Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,660   Posts: 1,481,558   Online: 918
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30
  1. #1
    cliveh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    2,710
    Images
    335

    Commercialism in technology

    When digital first emerged, for years I thought it was a wonderful addition to film, giving greater scope and possibilities of image manipulation and artistic realisation. Then sometime around 2002 it suddenly seemed to be high jacked by marketing people to the exclusion of film. Would others agree?

  2. #2
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,778
    Quote Originally Posted by cliveh View Post
    When digital first emerged, for years I thought it was a wonderful addition to film, giving greater scope and possibilities of image manipulation and artistic realisation. Then sometime around 2002 it suddenly seemed to be high jacked by marketing people to the exclusion of film. Would others agree?
    Since I make my living primarily in marketing and advertising, I would point out that this is nothing special or unique. As a matter of fact, for my money it probably more more correctly looked at in reverse because usually the marketing always follows the market.

  3. #3
    Maris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Noosa, Queensland, Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    675
    Commercialism rules over art in terms of volume and activity in most places at most times. Pictures showing what things look like are universally powerful in attracting attention, modifying thought, and maybe turning a dollar. People have always wanted pictures but getting them was difficult.

    In the old days there were only paintings. Paintings were slow to produce, skill intensive, and expensive. People didn't really want paintings, they wanted pictures, but paintings were all that was available.
    The invention of photography changed that. Commerce ditched paintings and adopted photographs. But photographs were still somewhat effortful to produce and still cost money. Again, pictures was what was desired and photographs were the least nasty form available at the time. Digital picture-making is now more facile and cheaper than photography and it is currently the preferred choice for generating pictures. Unfortunately digital still takes some work so it in turn will be superceded by an easier cheaper way of getting pictures into people's heads. Maybe that will be by WiFi brain implants or telepathy.

    The old media of painting, photography, and digital will continue but not as a way of showing what bits of the external world look like. Rather they will serve as a vehicle for transferring the state of mind of a creative artist to the mind of a receptive viewer; art not commerce.
    Photography, the word itself, invented and defined by its author Sir John.F.W.Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. Quote "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". unquote.

  4. #4
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Maris View Post
    Commercialism rules over art in terms of volume and activity in most places at most times. Pictures showing what things look like are universally powerful in attracting attention, modifying thought, and maybe turning a dollar. People have always wanted pictures but getting them was difficult.

    In the old days there were only paintings. Paintings were slow to produce, skill intensive, and expensive. People didn't really want paintings, they wanted pictures, but paintings were all that was available.
    The invention of photography changed that. Commerce ditched paintings and adopted photographs. But photographs were still somewhat effortful to produce and still cost money. Again, pictures was what was desired and photographs were the least nasty form available at the time. Digital picture-making is now more facile and cheaper than photography and it is currently the preferred choice for generating pictures. Unfortunately digital still takes some work so it in turn will be superceded by an easier cheaper way of getting pictures into people's heads. Maybe that will be by WiFi brain implants or telepathy.

    The old media of painting, photography, and digital will continue but not as a way of showing what bits of the external world look like. Rather they will serve as a vehicle for transferring the state of mind of a creative artist to the mind of a receptive viewer; art not commerce.
    Gee, I guess movable type just set us all on the road to ruin.

  5. #5
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,719
    Images
    6
    This is my 2 cents worth. Yes advertising can give messages on what to consume, ie creating desire for a product or a lifestyle. But the history of photographic technology for the masses it's faster and cheaper. I think digital photography wins out in that area. I don't think marketers hijacked digital in exclusion of film. We are consumer of images. If there's a way of producing something faster and cheaper, the marketers will use it. Advertising photography is for the most part is shot digitally for "budget" reasons. It's natural because even if a photographer shot film, they'll still scan it for advertising anyway. For good or bad, analog photography is becoming a fine art medium like etching.

  6. #6
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    ...analog photography is becoming a fine art medium like etching.

    Not quite yet. Before that, I'm thinking expensive, irksome, and in some instances not worth the trouble.

  7. #7
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,959
    Images
    74
    Outstanding analysis Maris!

    Quote Originally Posted by Maris View Post
    Commercialism rules over art in terms of volume and activity in most places at most times. Pictures showing what things look like are universally powerful in attracting attention, modifying thought, and maybe turning a dollar. People have always wanted pictures but getting them was difficult.

    In the old days there were only paintings. Paintings were slow to produce, skill intensive, and expensive. People didn't really want paintings, they wanted pictures, but paintings were all that was available.
    The invention of photography changed that. Commerce ditched paintings and adopted photographs. But photographs were still somewhat effortful to produce and still cost money. Again, pictures was what was desired and photographs were the least nasty form available at the time. Digital picture-making is now more facile and cheaper than photography and it is currently the preferred choice for generating pictures. Unfortunately digital still takes some work so it in turn will be superceded by an easier cheaper way of getting pictures into people's heads. Maybe that will be by WiFi brain implants or telepathy.

    The old media of painting, photography, and digital will continue but not as a way of showing what bits of the external world look like. Rather they will serve as a vehicle for transferring the state of mind of a creative artist to the mind of a receptive viewer; art not commerce.
    Andy

  8. #8
    Klainmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,493
    Images
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    ...analog photography is becoming a fine art medium like etching.

    Not quite yet. Before that, I'm thinking expensive, irksome, and in some instances not worth the trouble.
    Why again are you a member of this here forum? The only thing irksome in the discussion were your replies.
    K.S. Klain

  9. #9
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Klainmeister View Post
    Why again are you a member of this here forum? The only thing irksome in the discussion were your replies.
    Because I'm not buying the earth is flat in light of the evidence. There's life left in film. I'm disagreeing with a point that seems to have slipped by you.

  10. #10
    Maris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Noosa, Queensland, Australia.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by CGW View Post
    Gee, I guess movable type just set us all on the road to ruin.
    A very apt observation! In the old days there was writing but what people really wanted was text. Writing was a slow, vulnerable to error, and expensive way of getting text. The scriptoria of the dark and middle ages were the intellectual sweat-shops of their era. Moveable type enabled printing and the industrial scale production of cheap error-free text. Of course printing still involves labour and materials so it's no wonder that it is being replaced by screen text and eBooks. Again, it's text that commerce wants, not print.

    Now actual writing is confined to shopping lists, artistic calligraphy, and sacred works like the Torah. Even text isn't everything.
    Last edited by Maris; 12-28-2011 at 08:50 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: grammar
    Photography, the word itself, invented and defined by its author Sir John.F.W.Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society, Somerset House, London. Quote "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..". unquote.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin