wim-wenders

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/enter...tor-wim-wenders-hits-out-at-phone-photography

He wants a word, any suggestions.

"get over it, Wim"

pdeeh said:

"get over it, Wim"

Click to expand...

That's 4 words

pentaxuser

"Speaking at an exhibition of his Polaroid works, he said photography was dead and thinks mobile phones are to blame."

If photography is dead, why is he having an exhibition?

faberryman said:

"Speaking at an exhibition of his Polaroid works, he said photography was dead and thinks mobile phones are to blame."

If photography is dead, why is he having an exhibition?

Click to expand...

Hey, do not confuse Wim Wenders with facts!

Digi_snap_ography.

Geez, Wim. Things change. I'll bet you're not shooting your movies with the ancient Arri 16BL your're pictured with either.

I think he's got a point. And I say that as someone who uses his phone (and DSLR, and film cameras and more) for photos.

Different tools do different tasks. But Mr. Wenders has a point in that the attitude towards what photography IS has changed because of phones...photography is now disposable. It means nothing. It's been devalued, in other words.

Think we're wrong? Ask any commercial or working photographer how much of their day is spent dealing with low-ballers or clients who haven't changed their rates in 25 years or people who demand everything for nothing. Photography means little to most people, is why.

It's pointless to say "but he's having an exhibition" or "but people still make oil paintings!" because the central point isn't whether photography still exists, but rather what is it worth to people now.
Google "digital dark age" for some reading on this topic.

Well, he makes great photos.

Great film maker. Paid his dues, produced a lot of art. Makes interesting comments if one takes a moment to actually read them.

He's not addressing somebody who only produces prints using traditional media. He's a film maker.

I'm happy to call all sorts of things "photography," but "photographers" are typically stumped when somebody shows them photo silkscreen or a gorgeous slow motion video, or for that matter a giant mural in public space (all of which I can love and call photography). .

Funny, I’m getting into one of Wender’s books right now (Pixels of Paul Cezanne...), which is really stimulating. I’d be further along, but he’s got me watching movies, his (Paris, Texas), and others (Ingmar Bergman, Ozu, etc.). So, if thinking of visual art is what I was after, I’m already pleased.

I do agree that still images have become less valuable, and that sensationalism is the requirement to get even a second glance in a broad audience. But how can it be worse than what the invention of photography did to painting? Based on that, I’m not too worried. Of course, photography is not my living, so it’s easy not to worry. I’m sure there’s a place for all of it in art.

Somewhere there is another thread here on just this Wim Wenders interview.

rgeorge911 said:

Funny, I’m getting into one of Wender’s books right now (Pixels of Paul Cezanne...), which is really stimulating. I’d be further along, but he’s got me watching movies, his (Paris, Texas), and others (Ingmar Bergman, Ozu, etc.). So, if thinking of visual art is what I was after, I’m already pleased.

I do agree that still images have become less valuable, and that sensationalism is the requirement to get even a second glance in a broad audience. But how can it be worse than what the invention of photography did to painting? Based on that, I’m not too worried. Of course, photography is not my living, so it’s easy not to worry. I’m sure there’s a place for all of it in art.

Click to expand...

If sensationalism is the same as "impact" (I don't think it is), then it has been a part of really good pictures for a long time. "Impact" is what has always been what caused a viewer to stop and study a good picture. It was what made a picture "interesting", not technique, equipment, film, etc. That is still true but sensationalism acts more like a hit to the head and usually is a "cheap shot" causing a glance and then a "walk away".....Regards!

Arklatexian said:

If sensationalism is the same as "impact" (I don't think it is), then it has been a part of really good pictures for a long time. "Impact" is what has always been what caused a viewer to stop and study a good picture. It was what made a picture "interesting", not technique, equipment, film, etc. That is still true but sensationalism acts more like a hit to the head and usually is a "cheap shot" causing a glance and then a "walk away".....Regards!

Click to expand...

We are in agreement. That glance you refer to is more than most images get today, in my opinion (only). Some images with impact never get the chance.

When sensationalism is made the only currency showing worth to an image, we lose subtlety...grace...nuance...and all kinds of powerful forms of creative expression. We even lose the *notion* of there even being other forms of creative expression.

MattKing said:

Somewhere there is another thread here on just this Wim Wenders interview.

Click to expand...

The two thread should be merged.

Wim Wenders exhibits and gives interviews, he gets noticed. Mobile phone shooters post their visual effluvia on Flickr or other such sites, and are quickly forgotten. So it goes.

Colin Corneau (#8 and #15) and rgeorge911 (#11) echoe my thoughts about all this. Not only has photography in general become devalued now, but image standards in general have fallen to such dismally low levels that most people (excepting posters on Photrio, of course) no longer know or even care what a good photograph is. "I can do the same as that" and "you could do that" are the most common responses I hear from those viewing images at the few local (in Hobart and Launceston, Tasmania) gallery exhibitions I now and then see, occasionally one worthy of a return visit but largely so trite (often at the local community level, I must note) that I have to force myself to look at poorly taken, badly post-processed and cheaply printed digicrap in fancy frames which, sadly, seem to impress the proles more than the visuals. As an example, a recent show (self sponsored and funded) at our local community center, 40 'hand printed' (probably on a Fuji Frontier at a Harvey Normans retail store) images of otters taken in a zoo, with cute camera-magazine captions, promoted as "a housewife-photographer" and which must have cost the ;artist' a small fortune to prepare (or her businessman-partner a nice tax deduction) and resulted in ONE sale ,I suspect by prearrangement by a family member or friend. Sadly, all this now seems to be the norm.

There are many good photographers, but certainly here in Australia, what I see reflects the sad fact that those talented artists who strive to let their visuals stand on their own, are mostly overwhelmed by socially ambitious shooters who know how to use marketing and hype to draw attention to their usually undistinguished but well (= expensively) framed work. Depressingly low quality standards prevail and seemingly are accepted as the norm.

Mobile phones have their place in image making, but in the right hands. For the rest, the two Fs - Facebook and Flickr - are ideal forums for one's 14,293 shots of last weekend's pool party or the disco bash. May I say, I have never seen much of interest visually in the first F, but on occasion the second has offered some interesting posts.

Mr Wenders is fortunate that he has his reputation as an artist to fall back on and a loyal and dedicated following to support his endeavors. Also that he did a lot of his work in the 1980s and 1990s when photography was a different art with different standards and audiences.

Me, now that I no longer (I hope only temporarily) take photographs for publication, my best images are printed (in my own darkroom) and hung on our walls for family and friends to see. a captive audience, to be sure, but I'm satisfied with this. Beyond that, I no longer have any ambitions to impress the world with my visual viewpoints.

Horses for courses, as the locals here are fond of saying.

rgeorge911 said:

Funny, I’m getting into one of Wender’s books right now (Pixels of Paul Cezanne...), which is really stimulating. I’d be further along, but he’s got me watching movies, his (Paris, Texas), and others (Ingmar Bergman, Ozu, etc.). So, if thinking of visual art is what I was after, I’m already pleased.

I do agree that still images have become less valuable, and that sensationalism is the requirement to get even a second glance in a broad audience. But how can it be worse than what the invention of photography did to painting? Based on that, I’m not too worried. Of course, photography is not my living, so it’s easy not to worry. I’m sure there’s a place for all of it in art.

Click to expand...

make sure you don't miss wings of desire, every frame is painterly, a real work of art !

=
ozmoose, im not a regular on flickr but its not hard see stuff that catches my interest often.
there's a pretty lively imagemaking community there ( and on instant gramms too ! )
it just matters which alley you end up wandering down... there's a lot of fluff too ..

and i agree you can give a crappy box camera to a lot of people they will make box camera photos,
you give one to someone who takes the time and effort to figure out what to do with it, you get more than a belfy.

jnanian said:

make sure you don't miss wings of desire, every frame is painterly, a real work of art !

Click to expand...

Will be sure to see it!

.

Can there be an acceptable answer here, of all places, to the OT question ? I would look first to NYTimes Photo, for example.

Already two extant threads on this dull subject.

Colin Corneau said:

When sensationalism is made the only currency showing worth to an image, we lose subtlety...grace...nuance...and all kinds of powerful forms of creative expression. We even lose the *notion* of there even being other forms of creative expression.

Click to expand...

Happily, assuming we step out of our boxes, we are moving ever further from that "only currency." Forgetting, for the moment the often sometimes stultified realm of still photography we can find "subtlety...grace...nuance...and all kinds of powerful forms"...for example in film and in musical theater.

i don't know MCM
i think photography today can be vibrant and beautiful
it just depends where you look.
if one looks at ROTM social media sites
were people don't know the word or cull or edit,
or don't learn the nuances of their chosen form of picture and light gathering
it is pretty bleak but if you look a little deeper and don't wear the ever present
and easy to wear hat that suggests now is a real drag then its not a drag.
IDK i think the glass is perpetually half full and there is always a microclimate involved
to deal with constant evaporation.

to quote my pal ferris: "Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it'"
or dory: " just keep swimming swimming swimming"

be excellent to eachother ...