11.06.2012

What's trending in photography?



I think the first step is to admit that most of the stuff we do is nothing special and that we do it to fill the time in a pleasant way. But is that enough?

The last ten years have seen incredibly dynamic growth, excitement and change in photography. At its very best, at the top of the craft, artists have successfully thrown out decades of convention, antiquated thinking and the safety of old rules in order to transform the art. At the other end of the spectrum never before has there been a greater quantity of the same poorly seen and poorly executed work foisted on the world's visual markets.

Collectively, we've spent the last ten years breaking away from the constrictions of film photography only to, in most cases, end up re-applying the same tired conventions in the new medium.

The single most pressing questions I hear when I meet other photographers for coffee and conversation are variations of these: "I have all this gear but I need some inspiration. I'm looking for the right subject matter. I'm bored just shooting. I feel like I'm totally prepared but I don't know what I want to shoot. How do you decide what to shoot?" And, after we talk for a while the conversation floats back to firm ground: "which camera body? Which lens?"

It's time for a new re-invention of photography.

Most of the progress we've made falls into two areas. We've spent a lot of time getting digital to be reliable and of equal quality with the film technologies that we had used for decades before. While digital can be noiseless we are only now conquering the dynamic range issues and characteristic curves that make and made film so alluring. In fact, most of us would have continued to shoot film if not for the stark differences in perceived operating costs. So now digital starts to decisively pull away in terms of technical quality. Cameras like the Nikon D800 and the Sony a99 are delivering very high resolutions combined with wide dynamic ranges and low noise. Equally importantly they are doing it without the bulk and slow operating performance of medium format imaging platforms with which they now compete.

The second area of progress is post production and digital manipulation. I've been using Photoshop since the year it was invented and clearly remember the first iterations which had no options for layers, or even undo. You worked and saved and worked and saved. Now all can be changed with the wave of a hand, the click of an action or the magic of the right plug-in. You can pretty much make any image anything you want. Its very ease seems to impel us to use and abuse it. Coupled with this kind of post processing control is the maturation of ink jet printers which allows us to print to just about any size with high quality, archival keeping qualities and in-house control.

But have we  really moved the art and wonder of photography forward? I would say "yes" for a very small number of practitioners who use the medium as a spring board for their ideas. I would say most of us are stuck firmly in the aesthetic realm of the 1970's and 1980's. We just make it all faster, in greater quantity, and print it bigger (if it gets printed at all...).

One of the first culprits is the pressure of group think that aggressively postulates and then rewards the idea that the only thing which matters in terms of labeling photography as "good" or "bad" is the technical quality of execution. Is the image sharp? Is the image noise free? Does the image encompass a wide enough range of tones? But rarely do we, as a culture, relate to the idea behind the image. What was the artist trying to say with their perfect image? What concept did they put forward that will add to and change our collective thought processes? How will the image move the needle and set the stage for a new way of looking at our lives and our cultures?

The fact is that most of the flood of images we endure is highly imitative and self-conscious. It's more in the realm of proving technical mastery than anything else. At some point a compulsive adherence to even the idea of technical quality as a major qualifier of acceptance is destructive to the art. Not to mention the reality that our eagerness to show off our techniques tends to make us content agnostic.

But how did we get to this place? How did we develop photography into a religion that worships almost entirely at the alter of objective parameter measurement and metric analysis? Why do we copy so many (self fabricated) star photographers (who themselves seem obsessed with teaching technique) on the web? Why is DXO Mark so popular in our photo lives? Why is it important to so many people that their camera or lens be able to squeeze out a tenth of a percent more something than a competitor's camera? Are images of our acne endowed but beloved teens made better and more endearing when rendered clinicially sharp? Do images of our weathered and worn spouses become more alive when rendered by a machine with more or better pixels? Are snapshots of kittens and puppies more enduring because we can now blow up the images and see texture on each follicle of kitty fur?

I would say that, with the help of ad agencies and camera makers, along with the mind boggling explosion of blogs and photo sharing sites, that we've effectively reprogrammed the brains of three generations, and mutated our thought processes to the point where the analysis of the tools trumps anything that can actually be done (creatively) with the tools.

I think most bloggers start out trying to generate a mix of art, experience and gear. They quickly find that every time they talk about gear, or review a favorite lens or camera, their number spike like crazy and every time they post something heartfelt and about the art of photography their blog readership drops faster than a plutonium feather through a vacuum. Their blogs evolve into something they never anticipated. What started as a behind the scenes  showcase ends up as an educational blog with a credit card gateway. What started as a technical sharing site morphs into a  running ad campaign for workshops that teach how to. Never why to.

Let's face it. Most photographers have a financial incentive in running a blog. They wiggle around until they find a selling proposition that works for them and then they optimize. If you find the greatest payoff in click throughs and ad sales comes from gear reviews and the glorification of technique then it just makes sense to steer more in that direction. Which steers everyone into a self-fulfilling prophecy. In a technical culture the person with the corner on facts is king of commerce. And so it goes.  Even my favorite non Kirk Tuck blog seems to be larding in more "interesting" lenses and cameras than every before.

My point in all of this is simple. As a culture it's pretty obvious that we're fixated on process and gear and largely ignoring aesthetics and concept. We are dumbing ourselves down in that we absorb and regurgitate stylistic "differentiators" (fancy borders? different filters?) that have no relevance to messaging, thoughtful content and point of view. Adding destructive filters to a banal documentation doesn't elevate the banal documentation into a different realm. Especially when so many others are using the exact same filters on exactly the same kind of banal documentations. Madness. Paint by numbers. Stand here and use f5.6.

If we all become completely invested in the process only, with no point of view and no reason other than our own short term (imagined) pleasure, then the vast majority of images created in our lifetime will have less real reason to exist that toilet paper.

I've always preached the idea that constant practice makes one a better photographer, and perhaps there is validity to this on a commercial level or in the practice of street photography where, at least, you're being out on the street increases the chances that you'll find something worthwhile at which to point your camera. But I'm re-thinking my whole hypothesis. I think we shoot and share too much.  And it's mostly done without regard to challenging ourselves as artists with inquisitive brains. I'm guilty as heck of shooting stuff not because it's the way I see a subject but because it proves or provides a technical point I want to make in conjunction with my writing.

So, what do I hope for? Now that the megapixel race seems less important and now that the web based experts have have taught everyone on the planet how to use small flashes indoors and out, how to shoot people on skateboards and bikes, how to shoot women in halter tops and high heels,  and now that everyone seems to be settling in with their favorite PhotoShop celebrity post processing, I'm hoping that some strong, disruptive and highly creative artists come forward into our collective space to actually challenge us to try and make some art that has balls and a voice. I'm looking for the equivalents of Irving Penn and Richard Avedon who shook up the world's perceptions about photography in the 1950's and 1960's, even in the 1990s. I'm looking for a William Frank who can bring new energy to shooting in the streets. I'm looking for someone like Bill Brandt who re-invented portraits in the first half of the 20th century.  Where is the current generation's Diane Arbus? I'm equally welcoming to painters like David Hockney crossing over to do some unique camera work as well.

For that matter where are the peers and counterparts to Gary Crewdson and Alex Gursky? Why the insistence on only emulating the easy targets?  Is it just harder for people to be found in the clutter? Has the signal to noise ratio dropped below 1:1? Have we just let our aesthetic sensibilities atrophy to such a level that we can no longer even recognize something that has a real message? Or did we never care in the first place?

There are so many big themes in the world: The collapse of economies, the collapse of cultures and countries,  the denial of jobs for a generation of college graduates, the collision of western culture and middle eastern cultures, the clash of religions, the changing domestic roles of men and women in relationships, the ascendancy of women as income earners and learners and how that will effect sexual politics, how we'll redefine beauty as people become larger and obese, and how we envision the future. Love, Hate, Wonder.  Big themes that are just there for the taking. Big referents on which to hang our artistic visions. Or something as simple as a new distillation of what it means to possess beauty.

I would love for teachers to come along and, instead of showing us where to hook up the flash trigger or how to meter fill flash in sunlight, would push us to dig down and understand that we have a voice and a point of view and it's at least as valid as anything else out there. And it's that which we should be sharing and discussing rather than creating another image of a kitten, or a filtered landscape meant to impress everyone else on a discussion forum about how sharp our newest lens is.

I would love to see galleries spring up that are filled with transformative work instead of imitative work. I'd love to see photographic prints that are sharp with vision instead of just sharp as a litmus test.

I've caught myself, in my own little world here, heading out to create images to use in the blog that are quick and functional instead of good and personal. I am as guilty as everyone else because, at the center of our art is that nasty little secret that it's now easy to show off technically. Newbies are entranced by flash in daylight or narrow depth of field or mixed color temperature mastery. But we seem to have forgotten that these are just the tools we should be using to create messages; they are not the actual message.

The state of photography today? We've never had more effective tools and we've never (collectively) used them in a more mundane and safe way.  We're paralyzed by our need to perfect things instead of getting inside our own heads and understanding what we want our photographs to say. We've burned through the value of workshops as they related to construction techniques of building a visual house but we forgot to include an education about how to create the idea of the house. We have the construction company ready and equipment with all the tools and materials but we forgot to include an architect. We forgot that building well is also about building to a design. To a concept.

We built the photo equivalent a super collider but we have no idea what we're looking for or how to get started. At the risk of unleashing a whole new wave of workshops I'll say this very frankly: There is no value to a workshop that only teaches you how. The new value is the workshop that teaches you why or prods you to connect with a voice deep inside of you that needs to sing out.

Gone are the days when it was cool just to be able to show up and make a workmanlike image. We can do that with a phone and pulse now. The real magic will be learning to tell the stories of our hearts in our pictures. And to give them the power to move people because of what they say and not exclusively because of how they say it.

The workshop or online class I want would teach me how to connect to my own subconscious and learn what it is that has the most value to me as a person. As a member of our civilization and as an interpreter. The best workshop experience I ever had was one on creativity given by Ian Summers. No cameras. No photography. But some meditation and a lot of exercises that helped me get clear on what held me back as an artist and how to change my own perceptions. How to become clearer about what I love to see and how I love to see it.

The blogs and forums?  They filled a void for people who wanted current, hard information and needed a source.  But they didn't layer in relevance.

The next big trend? Might be wishful thinking on my part but wouldn't it be cool if we all slowed down and took a chunk to time to understand what drives us to do our art and our hobby and how we can bring the best of ourselves to the process instead of mindless repetition and duplication? And instead of working to sheer quantity wouldn't it be great to distill down our work to a group of incredible images that take your breathe away rather than an unending stack that leaves you tired and out of breathe?

In the end art matters more than technology. It's art that becomes the critical source of our history of civilization. Art and literature. And we have the tools to effect our own renaissance if we are only brave enough to connect with what we do intellectually, intuitively and emotionally.

It's not enough to be sharp and well exposed anymore. It's time to put our better brains to work.

Less an object of reason and technology. More an object of power and emotion.

"Show me something I've never seen before."

27 comments:

David Liang said...

Hey Kirk, great article. I completely agree and think any one especially new or curious individuals, need only spend 30 minutes in any of the forums and get overwhelmed by the tech talk. Just the other day there was a user who commented the "joystick" on the a99 was problematic for ergonomic reasons, it wasn't "flush" enough for his thumb and apparently such a big issue he can't fathom using the a99 now. Seriously? If that's all we have to complain about in terms of equipment, it seems like a golden age of technology is at our fingertips in terms of sheer performance.

FYI, I did end up getting the a99 and the dynamic range is simply outstanding. I shot this really quickly the other day for a friend wanted some shots to promote his business: http://www.david-liang.ca/wp-content/uploads/wppa/134.jpg

Anyway, I think the digital age and the immediacy of results has dampened the idea of the decisive moment. It's too easy to spray and pray and it's natural for us to gravitate towards what's easy. Thus the constant reliance on technology and what more can it offer us, since it's easier(seemingly) to go that route vs. developing one's mind's eye.

That said, I bought a light meter off a retired gentlemen and we hit it off, and he gave me a great deal on a Hasselblad 503cx with the 80mm 2.8. I'm thinking for me to develop as a photographer and learn to pace myself, as well as really think about my shots, I need to strip myself of the modern tools and the immediate results.

If I only have a 12 shots, a light meter and a camera that's relatively immobile compared to DSLR form factors. I'm betting I wait and tweak as long as I have to, in order to have a hope of getting the shot. Some time spent this way and going back to digital I'm thinking I'll be far more frugal with my shots, digital or not, and train my mind to think in terms of getting it right in camera, and without spraying and praying.

Nikhil Ramkarran said...

With the democratization of the craft and the surge of accessibility, the lowest common denominator begins to dictate the art. It becomes difficult for all but the truest of artists to resist the siren song of popularity, which necessitates pandering to the lowest common denominator.

If the noise hasn't overwhelmed the signal as yet, it soon will. Good luck fighting it, I'm rooting for the few who still do.

Gunnlaugur Gudmundsson said...

Brilliant article, thanks!

alan green said...

i don't want to end up one of those old men who keep murmuring , it wasn't like that in my day, but I fear photography is dying.
Sometimes feel it was all the fault of Cartier Bresson, with his phrase , the decisive moment. This was misinterpreted due to todays fascination with Instant, from instant coffee to instant art. Watch people looking through pictures on say their phone, quick glance , click on to the next one. A great British photographer, Raymond Moore, said a great photograph was one we could wander among it on viewing, so that every time we returned to it we saw something new, Today we haven't even time to look once.

Perhaps too we talk and analyse too much, rather than looking and learning. In your previous comment on the Presidential election and the vast cost. I would not write a lengthy argument about this but would rather just post a picture of rough sleepers in London. Unfortunately although we take pictures, there are few places we can show them. Strange as photographers we cannot comment with a photgraph only words.

Anonymous said...

Greetings Kirk

I've been reading you blog on and off for a few months now and once again you've hit the nail on the head. I've been in the business 38 years (30 of those years with Minolta) and now it's time to throw in the towel, retire. I look back over the years and they were great, shining times, but as you've been saying, things have changed. The new catch phase "it's good enough" or " just Photoshop it" seems to be the new norm.

Regards
Roger
Elitephoto9

saxon75 said...

You're always talking about how everyone is obsessed with gear and ignoring art, but I just don't see it. Or rather, I do see that there are a ton of people who like to argue about resolution and dynamic range, or who think that a better camera or lens will make them better photographers, but I also see that there are a ton (admittedly a smaller ton) of people who are out there shooting.

It's kind of like how you used to bemoan the fact that nobody goes to art school anymore, while on the other hand you have people like A. D. Coleman complaining that there are too many people with MFAs who have completely taken over the photographic art world: http://www.nearbycafe.com/artandphoto/photocritic/2012/07/05/trope-the-well-made-photograph-1/

You say that most photographers are concerned with only the technical properties of their image--sharpness, exposure, and so on. And if you spend all your time reading dpreview or looking at 1X, then, yeah, I could see that. But that's far from all that's out there. Look at what Joerg Colberg is featuring at Conscientious, or what Bryan Formhals is showing at LPV. Or what Andy Adams shows at Flak, or Aline Smithson shows at Lenscratch. Look at Wayne Bremser's Tumblr. Look at Fraction or Daylight or Big Red & Shiny. You may not see work that you like, but it's hard to argue that the work you'll see is solely concerned with technical image quality.

It's really odd to me that there are these two huge bodies of commentary out there on the Internet that hardly seem to be aware of each other at all.

Kirk Tuck said...

Good rebuttal and good stuff to look at. Thanks for the perspective!

ykarious said...

Wonderful piece Kirk. I'm a regular reader and always enjoy reading your writings on the "Why" of photography. I just want to thank you wholeheartedly for this one.

Gary said...

Hi Kirk -- great, thought-provoking post, as usual.

If I'm being optimistic, I'd say that where we're at is a natural consequence of sifting through the debris of a huge paradigm shift -- the transition from film to digital. There's a whole lotta "look at what I can do now that would have been impossible before!" going on. Eventually, all the shiny newness of the technolog will fade into the background and everyone will settle down and start *using* the gear instead of *assessing* it. I won't tell you what the pessimist in me sees.

Anonymous said...

You really need to stop posting screeds (a lengthy discourse). Succinct (brief and to point: expressed with brevity and clarity, with no wasted words) is where it's at in todays world of short attention. I'd appreciate more short posts. YMMV

!. It all depends on who your friends are. I had breakfast with two other photographers on Saturday and the closest we got to talking about "gear" was engineering a stiff boom arm for a camera jib. The rest of the time was spent discussing different styles of video editing.

2. Over at TOP they were having a discussion on "sharpness" and someone was trying to tell Mike that HCB's photos would have been better if they had been sharper 8-0

3. I couldn't have said it better:
” I never studied photography at school, my dad taught me how to have fun with the light and I just practice everyday - a lot! Many people still mistakenly think that mastering simple issues like shutter speed, depth of field, or any sort of technique that you learn at photography school is all there is to know about photography, but those have as little to do with photography as typewriter repair has to do with composing a novel and is by no means the central point. “
- Viktor Vauthier http://viktorvauthier.tumblr.com/post/34410837278/norockwithoutplastic-i-never-studied

c.d.embrey

Gene Baucom said...

If there is a Diane Arbus for the current generation, she is hiding out in the same place the current generation's Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix are hiding.
Maybe it has something to do with work. Whether playing for peanuts in seedy bars, or taking photo's in places where normal people would feel more than just a little uncomfortable, there is something to be said for taking a risk. I think it can focus the mind in a way that shooting an expensive car or a puppy just can't do.

eyer ball said...

It is true and not true at the same time. Yes, lots of tech t It is like small talk in real life that only fills in the communication void. But there is also tons of challenging experimental work (Fluckre!) It is simply too hard to comment on. At least verbally.

Wolfgang Lonien said...

[x] Excellent article, again. One that makes the VisualScienceLab very special. And:
[x] I'm guilty (and I'm not even a pro). But I think that
[x] saxon75 is also right.

There's an incredible lot of good stuff out there. Just look at the British Journal of Photography, which is at least as much about art as it is about gear or technique. Their blog for instance has a "blog roll" on the right hand side, filled with links to great sites. And where saxon is right is that these almost never are about gear and/or technical things; there's indeed a whole different world out there.

That said, you still got me with "As a culture it's pretty obvious that we're fixated on process and gear and largely ignoring aesthetics and concept", which I find to be true in a much wider area than just in photography.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts with us, Kirk. It's because of these that I come back here daily, plus of course your beautiful portraits.

Paul Glover said...

"I think we shoot and share too much."

I don't know that shooting too much is the problem, but sharing too much (and too quickly) certainly has a hand in it.

There is a degree of pressure in this always-connected instant-everything no-attention-span world to post early and post often, lest you be forgotten about entirely.

Being able to share quickly is a great thing for photojournalism where fast turnaround time really is an important factor, but I believe it to be a bad thing for art.

I do find elapsed time to be a very effective editor. I might shoot a roll thinking that nearly everything on it was made of pure awesome. By the time I develop and examine the shots, over half of them will have me wondering just why I bothered to trip the shutter at all. By the time I get around to actually making large scans, most of the remaining "good" shots will just not speak to me any more.

Kirk Tuck said...

C.D. the way I write is not going to change. MMVaries. Read faster.

Will said...

The GTO -- now THAT was art! (At least the rumble was.)

Kirk Tuck said...

Considered it as a new studio car but didn't like the color of shift knob...

Carlo Santin said...

What you write about ideas and themes, about the why of it, really resonates with me. My own photography is still imitative. I'm still struggling with the why, the how will come as the why gets clearer. The why should drive the how, not the other way around, and I understand that now...for a long while I didn't, and I was obsessed with gear and specs. A good read Kirk.

Kirk Tuck said...

I've spent thirty years practicing to get to the point where I'm only interested in doing the art. We'll see if I can put my camera where my mouth is...

ann said...

Thanks to Saxon for the links to Lenscratch and Big Red & Shiny....I think that there is a lot of good work out there. But we just flick through it so quickly on our ipads or iphones and don't remeber it five minutes later. Hard for young photographers who are working in different ways to be noticed.

Thanks for the blog, I read it and enjoy it and have bought a sony a77 on the strength of your reviews but hardly ever comment.

John Driggers said...

@KT: Actually, you do really mix it up with short, pithy posts and other, longer missives. The devil's in the details and I'm happy to wade through the longer posts. I quite enjoy the process of how you come to your conclusions--often the process is more helpful to me than the conclusion. This is most often the case when I disagree with your conclusion, but respect it as the result of the KT reasoning process. In this case, I find myself persuaded by saxon75's post, but it was your examination of the issue that got all of our "wheels" turning and motivated him to counter-post. Cheers JD

Andrea Costa said...

Very interesting. For sure, having all the "latest gear" but don't knowing WHAT to shoot can start a big lot of troubles. Sadly, not even a workshop can teach you WHY to shoot - but could start an interesting discussion about it.
BTW, thank you for teaching me a new trick: I was told "f/8 and you're there", but f/5.6...
Boy, I must immediately go out and try it on some kitty shots...
;)

Paul van Geldrop said...

Blog entries like this are my favourite. Long serious ponderings leading to a conclusion or sometimes even leading to more questions. And they (including the comments) always provide me with new names and websites to look for.
They why is the ultimate question. It is THE question little kids ask constantly and repeatedly. It must have something to do with an inquisitive and flexible mind.

Kirk Tuck said...

Thanks John. And when I post opinions I understand that they are not air tight facts. I like the feed back. Saxon75 gave me much to think about and access to some great sites. That's what a discussion is all about.

John Krumm said...

Saxon75, thanks for the introduction to A.D. Coleman's blog. Fun reading. Love the post election post.

Clay Olmstead said...

I'm with Paul. Some things can't be reduced to pithy. Thanks for going beyond the sound bite.

Claire said...

Kirk, rant true to a point. However, I have yet to see a succesfful portrait which is "devoid of content".