Is Photography Over?

Richard

A symposium at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. Read some of the statements here.

Enitsugua

Richard wrote: »

A symposium at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. Read some of the statements here.

They all say so much and yet say so little. And they are obviously talking about photography as an art form. Not about anything else (like making a living from photography, as an art form or otherwise).

Roger Ebert wrote this on his blog (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/the_golden_age_of_movie_critic.html) recently:

"This is a golden age for film criticism. Never before have more critics written more or better words for more readers about more films. But already you are ahead of me, and know this is because of the internet.

Twenty years ago a good-sized city might have contained a dozen people making a living from writing about films, and for half of them the salary might have been adequate to raise a family. Today that city might contain hundreds, although (the Catch-22) not more than one or two are making a living.

Film criticism is still a profession, but it's no longer an occupation. You can't make any money at it....

Recently a friend of mine sent an e-mail to several movie critics. He was Jeff Shannon of Seattle, a good critic who has been in a wheelchair since an accident in youth.

'Guys,' he said, 'I've been asked to provide career advice to a young disabled college student who wants to pursue a career as a film critic. I'm not one to sugar-coat reality, so my immediate advice for him would be to enjoy film criticism/appreciation through blogging and possibly attempting to write books about films, etc. In all sincerity I can't advise the kid to pursue this career under present circumstances. From my perspective as someone who had various highs and lows in the job since 1984, I'd feel like I was doing the kid a disservice if I told him he could make a decent living at it. I just don't see that happening for anyone apart from the upper-echelon critics who've been established for years or decades (and recent cutbacks at Variety prove that even the 'A-list' critics are under siege).'

'So, in all sincerity and honesty, do you think I should encourage the kid to follow his passion (which is what I would normally do), or give him a hard dose of reality? Maybe he could consider other work in the film-biz that holds more potential?'"

And it goes on. Replacing "photography" for "film criticism" in that quote yields some interesting material for thought.

angevin1

Richard wrote: »

A symposium at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art. Read some of the statements here.

Good Catch Richard! Some of it very interesting considering the caliber of sources. Sage Wisdom.

Richard

Enitsugua wrote: »

They all say so much and yet say so little. And they are obviously talking about photography as an art form. Not about anything else (like making a living from photography, as an art form or otherwise).

Yes, their focus was on art. If you can get through the obscure writing it seems they are really more concerned about the future of art museums, curators and critics than about practitioners. Given the participants, that's not terribly surprising. Still, there's some interesting stuff there. Note that there is a link to a blog about the conference, which is more readable by mere mortals.

Enitsugua

Richard wrote: »

Yes, their focus was on art. If you can get through the obscure writing it seems they are really more concerned about the future of art museums, curators and critics than about practitioners. Given the participants, that's not terribly surprising. Still, there's some interesting stuff there. Note that there is a link to a blog about the conference, which is more readable by mere mortals.

It wasn't the readability, it was the style--pedantic, pompous, and self serving. Each of them takes several paragraphs to say what could be said in a few sentences. There are some interesting thoughts, but they're buried in prolixity.

The blog says basically the same thing I just said in its first couple of paragraphs, so I'm not the only one who noticed. It then, of course, falls back into and continues the prolixity--just not to quite the same extent.

Yes, this is a discussion basically by and about "the future of art museums, curators and critics". Here's a gem that makes that clear:

"Does photography deserve our nostalgia? The panelists were nearly as divided on nostalgia—is it a negative attitude or a positive one?—as they were on photography, making the question multi-dimensional. Both panels found themselves circling the question of a meaningful history, in particular a connective history. Is there a narrative that can hold the history of photography together with its present—or are we better off without one?"

My take? Photography is changing, and that affects all of us. The "art museums, curators and critics" are dealing with how that change affects them. Or are they dealing with it, or simply discussing the effects ad nauseam?

ian408

I read this and wondered if photography is really over or just looking for a new direction.

I think just looking for a new direction.

What has amazed me about photography is the tremendous amount of learning you can accomplish in a short time because of what digital allows--it makes good photographers, almost pro quality, out of people who have no interest other than as a hobbyist. Look too at the pro still photogs who are incorporating video or slide shows in their work and how that's changing what customers want. Yeah, I think it's just waiting for a new direction.