The easier it becomes to do something, the worse the whole medium becomes. This is an often heard (read) opinion about photography.
 |
| Matthew G. Beall Diffusion 2011 |
There was once a time that to own a ‘good’ camera you needed to spend a lot of money, and, as a result, there were fewer photographers – when they took a photo, they had to make sure it was good. After all, film was expensive, too. Now you can buy a great digital camera inexpensively, take some shots, and, BAM!, you are a photographer. The idea being that anyone with a digital camera considers themselves a photographer just because they took a black and white picture of an object, which was partially in shadow.
This is really a cynical argument.
Opinions are always going to be divided on the question of whether making something easier makes it better.
Has this led to the death of photography as an art form? Only the deluded would think so. With the innovations that have come our way, people with talent but not much money can now let their talent find an audience. Sure, there are now more bad photographers than ever, but this does not mean there are fewer good ones.
In my oppinion it's a really great step that all tools for being creative and for publishing are now affordable for nearly all people. A cheap camera, one-hour at the internet-cafe and a blog via wordpress.com or blogger.com and you are done! May the one with the best photo (or any other piece of art) get all the fame and not the one with the most expensive camera...
ReplyDeleteYes, indeed, MT. Thanks for reading and for commenting!
ReplyDeleteNotre relation avec l’art, depuis plus d’un siècle, n’a cessé de s’intellectualiser. Le musée impose une mise en question de chacune des expressions du monde qu’il réunit, une interrogation sur ce qui les réunit. Au « plaisir de l’œil, la succession, l’apparente contradiction des écoles ont ajouté la conscience d’une quête passionnée, d’une recréation de l’univers en face de la Création. Après tout, le musée est un des lieux qui donnent la plus haute idée de l’homme. Mai nos connaissances sont plus étendues que nos musées ; le visiteur du Louvre sait qu’il n’y trouve significativement ni Goya, ni les grands Anglais, ni Michel-Ange peintre, ni Piero della Francesca, ni Grünewald ; à peine Vermeer. Là où l’œuvre d’art n’a plus d’autre fonction que d’être œuvre d’art, à une époque où l’exploration artistique du monde se poursuit, la réunion de tant de chefs-d’œuvre sont absents, convoque dans l’esprit tous les chefs d’œuvre. Comment ce possible mutilé n’appellerait-il pas tout le possible ?
ReplyDeleteLe musée imaginaire
Les Voix du Silence
André Malraux
Février 1952
@=
The ones that are of the opinion that the art/writing/photo is degraded by the ease and availability that the internet and digital age have provided are the ones protecting their antiquated world of elitism. Yes, there is a lot of garbage out there but there is an amazing amount of raw talent that now has a voice and can be discovered that would never have been viable before.
ReplyDeleteMy Dad once let me borrow an old Argus camera with all the manual adjustments that you had to set just right to get a photo. That camera took the most amazing photos of Big Sur. I have only owned your typical digital cameras and have not been impressed. I will someday have to invest in something better. There does seem to be a wonderful availability of technology and software for photo imaging at good prices these days. It is wonderful to see how you enjoy making art Matt. And thinking and talking about it.
ReplyDelete