Photography As Art Is Dead?

[Andy K]

According to one Australian columnist it could be:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-16947,00.html

Not sure I agree though.

[arigram]

I am getting tired of the "... is dead" articles.
Who gives a flying shit about the opinion of a single man on the whole of Art?

[Dan Henderson]

I lost interest after about 2 paragraphs and admit that I did not read the entire article. However, I have to agree with the writer's point about manipulation being so easy. Some Soviets were masterfully skilled at manipulating photographs: removing leaders who had fallen from favor from photographs with other leaders, improving the appearance of leaders, etc. Now, most anyone with a computer and a few hours of Photoshop experience can alter a photograph every bit as convincingly. My girlfriend and I discuss fashion and advertising images, debating on the degree to which they have undergone post-exposure manipulation.

Which all makes me wonder: if this critic is right, could the proliferation of easy to produce and manipulate digitally-enhanced images actually add value and worth to traditional, black and white film images???

[avandesande]

In the end they conclude that digital photography has destroyed the one special thing about photography; the underpinning of reality.

[Tony Egan]

Andy,
Coincidentally noted critic AD Coleman is in Australia and gave a talk this afternoon in Sydney where this article, which he had read the day before, was raised. He proceeded to quota Mark Twain ...reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.... In his view we are in "rich times" in terms of photographic processes with some maniacs even returning to wet plates (cf latest issue of View Camera magazine) I think it was Picasso who once said having seen the output of a camera he would retire his brushes. He didn't.

Having said this I think we are in somewhat of a battle with the broader population with respect to maintaining photography as a fine art and craft when it has been trivialised as a mere accessory in a mobile phone!

[Tom Kershaw]

No. Well, at least I hope it isn't. Since I'm going to be spending a good proportion of my time over the summer developing a website to aid in the promotion of and (hopefully) sell my photography.

Tom.

[kjsphoto]

This is exactly what digital has done. Not only has it destroyed photography but it is destroying art mediums as well such as paintings. I read the other day this guy bought a watercolor painting on ebay. It ended up being a ink print on watercolor paper with a wash of water color over the top. Pisses me off....

Digital has made it where photography no longer takes any thought and any idiot can do it. No more waiting for the perfect moment, no more learning how to print just push a button on the computer (auto levels, auto contrast, levels, curves, etc... )., no more learning film characteristics and using them to the fullest, no more metering, no MORE THINKING!

Modern day way of thinking is, well I will fix it in Photoshop when I get home. This crap just devalues what we do. Digital is not art it is a hoax and I don’t give a stuff what you think!

And with the onslaught of digital you will see photography become even more devalued.

Well this just ruined my day…

[Andy K]

In all fairness Kevin, the box brownie allowed 'any idiot' to make photographs. Proliferation of use is not new and not confined to digital cameras. I do agree with you on the point about photoshop auto levels etc. and no thinking.

[kjsphoto]

In all fairness Kevin, the box brownie allowed 'any idiot' to make photographs.

True. That is why I love the view camera. Makes your images more personal and in touch with the scene.

[Whiteymorange]

Any medium dies (or falls into relative obscurity) when artists stop using it and this will happen when artists fail to get any opportunity to show their work in that medium, or to see other artists' work in that medium.

This past year I have seen more shows in Boston area museums of traditional photography than in any year I can remember. In the gallery I run I have had more traditional photographers ask for shows than in any year previous to this one. Our B&W photo classes are filledl every year.

Even relative obscurity is a fruitful condition for many mediums. I give you Bromoil and wet-plate photography as examples. They are not seen in the numbers that digital prints are, but good examples of images produced in these methods are often strikingly beautiful to viewers who have no understanding of the medium at all.

I'm reminded of roteagues's reference to an unthinking comment in another thread - to the effect that color photography was just colorful calendar art. Colorful calendar art will always have a place in the home. It is an inexpensive approximation of an artwork. The real artwork is an original, not a reproduction reduced in quality and presence for the sake of economy and popular distribution. In a way, we can thrive as artists because of this bastardization of our work. Any magazine shot, any poster, any web use of our photo is "calendar art." Thank god for it, it pays the bills and lets lots of people see what we can do. It may even inspire other artists. Only a fool considers the (digital) reproduction the artwork.