week 2 | 2012
Last night I watched a documentary on Vimeo, PressPausePlay, about the democratization of art and how technology and internet has empowered the people. But it also is questioning whether these changes have made art better or that is becoming increasingly more difficult for talents to be noticed. I consider this documentary highly recommended and it sure brings a lot of food for thoughts.
I know it is only week two of 2012, but after a year of extensive daily photography it is fascinating that it still feels like week two. Week two though with the knowledge of 54 weeks. And in week two many manufacturers fought for attention to get their new products noticed. While some new cameras seem really interesting I have hardly any interest in these products, because I really think I use what I really need. The essence of photography is not the technology. Sure it enabled photography and you at least need a camera to capture light, but the kind of camera you use doesn’t really make you a better or worse photographer. Experience and knowledge comes with years of practicing and learning, not with a better piece of equipment or software. Technology can help you, but not make you more distinctive.
For this weeks additional thoughts about a particular photograph I pick up the sixth, Friday, photograph. I regularly photograph from inside a car through the car window. I particularly like these kind of photographs, because they provide me the sense of moving on in a direction. While the general movement in these photographs is forward, a mirror can still give a glimpse of what is left behind.
All photographs by Wouter Brandsma
I think that technology has added an extra layer of artists to the bottom of the pyramid but it hasn’t put the amateur artist any closer to the top.
I agree, it made the bottom much wider. The risk however is that you will mostly see the work from the bottom since that increased immensely and that the better work becomes hardly noticed. Other potential hazard is that the average work becomes the accepted norm. People accept and appreciate less for less.
But regarding the distinction between amateurs and professional I think there is mediocrity among both groups. The fact that you can pay the bills with your camera doesn’t mean in my opinion that you are a good artist. Maybe you are hardly more consistent.
Wow, I really like the editing of this week’s series. The first one (Sunday) is my favorite.
Referring to the democratization of art/photography and the wider bottom of the pyramid: I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing.
Too many photographers tend to be obsessed with getting noticed. Somewhere on the web, I read an extensive discussion about the best sharing options for pictures. Do you get more views on Tumblr or Posterous? Is it more meaningful to be “explored” on Flickr or to be Editor’s Choice on 500px? Should you promote your photography on Facebook or Google+ or both nowadays? And in this discussion, one of the photographers admitted that he didn’t take one single picture in weeks. Somehow, getting noticed becomes more important than leaving the house and taking pictures.
On Tumblr I come across numerous Asian teenage girls who fill their blogs with goofy self-portraits and mostly over-processed pictures of their Starbucks coffee and friends at school. These kids don’t care about views or ranks or rules, they just love photography. And their dedication to document their lives, is quite touching.
Maybe, there are some lessons to be learned from the bottom of the pyramid.
Oh yes, the elitists can learn that art comes from within and that we all matter. And I totally hate the thing of being “explored”. I admit, I hardly pay any attention to flickr even though I post some photographs there and people follow me there. What surprises me though is that people post “check my photography” comments whenever one of photographs actually gets explored. People try to use others as vehicle for more attention and popularity,but art is not about monetizing and getting famous.
Also when art is dictated from above, from the so-called artists and their curators, it doesn’t really move that fast either and isn’t always a meaningful reflection of society either. Democratization comes with fear, the fear that those once respected will be forgotten or never noticed by others. And that they loose their income, because they get outperformed by differently educated kids.
A brilliant meditation about the ways we had to go & how we do that. Straight lines leading direct into the foggy unknown or the branches of the trees high up in the sky. Going through another week always means to move forward. And moving forward means leaving something behind. See it in the mirror & maybe one day returning to is what makes it so damn intresting & beautiful, Wouter!
And for me the most important thing to photography is the eye: Seeing what you like to capture, seeing the story you like to tell & seeing the others to find creativity, inspiration & depth that I happily drown in. And all that technology is a kind of wave: Sometimes I’m not that lucky about the pictures I take & I blame it on my camera. But that’s mostly unfair because it’s my lack of inspiration or the felt failure of achieving something in a short time when I ust had to admit that even a simple frame needs time to be taken. Thanks for another week, Wouter!
All the best & safe travels, Fritsch.
A direction in an image is always something that truly fascinates me, just like lonesomeness you mentioned the previous week. The combination of the too is even more interesting. It makes everything else irrelevant.
I will have to look for that documentary. The term “democratization” can be taken to refer to several different processes, especially related to art. For instance, by taking the esoteric and making it more broadly accessible, art has always been a “democratizing” force. Generally, however, the flood of digital media on the internet contains a lot of noise and any art embedded there is subject to being lost in a deluge of copying by a bunch of folks who don’t see the difference. That doesn’t mean the flood is bad, just not relevant (mostly anyway) artistically. Anyhow, it’s a very broad topic leading to significant theoretical speculations that can’t (and probably shouldn’t) be attempted here. Does one believe that an infinite number of monkeys armed with word processors over enough time would eventually produce all the works of Shakespeare?
As to your photographs, this seems another of those sets where everything relates and there is progressive movement throughout. A lovely, strong, and enjoyable set. Three and four are my favorites as they seem the hub around which all the others turn.
Mentioning such topics makes perfect sense, I feel. The problem in my opinion however is that those considered to be the artists think these kind of movements should generally be banded. And while it is generally not bad that more people are given the means to create art, as long as it is original and personal. Since most people don’t have or are not aware of their talents, they turn into copycats. For instance, many people take long exposure black and white landscape photographs. They see other people having success with these kind of photographs and would like to take the same kind of stuff and feel the same kind of appreciation. In the meantime most people are not aware that they copycat the British photographer Michael Kenna.
In the documentary one music journalist makes a remark about bands and genres that would be the next big thing, but all attention and hype disappears after a couple of years. In photography you see this movement too. Street photography is currently the biggest thing and many people jumped on the band wagon to try and succeed too. Now so many photographers do it and share their work, that it becomes increasingly difficult to get noticed when you are really good. To get noticed they turn into prolific bloggers and organize workshops. Andy Warhol was right when he said that “In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes.”
Two things. First, I certainly hope my post wasn’t taken to suggest you shouldn’t raise the topic. When referring to the complexity of the topic at hand I should have said more clearly: “that I can’t (and probably shouldn’t) attempt here.” And second, I agree that the Warhol quote is a propos the copy cat phenomenon we see in “street photography”. In the over saturation of the topic and its relative ease, its aesthetic merit has largely been lost. Relatively few know why the great ones were/are great; the hierarchy of merit has broken down leading to a chaotic randomness with scarcely any design.
Lack of design, I would say, excludes any making from artistic discussion. To make art, you must have a design, an intent, a “something” you want/need to say (intuitive or conscious). If you exclude that requirement, surely then, anybody can become famous, but not enduringly. It would also be appropriate to ask, “famous with whom?” Which leads us full circle back to the need to define “democratization” or at least be clear which process we are referring to. If we are to praise “democratization” as it relates to the assignment of merit, we would do well to recall that it was a democratic vote that put Socrates to death.
Hope you and yours are well.
g
Really like the third picture from the top. Composition is dead on giving a sense of the unknown. I also have been watching all of these new cameras products and I really get sick of it because I believe it removes the photographer from the creative process of photography. The technology is distracting.
Even though technology has empowered us to such a big extend, it can also be the biggest pitfall. People like you for the brand you use, because they think they can be similar too. Even Moriyama Daido is now almost more famous for his usage of a small Ricoh camera, like Bresson gets a lot of credit for the fact he photographed with Leica cameras. A strange thing.
And not everything is bad in terms of technology either, but I do feel that nowadays different sets of skills and competences are required.
Mooi statement Wouter om nog even de essentie van het fotograferen te benadrukken. De derde foto springt er voor mij uit. Vooral omdat deze foto mij doet denken aan mijn kindertijd en de fascinatie van het spoor en de oneindigheid qua blik van een spoorlijn!
Afgelopen week trad in Ede de Nederlandse singer-songwriter JP den Tex op (zat vroeger o.a. in Vitesse). Hij maakte ook de vergelijking tussen het vooral vooruitkijken en af en toe terugkijken om te zien waar je nu bent. Als een foto je doet denken aan je eigen jeugd biedt het je dus de mogelijkheid om terug te kunnen kijken, terwijl de foto toch vooral het gevoel verder van de onbekende toekomst probeert op te roepen. Wat is geweest, is bekend. Wat nog moet komen, zal pas later bekend zijn.
Wouter I like the railway shot, the tone works very well. There’s something familiar about the feeling of the image rather than the image itself. Also, your son’s eye appears a lot. I’m not too interested in portrait shots as such but it’s interesting when you post these shots, like part of an ongoing timeline, or a grounding.
I agree with your comments generally, about technology and cameras not making a good photographer necessarily. However, I am very interested in process and other peoples’ processes from a data / research point of view. I guess from reading your recent posts that these things don’t bother you much, which is good, it annoys me how interested in process I am sometimes. I like looking at the EXIF data of peoples photographs and notice yours has gone – is that a conscious decision or something that’s just happened in processing the files?
I was not aware that my photographs now appear without exif data, but I personally don’t really matter about that. Based on my experience I can pretty good interpret what focal length and aperture was used. More importantly I think is what a photographer tries to communicate with his/her photographs. This subjective data won’t be found in the exif data, can’t be extracted from the camera being used, or what piece of software was used to process the images.
There is a lot more beyond that. A Mr. Huff or Mr. Reichmann won’t tell you that. Any lists circulated by Mr. Kim will not explain that either. These are merely motivational. No, we all have to learn this for ourselves.
I used to do it too, admitted. But it absolutely gained me nothing. I feel I am a photographer, not a gear freak. It depresses me when we remember a photographer for the camera he or she used, instead of the formidable work they produced over many centuries.
Nice photos, as usual.
Having more people doing and publishing photography can only be a good thing. It connects us all in a much deeper way. We just have to be more patient and diligent in our search for the kind of work that inspires us. Some ten years ago, someone who was willing to show his work would be at the mercy of a gallery curator or a publisher. Self expression is much more democratic nowadays but the reactions tent to be more indifferent… I suppose that it would always be a price to pay on account of the sheer quantity of work published on the net.
By the way, I finally decided to go public with my blog (another photoblog added to so many…). It´s in: http://amarques1966.wordpress.com/. I hope you´l stop by.
All the best,
António Marques
Every direction has it’s pros and cons. In the past you had to have some important names in the business to make yourself noticed. Nowadays the artists are also the publishers. They create their own communities. That is fascinating about this modern empowerment.
I still believe humility is important too. We can’t all be stars and with only a few people appreciating what we do, doesn’t turn us into self proclaimed authorities.
When you try to be an artist, passion and dedication should always be involved in my opinion. And never rest, always strive for improvements and openness.
Excellent series of photos, Wouter, and especially so, very much so, the bottom two. Good photography! Adrian
Thank you, Andrian!
Wonderful photos! Love the mood.
quote (from above): “I still believe humility is important too. We can’t all be stars and with only a few people appreciating what we do, doesn’t turn us into self proclaimed authorities.
When you try to be an artist, passion and dedication should always be involved in my opinion. And never rest, always strive for improvements and openness.”
I agree.
Cheers!
Steve
We just need honesty, Steve. Everyone who seeks and popularity will fall in the same trap over and over again.
Excellent set of images Wouter, I’ve noticed the progression towards this very alluring processing, its certainly very representative of your mood. I presume you’re also noticing some changes as the weeks go by, I know I am as well.
Technology is a catch-22, damn if you do and damn if you don’t. Yes, I agree like you said “And not everything is bad in terms of technology either, but I do feel that nowadays different sets of skills and competences are required.” Absolutely, I remember the days of developing, under and over exposing film, dodging and burning, reprints and more reprints but these days Lightroom 3 and others are leading the way. Personally, I much prefer these times as my time is extremely limited. I certainly don’t consider myself an elitist when it comes to photography but I can certainly appreciate and have read and studied(in university) the work of the greats which has served as an inspiration.
These days folks get a dslr(Mr. Hawk) and just produce and produce but with no sense of storytelling or documenting, just pressing that shutter continuously at anything. Yes, some images are stunning but I really don’t know if it was a point and click coupled with expensive gear that even a trained animal could accomplish or if perhaps there is some under appreciated substance to it all. Nonetheless, technology has opened up a new generation of point and shooters and coupled with other software into various genre of photography and producing work that is admirable and sometimes inspirational as well.
Now the question becomes could you produce great photography without knowing its past(film and great classic photographers)? I’m afraid the answer is yes but it produces a level of work which lacks meaning and substance and its flat out repetitive and not to mention boring.
So keep doing what you do because the substance and emotion and hard work is very apparent in your work, all the best.
Jorge Ledesma
When people learn a trick and others appreciate it, they will repeat it to get more cheers. That however is no talent. With current technology it becomes easier to learn more tricks and get even more thumbs ups, but that however still doesn’t make you a talent.
We can all press the shutter and turn our cameras in machineguns and at some point you will hit something. No, learn, make mistakes, fail, open yourself, and bend it. Sure the past can help, just like technical and visual knowledge. Only a few set new standards though, consciously or unconsciously.