Thursday, July 17, 2025

Borghese Sculpture Museum. Thoughts about modern photography...


 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. 


7 comments:

John Camp said...

Yesterday on my way home, I drove on a highway up a high hill that had only one of those narrow outside stripes to indicate where cyclists should try to ride. It is quite dangerous, because the cars are moving fast -- and the cyclist I saw on the way up the hill was wearing headphones, so he couldn't even hear cars coming up behind him. We are increasingly putting ourselves in boxes, both physically and intellectually, so we only encounter things we want to encounter. I like to take good photos, but one of the principal benefits for me is that when I'm walking around with a camera, it takes me outside of myself. Because I'm consciously looking for "something good," I see stuff that I ordinarily wouldn't even notice. As a professional writer, that's extraordinarily valuable to me. As for publishing photos, I think we are all suffering from photo fatigue. Back in the 1940s, a hint of nipple was a big thing. Now, very little is visually new, except current documentary, and we're so used to the horrors of the day, that we hardly noticed even that.

Chris Kern said...

Kirk: I continue to do photography because the process is fun for me.

At least for an amateur like me, the process has always been more important than the result. If I’m satisfied with the result, I consider that lagniappe. And I certainly don’t feel compelled to post everything online. My Lightroom catalog is filled with many misses and just a few hits.

It’s no coincidence that those of us who started out in the film era, when every 12, or 24, or at most 36 exposures incurred a cost in processing effort and every print required a considerable investment in darkroom time, are much more likely to rigorously curate our digital output than today’s cellphone snappers, who stuff their Google Photos accounts with as many barely-distinguishable images as possible.

Kirk said...

Just so. I feel the same way. But how to break the spell?

Kirk said...

I should curate more...

Eric Rose said...

I haven't committed to a concerted photographic project in over a decade. Maybe longer. Like JC I wander around and photograph things that capture my attention. I try to make something interesting but the hit rate is pretty low. Most images get ignored. Stuff I post to IG is generally passed over by the masses unless it hits on some current IG trend.

I have chatted with quite a few recognized "fine art" photographers over the years and most of them consider getting six to ten really great images a year a good year. Maybe we should take that as a lesson and not think each outing should create a winner.

Then again what defines a "winner" and who bestows this honor.

I photograph because I enjoy the process, sometimes I make an image I really like plus it gets me out and engaged with the world.

Eric

Norm Snyder said...

Over many years, beginning some time in the 1960s (!), I’ve been photographing jazz and blues musicians in performance as well as rehearsals and sound checks. While not the only subject I’m drawn to, it has been an enjoyable and enduring interest, including some work for venues, some small music labels, but also because I love the music and it’s my way of giving something back to it, and those who perform it. The process of shooting engages me with the music, which is ever changing and evolving, as I hope, have been my photographs. When the musicians are really working (one suggested to me that if he didn’t make some mistakes, he wasn’t trying) and not “phoning it in,” the music can sometimes soar and I think it helps the images. It’s still fun, after a lot of years.

Craig Yuill said...

Like Eric Rose, I often take photos when something looks interesting to me. I have taken to thinking of the process of getting out and taking photos as Robin Wong dubs it — shutter therapy. I take photos because it makes me feel good. Brings me a sense of calmness. And if I capture an image that I think is worth showing to others, I feel even better.

I have all but given up on using IG to post photos. Over half of the photos I post never get acknowledged. I definitely get more reactions from people on FB, and even more on DPR. (To be fair, many of my IG followers are FB friends, and I usually post the same photos on FB as I do on IG.) As I see it, why should I bother posting anything if I am just going to be ghosted?