Photography today is in search of its own relevance. There is so much of it out there that it's hard to understand what is truly new and innovative. Judging by endless articles and vlogs about photography there is an undercurrent of desire to go back to the simpler, more documentary style of black and white editorial journalism. Or classic, black and white fine art work. Photographers who love photography seem afraid that A.I. is here to ruin everything. And that may be so. But maybe not. But it sure explains why we praise the standouts from the 1940s until the days of digital.
It used to be that photography was something that was connected in a way to aspirations of getting exposure via magazines, books and early curated websites. Now it's different. Maybe not for you specifically but in a general way. Now photography has become analogous to the ping that your cellphone continually sends out to cell towers letting them know that you are here and your phone is on. Your photos, uploaded to Instagram, Flickr, Smugmug, Facebook and more are a consistent ping that lets your cohort of friends and followers know that you are still alive, that you had a visually interesting lunch, dinner, sailboat ride or fashion moment and you are pinging it out as proof of life. Proof of contemporary existence. Proof of your idea of personal coolness. And the photos don't really serve that much more of a purpose anymore. Even in advertising.
It seems like uploading photos to your favorite "share" site is the modern version of tricking people into watching your slide show of vacation photos. "Here's is Gertrude in her new hat at the beach. Here we are eating hot dogs at the fair. You can't really tell from this angle but just around the corner was a big statue of Mickey Mouse. I didn't really get this one in focus but it's a shot of the twins eating cotton candy... etc. etc. etc. And really, you'd have to have given birth to the twins to accept every shot of them as "brilliant." The unspoken presumption is that if I look at your stuff you'll look at mine. Like em or not.
I'm of a certain generation. We thought we were hot stuff because we could get things in focus just using our own fingers. We could figure out exposures; sometimes without even a meter as an aid. Printing well was hard to do so when we got lucky we had something we really felt we could show off. When we watched TV and wanted to change the channel or the volume of the program we actually had to get up off the couch and physically touch the actual television set. There was more friction in every day stuff.
There are billions and billions of publicly displayed images that are instantly accessible on the web. It's easier to do now that it is to drive a car, or make decent toast. As a reaction to the overwhelming nature of this "bounty" the folks of my certain generation seem to be regressing back toward that time of more process friction. There are altars made to worship the folks who became famous for their photography from 1900-2000. Made famous specifically because they had fewer points of competition to consider and so stood out as beacons. Magazine pages were very limited and editors played it safe by mostly showcasing proven stars. A virtuous circle. Few people were willing to put up with all the friction and uncertainty and embrace the profession at that level. Sometimes it was just the realization that making good photos took some talent and some taste. That made our predecessors who had these attributes into standout examples and we lavished attention and approval on them.
Now? Taste? When a large chunk of the population thinks wearing track suits or "coach" shorts out in public as day-to-day wear I don't think we can rely on requisite taste to make or discern good photos. Or to recognize valuable work either. I guess that's why we look backwards. Most people looked so much better in tailored suits than in lumpy Spandex or stuffed into sleeveless t-shirts. Men wore hats then but now everyone is hatless in order to show off poorly conceived and badly executed hairstyles. The disintegration of culture through mis-directed attempts at style...
I continue to do photography because the process is fun for me. It's habitual now. It's an excuse to see the world around me each and every day. But I have no expectation that anyone shares my enjoyment in the same way I do when I make my own images. And, for the most part, I don't enjoy looking at most other people's images. Why? Because at this point in our combined history everything looks pretty much the same. There's very little new. Sure, half naked female model images will always get a "like" but I'm equally certain that the expressive photography involved is not even close to being the primary driver of that big "thumbs up." Go look on Instagram. Do the math. Mostly naked, non-chubby young woman, poorly composed and badly exposed, gets thousands of likes. Wonderfully done images of anything else? A casual nod.
That's okay as long as everyone is having fun. But underneath we wish someone out there was actually the god of curation and could find and show us the real, current "good stuff" that's hidden under miles tall piles of nearly identical images. Wouldn't that be nice?
Remember a time when cameras were considered so dear an expenditure that many people kept them in leather "ever ready" cases to protect them from bumps, scratches and other forms of camera mortality? People felt invested. Now we go from camera to camera like food reviewers going from restaurant to restaurant. It's different. In the same way we try on new style after new style.
Photos. Used to be artifacts and souvenirs. Now as consumable as a Mojito at a swim up bar.