Image fatigue

[johnastovall]

"Image fatigue" is a very interesting and thought provoking article about just what may be happening to photography in the digital era.

I found this observation sad but true.

"But the reason for photography's eclipse as an art form has not just to do with the astonishing superabundance of photographs; it has to do with dramatic recent changes to the medium. Thanks to the digital revolution, there is virtually nothing that can't be done to a photograph to alter its once unique relationship to reality."

I'm interested in others take on the complete article.

[gardener]

I'll show my ignorance of the medium and all but one or two of the photographers noted in the article at the same time here but none the less...
To some extent, I think the article smacks of elitism, not necessarily in the photography world but rather, in the world of self acclaimed critics of any practice that might be considered "art", whatever the form and however loosely that form is identified. "Art", as has been discussed here and on other forums on a regular basis, is subjective. That is... what one might consider to be a true work of art means literally nothing to others who have their own definitions of what is artistic and enjoyable to them alone. The Elvis on black velvet paintings vs the Cistene Chapel ceiling can attest to that difference.... both have their fans and their detractors.
In some sense, any medium has some amount of actual skill attached to it to draw the eye and the imagination of the viewer. On the other hand, many objects that have held facination for viewers through the ages are not considered "art" at all since they're not man made... Is it "art" or should some of the mediums that abound really be put in the "skill" class? Or in fact, how much of it should be in the "I fooled you" catagory of artists?
So... what do we have here and who should we blame for the supposed degradation of the medium? Or should we assess blame at all? Me thinks not... At what point do we, can we just look at a photograph, drawing, painting, etc. and say to ourselves "I like that and it gives me a sense of (insert emotion here)" without having to dissect it piece by piece to find fault in the image or the form of that item or better yet, what that image or form says to us as an individual. My take on critics has always been that many times, they don't know any more than the rest of us but rather, they're just vocal and no one takes the time or energy to dispute their ramblings simply because it's not worthwhile.
To be quite truthful, I'm not a huge fan of black and white photo images no matter who they were taken by... they typically just don't flip the switch for me regardless of the subject matter nor the skill with which they were rendered. Does that mean ol Ansel wasn't a great photographer though? Certainly not... it just means that if I have a choice then I'd rather look at nature's natural colors than a monochrome of various grays, blacks, and whites in the frame. I've seen on this forum and others where some seem to prefer black and white type photos and good for them... I wouldn't impose my views on them anymore than I think they would impose their views on me although we might discuss the differences of why one likes something and someone else likes something else... Remember though, that at some point, people higher in the hierarchy usually begin to critique the medium rather than the matter. In this case, the medium may be "overused" but to who? The person that actively searches out every single photograph of anything that they can find each day for whatever reason or the mom who wants to take pictures in the hundreds of her little rug rats every time they utter a sound or twitch a muscle? If it makes either one or both happy then they should continue doing it until they tire of the practice or die and the critics be damned when they start with the inference that there is too much of XXX out there for it to be interesting.

[Jim Victory]

Originally Posted by gardener

I'll show my ignorance of the medium and all but one or two of the photographers noted in the article at the same time here but none the less...
To some extent, I think the article smacks of elitism, not necessarily in the photography world but rather, in the world of self acclaimed critics of any practice that might be considered "art", whatever the form and however loosely that form is identified. "Art", as has been discussed here and on other forums on a regular basis, is subjective. That is... what one might consider to be a true work of art means literally nothing to others who have their own definitions of what is artistic and enjoyable to them alone. The Elvis on black velvet paintings vs the Cistene Chapel ceiling can attest to that difference.... both have their fans and their detractors.
In some sense, any medium has some amount of actual skill attached to it to draw the eye and the imagination of the viewer. On the other hand, many objects that have held facination for viewers through the ages are not considered "art" at all since they're not man made... Is it "art" or should some of the mediums that abound really be put in the "skill" class? Or in fact, how much of it should be in the "I fooled you" catagory of artists?
So... what do we have here and who should we blame for the supposed degradation of the medium? Or should we assess blame at all? Me thinks not... At what point do we, can we just look at a photograph, drawing, painting, etc. and say to ourselves "I like that and it gives me a sense of (insert emotion here)" without having to dissect it piece by piece to find fault in the image or the form of that item or better yet, what that image or form says to us as an individual. My take on critics has always been that many times, they don't know any more than the rest of us but rather, they're just vocal and no one takes the time or energy to dispute their ramblings simply because it's not worthwhile.
To be quite truthful, I'm not a huge fan of black and white photo images no matter who they were taken by... they typically just don't flip the switch for me regardless of the subject matter nor the skill with which they were rendered. Does that mean ol Ansel wasn't a great photographer though? Certainly not... it just means that if I have a choice then I'd rather look at nature's natural colors than a monochrome of various grays, blacks, and whites in the frame. I've seen on this forum and others where some seem to prefer black and white type photos and good for them... I wouldn't impose my views on them anymore than I think they would impose their views on me although we might discuss the differences of why one likes something and someone else likes something else... Remember though, that at some point, people higher in the hierarchy usually begin to critique the medium rather than the matter. In this case, the medium may be "overused" but to who? The person that actively searches out every single photograph of anything that they can find each day for whatever reason or the mom who wants to take pictures in the hundreds of her little rug rats every time they utter a sound or twitch a muscle? If it makes either one or both happy then they should continue doing it until they tire of the practice or die and the critics be damned when they start with the inference that there is too much of XXX out there for it to be interesting.

Bravo!

Enough said!

[Rick Waldroup]

I think the author brings up some valid points. Here we have a medium that from it's very inception, was used to document or record life's events, and how photography struggled to become accepted as a true art form. After many years of acceptance, and some still do not accept it as a true art form, it suddenly finds itself blind sided not by it's own ineptitude, but by it's own technical advancements. The abundance of photographic images and the ease at which they are produced now has diluted the artistic merit of the medium.

I found it interesting that it is now the "new" photojournalists that seem to breathe what little life is left into artistic photography. We have come full cirlce it seems. The author mentions Salgado quite a bit and how that now, documentary photography may turn out to be, after all these years, the artistic savior of the medium. Interesting article. Thanks, John.

[sailormancga72]

I guess I'm just too much of a neophyte to get image fatigue (unless you're talking about wedding photos). One of the reasons my wife and I got digital cameras is that we like to take pictures. The vast majority of the photos are never seen by anyone except us, but it is a way to remember our trips, record a funny grandchild expression, or capture the fleeting image of a multicolored bird. Is it art? Maybe, but for us it doesn't matter. I really enjoy the digital format because I can take a gazillion photos and cull them. For us it is a hobby to be enjoyed in our later years.

Perhaps if photography was my occupation and I was constantly striving to capture that Ansel Adams photo, then the Image Fatigue syndrome might have some significance. Until then, I'm just going to sit back and enjoy my pics.

[Gabby498]

John, it is an interesting article and I want to go back and read it a couple more times. However, on a first read I do not see it as saying much that I haven’t been hearing for the past fifty years—different words, same concept.

Photography/Art ever what—it is a constant state of change. With every change there are those that moan the loss of what has gone before. Hang in there, you will read this same article ten or twenty years down the line. If I’m really lucky, I might be replying to your post at that time.

Somehow, we get plugged into our own place in time. It is not a matter of not growing, it is simply that we are more malleable when we are young and things, events, situations have a much more profound effect on who we are than things that happen latter in life. The adults hated the music I loved as a teen. As an adult, the music I hate is loved by the teens.

I have some sadness that Steve missed out on the beauty of black and white. However, I know that when the SS checks start coming in, he will feel that same sadness for some young person because they missed out on something that was very profound to him when he was their age.

Photography went through such extremes as pictoralism and the school of 64 almost polar opposites along with many other changes long before the cult of realism that the author bemoans losing. The author might not, but photography will survive and photography will survive as an art. It will just be different.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by Gabby498

snipped

I have some sadness that Steve missed out on the beauty of black and white. However, I know that when the SS checks start coming in, he will feel that same sadness for some young person because they missed out on something that was very profound to him when he was their age.

Photography went through such extremes as pictoralism and the school of 64 almost polar opposites along with many other changes long before the cult of realism that the author bemoans losing. The author might not, but photography will survive and photography will survive as an art. It will just be different.

Interesting you mentioned B&W that was one thing I was missing when I got serious with digital. But I've found it now even more interesting with digital (after much ink and hair pulling), carbon based inks, a dedicated B&W printer and RIP software.

I'm looking now at 4 different prints with different gammas, netural, warm, and cool grays and blend ratios on the wall in front of my desk. Black and white with fine art papers creats a whole new world of the print.

I love the print for black and white and it's back.

[Murph]

Photography has never been truely accepted by the "Art" community over its lifespan for whatever reason.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by Murph

Photography has never been truely accepted by the "Art" community over its lifespan for whatever reason.

Sure it has. Avadon - Amon Carter, Diana Arbus - Venice Biennale and MOMA, Mapplethorpe - Guggenheim. You not find a major museum in the world which dosen't have photography as part of its collections. Major galleries carry photography. No, photography has been accepted and part of the "Art" community at least ever since Steichen opened 291.

Get a copy of "Art News" the magazine of the world art scene and you'll find photography discussed frequently and the fusion of photography and digital art. Search the online edition for past articles on photography on the world art scene.