I see very clearly a camp yelling, "just go take pictures, nothing else matters..blah, blah blah.. or is important or has any purpose to discuss." But, it is important to those who want to see the art form preserved or even advanced. You can't advance something you don't understand.
When the Internet first entered our consciousness, all the populist pundits said, "this will democratize the world." A few decades later, it has become the tyrant of the world, run by Google, the NSA, and Facebook. It has democratized nothing important. Why? Because not enough people understood the fundamental structure of it. They just didn't look under the hood. It evolved along paths controlled by the eventual tyrants, not along paths controlled by the "demos."
Photography is film, defines a process, craft and art form that can be largely controlled by the "demos" - the practitioners. Digital photography can not. The digitographer is always subservient to a host of tyrants who provide everything from electricity to Lithium to complex software so complex no individual could write it. Computerized cameras are now all being connected to the GPS, the Internet, the Smart phone. In short, "the grid." Will every photo you take be sucked up into the cloud in future cameras? Will the camera itself become just another tracking device like the cell phone? Will Google use your photos to discover illnesses, petty crime? Will there ever be again any privately made art that isn't subject to the tyranny of some stupid programmer who has never taken a photo in his life? Will the art form become just another co-opted and controlled pursuit? I can hear people yelling "conspiracy!" already. But, remember, no one saw it coming with the Internet either.
To keep film photography alive as a democratic art form, it is essential to not automatically equate it with digital imaging. They aren't the same thing by any conceivable construct. I'm just suggesting that Ken Rockwell's quote is maybe more important than even he thought.
... The lead designer of digital cameras at Fuji isn't studying chemistry. He's on the other side of the bridge evaluating new AI techniques to recognize a child's face differently than an adult, and know a closed eye from an open eye. ...
..."I'm into photography" or "Did you capture those images?" or "Take a pic of this coupon."
My point is instead of talking about film vs digital incessantly every which way, may be we (me included) can go out and take pictures.
I see very clearly a camp yelling, "just go take pictures, nothing else matters..blah, blah blah.. or is important or has any purpose to discuss." But, it is important to those who want to see the art form preserved or even advanced. You can't advance something you don't understand.
When the Internet first entered our consciousness, all the populist pundits said, "this will democratize the world." A few decades later, it has become the tyrant of the world, run by Google, the NSA, and Facebook. It has democratized nothing important. Why? Because not enough people understood the fundamental structure of it. They just didn't look under the hood. It evolved along paths controlled by the eventual tyrants, not along paths controlled by the "demos."
Photography is film, defines a process, craft and art form that can be largely controlled by the "demos" - the practitioners. Digital photography can not. The digitographer is always subservient to a host of tyrants who provide everything from electricity to Lithium to complex software so complex no individual could write it. Computerized cameras are now all being connected to the GPS, the Internet, the Smart phone. In short, "the grid." Will every photo you take be sucked up into the cloud in future cameras? Will the camera itself become just another tracking device like the cell phone? Will Google use your photos to discover illnesses, petty crime? Will there ever be again any privately made art that isn't subject to the tyranny of some stupid programmer who has never taken a photo in his life? Will the art form become just another co-opted and controlled pursuit? I can hear people yelling "conspiracy!" already. But, remember, no one saw it coming with the Internet either.
To keep film photography alive as a democratic art form, it is essential to not automatically equate it with digital imaging. They aren't the same thing by any conceivable construct. I'm just suggesting that Ken Rockwell's quote is maybe more important than even he thought.
I agree with everything said. Digital photography also democratized photography. 30 years ago, we hired photographers mainly as technicians and if you're lucky, the artist is included. Now with digital cameras, the value of the technicians is diminished and everybody can shoot a technically competent photo with good focus and exposure. The internet democratized media where everybody through social media can have a say. Yes, the internet is big, scary and dangerous but there's a lot of good stuff too.First of all, photography is to "draw with light". This describes everything from the camera obscura through photosensitive photography to digital. Traditionally, you are right it refers to the chemical method. By light, I am specifically referring to the visible spectrium plus potentially some near IR and UV.
I think that chemical method depends on the availability of chemicals, and photo-sensitive materials, and big corporations, etc., much like digital photography. It may be easier to put together a chemical image on a tropical island with no resources than the digital infrastructure, but both are pretty complex.
I feel, for me, the internet was a democratizing event. It is also scary, and big and dangerous.
1. I explained the motivation and goal very explicitly.What is the motivation and goal of those who persist in excluding those who make images by digital rather than chemical means from the definition of photographer, and the images themselves from the definition of photographs? Is it something more than mere semantics? When these arguments are advanced, I always ask the question: "And?"
As so often Brian, I suspect you're on the right track here ...yawn...
The Forum Category is "Ethics and Philosophy." The proposition in the original post is one of philosophy. Ok?
If I may disagree. Cheap cameras have been offered to the public since 1901. I collect 1970s Instamatic photography and I can guarantee to you that they were at least as cheap as today's low-end computer cameras. And man oh man, did people take a LOT of photographs - - long, long before the digital camera became a consumer product.Digital photography also democratized photography. 30 years ago, we hired photographers mainly as technicians and if you're lucky, the artist is included.
"... "film making" and "videography." ...
For many reasons I outlined, I believe the PROCESS is what needs to be differentiated and preserved.I guess philosophically, what is more important, the intent or the method?
Do you know the meaning of "straw man?" I don't mind telling you that your comments indicate you haven't understood any of the argument posed.OK, I will partake in the discussion with the question: did the daguerreotypists asked whether wet plate collodion people were "real" photographers?
For many reasons I outlined, I believe the PROCESS is what needs to be differentiated and preserved.
Analogy
I can write a note to my brother on pencil and paper and send it to him via First Class Mail. I can also send him an EMAIL. Now, either one sees the massive difference or one is unaware of what happens with email. Message is the same. But the processes have hugely different consequences.
OK, I will partake in the discussion with the question: did the daguerreotypists asked whether wet plate collodion people were "real" photographers?
I like to refer to digital photography as digital art, rather than looking at digital photography as being a sub-set of photography. I believe the word "photography" limits what digital art can and will achieve.
For many reasons I outlined, I believe the PROCESS is what needs to be differentiated and preserved.
Analogy
I can write a note to my brother on pencil and paper and send it to him via First Class Mail. I can also send him an EMAIL. Now, either one sees the massive difference or one is unaware of what happens with email. Message is the same. But the processes have hugely different consequences.
...The initial "message" of each becomes irrelevant if there's real two way communication.
I like to refer to digital photography as digital art, rather than looking at digital photography as being a sub-set of photography. I believe the word "photography" limits what digital art can and will achieve.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?