Is Photography Dead?

[polyglot]

"Insofar as literature is a telling of new stories, literature has been exhausted for centuries but insofar as literature tells archetypal stories in an attempt to understand once more their truth - to translate their wisdom for another generation - literature will be exhausted only when we all, in our foolish arrogance, abandon it" -- Gardner

Applies just as much to photography.

 

[Aristophanes]

... we become so desensitized that we cannot conceive of a good photograph anymore.

Could we ever?

The curse of subjectivity looms.

 

[Roger Cole]

I have a lot of tolerance for repetition. I've been known to put the same song on repeat for an hour or more. I've never understood why a subject shouldn't be done again just because it's been done before. It's guaranteed to be different each time. The clouds are different, the tree is different - I don't give a damn how many people have shot trees on hills or sunsets before and it's totally irrelevant to me. If I see a tree on a hill or a sunset that I like, I'll photograph it. I also don't give a damn if anybody else likes it. I do what I do for me.

 

[MattCarey]

Actually, these "Three Trees" on a hill - complete with ominous clouds in the background - did win an award, so somebody must think that photography is not dead...

Ken

Interesting photograph. I expect to see the Lorax hiding behind one of the three trees.

 

[brofkand]

As far as photography dying? I consider photography as a medium better than ever, but the problem we face is the same problem Jackson Pollock and the other AbEx's faced in the 40's: what can we do that hasn't been done before? People's tastes change, and art has to continually reinvent itself to avoid falling out of the public view. What scares me to death is art students in 50 years will look back at this era and see the photography of this generation as being Chase Jarvis and Joe McNally. Both good photographers, but decidedly boring in my view. They do nothing that hasn't been done before. They're "safe."

I'd say Photography as an art is dying. The medium is becoming less and less about what makes a beautiful photograph beautiful, and what can we do that's new, but becomes more about what can I do to sell a book? What can I do to fill up the next workshop? What can I do to sell a new camera (or hotshoe mounted flash) for my sponsor? What can I do that is new, fresh, exciting, dangerous, risky, and controversial never enters the mind. Granted, photography started as a money maker. Ansel Adams, Cartier-Bresson, Frank, Liebowitz, and others all made a living with photography. But during making a living, they managed to add something to the history of this medium that will last forever.

So we'll see. I hope somebody comes up with the next photograph of Yoko and John, or the next St. Lazare.

 

[jscott]

On a musical (fiddle music) forum that I follow the idea of playing cliche tunes came up. Some suggested not to play cliche tunes that had already been played to death. Just cross all of them off the list and look for new things to play.
But a more thoughtful analysis is that there are no cliche tunes, just uninspired renditions (same way with photos?).

One of the greatest compliments I've heard for a musical group was "they could play Happy Birthday, and make it sound GOOD". Perhaps it's the same with photos... Let them say of you, "He (she) could photograph a tree on a hill and make it look GOOD!!" Meaning alive and inspired.

 

[Sirius Glass]

No, but threads like this on APUG are killing me!

 

[michaelbsc]

No, but threads like this on APUG are killing me!

Yeah, but we're all gonna die sometime anyway.

 

[wildbillbugman]

When photography dies, does it start to smell?

Have you not been in a Darkroom lately? Photography has always melled, especialy the Toners.

 

[ambaker]

In answer to the OP, does excellence mean anything in this day and age?

Hmmm, ask your oncologist. Your lawyer. The soloist at your wedding. The firefighter entering your burning home to try to save your child...

Modern technology allows more people to obtain "good enough" results, with less effort. Still excellence makes us stop and take a longer look. There is more chaff these days, but the wheat is still as present as ever.


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=36.790845,-90.481103

 

[tomalophicon]

Have you not been in a Darkroom lately? Photography has always melled, especialy the Toners.

Yes, I s'pose my photography has always stunk!

 

[Roger Cole]

No, but threads like this on APUG are killing me!

Mostly agree, but fortunately there's the "ignore thread" option. I wish the admins at LFPF would implement that feature of vBulletin!

 

[lxdude]

It's not dead, it's restin'!

 

[erikg]

No. It is as alive as it ever was.

If you are feeling that "it" has all been done before, maybe you should change your thinking on what "it" is. If you are feeling bored or jaded and nothing seems to interest you, the problem lies within you, not with photography. If you feel awards are going to poor work, the problem lies with the awards or the judges, awards have nothing to do with photography.
For the majority photography is taking pictures of people, friends, family, loved ones. People sharing their lives with other people. Nothing wrong with that. The technology keeps changing but the impulse is still the same. Within that the issue of "it's all been done" doesn't apply. Should I not bother taking photos of my baby daughter because "it's been done?" Absurd. Those pictures only become more precious to me as time goes by.
Even if you are photographing trees or streets or whatever, nothing is the same twice, nor are you. You could not step twice into the same river.
A photograph can be as rich and as complex an experience as any visual medium. That remains true. Making such and seeing such requires effort. That also remains true.

 

[Monito]

The OP has been on several times without posting in this thread since he started it, leading me to believe he is more interested in observing reactions than having a discussion.

 

[hoffy]

Here's a thought: I'm a mediocrity. 50 years after I pass, no one will know my name, much less what I did on this earth. And that's for the things I am really good at. When it comes to photography, I'm working up to mediocrity.

That said, there are a number of photographs on my walls that only I could make. Not only that, but I and only a few others will ever see them. They bring me great joy. The process (making photographs and learning) brings me joy. The subjects bring me joy. I'm not trying to be profound or break new ground.

I just googled these search terms: lone tree ansel adams. There are some nice images there.

A lone acacia tree on the plain of Africa will always be evocative to me. So will the image of a Joshua tree (having grown up in Southern California and all). Sure, some are better than others. Most are dull. Doesn't detract from the good ones.

Matt, I think you have become my hero! Like you have claimed about your self, I also excel at mediocrity (so does that mean I am actually really mediocre at mediocrity.....this could become an eternal loop).

 

[maliha]

I don't know why you could be thinking that photography is dead. I see great photographs all over the place. There are cliche photos too, but no shortage of great photos either. Both digital, and believe it or not, some great analoggers are out there too who do analog professionally and produce great images.

So just relax, it's not dead... far away from it.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Gerald,

perhaps you want to show us (and I ask again) some of your work, so we can all be enlightened and finally have a real clue on how award winning images are created.

The quality of my work is not the topic of this thread. My point was the lack of creativity at the present time. It is not only photography. For example, how many films have been made in the past ten years that are remakes of older films. Not only are they remakes but they are usually inferior to the original.

The critic A. D. Coleman often stated that he had never taken a single photograph. He said that being ignorant of the process allowed him to concentrate on the image itself. If one had to be a master painter, or musician, or photographer in order to make a valid criticism then there would be precious few such opinions.

I posed what I thought would be an interesting question for debate.

 

[Allen Friday]

How can you say photography is dead when there are so many new HDR images being uploaded each day?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

If you look hard enough, you will find wonderful work.

The internet make things too accessible. Places like Flickr collect photographs in mass quantity, people looking for attention. Most of it is junk. But there are artists producing exciting work, and often it's the ones that work quietly and away from the mainstream bullshit, and don't post on web sites like APUG that are the most wonderful ones. Why? Because we usually don't see their work, won't be influenced by it, and they won't see ours and be influenced by it. They live with their own thoughts of what photography should be, don't care what others think, and just develop their art, possibly seeking critique from people they know they can get good feedback from.

So, stop looking at the mainstream, filter out the junk, and be grateful for what you find that is wonderful.

 

[Colin Corneau]

I have no idea which post you are referring to or if you are referring to the title. Perhaps you'd care to take the time to clarify.

The title. It's just so insufferably pointless and woeful. What is it saying? What's the point? Nothing, far as I can see.

"Whither photography..?" ....puh leeze. Less wank, more shoot.

And if there's more clarification needed, it's worthy of mention that we live in a society more awash in images -- the still image -- than ever before. BY FAR.
To even suggest photography is dead is just...bizarre. Sorry, I just don't get the point, other than to hear oneself talk.

 

[Light Guru]

Is Photography Dead?

Last time I checked the majority of the human population could see and as long as people can see they will like looking at pictures.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The title. It's just so insufferably pointless and woeful. What is it saying? What's the point?

The title was selected to grab your attention which it seems to have done admirably. Would a title such as "Is originality dead" or "Is creativity dead" been as effective, maybe, maybe not. I was thinking of a variant of the often seen question "Is analog photography dead."

 

[zsas]

I see great work all the time, the fact that more have access to cameras than before is another story. This same debate could be made about any art. For eg, I am sure in 1837 it was quite costly to own a guitar, those that did own them were probably really good or sold it quickly after finding they were not good, today one can purchase or rent one for a pittance and thus, do you think that there are no new great guitarists anymore? Same situation here, you just need to look for what you like in art. With access to X comes saturation.

Think about "new" art movements, we see this all the time, look at the 70's/80's grafitti/street artists (Harring) and the new round of street art (Fairey, Banksy), it just evolves....photog is the same

Nothing is dead, just evolving, I see such amazing new work all the time, some I see and it reminds me of say HCB, but so what, he didnt patent reportage. Photography evolves due to the subject matter evolving. I think the rise of Vivian Maier's work is evidence that we tend to hold a reverence to the past art with little appreciation for the present (missing the forest through the trees syndrome). Many of us love her work, but where was someone to make Maier's work seen in the day? Maybe somone passed on her work and now look at what could have been.

We can't pass on today's work or there is no point to liking photography (or any other art form for that matter).

 

[Athiril]

What a joke. Some photographers spend their entire lives photographing the same subject, and it is great.

There is nothing wrong with the same repeated subject.

If you or I haven't done something before, then it hasn't been done before, only by people other then ourselves. There is no lack of creativity in that.


Saying everything has been done before and is a cliche is a cliche itself, and an old tired one at that.