wim-wenders

[Lee Rust]

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. .

Instead of referring to cellphone snaps etc as photographs, how about "pix"? The act of taking a picture could become "pixillating" or just plain "pixin'".

A digital image taker could therefore be designated a "pixie" instead of the ponderously old-fashioned term "photographer". The collective visual effluvia accumulated on the memory cards of billions of devices would be "pixie dust".

 

[Arklatexian]

https://petapixel.com/2018/08/01/wim-wenders-phones-have-made-photography-more-dead-than-ever/

Whoever makes that statement must truly believe that film is no longer available and is using "D" which I believe it does, indeed, apply to. People that I see using phones to take pictures are using them, INSTEAD of Digital and some are showing an interest in FILM because it is "cool". I don't think this group has much to worry about unless they can't find anything else to worry about..........Regards!

 

[1kgcoffee]

As something becomes a commodity, the artistic side is valued less. Photography today is not just about creating art, but supplementing language. We use it everyday in business for internal matters, private matters and just messing around. Little thought is put into photography as art (lighting, composition etc) and more on raw content. Same drab wide focal length for everything.

I wouldn't say photography is dead by a long shot. The pro-amateur market is larger than ever, but the average person expects their phone to scoop up all the information so it can be quickly transmitted and to hell with the details as long it gets the point across. Who cares anyways? I do photography for myself and those small circle of people who also appreciate it. I do not care about knitting, pottery, historical reenactments.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

How many think that as long as there's a viewer that appreciates the image no matter how it's distributed, the image lives?

 

[Slixtiesix]

I do not think that it is that easy as Wenders described it. What he said is certainly true, but I do not think it is a new phenomenon. There had always been people, and I assume they are even the vast majority of people taking photos, that do not care for any technical correctness and are just snapping away. It is just that smartphones have made this phenomenon more abundant. On the other side, the number of people who use their cameras deliberately, may it be film or digital, to take sophisticated photos, has grown as well. One should not condemn the snappers though, as the value of a photograph is simply in the eye of the beholder.

 

[BMbikerider]

Photography as I know and understand it is NOT using a smart phone! End of. Yes some make quite credible images but take less skill than when a chimpanzee pees a banana, to get an image!
Pedigree photography comes from visualizing a scene, or composing a group of people and in both scenarios competence of full use of a camera, be it with traditional film, or even the dark side to achieve a picture just that bit better than just pointing and shooting. Does that sound pompous - I don't really care. It is my view and anything that uses little effort with a camera, denigrates the word and skill that is 'photography'.
Actually how many of these images from a smart phone actually last longer than a couple of years, then to be deleted and replaced by even more. We have records dating back to the early 19th Century because they were actually printed, how many of these selfies will follow in the footsteps of the masters of the past.

 

[pdeeh]

That's 4 words

pentaxuser

it is, nevertheless, the shortest response thus far in the thread.

 

[pdeeh]

i mean, god preserve us all from another 'photography is dead i blame the young people and their selfies god i hate being old i'm so bitter and disappointed' thread ... but here we are

 

[pdeeh]

No.

and there's already a thread on this

 

[Sean]

67 Million images uploaded to Instagram every day, I suspect this is growing rapidly. Youtube does 400 hours of video uploads per minute. It's amazing infrastructure exists to support it. I think everything is somewhat at risk. AI is now writing music, painting, sculpting, photographing, creating photographs from scratch. It's hard to know where all this will go.

 

[Ste_S]

I do not think that it is that easy as Wenders described it. What he said is certainly true, but I do not think it is a new phenomenon. There had always been people, and I assume they are even the vast majority of people taking photos, that do not care for any technical correctness and are just snapping away. It is just that smartphones have made this phenomenon more abundant. On the other side, the number of people who use their cameras deliberately, may it be film or digital, to take sophisticated photos, has grown as well. One should not condemn the snappers though, as the value of a photograph is simply in the eye of the beholder.

I don't think there's any more 'snaps'* than previously. It's just they're shared more easily and to more people via the internet rather than just living in someone's photo album or slide show.

You don't have to look at this stuff if you don't want to. I'm on Instagram and have zero selfies in my feed, just photos from people whose work I like.

*I like snaps.

 

[Alan Johnson]

In the UK a report by Ofcom notes that people are on average online for 24 hours a week.
Photography is thus to the great majority smartphone photography.
The type of photography pursued here is to them "film photography".
I have been to an exhibition of work by Wim.

 

[jtk]

i mean, god preserve us all from another 'photography is dead i blame the young people and their selfies god i hate being old i'm so bitter and disappointed' thread ... but here we are

Insightful. Yes, obvious. IMO photography is now dominated by vital young people. That's good.

 

[removedacct1]

I think that people tend to get upset about the ubiquity of cell phones and the images they generate in ever-growing numbers because its so damn easy to make an interesting image with these tools. It can feel like an insult to our hard-earned skills as "photographers" when we see so many engaging pictures coming out of Instagram and the like, none of which even vaguely requires the skills that are mandatory for someone working with film technology.

I can understand why many feel that digital imaging technology is an unwelcome intruder on our scene, but does that mean its not valid in its own right? Just because its easy doesn't mean it has no merit.

 

[Arthurwg]

A photography professor of mine once said, "The Heroic period in photography is over." I think that's true.

 

[faberryman]

A photography professor of mine once said, "The Heroic period in photography is over." I think that's true.

When was the "Heroic period"? Who were its practitioners? What were the characteristics of its images? What did I miss?

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

i don't know MCM
i think photography today can be vibrant and beautiful
it just depends where you look.

I agree. For me, I let go of expectations and I find undiscovered treasures.



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'"

 

[TheRook]

One word: IMAGING

 

[lecarp]

Already two extant threads on this dull subject.

And yet here you are, posting in it. Hmmmm

 

[jtk]

A photography professor of mine once said, "The Heroic period in photography is over." I think that's true.

What is a "photography professor" and if one exists, why? Those that can, do.

 

[faberryman]

What is a "photography professor" and if one exists, why? Those that can, do.

Most photography teaching positions require an MFA, and so it is not unusual to refer to the instructor as professor, especially in BFA and MFA programs. You can call them whatever you want, and even denigrate them if it makes you feel superior.

 

[jtk]

Most photography teaching positions require an MFA, and so it is not unusual to refer to the instructor as professor, especially in BFA and MFA programs. You can call them whatever you want, and even denigrate them if it makes you feel superior.

I don't mean to "denigrate" them, I just question their career choice. The photo professors I've known did better work before they took that employment.

 

[faberryman]

I don't mean to "denigrate" them, I just question their value.

You are oblivious to your own arrogance.

 

[jtk]

When was the "Heroic period"? Who were its practitioners? What were the characteristics of its images? What did I miss?

Right. The "heroic period" is today.

 

[jtk]

different perspective on WW: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/where-wim-wenders-went-wrong