I’ve been reflecting on the fact that there are plenty of technical discussions about camera equipment and the general know-how of photography. I wanted to examine the role and importance of the still image and its ongoing significance in the ever-changing landscape of media and visual communication.
Some time ago, I was going through some of my mum’s meticulously kept family photo collection when I came across one of her wedding photographs – taken in the 1950’s. It was a beautiful 8×10 print in black and white. 19 years old at the time and in her wedding dress, she was not looking directly at the camera, as was the style. Her facial expression was also informed by a sense of shyness and wonder. I was quite struck by how spectacular and classical this image was, and despite her protestations, I insisted on framing it – a statement not only of the lasting importance of a single special image but of the importance of printing, especially now that most images are in easily lost or disposable digital form.
Any artist will be aware that a portrait is supposed to be honest. The idea is to present a narrative about the personality of the subject, if possible, to try to show something which isn’t immediately obvious. Or to document an important event in the life of that individual or collection of individuals. Unfortunately, we seem to be constantly bombarded with images designed for social media and advertising, which have an inbuilt bias toward a narcissistic, youth-oriented discourse and are either very stereotypical, if not completely phony. In this realm, the elderly tend to be almost invisible – and we apparently live in a utopian consumer paradise of perpetually happy and smiling youth, surrounded by backgrounds of equally glamorous and superficial intent. In this world, even the locations are stripped of their identity and serve only as a tableau to emphasize the smorgasbord of perfect bodies and faces on display.
In his excellent article “The Generation of the Self Obsessed”, Nasim delves into this subject, especially from the perspective of how social media has cultivated a kind of mass narcissism. Nasim also wrote a related piece about the ethics of photography.
I want to take this analysis a little further. In some ways, my title “The Power of The Image” could have been “The Image on Life Support”. You see, my mother’s wedding photo from the 1950’s, what to speak of the famous portraits of antiquity painted in oil on canvas, were created in a very different social and technological context. Digital imaging devices are now ubiquitous. My apprehension is that with the rise and ubiquity of the digital camera and image, there has been a corresponding decline in the sense of visual and aesthetic acuity. The threshold of discrimination between high and low, art and pulp, has declined exponentially along with the exponential production of the image. I see the result as a direct threat to the role of the artist. I also see the steady decline in the power of the image. If you will excuse the metaphor, if snow leopards were as common as house cats, they would lose a lot of their mystique.
Of course, I hesitate to generalize. Amazing photographers like Steve McCurry, Annie Leibovitz, and many others produce spellbinding work which perpetuates a universal visual language and iconography of our times. I’m certainly not suggesting my own photography is even remotely in that league, and I’m sure there are many thousands of “professional” photographers who struggle for recognition and some type of modest financial reward in a very saturated arena. To rise above that arena, I imagine, requires the creation of work which few are capable of while acknowledging that while widely known among photographic circles, even famous photographers have nothing like the recognition of the typical celebrity. Every teenager on the planet is familiar with Taylor Swift or the Kardashians, but how many of them know of Cartier-Bresson or Ansel Adams?
While mentioning the saturation and commodification of the image as a commercial vehicle I have to return to the genre of wedding photography. I imagine most photographers are aware it’s one of the most contested markets. In Australia, we use the analogy that it’s like “seagulls fighting over a chip”.
Perhaps this speaks to the blurring of the line of demarcation between smartphone photography and shopping mall-style image mass production, where formulaic posed shots with minimal creativity and narrative content are churned out relentlessly. The question, I suppose, is how to elevate the public aesthetic beyond the superficial and mundane? How to bring recognition and financial reward to photographers possessing creative merit who may be working in obscurity and relative poverty? I doubt that the so-called “photo contests” with their invariably steep fees are the answer. Along with many other professional photographers, I’m sure I’m not alone in feeling like a threatened species.
Many of us (especially companies like Nikon and Canon) are aware of the precipitous decline in sales of cameras and the corresponding rise in the sales of smartphones. For many people, the convenience of a smartphone far outweighs the qualitative difference achievable with a traditional camera. Given the enormous resources and R&D being poured into smartphone camera development, it’s safe to assume that those qualitative differences are going to decline as time goes on.
Another point which seems to have been missed is the medium through which the still image is viewed: I imagine most photographers are editing and viewing their work on a decent monitor. In my case, it’s a 32” 4K monitor with a resolution of 3840×2160. These stage photographs captured with the Nikon Z6 and Sigma 105mm Art lens, or something like a long exposure using the excellent Tokina 16-28mm, are highly detailed when viewed through the medium of a good monitor.
I’m sure I’m not alone in experiencing dismay when those same images are uploaded to Instagram and displayed on the tiny screen of a mobile phone. Note also that Instagram doesn’t allow the image to rotate, as does Flickr, to be viewed on a larger scale. The image stays in a kind of shrunken version of itself, in many ways stripped of most of its subtlety and nuance. Instagram tends to force cropping – I’ve found that I have to crop an image taken in landscape mode into portrait mode, or Instagram itself encourages by default that the image be cropped into a square format. The result may attract more attention and visual impact, nonetheless, in my stage photography work, the surrounding performer, or the stage and lighting environment are all compromised by a set of variables beyond my control. This is to say nothing of the algorithms governing the social value and popularity of the image as dictated by Instagram.
Ultimately, I think it’s a challenge to stick to high levels of originality and artistic integrity. Of course, I often take quick snapshots with my mobile phone…I would just never use them professionally. At least to me, there is a clear line of demarcation between something disposable and an image I want to be paid for and preserved as important; as is the still clear line of demarcation between a high-quality lens and camera system as opposed to even the best mobile phone camera. There is still a big difference.
Additionally, there is the issue of the “short attention span”. If Instagram is indeed the primary medium for the viewing of the still image, how do we counteract the fact that our image may be viewed on a tiny mobile phone screen for less than a second, liked and discarded along with the rest of the transient and disposable stuff our lives are crowded with; think art galleries versus shopping malls. Think classical ballet versus the cinema complex. Western technological culture is wealthier than ever, however, I reiterate my previous argument that we are more divorced from our spiritual and cultural heart than ever. There’s an epidemic of the western cultural artifact having a tiny lifespan as opposed to something like Aboriginal rock carvings, still alive after thousands of years.
Of course, I’m presenting this argument because Instagram and its brethren are, I believe, at the epicenter of seismic shifts in the way we not only view the image but perceive our relationships and the world around us. While some may argue it’s a process of democratization and the natural and evolutionary advancement of our social construct, I would be more inclined to compare it to a kind of visual global warming. Humanity has done more damage to the environment in the last 200 years than in the preceding 200,000. Technology has enabled wonderful advances in medicine, science, and other fields, yet at the same time, deforestation and the extinction of entire cultures, languages, and animal and plant species is taking place at breathtaking speed.
I’m not trying to initiate some type of vendetta directed toward Instagram or social media in general. My focus is more on examining the crucial role social media plays in the dissemination and understanding of visual communication, as well as the electronic platforms used to contextualize our understanding of the image. It’s just a fact of life that most images are taken with and viewed on mobile phones through a social media app. The question is, I suppose, is the role of the traditional photographer now becoming irrelevant, and is there anything that can be done about that?
If we take the still image as an art form, then art should by definition inform the culture and have a more impactful discourse than displaying the latest lifestyle iteration of our favorite Hollywood celebrities. Yet of those celebrities, few seem to focus on the socially and environmentally pertinent issues of the day rather than themselves. I laud such examples because the weighting given by Instagram and social media in general means that taking a stand on the environment or inequality by someone unknown is like listening to crickets chirping in the wilderness.
Apart from the decline in the aesthetic and the ability to actually discriminate between images on the basis of their quality, narrative and dramatic impact, subtlety and nuance, or their power as an agent of social transformation, I’d like to mention another major factor in the production and value of the image and how, once again, Instagram and other social media platforms are at the center of this shift. I refer to the increasing use of video and how video production is evolving to become the visual medium of choice in social media.
As the video technology of mobile phones and mirrorless camera systems develops, I believe the power and narrative possibilities of the still image may potentially decline even further. On the small screen of a mobile phone, a video clip tends to be far more captivating than a still image. Don’t believe me? Look at the thousands of promotional and commercial videos on Instagram – the ratio of still images in the commercial sphere is heavily weighted in favor of video.
In my field of stage and performance photography, I find it more challenging to navigate the politics of taking still images when priority is invariably given to the video production; mind you, in many cases, the video is bland and mediocre – the type where the videographer puts a camera on a tripod, mid-stage at the rear of the auditorium, presses the on button and then switches it off after an hour or two. To use another analogy, video at this level of production is like fast food; it fills you up but contains no real nourishment. These videos will be watched once or twice and then begin to gather dust.
The still image does, however, potentially contain depths and possibilities which can never be fully explored in the momentary “sound bite” of our short attention spans, nor in the form of a video clip. It represents a frozen moment in time, a memory, or a unique moment or emotion which can never be reproduced. I fear that it’s in the process of being devalued – if not becoming an endangered species. It’s important sometimes to remind ourselves what a single, powerful image can do. To mention Steve McCurry again, his image of the Afghan Girl is one of the single most iconic photographs of the 20th century and shows that an image can speak in a universal language capable of transcending all kinds of political, economic, religious and social boundaries.
About a year ago Photography Life published another piece I wrote – photographylife.com/the-i…hotography
This was in a similar philosophical vein, examining photography as an artform and taking a contextual look at how artistic creativity operates under a different, more utilitarian paradigm in our culture – as compared to indigenous cultures, where visual art and metaphor are deeply interwoven with spirituality and identity.
As Tue points out, humanity has lost something in the hunt for the almighty dollar. Our power to document the reality around us has never been greater; nonetheless, the obsession with material acquisition has relegated contemplation and deep self reflection to a cohort of those with questionable productivity and economic value. I suspect that great photographers (along with painters, musicians and so on) approach their work with an uncommon depth of complex thought and introspection.
During the coronavirus epidemic, the identity crisis the arts has been experiencing has been exacerbated. For example, the Australian government just doubled the cost of a humanities degree, to the dismay of many.
Referring again to my previous article; many indigenous cultures view the western concept of private property as deeply flawed. Instead of seeing the world spiritually in a state of awe and wonder, we look at it as something to be divided up and hoarded. Something profound is missing and I think the still image as art is one way to illuminate that.
My opinion is that in the social media era, the quality of the photograph that is needed has been increased. Since the reader/viewer is overwhelmed by hundreds photographs you, as a photographer you do not have the luxury to present him a portofolio of your work or even a single photo with many techniques and heavy content. Therefore, your work should be expressed by an immediate character that captivates the reader’s eye. On top of that since the mobile screens are small, as you correctly pinpointed, your photograph should be simple in terms of form, ready to be chosen by a distant eye. Correct utilization of prospective techniques aid that.
More of my work here:
www.gallery1studio.com
I said nothing about horizons – and I was thinking nothing about horizons in my compositional considerations. At this point, it’s clear you and your customers are content with your images.
If a number of these had been mine, no one else would have ever seen them. It’s not at all to say I don’t take plenty of images that are poor compositionally – that is a part of the real challenge of capturing wildlife – I have NO control of what they do, when they do it, or how they do it and I take plenty of shots that I delete – and learn from. I go back to shoot the same subject day after day after day thinking of what didn’t work in images shot so far. The images weren’t posted for a critique, but you chose to talk about how low the bar is of acceptable art – all the while posting images that some of us feel don’t reflect good art. The acceptance of customers, nor readers, is the bar. I have done a ton of photos for pay and never had an unsatisfied customer – but that doesn’t mean all the images were top tier – it means the customer felt the images did what they wanted. I could point you to a number of articles here where many of the images are pretty bad (and most comments gushed over them) and ANY real wildlife pro (and I have worked with some and studied under many more) would respectfully challenge the person technically and compositionally.
Bottom line, you have to be at peace with your work, and clearly you are. But that doesn’t mean that I have to share your opinion of it. Respectfully, as soon as you get defensive about your work, you are making it clear, you really aren’t open to seeing better and growing.
I stole a saying from a photog forum I was a part of two decades ago. It was a part of the signature of one of the people that posed on a regular basis. “Please harshly critique my photos! Doing so helps me become better at this photography thing.” And I can say I learn the most when I listen and seek to see how a stranger sees my work.
To be honest I’m weary of reading articles like this. They pop up on a regular basis – pick your preferred media and forum. You can name your preferred villain, be it the uninformed masses, the lack of dollars, or pic your new and enlightened insight as to why the art you like seems to be loosing the recognition it once had.
I will readily agree that mediocrity in the more currently preferred tools (camera phones and video over stills) over a well captured image sucks – but that is more a function of the thousands capturing and sharing with no training on what constitutes strong use of those as tools. I’d also observe (as an instructor) that often even those seeking training are more looking for the tips to understand the technical MORE than they have an interest in the fundamentals of good art.
Also, I would observe, and I have unintentionally contributed to this, it’s not uncommon for those making such complaints to demonstrate mediocre work. In my opinion, many of the images in this article are fundamentally weak. Based on my training, they are poorly composed. Most are technically great, but compositionally weak. For me, that is a blatant contradiction to the high road you seem to aim to champion. Sad. I get the sentiment, but not from your images.
I would suggest that while in general, the average person isn’t missing the capability difference between the images a D5 (my preferred camera) captures and a cell phone – they do recognize the difference and are wishing for better. There is a reason the latest top iPhone ships with three, count them, three lenses, and with far more capability than the one that early models shipped with. People (some at least) do recognize there is a difference. Most don’t or don’t care enough – that’s life. I can’t tell you the hours of excuses I have heard (in the field) why people “prefer” to not use a tripod while shooting 500, 600, 750 mm, or more in focal length and also complain about not getting tack sharp images – but people love their images, regardless of soft and poor composition.
Bottom line – in my book – it is up to each of us to invest the time to do our best – promote the best by learning to shoot the best we can and share it – in whatever formats we can. Yeah it sucks that most will see this stuff on a tiny phone – can’t change that – but that doesn’t change composition and today’s phones have more dynamic range than computer displays of not all that long ago. Are they color managed? No – but uninformed eyes are not looking at the gamut, nor color shift, of an image in the same way well trained eyes will.
Final suggestion: Invest less time pining about things as they are and support great art by modeling it. Be hyper critical of your own images and think twice before sharing anything on the edge. As Ansel Adams put it, “Twelve significant photographs in any one YEAR is a good crop.” (emphasis mine)
I think it’s important to bear in mind that I’ve written this article in a voluntary capacity. Whether Nasim chooses to publish the work or the images on Photography Life is entirely up to his discretion. Certainly you’re entitled to express a critical opinion; I’d just like to point out that if the text or the images were mediocre and poorly composed an astute publisher like Photography Life would probably be unwilling to put them online and I would have to accept that.
It’s a challenge to compose an article and submit it, and I’m not doing it for self aggrandizement but to promote discussion. I’m very critical of my own work and always see room for improvement, and sometimes photography as a whole leaves me disillusioned and frustrated; I suspect I’m probably not alone in that. Obviously you’re very articulate and hopefully can find the time and subject matter to present your unique perspective to the readers.
In my observation, PL typically includes whatever images the author includes. When it comes to wildlife photography, they have posted a number of articles with poor quality images. It has to be said that my training included established pro wildlife photogs, including some regular featured in Nat Geo – so that is my standard for my own and others. And, it has to be said, that composition is a little more open to interpretation, and that can be where we reflect our own vision. Like I tried to say, technically, the images were all pretty great and those are challenging circumstances to capture in. And you posted in a genre rarely covered here – so big kudos for that. I have posted here once, as a part of a contest. In the end, this site is predominantly about landscapes and that is my genre of least interest – partly because it seems mostly about taking me-too shots rather than investing the time in a place to see and capture it sharing ones unique vision of a place. With wildlife, it’s a matter of investing the time to understand and then capture what makes a critter a critter – what’s unique to a ground squirrel, bear, or falcon. In my observation, very few will invest that time – with wildlife, anyway.
Nasim’s article about “The generation of the self obsessed” (photographylife.com/the-g…f-obsessed) wasn’t just insightful, but brutally honest and funny. The point I’m trying to make here is a continuation and further exploration of those ideas; I think the ubiquity of narcissistic social media – and being relentlessly bombarded by commercial images and advertising, may be devaluing our visual aesthetic and ability to discriminate.
The predominance of mobile phones as a default medium for viewing hundreds or thousands of still images at a time may also be eroding the possibility of meticulously and patiently seeing a photograph as the photographer may have intended.
Additionally, we’re conditioned to view the images through the lens of celebrity, “likes” or whatever algorithm the social media platform is using behind the scenes to further their agenda. At the least, these are all important issues worthy of discussion.
By the way; allowing a diverse range of photographers a platform to contribute their ideas and work to Photography Life, Nasim and Spencer show an enlightened
perspective and they deserve to be congratulated for it.
I understand what all of you are saying.
First I would observe you are not the first to make these kinds of observations. You are in line with a host of people that have raised these issues over the last couple of decades.
Second, you reflect the perspective of an older person pining for how you think things once were in contrast to the change that is afoot. And, I agree with much of what is observed. I would suggest that part of your failure is in thinking the past was ACTUALLY as good for art as you wish it to be, in contrast to how it is now. I’d suggest that there is a lot more at work than suggesting all the societal change is about better quality expressions of art and people appreciating it.
Bottom line, all you can control is your choices. How you choose to take in and share the images you create. Do you excuse mediocrity in your own work knowing most won’t notice, or do you hold yourself to the highest standard and with every shoot aim to improve areas you saw as weak in your last one. This means a lot of study and reading of the best – AND – being as driven to be your best. That is a far cry from what I observe. I think of it this way – does a photographer have 50 years of experience, year after year of improvement OR 50 years of the first year repeated.
I’m not much of a fan of the work of Ansel Adams. But I have several big books by him and totally respect and aim to have his spirit of aiming to have images fully reflect the vision I have. I hardly ever encounter that – whether the person is using a DSLR, mirrorless, or a cell phone. Tools are less important than is mastery of the tools.
“Do you excuse mediocrity in your own work knowing most won’t notice, or do you hold yourself to the highest standard and with every shoot aim to improve areas you saw as weak in your last one. ”
I read the article and all comments. You resumed it pretty much with that one sentence. I also think many of the images above are poorly composed. E.g. I do not see the reason why most of them are not aligned straight while at the same time being very well done technically.
It is not true that in the past, art was given more attention. And it is not true that “that we are more divorced from our spiritual and cultural heart than ever”. Even Socrates is said to have complained: “Young people today love luxury.” And that he said two and a half thousand years ago!
“Spiritual and cultural heart”? What is that anyway? Is it about perception? Is it about real understanding of art or only get the feeling for it? Or is it about being competent to be an artist?
And then one can read above: “humanity has lost something in the hunt for the almighty dollar”. Has lost? Was it once there? When?
So for me it is the same: “I’m weary of reading articles like this”.
Excellent article Stephen with a lot of food for thought.
I generally agree with your observations although on some points I see things a bit differently.
A have no numbers to back this statement up, but it’s my experience that the ever dvindeling group of dedicated camera owners, is also the group that argue for the loss of soul, realism, thought and art in still images in general. My guess is the average age for this Group is also increasing year by year – and is already well above the average age of the general population, even when subtracting the 0-18 age Group.
This EXACT same story could be told for everything else time, culture and tech has replaced in human history.
Everything has it’s time, and when that has passed, the few remainers complain about the loss of everything associated with it. It’s not wrong by any means – it’s just what time does. We loose something to gain something else (for better or worse)
Classic photography is going down that road now in my opinion.
I have no illusions about it being restored to it’s former glory – dedicated cameras and all the “old school” non socialmedia photography will be delegated to the history books and a very small niche of people (like so many other retro movements).
Still imagery have been around for a LONG time because there was nothing to replace it – now technology has created several other viable medias to relay what the image did back in time. They will of course superseed still imagery in every situation where it makes sense – rendering still photography a niche that few people understand how to appreciate.
That will create a lot of new ways to express what photography do – and the younger generations have grown up in that world and thus developed the capacity to appreciate it on a level still photography people might not.
As to the simplification and “glossiness” that seems to attract all the attention and therefore exibitionspace for still photography, the explanation is simple:
Humans as a whole has always dreamed of utopia, and with the complexity, speed and demands of modern life, the search of that “simple” and uncomplicated world is unconsiously taking priority when we look at pictures and social feeds. If it cannot be fully consumed in a few seconds, it’s game over.
Remember, it’s all about having our brain produce the drug that gives us pleasure and satisfaction. And in a world where speed is of essense and attentionspan is measured in milliseconds, only those oversimplified glossy images provides that.
You have to appreciate the fact that we have probably seen more changes and had a need to learn more new things in 10 years than our great granddad’s did in a life time. Your son/daughter lives in a world where the same statement is likely true. So they need to adapt, learn and move on in life at a speed even we cannot fully understand.
So strictly it’s not photography that has a crisis, it’s humanity, because the hunt for $$$ has superseeded everything else. The consequences of that are more speed and more efficiency in all aspects of life. That means less time and less dreaming for vast majority of us….
I think your comment is very thoughtful and well expressed. Your last two paragraphs resonate with me the most. But art has a way of outlasting trends. I think cellphoneography is a whole different genre from photography, and the practitioners of them are not necessarily from the same pool. All those young people who love their phone pics will grow up and start to look for things that are more genuine. It happens with every generation. Then they will notice all the parts of life that they are missing out on because of all the demands of instant gratification. They will notice that art in photography is so much more satisfying than the junk that comes and goes in a minute on their social media. Most people outgrow social media anyway. Photography has always been a vocation of the mature in any case, because they are the ones who can afford all the gear and the time it takes to pursue this genre. So don’t give up on it yet – the youngsters of today are the granddads of tomorrow. They could very easily fall in love with photography when the time is right.
Wonderfull reply, and all Very true.
I’m not arguing Photography will go away as a whole – only that the dedicated kind will go back to the Niche status it was back in time when money and opportunity prevented the majority of the population from playing with it.
As an artform it will never go away 🙏