Bingo. That says it perfectly. It's rather depressing from the point of the Neanderthal, though, isn't it?
Originally Posted by Eugen Mezei
The problem is that I'm a Neanderthal myself. I worked with moving images for many years but never really liked it: it was a group effort, requiring many specialists (I was an art director making commercials), so the "hands on" part---the part I liked---ended with my storyboards. Then it was all up to the production people who actually got to touch the cameras.
I bought video equipment and tried that part myself, but quickly found that the technology required becomes overwhelming. Editing platforms change constantly, as do the basic formats: Standard def became high def, tape became chips, 2D became 3D, and now High Frame Rate, each requiring entirely new (and very expensive) equipment. All this to merely appear "up to date" and compete with the new kid around the corner. Then there's the basic strategic flaw in making moving images as "art": no one has the time to watch it, so competition for screen time is fierce. Check out a local video store (if one still exists) and count the documentaries you've never ever heard of. Quite depressing for the nascent filmmaker.
Black & white analog photography is much more manageable. Simple equipment. Easy processes. It's quite inexpensive, still. Beautiful cameras. Enough gizmos to amuse and beguile without overwhelming the whole purpose. Pretty results. Appreciative viewers who always like to see photos of themselves or people they know or places they've heard about. Much better.
The fact that its antique and out of step and stagnant in a way is immaterial, ultimately. You never hear people say fine woodworking is a stagnant art, even though every chair has already been built, do you?