Photography is in a good place / Photography Matters
This is a post from the weareoca.com archive. Information contained within it may now be out of date.
I just sent out a newsletter. Terrifying experience. Almost as scary as feeding the ducks with my kids.
It is terrifying because it really matters to me. (Not the ducks, then I just fear for my life.)
In this video Annie Leibovitz says people who call themselves photographers are different from the rest of people who take pictures (i.e. everyone) because they take their work seriously. She ends by saying “what we do matters”. I find that reassuring after years of questioning the legitimacy of what I have chosen as a career. People are working on cures for cancer for heaven’s sake.
Some say we are over-saturated with photographs and cameras and that everything has been done. Yes, I see too many photographs; yes, there are too many techno-geeks; yes, anyone can take a good snap but have we ever heard fine art critics saying they have seen too much paint? Having a camera on your iPhone, or even the newest Hasselblad with digi-back might help you take better pictures or capture a moment but it doesn’t help you think about photography or make your ideas more engaging and it doesn’t make you dedicated to championing photography or understanding it’s fascinating history.
As technology develops the human race adapts and progresses. When photography came, painting thrived with it, drew on it for inspiration and furthered ideas and exploration because of a ‘tool’.
But photography is not a tool. A camera is a tool. The tools of our trade are being developed in sophisticated ways which is exciting. How will we develop as a result? If it wasn’t for Kodak’s disposable camera most of us wouldn’t be where we are today. Not least enrolled on a photography degree. You are taking it seriously.
But why does it matter? People are working on cures for cancer. We are taking pictures.
I see photography as being in a good place. I see practitioners that are exciting and innovative and exceptionally clever. I see photographers tackle issues in a very powerful way by making use of the reality vs fiction question that photography is best at. I see photojournalists who put themselves in danger for the sake of a nation, or an individual, or a cause. I see photographic artists bring humour to delicate situations, I also see them challenge the status quo of society. I could name a few but this is not about them, and you know your own heroes.
Photography puts me in a good place. It connects me to the people around me, it helps me understand the world more, or to see it in a new light. It challenges me to push it’s technological and conceptual limits, to go out and meet people, to think and to learn. Possibly even to change something one day. Photography is in a good place. If you don’t think it is in a good place, then I suggest you go out and use it to put you in a good place and see if that will change your mind.
22 thoughts on “Photography is in a good place / Photography Matters”
Leave a Reply
> Next Post What is drawing?
< Previous Post Arty Fraudsters
Tutor News – Katrina Whitehead
6 Comments
Some of you will know me as your personal tutor, or you may have...
Read more
Student Stories: Julia McLean
2 Comments
OCA Photography Program Leader Dan Robinson caught up with Julia McLean about her experience...
Read more
OCA’s Online Degree Show Showcase 2023
0 Comments
Welcome to our online Degree Show Showcase 22/23 where we are celebrating a number...
Read more
Student stories: Nuala Mahon
30 Comments
I have arrived at the finishing line of the long adventure that is (or...
Read more
This is brilliant – just wanted to say thank you. (and silently hope that my good place looks good to the assessors as well)
Thanks Nigel…
Do you think photography is in a good place?
What do others think?
Sorry – I realise I didn’t answer really address your point – but I’ve been struggling to work out why I take the photos i do, and worrying about whether it’s right to resist the urge to take photographs in a given style simply because it’s currently in vogue and your post helped me with that.
Is photography in a good place – i would say yes but with some caveats. As you say, there are huge numbers of people doing creative things, which is good, but on the back of that there is a huge industry telling us what we should photograph, how we should do it and how much better it would be if you bought the latest over-specced DSLR. I feel I’ve come to a reasonable landing on the latter, and am beginning to understand when my photography is in a good place.. As you so rightly say, with those bricks in place, photography feels to be good as well.
I would say that photography is in a good place from whichever aspect Sharon. It’s currency this side of the Atlantic probably hasn’t been stronger, the diversity of the genre and practice becoming wider and wider; things are looking very good for photography as a medium. The ‘tool’ is being used for greater levels of exploration, which may be that my horizon has been widened as a consequence of the courses I’m on, or that photography, as an art-form, has enabled that process of discovery and exposition. Either way for myself, I haven’t been in a better place. Thinking about who I am working with, and the projects that I’ve started, that have been so because of the ‘Art of Photography. I have no idea where the road will lead, and at this stage, that is the furthest thing in my mind.
I think that photography as a creative, artistic even documentary enterprise is in a reasonably good place. However, I would not want to be starting out as a commercial photographer today. High street photography, weddings, portraits and so on, small commercial work for local enterprises, estate agent images are all drying up as sources of income; local papers and even national and international papers are increasingly turning to ‘the citizen journalist’ i.e. the person who just happens to be there with a smart phone and no idea of pricing their ‘work’ and I worry that the days of photojournalism my well be numbered. To make it in the commercial world I suspect it will be necessary to master video, graphic design and web design as well as still photography and probably the only viable way forward will be a mixed partnership; nothing wrong with that at all but not commercial photography as we once knew it. On the other hand, with the tools becoming easier and easier to use to an acceptable level, artists are able to include photography in their practice to great effect and the acceptance of the photographic image as gallery worthy and publishable outside of journalism means that it is becoming easier for the gifted photographer to get their work seen. The web provides many ways to get your work before a wider audience and increasingly an online community of serious image makers and viewers is growing up and spilling out into the galleries. Exciting times!
Is photography in a good place? Well, I am not a photographer so I don’t qualify to answer this question!
However, the development in the past 50 years, if not, just the past 20 years with digital make this an exciting area. It is precisely the ease of taking a photograph makes us wonder why it should be taken and exactly what it means. Traditional aesthetic is bought into question, and old theories are bought into test. Photography evolves from a technical to a philosophical discipline.
Some people are working on cure on cancer. Only after couple years in med school they will find out that Cancer, an unregulated cell growth, by definition, is different from person to person and has no general cure. Photography, we still produce work different from person to person and I doubt if ever “everything” has already been done. I think there are still place and space for photographers and their creations.
Photography is not in a good place. Photography is not in a bad place. Photography is where it has to be.
Is photography in a good place? and Does it Matter?
Probing questions and easy to answer superficially. Technically, there is no question, we are in a great place in terms of development, but I am certain there is much more to come. Does photography matter, at the superficial level once again no contest – take a pic on your phone and send it to a buddy who can see the image seconds later on the other side of the world. Search the internet for images on pretty much any topic and you will find thousands.
However, what do these questions really mean to me? Firstly, I believe that it does matter. We are able to make images that record events that are meaningful at different levels, from personal to international. There are images that we find pleasurable to look at and those that challenge us. I must say that there are some that I think are awful too. Being able to view all these various images is meaningful – imagine a world without them. There is little doubt that they add to our enjoyment and understanding.
The question of photography being in a good place probably depends on your frame of reference. I can only sympathise with anyone trying to make a living out of photography – it must be really difficult, if not impossible. However, for those fortunate enough not to be in that position, it is probably fair to say that with the technical advances in all phases of making an image we are in a pretty good place. Being able to share and contribute easily via the various electronic media is good too. What is maybe not so good is the ‘too many’ images. Back in the ’60’s’ one made a few images slowly in the darkroom and shared these with relatively few who shared theirs with you. The fact that others around the world were doing the same had a limited influence as most were not shared. There was a natural filtering system in place. Maybe a natural filter will develop with time in some new format.
What this means for me is more scary than feeding the ducks – I often wonder whether with all these images around there is any point in me making my few, often inadequate pictures. Then I realise that actually I enjoy the challenge of trying to make the next one better and more meaningful an to learn this art form. That is what I find important and keeps me going.
Thank you for an interesting and challenging Newsletter.
Thanks Doug. Interesting to see how you are thinking about all this after being around in the 60’s making pictures! I find it interesting that in our fast paced society many practitioners still use film and earlier inventions like pinhole camera, camera obscura’s and medium and large format cameras. It seems like as the rest of the world moves forward an increasing amount of photographers want to go back and slow down.
This factor was very evident at the Study Visit to Sheffield Hallam degree show last weekend. I was very surprised by the number of (young, presumably) students who seemed to be focused on this backward step – analogue image-making; old-style printing; etc. The feedback from Andrew, who was leading the visit, was that many (most, maybe) of the students were ‘anti-digital’, seeing it as a threat. That baffles me; and disappoints me, to an extent. One can’t be sure whether, perhaps, it was the teaching that led them to think that way. Certainly when I visited a similar show at Huddersfield University on Tuesday, the work was not so backward-looking; and I believe their relatively new BA Photography course is more digitally oriented. One would think that a career-oriented undergraduate photography student would need to be digitally-oriented; but even from the creative viewpoint, digital processes, surely, open up the creative possibilities, if embraced in a positive manner.
I sympathise with your view here Stan. I am no great fan of using the most modern equipment for the sake of it, but the same is equally true of old equipment. I sense that it many cases it is simply an urge to be different or original because our culture conflates those terms with quality.
If there is a legitimate and well thought out reason to photograph a pet cat with a Lomo I see no issue with it but to quote the Landscape course notes: “When the techniques dominate and are consistently extreme, the style is likely to be mannered and have less substance.”
Maybe we could all try this
http://carynorton.com/legotron-mark-i
Yes I agree that digital technology should be embraced and not poopoo’d but I still love the clarity of a good large negative and the slowing down process of using large and bulky cameras. It really changes the tone of the work for the better don’t you think?
I suppose I should confess that I’ve never seen a “good large negative” or worked with a “large and bulky” camera. One of the (possible) downsides of studying with OCA is that one doesn’t get the opportunity to pop into a college studio and play with the equipment. Should those of us who just have access to digital processes feel deprived? Perhaps – but I hope not. “Slowing down the process” is certainly a worthy objective – but that can be in the photographer’s mind, whatever the equipment. Of course, it depends on the result one is looking for. If the required tone can only be achieved with a large format camera, then that will be the way to go. I think that what puzzles (or maybe even worries) me is the sense that there are some who believe that digital processes are inherently inferior. As a student, with my confessed lack of non-digital experience, I don’t feel in a position to make a judgement about that with any certainty. But if it’s true, then there isn’t much hope for those of us who only work with digital.
Which, in many ways, brings me back to your original question, Sharon. Photography feels to be in a ‘confused’ place – but then it’s a very broad ‘church’ anyway, and in a period of huge and on-going change, there will be those who embrace it with open arms and those who feel uncertain, even defensive, perhaps with good reason, in some cases. But I would fully support your original conclusion – getting out there and doing it is what puts one in a good place.
[Might have to go into the loft and dig out the (grown-up) children Lego. 🙂 ]
Well…nothing about a digital SLR forces you to work quickly. I’m sure many pro’s use one chained to a monitor in the studio – perhaps even in the field., So that feels like a false distinction. You may be right about the large negative – a 5×4 is still a lot cheaper than an equivalent resolution back for a large format digital camera – but none of that applies to the current trend for lomography, for example.
And surely slowing down only changes the tone of the work for the better if slowing down is relevant to the idea – otherwise it just slows it down.
Ultimately it’s down to personal preference, but it does sometimes seem to me the nostalgia has been substituted for creativity when resorting to old or poor quality cameras.
Reading Sharon’s article I was almost overcome with happiness to read someone appreciating the diversity of photography today, its really refreshing .
“When the techniques dominate and are consistently extreme, the style is likely to be mannered and have less substance.”
I do not disagree but let’s not forget the other side of it. When the image is too much thought out of reason the style is likely to be artificial and mannered in a different way.
This is my third year studying with OCA and I never stop surprising myself by the facility with which people exercise criticism other people’s work and technique, even considering the amount of practice, expertise and thought that requires the right application of said technique, or may be not, but it is still the work (or the opinion) of someone and merits respect before anything else.
I’m not against anything, but I can not eat more sweets that I can buy and I might like things or not, but I try to respect everything.
Why did you feed your kids to the ducks!??
Joking apart I do not know whether photography is in a good place or not. I am not sure how we would judge. Photography will live (and presumably be in a good place) as long as it has meaning across the broad spectrum of those who are or want to be photographers. If you or I believe that we are in a good place when practicing our craft then we at least are in a good place. I have been taking photographs for over 60 years and the changes I have seen in that time have been huge. What remains a constant is the photographer whose commitment and personal creativity brings delight and joy both to her/himself and those who see her work.
Peter is right about the problems of becoming a professional photographer but I am not sure that is the way to judge where photography is now whether good or bad. Some times I can hardly bother to pick up my camera (usually when I have wrestled for some time with the opaque (to me anyway) nature of some of the Course material) but then the desire to get out there and lose myself in the joy of trying to get it right overtakes me and then I am really in a good place.
Is photography in a good place? Photography is an art and a hobby that is now enjoyed by ever growing numbers of people using phones, point and shoots, through to increasingly complex DSLR’s.
People can choose to invest small or large sums of money to progress a hobby or even use a camera to simply capture images of family and/or social occasions. We are well and truly living in a digital world and the socal sharing of images has never been greater than it is now.
Practitioners of photgraphy and image capture can choose to drift in and out or strive to make a career, its a difficult world for everyone not just photographers. There is also a large gap between these two extremes where there is room for everyone to enjoy, study but most of all make and createimages that people will share, enjoy and even contemplate.
So is Photography in a good place? If its measure is on the numbers of people who participate, share and enjoy creating images then I’d say its a resounding yes.
Is photography in a good place ? Well I have read all the comments that were put forward on this topic and I have not read one where some one has mentioned the wrong place that makes it the good place, for example! the court room, where there are lots of children, parents not being allowed to take pictures at there childs school nativity play, taking a picture in your local town without someone abruptly coming up to you and asking why you are doing that,( encroaching on privacy) So dose photography have a good place ? yes! but with limits.
I am in my final two years of the art of digital course, and I hope afterwards I will have found the right place.
Does it matter? Yes, it does. In the case of most, it’s probably not up there on the same level of finding a cure for cancer… But it does matter, in the sense that looking, thinking, snd creating is something that we, humans, do. It matters at a fundamental level that we want to create. And then it’s up to us to make sure we’re as good at it as we can be.
Film and digital are profoundly different mediums. Yes you can use digital as if it was film, if you can show the discipline; no RAW, no previews, no auto white balance, use one setting for daylight, only use two ISO settings at most, set a limit to the number of exposure you will make before you begin and let a few hours elapse before you review your results.
The aesthetic is always technically led, the technology defines what’s possible. Different formats have different potentials and produce different results, not only in terms of photographic quality but also in approach, which is manifested in the images produced.
Photography is in a terribly cool place. I use ‘terribly’ not just to emphasise my point, but because cool can mean mainstream and that can often mean mediocre. For instance, I’m a great fan of working with film, mainly for the quality, but also for the discipline. I welcome people with little more than a polite interest in photography to gain an understanding of how film works, as that can be a more meaningful lesson in how the photographic process operates. But the trendiness of this makes me feel uncomfortable; plastic cameras with catchy names for sale in Urban Outfitters for instance, and whole shelves devoted to them in the Photographer’s Gallery, who should be using the space to sell photography books instead.
But actually, the fact that people want to spend their money on these self-confessed toys, when a digital camera comes for free nowadays in your mobile phone, says a lot about just how popular it is and how the medium has retained its alchemical mystique to the extent that simply clicking ‘retro filter’ or whatever isn’t satisfying enough for many people; they want to experience the real thing.
The plastic camera is one example and we could go into many more to underscore Photography’s popularity, but I think the real question is; what does this mean for the people who are serious about the medium? And I think it can only be a good thing: The more people who are interested and excited by photography, the more people are going to want to spend good money on your books and prints, or commission you to take photos of their business or whatever, because I think people’s expectations will rise and you will be in a good position to live up to them.