Solarflare
No longer a newbie, moving up!
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 2,898
- Reaction score
- 395
Has Photography Gotten Too Easy?
By becoming thoughtless and easy, it also becomes trivial and devalued.
Personally I never was interested in photography until it became digital. So to me its reverse, really. Handling all these chemicals, just eww. Too much of a hassle, wont do it.
I dont exactly produce a flood of images though. Finding an image thats actually worth taking will always stay a challenge with photography.
Its also very easy to write a text. Is it thus easy to write a good book worth reading ? Not at all.
The Victorian age killed the art of letter writing by kindness: it was only too easy to catch the post. A lady sitting down at her desk a hundred years before had not only certain ideals of logic and restraint before her, but the knowledge that a letter which cost so much money to send and excited so much interest to receive was worth time and trouble.
Poor example because letters never have been art.
But her insight holds true—the easier it becomes to convey a message in a certain medium, the less selective we grow about what that message contains, and soon we are conveying the trifles and banalities of our day-to-day life, simply because it is effortless to fill the page (or feed, or screen, or whatever medium comes next).
Regular conversation. Not art.
And I dont think the images of this posting help the argument either. The photograph of the mother of Virginia Woolf is much worse than the image of Virginia Woolf.
By becoming thoughtless and easy, it also becomes trivial and devalued.
Personally I never was interested in photography until it became digital. So to me its reverse, really. Handling all these chemicals, just eww. Too much of a hassle, wont do it.
I dont exactly produce a flood of images though. Finding an image thats actually worth taking will always stay a challenge with photography.
Its also very easy to write a text. Is it thus easy to write a good book worth reading ? Not at all.
The Victorian age killed the art of letter writing by kindness: it was only too easy to catch the post. A lady sitting down at her desk a hundred years before had not only certain ideals of logic and restraint before her, but the knowledge that a letter which cost so much money to send and excited so much interest to receive was worth time and trouble.
Poor example because letters never have been art.
But her insight holds true—the easier it becomes to convey a message in a certain medium, the less selective we grow about what that message contains, and soon we are conveying the trifles and banalities of our day-to-day life, simply because it is effortless to fill the page (or feed, or screen, or whatever medium comes next).
Regular conversation. Not art.
And I dont think the images of this posting help the argument either. The photograph of the mother of Virginia Woolf is much worse than the image of Virginia Woolf.
Last edited:
Yep.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/31/31709-79016edd1a9f5ea41ef60f546bd0236d.jpg?1619734965)