Quote Originally Posted by pstake View Post
No offense but this comment smacks of reflexive optimism. The marathon itself is not at all the problem. As a personal exercise, it's a swell idea and one from which we could probably all learn (about ourselves.) What I don't agree with, is the passing off of mediocre photos with the flashy "24 hour" banner as a novelty — as a means of convincing the audience that arming one's self with an arsenal of fancy gadgets and soldiering through 24 hours, one is guaranteed to capture humanity in its essence.

A legion of "photographers" will pass this blogpost around and convince each other that the photos it contains are at the center of truth in the human condition. Then they will all start posting the junk they themselves capture during their own 24-hour photo hunts.

This is the kind of thing that dilutes the canon. Someone said that $500 and an internet connection has made everyone a photographer and this kind of thing is the vehicle for that. It's fine as an exercise. It's even a noble exercise when treated as such. But to give it more credence than that only diminishes the standard of what defines a truly great photograph or great photographer. It subverts the craft that great photographers strategize to hone with neither need nor want for novelties.

As an aside, Vivian Maier's work is amazing, inspiring.
Very well put, but don't agree that it 'diminishes the standard of what defines great photography'. For anyone who has had an eye opening adventure through photography, from rock bottom (Flickr at the start for me) to thoughtful and critically revered contemporary and classical work - i.e. 'the canon' - there is a reasoned perspective gained, which is: there is a huge gulf between this kind of naive work and 'great photography'. Completely different spheres, which, all said and done, do not influence each other. Despite what many contemporary photography commentators say, there really is no need for any reactionary movement against the prolific output of these people, because they attract different audiences, and rightfully so. It really is just a case of live and let live. If you're eating in a restaurant, does it have any baring on you that someone else in the world is at Burger King?

Back to the sentiment of my last post however, even by the standards of the 'photo sharing sphere', this is terrible photography . The 24 hour thing is like a lure for keeping a certain type of photography enthusiast perpetually ignorant to important conceptual work (which doesn't mean what you think it does, benjiboy). But when we're talking about other people's ignorance, it eventually becomes a political debate. For the sake of the integrity of this community and its newcomers, ignore shit like this and read any number of history of photography books, lend or buy monographs and go to exhibitions if at all possible.

APUG really needs a reading list sticky thread.