Postscript: Is Photography Losing Its Impact?

“The inventory started in 1839

and since then just about everything

has been photographed, or so it seems.”

Susan Sontag – On Photography

Reading a few of the blog entries, and specifically Assignment 4, will evidence a continuing and evolving thought: quite simply that photography in the traditional sense is under threat; whether subsumed by the sheer volume of output, or overwhelmed by alternative means of visual expression.

I read an article by Fredercio Algeria that raises exactly this issue. He introduces thus:

"The following words may sound like a rhetorical exercise, but I'm really worried about my question: Will humanity be able to be impressed by photographs in the same way classical, iconic images have changed the perception of real-life situations? Will we, as human beings, be able to save meaningful images in our brains even though we are progressively bombarded by visual content on the news, internet, social media, and traditional ads?"

He quotes Sonntag, above.

Algeria argues that the democratization of the media has made us less impressionable - basically the argument I presented in Assignment 4 - either because of the sheer volume of strong images or that strong images do not linger in the memory. I would argue both are true as they are interdependent, particularly due to the advent of smartphones; this article suggests that humans have a shorter attention span than goldfish due to smartphones.

The solution, according to Algeria, is twofold: prepare output in photobook or other tangible printed medium format; and create immediacy.

The first response is predicated on the notion that a non difital image forces us to pay more attention, to focus, to slow down in our response as a viewer. I have been against printed images for years on the basis that they are elitist, both because they are expensive in time and cost to produce well (albeit, admittedly less so now) and, more important, they restrict one's audience. Printing is essentially a gallery concept for those who wish to enter a gallery; it is not for those who physically cannot or who feel intimidated by galleries. And I use galleries eclectically here, to include camera clubs and other means of displaying physical imagery. If we want to broaden the reach of photography, then surely we should encourage, and accept the deficiencies of, digital imagery (plus, of course, digital imagery is now common in galleries, see MOMA blog, for example). 

But I do accept Algeria's point to a degree. There is only so far as democratization can go. Not everything can be Art (it might be art, but not Art). A series of Snapchat selfies replete with online filters is probably not going to cut it artistically (though let's not doubt the ability of someone producing a collection of exactly that in the name of Art). The problem then becomes definition: who has the right to call a photograph Art? There is a risk that the definition does itself become elitist, exactly as Berger argued nearly 50 years ago now in respect of Painting.

Algeria' second argument is not enunciated well - immediacy appears to mean keeping a few printed images in a bag to show people. I am less convinced about that as an approach.

Algeria says he is not against democratization, but recognises the artistic tensions that are caused by  democratization. There is probably not much one can add to that because, quite simply, democratization and Art work in opposite directions.