Photography differs from most art forms because of one very simple fact. A photograph, the actual image itself, is not a physical object. Instead it has to be placed onto or embedded into other objects. More recently photography has changed its most used medium to use this quality and form to the extreme. Photography itself has grown from a very physical labor intensive art form or process into a laid back careless and mindless medium where thought is an after thought for most photographers. Creativity in such availability has lead to the dilution of photographic skill and yet, it has revealed by the same token an empowerment to the people. Once upon a time art was very secular and only the rich and famous could view or even create such beauty. Within the current post-modern era that we live anybody can create anything and call it art. The same goes for photography, in fact photography could be argued to be the essence of the “anything goes” philosophy to modern art. With so many people using the same medium, something has to give. We wholly consume images like no tomorrow, either for our own aesthetical pleasure or via information by the media/advertising. So much so, I believe we have become de-sensitized to photography. Ironically as a result when we stumble upon a photograph that has taken skill and devotion to create we fall over ourselves in amazement. We understand that photography can be and is so much more than the mass information that we receive on a daily basis.
We are living in the most technologically advanced age ever. Each second is more technological than the last. Again this has both created the camera and photography but it has also hindered it. Unlike other art forms photography hasn’t had a long time to develop and mature, this might be why photography is seen as a secondary art form, unlike painting or sculpture.
Photography in artistic timelines has so far had a very short life. In the early days only the very rich could afford to have photographs taken let alone operate a camera and have the skills to develop the images created. However as time, engineering and education grew so did the availability of the camera. Photography’s main leap into the main stream was from the 35mm negative camera. 35mm film has been around since the 1890’s however; it was mainly used for cinematic film rather than still photography. In those days cinematic film was 35mm however the image on them was 18x24mm this was because cinematic film had to allow room for the soundtrack that was embedded alongside the images on the film. A man called Oskar Barnack was the man behind the brain wave, he took the soundtrack off the negative and used as much of it as he could. The negative was 36mmx24mm or what we would call 35mm format film. His camera was called the “ur-leica” and is the father of all 35mm cameras. In 1925 the camera was released but due to world wars it was mainly used for reconnaissance and photojournalism. The invention of a relatively compact camera that could be easily transported around caught on and other manufactures started to create them. Later in approximately the early 1960’s late 50’s instant film was created. I believe this is where the idea of disposable art began. However the idea to make instant prints I find very interesting. It is a classic example of how the photograph, the image itself, can be produced and transported or embedded onto different medias. The brilliant idea to miss out the hard and laborious skill of a darkroom technician yet again made photography very accessible to the masses yet again, if you had the money.
This is a great example of how photography differs to other art forms. A painting will always be a painting; it will be made of pigments and used on a surface of some kind, usually canvas. The process of it will always remain the same though. A layer of paint on top of another painstakingly mixed and layered on top of each other. The painting becomes a very physical object, even more so depending on how it’s painted. Some are perfectly flat, and then others are thick and create a sense of depth. Both are physical objects, that once created its hard to change its form. The process has taken time to create and in that time ideas texture and work flow all change. The process itself could be described as a living thing, it grows it has its highs and its lows. The process is highly charged and emotional and so, it becomes even more than a painting, it becomes an experience. Therefore making the painting a much more personal and intimate creation. Photography on the other hand is, from my experience, a much more objective method of working. As photographers we are not as intimate with our work until we create our final piece of work. Whatever that may be.
The next major stage of growth within photography, into almost every household in the west. Is of course the digital camera. With the digital age exploding over the last 15-20 years and the invention of the Internet the media has never been so powerful. We are pumped information every second of everyday of the year. There is now no time to wait in the modern world. We have fast food, fast cars, even faster trains and the fastest information network system ever developed. In a split second we can know what’s happening on the other side of the world. Naturally the media use images along with their headlines, but how are they shown? They are shown online and in print. For now I would like to focus on the online aspect. With the digital camera, we are no longer chemically and physically changing a negative into an image. Instead we are creating an image from a sensor onto a LCD screen. The image itself is not physical and has no presence. For the most part “photographs” now stay that way. We take hundreds upon thousands of images; electronically transfer them to our computer. Maybe upload them to the internet on media based websites where information is exchanged like never before. Or on social networking websites. Unfortunately in general nothing more than that.
This raises a very important question in the modern era, did the photograph ever exist? This in turn develops into another question, simply, what is a photograph? In the digital age what counts as a photograph? If it has never and in general will never be a physical object is it still a photograph? Are we now over saturated by images that we have become in general desensitized to this art form?
Most, if not every digital camera has an automatic setting. The camera decides what ISO, exposure and aperture would suit the lighting conditions the “best”. This removes most of the skill a photographer uses to create his or her images. Photographers have two main skills to their disposal, one they can first see the compositional qualities in the real world that would create a good photograph. However most people with a slightly creative mind can also do the same. Maybe not to the same degree or understanding. However essentially they could point to a landscape and say, “that would make a good photo” without fully understanding why or how to convey what they see via a camera.
This is where the secondary skill and what distinguishes a photographer form another comes into action. The ability to assess and then adequately photograph the subject in accordance to what they visualize the end photograph to be. This could come down to many different skills from simple film or ISO selection, use of depth of field and depth of focus. Foreshortening, tilt-shift or even long exposures. Depending on the photographers knowledge of these practices and how they use them can give us the viewer a powerful insight into reading the photograph and if or what the photographer is trying to comment on. Also again depending on the photographers’ knowledge we can see and recognize different styles not only in composition but how the photograph has been taken and produced. As I say this comes with knowledge about cameras and how they work on a mathematical and practical basis. If however as an extremely high majority of people with cameras only ever use fully automatic. There is no skill, no traits of practical skills and therefore no distinguishing features to any other photograph taken in the same method. As it is so easy to just press a button and get a instant image we are now over saturated with meaningless images. The classic example is on social networking websites, where half of the images you stumble across have been taken at an arms length away pointing down onto a “deeply concerned unique individual” usually followed by a photograph taken in a mirror with a flash on, so recognizing the person is almost impossible. Yet the image gives us a clear idea of the pathetic grin or “cheeky” look given.
My point is, if photography were a physical chemical reaction, would these images exist? I’m sure they wouldn’t. Photography is now a disposable method of being creative. It is the easy way to do things, in the digital age. The images have no physical presence and until they do, I believe they have no real meaning. Previously in this essay I said that “Photography on the other hand is, from my experience, a much more objective method of working. As photographers we are not as intimate with our work until we create our final piece of work. Whatever that may be.”
As I have been discussing photography, at least digitally is a very strange medium, it never truly exists as an object. It is information that gets coded and then decoded until a point where it can be printed into a physical form. This leads to a detachment between the photographer and the photograph. While editing the image on screen you start to relate to the image and see it for its full potential but even here we are still quite detached from the image. Again we are not physically doing anything we are telling a program to do an action we require from it. It seems that in the digital realms of photography we are always one step away from the photograph, we are constantly creating via something else. While at the editing stage of the process we begin to relate to the image and see it for its full potential as a photograph. At this stage we still are not sure how it will finally look in a non-digital form. Everything is in anticipation for the final product. When we finally print our image, on whatever medium we choose by whatever printing process we choose. Our image and our vision for the photograph come together and create a photograph. Photographs are much more than simple images, they are what the photographer sees, our interpretation of the subject in front of us. A photograph cannot be simply an image. Nor can it be a vision or an idea. A photograph is the physical connection of the two.
The lifespan of photography is now in question. As the majority of our images never make it to be photographs, I’m guilty of it too, then how long will our images last? Can generations in the future stumble across an old hard drive, assuming they still exist and marvel at the great photographers that went before? Like we did with old family albums or great previously undiscovered photographers. I fear the answer is no, I also fear that in the great growth of photography has come its very downfall. Images are no longer becoming photographs; they are staying on our computers only to be deleted at a touch of a button to make room for some more images or other documents. As they aren’t physical files we feel we can justify their deletion without a second thought. However because were over loaded with mediocre images everyday, so when a truly talented photographer shows their work we are stunned and amazed. Somebody has taken what the majority of people see as a simple tool and created a beautiful piece of art. We end up with a double-edged sword, on one side we can appreciate the very best for their skills, but finding them amongst the chaos of the digital era is becoming ever so harder. Thankfully there seems to be a trend for photographers reverting back to film and maybe, just maybe photography can be saved but alas I believe that this is the photography medium we are left with, stuck on our computers for no-one to see.
