...If Joe sets out to be a maximal absurdist polo bagpipe player, it doesn't constitute a movement - it's one guy doing something no one else is. If three or four other people join in, it's still not a movement - it's a group of people doing something esoteric. If it gets publicized in some way and starts to have an impact on other people, it can be called a movement - but probably still not significant enough for anyone to ever say it is. Only when it becomes anchored in a culture in an influential way, can it be rightfully said to be a movement.
it's difficult to see how post-modernism could enlist a like-minded group of photographers, either in contact with each other or working independently. I think that would be more like a splintering than a movement.
There is movement in photography today. It is the endless diarrhea of unispired, unoriginal, uninteresting, bland and just generally bad photography seeping from every pore of the internet.
There is movement in photography today. It is the endless diarrhea of unispired, unoriginal, uninteresting, bland and just generally bad photography seeping from every pore of the internet.
Most people aren't shooting for art but for posterity recording events like parties, get-togethers, vacations, etc. They're not insipid, banal, or meaningless. In fact, they're most of the most treasured photos taken.
And a monumental increase in the number of cameras to take them.It's always been like that, more or less, but now we have the internet to distribute it.
Look at all the selfies, poseurs and imitators shooting insipid shots of their ratty pets and unappetizing food, then posting them to various social media sites. And the more that are posted, the more others want to jump on the bandwagon. Treasured? We all pay in the cost of running the servers to subsidize them.
And a monumental increase in the number of cameras to take them.
Shut them off if they bother you. Let others do what they want to do for themselves. Why is it your business?
And you're not subsidizing anyone. The more people are on social media, the more the companies make from their advertisers who pay for the number of hits.
Why is that your business?
There is movement in photography today. It is the endless diarrhea of unispired, unoriginal, uninteresting, bland and just generally bad photography seeping from every pore of the internet.
Look at all the selfies, poseurs and imitators shooting insipid shots of their ratty pets and unappetizing food, then posting them to various social media sites. And the more that are posted, the more others want to jump on the bandwagon. Treasured? We all pay in the cost of running the servers to subsidize them.
You've given me Joe the polo bagpipe player.
There is movement in photography today. It is the endless diarrhea of unispired, unoriginal, uninteresting, bland and just generally bad photography seeping from every pore of the internet.
All art is derivative in some way. Crewdson's staged scenes could have been cut from a David Lynch movie, the Becher's owe something to Atget, and so on. There are a multitude of photographers today making manipulated (either digitally or analog) prints, making unconventional photographs that do not involve a camera, altering prints with other media--paint, thread, etc, collaging photos--the list goes on. So many ways to produce some sort of self-expression that should not stop one from taking (or making) photos. One does not need to invent a new way to photograph people, as the people are different themselves. Look at Avedon's In The American West, the approach is identical for every subject--that's the glue that holds it together--yet it doesn't get repetitious. Or Penn's Small Trades or the work of August Sander.I'm pretty sure a few of you have already landed at this point, but if there is a current "movement" within photography, we will likely be unaware until it has been so named be the curators, gallerists, critics, etc. Unless of course someone does launch a mission statement or manifesto hailing their work as being completed within specific parameters and/or in response to another way of working. Any movement within the art world at large and narrowed down into photography has been a counterpoint of sorts to the "establishment" within that community. Group f64 fought hard to get Steiglitz's blessing which thereby advanced the groups recognition over to the east coast. It is too easy to get bogged down worrying about copying. One should at least do some research and know who's tripod holes you're treading upon. The on-line community at-large (insta, youtube, etc) doesn't seem to reference those who came before. I've been hung up lately on the notion of derivation, and the thought that if I can't say something "new" about a given subject, or if I am unwilling to bend the medium in some odd and unique way, that I should just not be out shooting. It's all derivative in some way. Is there truly a new way to photograph architecture or people? Portrait photography using drones? I don't know. I recently heard about a company that can produce relief prints for the vision impaired. Think of the possibilities with a truly tactile (not tactile in the basic way of simply holding a print) photograph.
The fact that you don't see the relevance of my purposely absurd example tells me that you have a much more fanciful notion of what a "movement" would be than is actually the case. It's good to maintain a high standard for whatever others may or may not be doing, to elevate it into the aether, to make sure no one can actually do it. Or is it that everyone and anyone is always doing it? I can't quite see the relevance of anything you've said a movement is, since it seems everything is a movement?
All art is derivative in some way
Have you all really been arguing over this for two years now?
Now we can each leave this thread with the certainty that the other is wrong,
All art is derivative in some way.
I'm pretty sure a few of you have already landed at this point, but if there is a current "movement" within photography, we will likely be unaware until it has been so named be the curators, gallerists, critics, etc. Unless of course someone does launch a mission statement or manifesto hailing their work as being completed within specific parameters and/or in response to another way of working. Any movement within the art world at large and narrowed down into photography has been a counterpoint of sorts to the "establishment" within that community. Group f64 fought hard to get Steiglitz's blessing which thereby advanced the groups recognition over to the east coast. It is too easy to get bogged down worrying about copying. One should at least do some research and know who's tripod holes you're treading upon. The on-line community at-large (insta, youtube, etc) doesn't seem to reference those who came before. I've been hung up lately on the notion of derivation, and the thought that if I can't say something "new" about a given subject, or if I am unwilling to bend the medium in some odd and unique way, that I should just not be out shooting. It's all derivative in some way. Is there truly a new way to photograph architecture or people? Portrait photography using drones? I don't know. I recently heard about a company that can produce relief prints for the vision impaired. Think of the possibilities with a truly tactile (not tactile in the basic way of simply holding a print) photograph.
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?