[batwister]

I wrote here several years ago about discovering a couple of twenty-somethings in the lounge area, one of whom was twiddling the agitator on a developing tank. Innocently I asked what film and developer the lass was using. "Kodak" and "dunno, they give it to us." I realize the goal of the class wasn't to create darkroom techs, but geeze!

Being a twenty something, I'd say this has less to do with age, but film's modern status as an art material. This is the reason young creative types are drawn to it today.

I believe traditional photography can be as 'complicated' as you make it. There are some great and thorough technical books by 'photographers', with personal examples that leave you scratching your head - Edge of Darkness by Barry Thornton and Creative Elements by Eddie Ephraums being a couple I own. There's a connection to be made between the lack of depth in the imagery of those books and the pronounced technical virtuosity in the writing. I really believe most of us only have the capacity to be savants in one of these areas, but will forever struggle with the technical/creative balance. As a result, most will never be particularly great in either. There's a bit of a stigma with traditional photography when you don't know your stuff, which I think leads to technical self-consciousness. This has held me back at times and the quality of my work has suffered. It's been talked about a lot, but the left brain/right brain scales have to be precariously balanced to produce great photographs. With traditional photography especially, it doesn't take much of a tangent to tip them.

I suspect this is what many people fear when they call it 'complicated'. Traditional photography requires a certain repression of the creative urge.