Seems a lot of fountain pen aficionados also enjoy photography. You might find this article interesting.
Sepia No More
by Virginia Heffernan



Jeez. Having problems posting and linking today. At least I'm not inadvertently linking to my g-mail account again....

Interesting article. I've read quite a bit about this sort of shift in photographic style (some would argue that indeed it is a lack of style that defines it) and there are many, many opinions. As a primarily film user, I have to endure, on a regular basis, the derision of digital users. Fortunately this has lessened of late, but bias and boosterism (and puffery as well) still exist, on both sides of the digital fence.

I agree with the assessment that flickr has quite a lot to do with presentation, and in many ways with the interaction I think it could even be called marketing despite the lack of a sales feature. Getting views counts seems to be the primary goal in the social photography world, or so it seems to me, while getting a show in the high-profile venues and developing a 'name' was a big deal previously. I saw that Henri Cartier-Bresson photograph that was posted, and the comments that it generated, but you have to remember that it was taken out of context and many people had never seen it before. Any art presented without some explanation of the context of it's creation to those who have no previous exposure to it are unlikely to grasp it's full importance.

There is certainly a shift from the previously defined 'schools' of photography, although part of what is now popular (obvious manipulation) could be traced back to the salon days of the pictorialists. Perhaps the biggest beef that I've heard is that there is no apparent purpose to what many people create and post on the internet. Much of it appears to be nothing more that exhibitionism, and experimentation, or just something thrown together to imitate that which is not fully understood, or even with the intent to mock that which is not understood. Many times it seems to me that the whole point is to post whatever you have just so that you can show others how expensive a camera you bought without realizing that a great photographer can work with just about any camera to make stirring art while the amateur can use the most advanced equipment to make mundane and pointless images.

To my eye there is room for any style, and even for those with no set style, in the art world as art is in the eye of the beholder. The criticism of modern and post-modern photography in the article shows that as new patterns emerge there is never any shortage of critics. This is how it has always been in photography since it inception, and I suspect that it will always be so. The greatest part of this is that each person is still free to do what they choose - the saddest part is that people view what they do not personally like as '(Potty Mouth)' and that which they do like as 'Fine Art'.

- R

P.S. Heh, I got my first Potty Mouth!

I know it is a bit off-topic... but I have to say something.

I have been "using" a camera for more than 30 years, first SLR film, then the horrible first digital compact ones and now a D200, with a D70 as backup. My eye is already deformed and my taste lays in a very thin line, but let me tell you that I have enjoyed a lot the visit I paid to your website. Your originality, the clean compositions in the pen album and the self album are something to be seen again and again. I like your work, and I like it very much. Thanks for sharing this very special sensibility turned into images...

D'oh. Forgot that I'd started this thread.

So, RandyE, any more pottymouths? Hey!

Ya know, I figure the derision would go the other way, with old-skool film photographers mocking the ease with which digital photographers can get their photos. My usual method: take several photos of the same scene with only minor variations. Recently, I looked at photos I'd taken with a film camera, an automatic, on vacation in Scotland. I was amazed to remember that oh yeah, I was pretty stingy with shots, taking one of a scene, not five or twelve, cos a roll of film meant 36 frames.

So I'm trying that method now, pretending I'm using film. Heh.

Digital technology really does make visual arts more accessible to a lot more people. When I started an arts and entertainment facility in NYC, so many kids came to us (me and my partner) calling themselves filmmakers. I guess they could call themselves whatever they wanted, but most of what I saw was self-indulgent, and I didn't know what vision they were trying to share with what audience. Maybe it is all just exhibitionism (says I, perhaps ironically). (But maybe still critically.) Raises an eyebrow....

And I read through that Cartier-Bresson thread, too, about a year ago. I find it interesting. Just the whole dynamic. Who recognized it as art or as iconic or didn't detect any artistic merit ("it's blurry!") and gave suggestions for improving the image, and it was hard to try to have a first impression of the photo, know what I mean? But it's fascinating.




Well, schools of photography were defined after the fact, right? So, much of what we're seeing in flickr might end up with names, a handy label. And I'm not sure if any purpose is necessary outside of a person's experiencing his own kicks by taking pictures and posting them on the Internet. The audience is there and will look or not look. It's kindv... I don't know... I like it. The audience will sift through and find stuff to like and stuff to deride. I like that, too.

I don't know if people post photos just to show others how expensive their cameras are. That's a new criticism to me. Maybe I'm not paying close enough attention. Or maybe I intuitively turn away from those photographers (unless I liked their photos... and then I might not have noticed the other thing).

I don't have a problem with people not liking particular pieces of art and having strong opinions about it. I sometimes have strong opinions, too.

We're just skating the surface of this topic, I know.

Cheers!

My goodness, Jopen, you obviously have exquisite taste.

Ha ha ha!

Seriously, though, thank you very much for your high praise. Very kind of you.