Offered for your consideration: The trivialization of Photography!

[Didereaux]

This is a link to a Huntington Witherill article by that name. I found it interesting, and worth discussing I think.
Huntington Witherill - Photographer - The Trivialization of Photography

My first observation is that he does not address the issue of quality. In the 1950's literally every average home in America had a few Paint by Numbers paintings hung that the residents had done
and considered them art....it was predicted back then that by the numbers would destroy demand for true art. They were wrong, I think they are wrong again about photography too.

your considered opinion?

 

[bratkinson]

Spin the clock back 70 years...back then, to really use a camera meant you knew about the exposure triangle, metering, lighting, and a slew of other things to get a reasonably good photograph. It also meant you (or your parents or your employer) made a significant investment in equipment so you could get the best shots possible. Although many aspired to become another Ansel Adams, very few succeeded.

Then came the Brownies, Polaroids, the Instamatics, and a number of other point and shoot type cameras marketed to the masses. Much of the 'mystique' of photography was lost to anyone with a box with film in it. The post-war era from 1946 to perhaps 1980 meant everyone could take pictures to their hearts content. Look at anyones' photo albums of 40-50 years ago. They're filled with 100% non-professionally taken photographs. Photos became a 'bulk commodity'...cheap and easy for anyone to obtain, like gasoline or a gallon of milk.

The real 'boom' in photography happened with the advent of the digital point and shoot cameras. The only thing different from the post-war boom was the film was replaced by a sensor, and sharing could be done via the internet vs paying for extra prints to be made via the corner drugstore. The total cost, a one-time cost, for digital point and shoots was typically under $200. Easily taken, no-cost photos were showing up everywhere online, and in countless emails. Except for family photos that someone may want to save, most were shown/sent once or twice and then forgotten...or lost forever due to a hard drive crash.

Then came the smartphone. Perhaps 90% of the USA population over the age of 10 has one. Now there is NO added cost for a camera, NO added cost for making, sharing, transmitting, and storing copies. Nor is there any need to know absolutely ANYTHING about photography...aperture, shutter speed, etc, are meaningless terms to a smartphone photo-taker. Smartphones have reduced photography to a ZERO-COST activity. Therefore, there is no implied 'value' to those photos. They simply record some event, or person, or place and that's it. Once everyone has received my 'vacation pix from today', there is zero value and zero interest in those pictures.

Further, the 'critical eye' of a real photographer...artistry, composition, framing, highlights, mood, and 1000 other possible considerations are all wiped out by the smartphone. There's no need for any of it. Point the cellphone, take the picture, share it. That's all there is to it! There's no value, no sentimental attachment (some family pix excepted), and no 'boasting rights' for taking a fantastic, nearly impossible picture.

I'm retired, so I make no claim to know the mind of the under 30-somethings. But in my opinion, taking photos and posting them on Facebook or wherever for your friends to see not only pumps their own ego ('see...I was HERE today...I did THIS today...'), but it also spurs their friends to take photos of where they were and post them, and on and on it goes. From what I've read here and there, peer pressure and acceptance counts more towards self-esteem than does actual accomplishments, knowledge, pride in oneself, and who-knows-what-else. Getting more 'like's is more important than almost everything to the younger generation(s). Not getting 'like's leads to depression, separation, and even suicide sometimes. It's a terrible situation to be in...having to compete - almost globally - to get more 'like's than your best friend..whom you only text back and forth, and never talk, even when across the table from them. Sadly, in my opinion, that's where the younger generation(s) are at. All self-aggrandizement...no 'meat'. Nothing more than a bunch of zeros and ones recorded somewhere, for a short while.

When the average teenager is taking perhaps 50 or more shots a day with their cellphones, and perhaps 100,000,000 per day such shots are taken worldwide, how can one think they are anything more than a commodity...a small piece of coal, or an ounce of water?

 

[Designer]

your considered opinion?

There is much about this article to criticize, but you're right; he has missed the connection between his premise and simple observation. Poor writing. Poor argument. No value.

 

[chuasam]

Things are just evolving. Deal with it. You can't use the argument that it's always been a certain way or it's been this way 50 years ago.

I started out making sure I got the image right in camera. But take a look at my latest piece. It is a work in progress and I might reshoot certain elements or add in others. (Saturn from NASA Archives, Star field from Hubble Space Telescope archives, texture for planet from free stock art)

Things change.
The biggest challenge for this image was making sure I kept the light source constant for the elements of the image. Making sure that the light direction and hardness was approximately the same.

I don't agree with the Selfie Generation but I love the changes made with things like snapchat. People send each other brief ephemeral updates about life in a photograph. To be seen once and then it's gone.

 

[pixmedic]

in the interest of full disclosure...
I didn't understand one single $&#@*$% paragraph in that article...

that being said,
its always something....
some people still travel by horse and buggy even though we have cars.
some people still chop down trees with axes even though we have chainsaws.
some people still own cats even though we have ferrets.

lots of people thought roll film was the death of wet plates.
then cartridge film threatened roll film.
then digital threatened all film.

and yet, despite a lessened proclivity for its usage, people still shoot film...even wet plate.
people still drive old cars, wear old watches, and write with old pens...and some of those things are worth far more than their modern counterparts.

 

[freddy21]

A lot of people like the author of the article somehow make the mistake in thinking that sheer quantity of images has overwhelmed the art of photography.

I think we need to differentiate the world of snapshots from the world of photography. I have thousands of images on my phone and taken with a snapshot camera. While these are photographs there is little creativity in these images. My guess is the bulk of images are taken this way. Most are personal memories and will never see the light of day as a photographs, nor are then intended to be photographs. They are memories snapshots. Their audience is limited and they show no creativity. They capture a moment significant to the person who took them and that's all.

If we separate images into the categories of snapshot and photographs I wonder if the author would have drawn the same conclusions.

 

[OGsPhotography]

Boom! Snapshot!

Seems like a lot of photogs are crying about the " pervasiveness" or " trivialization" of photography.

I say the opposite is true, we should celebrate the fact that people want to look at and take pics all the time, its what we like to do! The fact that it is available to everyone, crap cameras at least just like it always was, the mere fact ( that there is so many bad photographs) makes good photography even more important.

It is now an important part of peoples daily lives, as pervasive as it ( photographs or snapshots!), quality will rise and people will search it out to enjoy.

 

[bratkinson]

I would estimate that for every 250,000 cell phone pictures/snapshots/photographs taken worldwide in 24 hours, there are probably less than 1,000 images recorded by a photographer with a DSLR that knows how to use his equipment AND are 'keepers' (not deleted).

Yes, I'm making a wild guess on the numbers. Fill in your own estimates.

But 1 out of 250 is is pretty much an insignificant, trivial amount.