your 15 minutes of fame are here
Loading ...
After reading this article, I realized that I should have made the sleeveface post a follow up to this discussion about new media’s influence (photo sharing websites - specifically flickr) on photography (as art and as a past time) to make more sense of what is going on in the world of photo.
The idea of analog photography slowly dying is becoming more apparent as events like the end of polaroid film become a reality. I remember when I was a young kid, pasting analog photos in my locker and in my room at home. In modern times, this act of show is no longer enough - we must post it on the internet on websites like flickr to share with a larger audience.
In flickr, when people add their analog photographic work, they tend to tag it with the type of camera and the type of processing that they used. There is a small niche of photographic dorks, who like to still play around with analog and the beauty of almost D.I.Y. These people wind up becoming a part of larger communities like the lomography group, etc. I find myself looking for vintage cameras because of the quality they instill that no longer seems to exist - and they give off the feeling of another time… perhaps easier time in life.
The irony is that people (like myself) even go to the lengths of converting analog into digital by scanning and editing on the computer. In some sense, I suppose it is a small resistance to just delving yourself into the digital world - however, I like to think of it as an embrace of both worlds. Famous photographers like Juergen Teller (who does most of the ads for Marc Jacobs) and Terry Richardson also embrace the beauty of both analog and digital photography. Perhaps it’s because we are moving towards the future, but can’t help but be nostlagic?
Here is the most interesting passage I had read in the article: Cameras have changed in both size and structure. What hasn’t changed, however, is the public’s thirst for mementos. But now pictures are commonly viewed on screens, preserved in formats that make them more fleeting, less hand-held, and easy prey to the delete button. Endless collections of photos are placed in cyberspace each day, posted to the likes of flickr, facebook, shutterfly, ning, snapfish, picassa, smugmug, ringo, and others — part of global social networks. This gives a whole new meaning to the expression collective memory. While printed pictures still can be made, doing so is rare; the intimacy of the touch is gone. What was once a keepsake is now but a glimmer, making Andy Warhol’s concept of “fifteen minutes of fame†seem like an eternity. Snap your fingers once and the digital camera captures the image. Snap twice and the image is on your screen. With three snaps, the picture is off into cyberspace, perhaps to be shared, perhaps gone forever. What was once a religious mystery is now a technological wonder. What, I wonder, do those images say to each other when they pass through the night? (Full article can be read here)
So what exactly are new media environments like flickr doing to photography as art and as a past time? The answer lies in the article, but you can wait till the next post.
Comments
I thought your post was very interesting. I love my digital camera, i like how i can go out with friends and not have to worry about running out of pictures as opposed to film or disposable cameras where u only have twenty four pictures to capture your memories. However, while I like being able to just take pictures at ease and not have to wait for them to be developed, I do always take my camera to walmart or wherever I can print my pictures out. There is something irreplaceable about having a tangible photograph to put into an album and then be able to look back and remember the memories and the stories that are associated with the photos.
Before I came here I spent a year as a photography major at california college of arts where I was (and still am I guess) one of those photo dorks who love film and darkrooms and lugging around large format cameras. This issue came up often and incited heated polarized debates. Despite being in the techie geek capital of the country (the San Francisco, Bay Area) most of the photo majors/teachers/department were particularly resistant to digital technologies. People used digital cameras for some things (but not extensively) and admitted that high end digital printing has been getting close to darkroom quality, but there was/is a definite attachment to film. Everyone pretty much agreed that digital quality just can’t match the depth and saturation of film. I actually had a teacher who argued that film would stick around for a while and professional photographers would just continue to scan their negatives (which many of them do now).
I know it seems silly to try and cling to a technology that is more expensive and “labor intensive” (although I’m not sure it is)and is becoming increasing antiquated. However, as a photographer I still prefer to shoot using film. Even if the quality were comparably, the experience is entirely different. The way you interact with the scene, the camera, and the light changes a lot. Also, another thing to consider is that being able to take a lot more pictures with a memory card than you can with film isn’t necessarily always a good thing.
Most importantly, having so many photographs (and so many photographers) does in fact take away from the integrity and significance of the single image. If you take enough pictures eventually one or two will turn out well. But these days we see so many images (and so many of the same images taken by different photographers) we don’t and can’t really look at them and they become meaningless.
Sorry, I didn’t intend to write so much, and I could write a lot more about this. It was a daily topic of conversation.