As an Austin photographer, I see alot of photography and other artwork. Not that I go to an extraordinary amount of art shows but I always see it. Art. Frankly, I see more things that I consider artful that aren't created in the usual sense of the word art like photographs, paintings and sculpture are. For example:
this. The bright green caught my eye immediately -- the way it is contrasted against the brick and the grey and beige benches. So did the composition of the seating arrangements. It's as though the seats are hanging out together and talking casually at the park like tall, thin quirky ladies wearing hats and floral dresses. And fat old men in short sleeve white button downs and neutral, high-waisted pants -- even if drab like the color grey can be, they too have colorful personalities. We all know how a grumpy old man can make us laugh. Anyway, my point about seeing alot of art is that there's much more bad art out there than good. Unless you're in Europe or New York.
In a way, photography is becoming less of an art because it has become such a part of everyday life (see: smartphones, apps, affordable point & shoot cameras and easy DSLRs). At the same time, this truly distinguishes artful, professional photographers from the norm and outlines a sacred space for art and photography collectors to find nourishment. And I think there is a certain group of people who have a newfound or revisited appreciation for the art of photography.
Photography is powerful. It's powerful because it encapsulates reality. It's a vessel that allows us to interpret ourselves visually. That interpretation is two-fold: First, if we're in the picture we analyze how we look - our body, our style, our interaction and emotion involved with other people in the picture. Second, we also might think about our relationship with the photographer and how we react to the camera -- we might stop for a minute to ponder our relationship with the process of being photographed. What's our level of comfort or discomfort with being photographed?
Photography is powerful because it ensures that memories don't fade away. It's powerful because it's imagery and people need to see what you're talking about. Even in business, at some point in a project, the decision makers are going to need to see proof of what you're proposing - a graph, resources, a flowchart outlining a process, pricing, something.
Photography is also powerful because it takes us to other worlds.
A huge reason I started this blogspot was so that I could talk about the transformation of photography and educate people a little bit because I think some things have gotten lost in the digital age. I'm not anti, I just think it's important to round things out. I feel the same way about music ... people born in the 80's aren't going to know where pop music is sampling from. They have no clue that "Bootylicious" samples Stevie Nicks' "Edge of Seventeen". This happens with every generation. If you look to the past you'll not only enrich your knowledge, you'll broaden your horizons and discover some fun, amazing stuff. If I wasn't into old vinyl, I wouldn't have known that "Killing Me Softly" by the Fugees was actually a cover of Roberta Flack.
Yes, before digital SLRs, there was traditional film photography. We went to digital and the craft of the whole process was largely lost. There's the part where you take the photo and the part where you print or upload the photo.
Taking the photo: Knowing how to manually set your aperture & shutter speeds and make adjustments in order to get certain effects means you've studied & experimented. Knowing how to manage your settings when you're shooting a subject against a white wall with the blazing New Orleans sun reflecting off of it says something, right?
Sharing the photo: People will claim digital tools are the same as an actual darkroom because you get the same results. It is not and you don't. Pushing buttons is not the same as physically blocking light from hitting the paper (because a certain part of the negative is too light or simply as an artistic decision) as it comes through the negative to reflect an image. It's actually like you're painting with light when you're in the darkroom. And it's transcendental.
Moving the paper through different steps of chemical development processes is different than having an image automatically reside within a tiny chip that you can easily transfer to other sorts of media. A silver gelatin print has a certain depth and personal feel that an inkjet or laser print often does not. The physical hand breathes something unique into the work. It's like having a poster print of a painting vs. having the real painting. There's a difference. And the materials are much more expensive. Sometimes you go through multiple sheets of photographic paper to get one photograph printed just the way you want it. Printing your images at Costco, Walmart, or your nearest drugstore for less than a dollar (after setting everything to auto while composing the image and then auto correcting with a simple editing program) does not warrant charging hundreds or thousands of dollars for a framed print. I have certain prints for sale at a very inexpensive price because I did not print them personally. I explain my reasoning for this in more detail and you can find the prints here.
Digital photography certainly has its place. It can be more cost-effective and it is definitely less time-consuming, although editing through hundreds or thousands of images for a project (like a wedding) takes a significant amount of time and skill. Digital photography also makes photo sharing that much easier and that's a good thing.
From an authenticity perspective, the problem with digital photography is that people who haven't studied the craft and art of photography can deem themselves photographers and most onlookers won't be aware of that or know the amount of time, labor and personal touch that goes into an authentic silver gelatin, archival print. Lots of images look like lame tourist shots that nobody cares about. And this super unnatural, hyper-color style has become mainstream and deemed really artistic. Then there's apps for your smartphone, some of which are really cool, but again - you push a button - it's that simple ... and everyone thinks because it's that easy, photographs are always free.
Here's how it goes too often:
Step 1. Purchase digital camera.
Step 2. Learn how to set bells & whistles that make everything automatic.
Step 3. Undercharge or even offer free work to clients/consumers who are not educated to the reality of the photo industry or market and set the bar too low and expectations to high. There are plenty of businesses who have no problem taking advantage of artists who are trying to make a name for themselves and offer photo credit or some sort of trade for your free work. This can be a good thing if you're just starting out and don't have a portfolio, but be very careful as you move up in your career.
Step 4. Clients/consumers are disappointed with the experience and quality of work.
Step 5. The market gets mucked up because amateur photographers don't know what to charge and those in a position to hire a photographer expect to pay way less than the standard.
If you're not trying to do it professionally (as an event, fine art or news photographer) - fine. If you are, you've got to pay your dues. You have to educate yourself by talking to the right people and/or taking classes. Know your market worth and price things accordingly. On the flip side -- also know that, like in any profession, your are paid by your experience level so price fairly.
Then you have the people who can shoot nice images with their fully-automated camera. They have good subject matter, good composition ... and they can use editing tools that do everything for you, even set auto contrast, auto color correction, auto shadows. It's like someone who can't sing getting into the studio and the producer totally covers up their cracking voice with digital tools like auto tune. I think there's something to be said for someone who has studied and utilized the physical process and history of photography -- the process itself and accomplished artists. It's the difference between natural beauty and plastic surgery.
I don't mean to shoot down photo enthusiasts or those of you who are learning how to use your digital camera and practicing to become a better photographer. Tapping into creativity is awesome! Learning to master the latest technologies is something in itself. I'm just saying a distinction should be made, especially when someone is paying for the work, as artwork. Just because I know how to use the internet doesn't mean I'm an engineer. I took many photographs when I first started out almost twenty years ago, thinking they'd all be great. I have a good amount of negatives and slides I won't print. It's a process. Eventually, you may learn to edit as you go along, before you shoot. (But again, with digital you don't have to worry about getting everything right - if the camera doesn't automatically get it, your auto-editing tools can ... you don't have to be as exacting as you do with film and manual editing in the darkroom.) On the other hand, it may just be personal style for some photographers to take lots of shots. I filter out a lot, so I don't. I almost always take one shot of what I want. I have refined my interests, my style, and fine-tuned my eye, I suppose.
There has long been a debate about whether photography is even considered art because you are photographing something that has already been created, whereas with painting you are creating something first-hand. Or are you? What about still-lifes or portraits, paintings of places -- like Van Gough's "Café Terrace at Night"? A photographer can stage his/her own shoot just like a painter can create something from a memory. Some used to say that, with photography, you had one chance to get the image right whereas, with painting, you could block out a canvas with paint and start over if you didn't like what you started, therefore photography won out in the battle over which is more of an art. Personally, I see no need to pit them against one another. It's ridiculous.
Now we have social media. Which totally promotes voyeurism. And, that's fine. It's normal. I'm all for it. Findings report that 90% of people use Facebook to see photos and videos. Besides being a great way to keep in touch, we're voyeurs - it's just a fancy term for people-watching. Don't pretend like life is any different. I like to catch a glimpse of a night scene inside a lit window from outside as I pass by random houses. I don't stalk or stall, but it's curious or it's pretty. It's like a diorama. It's a little story in a box. It's like a picturesque holiday window scene in a painting. It's like being on vacation and seeing warmly lit houses that are glowing on the side of a mountain covered in snow.
Anyway, my point is that social media absolutely proves how we are all drawn to imagery. It's a way to communicate. Its satisfies curiosity. It tells a story. And we expect to see photos. It's inspiring in much the same way that looking at an art book or a magazine can be.
I talk too much. Next post we'll have a simple, juicy photo project.
No comments:
Post a Comment