniform. The arguments this article makes might also be used for architecture. Commercial photography, which was at one time bolder than it is today, has become 'blanded' by formula marketing.
There is also the effect of absorbing any new technology. After the invention of the printing press it took half a century before the first original work was printed. I'm not against digital manipulation, but I haven't seen a lot that makes me say 'Wow!' Not the ability to alter exposure, colour and other post production work, which while makes life easier, isn't the same thing as a Robert Frank innovation.
If there is image fatigue, the argument might better be made that it is a reflection of a fatigued society. The counter position to this gentleman's point of view is still increasing popularity of reality game shows.
There is a lot of good work going on. It just may be harder to see it. What will be facinating to see is the work of the younger people who have grown up in a digital world and know nothing else.
Dave
In any case the more general arguments are all too true. And I have to quite agree with Michael and Marks points. The realism issue is of course central to the acceptance of outdoor landscape, scenic, and nature photography. Despite a tendency of photographers to want that to go away and to deny such, I submit that will not be the case. As I continue to say, there is nothing ethically wrong with being creative and less than natural at any point in the creative process as long as one is up front with that. I've just been a posting member of the group a few months now and have come away with the perception the status quo ethic here like it is elsewhere is squarely in the court of anything goes as long as it looks aesthetic. No questions asked and no explanation required. That individual photographers do not wish to admit up front what they are doing in terms of being less than experienced reality. That a great many here admire images that one would never come close to seeing in nature but are certainly aesthetic. Is there anything wrong with our new creative art photography? No and yes. Much of the public will openly accept such creations just like any art. Others will reject otherwise very aesthetic looking images simply because they know such is manipulated often over saturated reality. And some who buy what they think represents an experienced moment in time without the artist indicating what they did, may feel betrayed later on when they are later told by reliable persons they could never hope to see such in a natural experience. Sewing of ill seeds for all of us. Thus I'd speculate some of the increasing negative clammer from the gallery and museum directors and their experts is due to the unbounded unknown untrustable path we are rolling down. ...David
If all of this requires an educating of the public and art-buyer than that's great. The more discussion with them the better. The least this article could do, if indeed it represents a concern of the writer, is to make the case that digital photography is fundamentally the same as photography has always been, which I contend it is.
Frankly, I'm much more interested in what it is Michael Gordon is thinking than in this Mr. Smee's diatribe.
Guy, as always, you lead us down a path of good discussion, thanks. P.S. philosophically, I disagree with the contention of the f64 group as well, but I still enjoy much of their work.
Paul
Sure, Ansel manipulated images but to say it's the same now as it's ever been is deeply flawed. Fundamentally there are similarities but not quite as much when it comes to processing. We have plenty of tools at our disposal past generations of photographers never even dreamed of. Ansel never combined five images in HDR, never cloned lens flare or an annoying passerby and never took an entire sky from a separate image to create the right mood. While digital photographers all use Photoshop or similar to process images, everyone draws the manipulation line somewhere and leaves the public very confused.
Just as recently as a few months ago, there was a contest winning image on a popular website where the photographer had added a mountain to a winter scene from a completely seperate location. Everyone wondered aloud, where is this place? how can I find it? I want to see this place myself! The photographer was reluctant to explain his deception, and this type of digital manipulation causes some to loose the interest they once had in the photograph.
The art form has shifted. The public is as divided as the photographic community. Some want to see art and purely art - they don't care how it came to be. Others consider photographs manipulated digitally to be a completely separate art form. Many walk the line somewhere in between and simply want to know how it was made.
It's simply human nature to take a while to adjust, understand and grow to enjoy new aspects in art. The impressionism movement was met with great resistance from traditionalists just as one example. I maintain photography is in a transitional state. No one knows where it's headed and our best tool to aid the preservation and lasting appeal of the photograph is to push it's acceptance as art and not fall back on comparisons to what has been done in the past. If people want a more realistic photograph, they will always be able to find it. If they don't care how the end result was acheived, no problems there either. I feel a certain resposibility to at least let people know what their getting because sometimes it's obvious and sometimes it's not.
Everyone should view this subject out of their realm and get into the mindset of the viewer i.e. the general public. The people who know very little about photography, but have heard the word manipulation often in the same sentence.
Photography has always been on the edge of the radar in terms of an art form, more so now than ever. Should it fall completely off the radar photographers will be the one's to blame. As people keep selling out their images for little to nothing the medium starts to get rated as something anyone can do. When I think of the word art I think of something that holds at least some monetary value.
The more people manipulate their images the more this devalues the medium. In order for photography to remain on the radar reality still has to be present. One of the largest issues is the way people manipulate, but then do not disclose. I've said it before and I'll say it again I , too, would feel very deceived if I purchased an image that was a composite passed off as the real thing. I'm not sure if it is the manipulations that are the problem or if it is more the deceptive way in which some choose to try and pass it off.
Just wait til that wonder cam comes out many are waiting for. The one that does it all while the photographers job will be to only point it in the correct direction. I predict a rock bottom for photography at this time. Photography has to retain some difficultly or I wouldn't call it art myself. For now there is still a techical difficulty in photography regardless of whether one shoots film or digital. It still takes more than just being in the right place at the right time.
I find Marcs digital images exceptional and his film images are just the same. So, if someone with the ability that Marc has for being in the right place at the right time, in order to capture that special moment, and then he is asked about manipulations what direction does it appear we are headed?
The general public just doesn't know how much work we go through in order to capture that moment. I calculated one time that I spent over 12 hours in the field for ever image that I feel is worthy of printing.Your mileage may vary. The general public doesn't know this because we fail to make it known. However, they know too well the word manipulate. They don't know that alot of us struggle under heavy packs in inclement weather in order to bring them an image we hope they would like to own. Whose to blame? We should make it known the things we go through in order to capture an image. Then again how many magazine articles have any of us read that are centered on the trials of the nature photographer? Now how many have we read that center on photoshop manipulations? People aren't stupid and if I didn't do photography I'd be a skeptic, too.
I would like to ask this question - what is it about your work that you think others should find interesting enough to consider viewing? Should they fall in love with one of your pieces just because you fell in love with the location, or because you think you are bringing something worthwhile (from the wild and inaccessible places) to them? What if they have seen similar images (even if not exactly the same) before? Should they still be interested in seeing your work?
I haven't seen a painter make dozens of painting of almost similar scenes year after year. However, I see photographers doing this all the time. What right do we have to complain then, when folks start bringing up the issue of "image fatigue".
I say show something different, something worthwhile, something that will make people forget about the medium (and all the fuss about manupilations, etc.) and focus entirely on the content. Suddenly, we are faced with the question - so what are we going to show? We as artists need to ponder on this question instead of simply picking up our cameras and making yet another technically perfect sunset photo.
I just can't understand why our medium is subjected to so much criticism for presenting the world the way we see it through the camera lens when some of the so called greats in painting have done exactly the same thing.
BTW 0 how many of these greats merely traced projections of subjects so the right to left persspective is reversed? I recently read an article that this was quite common in the 1600's. Is this reality?
I think there was a few points touched upon in that article 1) that the general seems to be tiring of photography as an art form and 2) that we as photographer (of all stages) are lossing the trust of our art form.
Well for 1) The General public tends to sway from one direction to the next. This week, month, year reality shows are the hit and the next its crime shows........Im not to worried about that because they always swing back. I must admit that photography to the general public has always been kind of a mystery, they didnt/dont understand the work that went on in the darkroom. There has always been this great divide between the everyday snap shot of you favorite pet and the great works of art that hang in the museums. All people knew was that you took the shot and then disapeared into a darkroom then come out with this great work of art, but now that has all changed. With a large majority of people that are or think they are good on the computer, the mystery has been removed from the world of photography. They think its just a matter of spending a few grand on a camera, take a picture, slap it into a program on the computer and you get a pro level photo (*note: The advertising for the Canon entry line of dSLRs is evidence of this "Shoot like a pro").
number 2) is the same old argument of digital manipulation, but this time on one side you have the general public and there ignorence with film photography. They had no idea that everything we do now on the computer was done with film, just it took more work in some cases.....same manipulation, just a different method..........Sat/hue, contarst, levels, curves done on the computer today was done with the choice of film you used.....you want low contrast and muted colour.......you choose one kind of film. You want high contrast with high saturation you choose another kind of film. Instead of using a GND filter and fill flashes to get that great sky with those bright flowers in the FG you use layers and HDR on the computer.
What does this mean to me as an amateur? Nothing, so I have to tell some know nothing joe blow that the picture he is looking at really was what I saw on scene. What does this mean for the pro that makes his living of his photography? Well since so many people think that photography is so easy now, sales of prosumer cameras have gone up, that means more people are gonna learn the truth real fast and that means you pros out there are gonna have a lot of wannabes knocking on your doors for your workshops
As a landscape photographer, I see the landscape as everything. It's possiblities limitless and absolutely never get fatigued of seeing it's many faces captured.
Often but not always, I want to show a grand sense of place that resonates and connects with viewers. I spend hundreds or thousands of hours each year seeking out beautiful natural scenes and compositions and then often need to master a difficult range of light to render the scene photographicly. I pour my heart and all my energy into finding the magic moments that define a place for me. These are by far my most popular photos and even more so among the general public. You have to evoke a feeling, an emotion, a connection with your viewers no matter what. One great way to do this is to portray a place they can envision standing, maybe one they have been to, and to have the pacience and skill to capture it in it's finest light. No one can do this well, even with the advances in technologies without commitment and dedication. While most can capture a technically perfect sunset, few spend the energy to capture a place like I do. I will trek 30 miles in winter to get the shot. It's all part of the fun and does distiguish my photography on some level.
That said, there are so many ways to make people think, make people "forget about the medium". Whatever you do though, it must be evocative. It must capture the viewers attention on some level or it fails. There is likely the potential for unique images in my back yard right now. I'm amazed at some photographers ability to find telling images in almost any situation. Anil, you have many such photographs. Photographs that don't always have a "wow" factor but tell a story and paint a portrait of the photographers vision as well as the image captured. As I grow older I find a desire to express more than just a big, dramatic landscape at times. The creativity to make people think, tell a story and evoke emotion without saturated colors and dramatic subject matter is certainly every bit as much of a challenge as treking 30 miles in winter to get the shot. It's something I strive for more and more.
It seems to me that, by this line of thinking, photography can't win for losing.
i, in my what some may call limited appreciation for such a style,, just couldnt see the appeal in 150 pages of ads, specials, articles, spotlight on the photographer, 2 pictures i might roll up on the toilet wheel in the bath,,,the rest,, well,, good for fish wrap,,,,so if that is the "art" that people are tired of,,, well, i can certainly see why,,,,
i was somehwhere recently and someone used that pear shot from someone in spot/shadow,,,, i m sure you classic folks know the one,, i think some lady years ago took it,,anyway, folks oohed about the depth, the though it evolked, the shape,,,,man!! i surely kept my mouth shut,, because,,i really just didnt see the fascination!!!,,,
there are some,, like JP Capinegro(sp) who are solely adding pieces to make a whole,,and he will tell you outright,,i want you to see that,,,I was with him in the antarctic,, he sits and makes drawings of forms, textures, and things he hopes to see while on zodiacs looking at icebergs,,thinking of a way to combine for his style of art,,,PS being a major factor in his process, i have not seen his showings from the trip yet, but given the subjuect,, i would assume someting very interesting,,
boy this has been all over the place,, to sum up,,, personally,, some of old BW stuff seems soooo stuffy, that only a manhattanite could possilbly interpret,,, Is that the art the guy is hoping to save???
or,, is using the PS tools of Campanegro the art that he is suggesting the world is afraid of or averse to,,,,where by, in fact,, he is simpley a painter, using pieces of stuff to make a thought,,,
if i had to chose, i like Campinegro,,,,that old stuff is just deppressing to my eyes,,,,
My personal feeling is that art is art, no matter what medium is used. A good photograph is a good photograph whether strictly presented as taken or whether enhanced to become an artistic masterpiece. The oil painter uses their talent to portray what he/she sees, and so does the photographer. Both should have an "artistic license" to portray their interpretation of any subject. That does not mean one is better than the other... just different. As most of you will agree, send several photographers out to take the same subject and you come back with as many different interpretations.
Photoshop or any other manipulation, either in the darkroom or on the computer, muliplies our options and gives us the ability to express those artistic talents. I say THANKS to those who have developed the software to enable me to express myself in ways that were not available several years before. That does not mean I use all the software available or even like it all, but it is there if ever I decide to try it. I never tire of looking at great images in whatever medium presented. All give me incentive to try harder.
It is true that the competition to produce an image that stands out among the masses has become more and more difficult, but there lies the challenge for all of us to develop and grow in our medium.
In the end, all it does for me is make me focus intensely on my art. So much of what I've done the last couple of years is more about making images that sell in a stock setting, images that I know my publication clients will want.
Is that art? Considering my publication clients, no.
I have to satisfy clients to make a living. I have to satisfy myself to make a life. I'll be out in the woods soon. We have a festival here that draws 40,000 people to our small town this weekend, and how can a nature photographer clear his or her mind in such a situation but go to the woods?
This weekend I will not think once about clients, but will be selfish. I will strive for art. I will seek something that shouts to the world: This is Steve Foss, no one else sees the world as this man does. I will to some degree fail, because I am a human being and such failure is inherent in our condition. But I will work to discard the useless baggage of everyday life that stands between me and vision.
Is that striving not the striving for artistry, regardless of the medium?
So, because of the digital age, there are 44,502,749 new digital "photographers" out there worldwide in the last five years (yeah, dudes and dudettes, I just made that number up). So what. It just means I have to refine my thinking and consider with more meaningful intent what makes my images my own.
In the end, isn't that doing me a favor? Isn't that doing us all a favor?
I won't rehash the authenticity argument, because to me it is not relevant. Art can be used to document, but it does not have to document to be art. It is art, and art is what it is.
I don't think he has a clear understanding of some of the artists that he references. For example, I don't think of Gary Winogrand as someone that just took a bunch of random snap shots. To me there is art and composition in his pictures, but apparently this is lost on the author of the essay.
I think the comments on Bresson completely miss the point as well. The decisive moment is when all the elements in the frame come together, not because of the drama of the moment.
The comments about Salgado also seem off the mark to me. To me photography is about grabbing that moment. It is that moment when everything comes together, and the light is right, and all of the elements of the composition work together. In my mind, someone complaining about a photographer 'snatching a single moment from the flow of time' is kind of missing the point.
First, the author accomplished exactly what he set out to do which was to sell an article: it was published and (presumably) he was paid. Like all critics he too has to make a living and making controversial statements is a pretty surefire way of getting attention and in his case, publication.
My assumption is that some of his audience agrees with him and some others won't. For me, and I think for those of you on NPN who participated in this discussion, the question is does any of this matter in terms of how we approach our own photography? I won't be changing my pursuit of images based on what Mr. Smee writes or thinks. Photography for me is not about trying to get approval from those I have never had any contact with but rather a personal expression of what I see and how I elect to portray that. If the art galleries of the world ever decide they simply must show my photos as examples of some form of art...
To my mind photography is a mixture of art and craft. The mechanical aspects of the equipment and various processing steps tend to be mostly craft; the art comes in the seeing and deciding how to present the subject. While a number of styles and schools of photography are mentioned the author does tend to dismiss them all as being past their time. He also appears to base this dismissal on his knowldge of their sales. If Van Gogh were alive when this article was written I'm sure Mr. Smee would have dismissed him immediately as Vincent could barely give his images away during his lifetime: must be that image fatigue problem because anyone could get an easle, a canvass and some paint.
Smee's argument that viewers no longer can trust a photograph to represent reality seems an odd one. Did anyone really believe that a two dimensional image on a piece of paper (or other medium) was the real thing? Similarly the suggestion that there is a problem with the use of the decisive moment because it's an idea that comes from literature seems peculiar as well.
All of us have learned what we know through ideas being passed down to us by people who came before us plus our own observations. Some of our knowledge comes from books, be they text or literature, some from observation and some from the use of any other combination of our senses. Our perceptions of what makes an image effective are based on the knowledge we've accumulated about how to interpret what we see. From medieval and later art (which is mostly religous because the churches could pay) we have our ideas of composition and perspective. From literature and other written materials we learned our culturally-based ways of seeing the world. Our art classes taught us how images were to be put together to gain acceptance from our peers. Now we participate in NPN where we get reinforcement for producing images that fit our peers' ideas of how the topic should be presented. Given that every culture uses education, socialization, religion and law to raise it's young to become a conforming part of their society, I hardly feel that Smee can criticize Bresson or anyone else for using selected ideas as part of their art. Smee's own criticism reflects the same western upbringing: look closely and you'll see that every opinion he presents appears to have come from another (cited) source. This to me is one of those old undergrad tricks from university days. Never give an opinion in an essay without having someone else's published words to say it for you.
Nevertheless it is interesting to think about his ideas. As I mentioned before nothing in Smee's article will change my approach to photography. Nor am I likely to enjoy myself any less because there are people who have "image fatigue" or who don't believe that my photos reflect reality. Sorry Smee.
to state what should be obvious (but evidently is not) - photography is NOT painting, sculpture, or any other of the visual arts...the one distinguishing formal characteristic that separates it from the other visual arts is its "unique relationship to reality"...
the point of the article is clear and simple - blur or erase that formal characteristic and photography becomes a mere imitative shadow of the other visual arts...it loses its only legitimate claim that it be taken seriously as unique "art" rather than as a form of entertainment...
"image fatigue" is the result of not just the endless sea of look-alike "digital-age-ease-of-creation and manipulation" photographs, but also the looks-like-another-art-form effect...consider the color saturated dramascapes so popular in nature photography...they are very old repetitive "art" stuff indeed and none of them hold a candle to the original Hudson River School paintings that they so blatantly (and poorly) plagiarize...
again, therein is the point of the article - once photography loses its "unique relationship to reality" - something the HRS artists did not claim - and merely imitates other visual arts - most often painting - then it becomes nothing more than a fatiguing and repetitive shadow of other "legitimate" art forms...
the guy has a very legitmate point...most photographers are very ignorant of how photography came to be accepted as a "legitimate" and unique art form with its own unique formal characteristics and voice...it has little or nothing to do with "manipulation" analog or digital...it has everything to do with those who struggled mightily to work with the formal characteristics of the medium to create works with affecting content that is unique because of photography's unique relationship to reality...