Quote Originally Posted by Eugen Mezei View Post
I agree with him that photography [1] is quasi dissapearing, but I very much disagree with what he thinks the reason for this is.
In my opinion it is not that Kodak closes, film dissapears and not even that every cellphone gets a camera. Perhaps the last one has an indirect influence.

The problem is that nothing new appears. Maybe it is a consequence that almost anything was photographed, but even this is not the real, exclusive reason. I think the reason is that no revolution is happening. Nobody comes up with something really "art-shaking". I see only thousands of variations of the same "streetphotography" that's considered "cool" but mostly saying nothing, industrial where the more trash the better and if you put a model in some dirty or motoroiled clothes in the picture than it is considered perfect (but unfortunately it was presented the same way thousands of times, maybe the first time it was somewhat innovative), social photography where the goal seem to be to find people in the most desolate environments, portraits, fashion all the same endless variations of what we have seen also thousands of times, etc, etc. Nothing really revolutionary nor in the ideea nor in the realisation. So at least photography is stagnating for a long time now. Without revolution it can't exist art, even evolution is not enough.

[1] I don't men technical photography, of course.
I think the revolution is in motion imagery, that's the issue, it's moved away from still, the next step past that is fully digital renderings that aren't at all photographs but graphical 3D modeling that you can "snap" with your camera that takes a 3D sonar image and you can then create the colors as you see fit (or some such thing like that) this is the issue, I don't mean to sound down about film, I love film, the reality is that us film shooters are the ones who haven't evolved, we're stuck on film and anti-digital, but that's where photography has gone and we refused to change, and so we die... (there was a term used and I forget it now) for the portrait painters in Europe who fought hard against the idea of photography that it wasn't really art and all the new photography portraits that were taking their business away because it wasn't "really art" there was a term for them. Photographers who remain in film and claim that digital isn't really art, they are the same. You can't really make any NEW film, it's already been done, the new images are going to come from some other technology. Don't get me wrong I LOVE my film, it gives me a different sense of framing and imagery, forces me to think, just as the painters took hours and days to paint a portrait, I take minutes to compose and set up a shot rather than 10 seconds to snap 10 digital shots and edit and crop in post on a computer. Perhaps photography in the future will be in the form or image extraction from our own mind's eye of memory of an experience and how we saw it, and that will be displayed for the world. Right now it's through twitter and instagram and Pheed and Facebook and Tumblr and all the others... there are tons of photographers who NEVER make a print and only sell their work digitally to someone who likes to look at them on their computer ... and that is the new photography, we are the old way, we are the Neanderthals.

I have NOT read the above link YET... simply responding to the poster, I WILL read (or watch etc.) sometime tomorrow night most likely.

Please don't be angry with my comment, I am a big supporter of film as an art, but I only speak the truth as I see it.