Good luck with that!
We can't agree on the meaning of the word "the" here...never mind pre-soaking or Kodachrome.
Good luck with that!We’ll need a manifesto:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_manifesto
Of course, we would have to agree on our “intentions, motives, or views.” What are the chances of that?
I disagree with that. There are alot of means to view work online of "professional photographers" who actually get paid to take photographs for various websites.
And then see the "amatuer snapping" on photocrowd or even deviant art, provided you overlook the cartoon porn crap. That is actually superior to most of the "elite" photographers these days.
There isn't much money in taking photos for websites, you won't see the best commercial work there (except when it is image advertising). The pros are shooting for ads. Wedding photography has become lucrative, a lot of pros are doing that work, too. And editorial work has usually been one of the best creative outlets. And of course those who shoot photography as an art form don't necessarily show up on the internet.
im showing and feeling my age now. Dong a gig as a photographer for a website doesnt make as much money as you would think. I used to be online friends with Kate Lambert who owned several adult sites under the steamgirl domain.. back 2018 she was only paying her photographers 1200 a MONTH and expected 1 shoot per week minimum.
There isn't much money in taking photos for websites, you won't see the best commercial work there (except when it is image advertising). The pros are shooting for ads. Wedding photography has become lucrative, a lot of pros are doing that work, too. And editorial work has usually been one of the best creative outlets. And of course those who shoot photography as an art form don't necessarily show up on the internet.
Videographers usually do "work for hire"--so the footage and rights belong to the client, meaning if a still is pulled from a video, the maker gets nothing. Food photos used for advertising are still made by pros working with food stylists (who are the real heroes of food photography), not amateurs and their iPhones. Yeah, small restaurants and yelp reviews have crappy amateur shots, but anyone placing media online or publishing a magazine or cookbook will use a pro. Although I did read about a restaurant that had set up a table with lighting for customers to take a snap of their food to post online!Depends upon the websites you're talking about. Many website photos are extracted from videos. Some videographers are highly paid and others are totally unpaid.
In ancient times I made most of my living with studio food photos. Today that high priced work is mostly unnecessary because phones in the hands of people who don't identify as "photographers account for most of what you see. Photos by bloggers and friends etc.
Did she at least provide the models for that pittance? I assume it was work for hire (poison for a professional photographer) and the photographers had no rights to the images.
None of the above would constitute a photographic "movement" - just usage and market trends.
Movements are essentially relevant only in the world of art and publishing.
The trends may affect what eventually becomes a movement, but they aren't the movement themselves.
My partner (also a photographer), who I've just consulted, tells me that today's photography "movement" is focused on the self, and that person's immediate environment, friends and activities, sort of a development from Nan Goldin.
A "movement" requires an idea or a group of ideas, conscious or unconscious, that coalesce.
Certainly won't happen with this group.
Without more, that sounds like what would be on most people's iPhones, so it sounds pretty vague. Nan Goldin had a certain style and point of view. She was not a movement.
It seems like digital technology has shattered many of the artistic boundaries we tried to define in the past. In the earliest days, the complex technical demands of photography naturally limited the number of active practitioners and it was easy to identify a few interest groups as 'movements'. Then time went by, taking pictures became easier and easier, stylistic genres multiplied and the lines between them started to blur. Now that smartphone cameras have eliminated most technical and financial restrictions, anyone and everyone can be a photographer who actively defines and promotes their own approach as a distinct style. That's way too many to keep track of , so maybe we could just call it the 'me' movement.
My partner (also a photographer), who I've just consulted, tells me that today's photography "movement" is focused on the self, and that person's immediate environment, friends and activities, sort of a development from Nan Goldin.
There's a new documentary about Nan Goldin that's coming to Taos eventually. I must say that I don't love her work.
artistic boundaries require visual literacy... with today' technology you can make lots of good pictures. given the sheer quantity, combined with a visually uneducated populace, ("we have have seen the enemy, he is us" - pogo), and demassification a la' toffler, any movement may be apparent only in hindsight!
I don't mean to be negative about hobby work, but I do think hobby-as-"art" is a mistake.
What is hobby-as-"art"? Why is it a mistake? For whom is it a mistake?
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?