Quote Originally Posted by davidkachel View Post
What I believe I am seeing is a near total abandonment of photographic tradition and history among new photographers, who of course work digitally (in large part). This concerns me greatly. Without tradition and history, the future is bleak.
The reason why contemporary picture-makers working in a digital environment don't care about photographic tradition and history is that they are not part of it.

The technical and aesthetic considerations invoked when generating pictures from electronic files are not the same as those that prompt the production of photographs: physical art-objects made out of light sensitive materials. Digipix can be made to resemble any process in any medium and for the time being many are regularly made to resemble photographs. Perhaps this is because the digital world has not evolved a secure aesthetic of its own. Or maybe photography is such a powerful exemplar that the digi-worker can't conceive of what a good picture should look like save that it should look like a photograph. Or is it a plain case of imitation amounting to flattery?

If you will allow that "different" is not "the same", that "looks like" doesn't mean "same as", and merely "saying so" is insufficient to "make it so", then I insist that digital picture-making is not photography at all. And it's about time that digipix accumulated their own tradition and history instead of cadging a free ride from photography.