Picture window ~ less is more
Thursday, March 27, 2008 at 09:40AM 
Picture window with fruit • click to embiggenIn the Vanity Fair article about Robert Frank, he opined that, "There are too many images ... Too many cameras now. We’re all being watched. It gets sillier and sillier. As if all action is meaningful. Nothing is really all that special. It’s just life. If all moments are recorded, then nothing is beautiful and maybe photography isn’t an art anymore. Maybe it never was."
After which the article's author opined, "And maybe it is his fault. Who would believe that a hairy little man could take snapshots of nothing and make millions of dollars?"
Now, we all know that Frank was not taking "snapshots" but, in fact, his pictures do project the appearance of snapshots. That appearance is a big part of their power - the picture's haphazard casualness implies that finding and picturing so many Americans (28,000 photographs) who didn't fit the mold of the American Myth was not a difficult task. They were everywhere, rather commonplace, in fact. Which, as it turned out, was what really pissed off those who were clinging to the Myth.
But, that said, back to Frank's statement about "too many images, too many cameras". This not exactly a new sentiment. Much has been said on the subject and there is no denying that we live in a visual-media saturated world. Throw in the zillions of people with cameras, many of whom lay claim to the moniker of "photographer" and you'd have to be blind (literally) to not notice the overwhelming clutter of pictures - a Tower of Visual Babble, of sorts.
Sifting through the babble is nigh unto impossible. There's no denying that some of the cream still rises to the top but one has to wonder if the embarrassment of visual riches, when taken together with all the visual garbage, doesn't have a deadening, or at least numbing, effect on the senses.
I have been thinking about this notion for a while. My interest in it has intensified recently as I began to scan my 'old' 8×10 color negatives. What I have realized is that during my 8×10 heyday, which spanned 2-3 years, I made approximately 50 negatives. That's a total of 50, not 50 keepers. Aside - I'm quite pleased to say that, upon revisiting these 50 negatives some 25 years later, virtually all of them are keepers.
Compare that number to the over 600 digital-format ku keepers that I have amassed in just the last 5 years - not to mention the thousands of slight variations thereof (bracketing, 'working' the subject, etc.). Of course, this vast difference in 'output' is not totally attributable to digital. These days, I'm working less and enjoying it more, so to speak - I do have much more time to picture for myself now than I did then but ....
Working with an 8×10 view camera, much more so than even with a 4×5 vc, is a very deliberate thing. One must be much more selective in one's selecting if for no other reason than the time it takes, start to finish, to make a single exposure - everything from loading film holders, to setting the camera up, focusing and composing on the ground glass, and, in the case of many of my 8×10s made at dusk, long exposure times (up to 20 minutes). It's not an exaggeration to state that exposing a single sheet of film can take between 45-60 minutes.
That said, it's the being "selective in one's selecting' that I wonder about with digital. The ease of digital - everything from shooting to viewing the 'contacts' - encourages blazing away in manner that, well, discourages being "selective in one's selecting'.
Does this mean that the mere act of being picturing prolific diminishes the prospect of making good/great pictures? I don't think so. Does it mean that there will be more pictures than there might be if everything were still analog? Most certainly, yes. But, does that mean that 'pictures, pictures, everywhere' will cheapen photography as an Art form? I don't know, but I do suspect that that is the real question in all of this.
Wanna venture a shot at an answer?
PS - does the notion of "too many images" being raised by a man who made 28,000 of them in 3 years seems just a bit odd to you?
Reader Comments (8)
I do find his statements odd. I too have shot large format for the better part of my life, amassing around 500 images in that time. I agree that it was time consuming at times, but allowed the selective process of making images easier. While most of my images recently are from digital, it is more for using the limited time I have making images than using the scatter gun approach because it is cheap.Where I have an hour or so of my time available every so often, digital allows me to roam around and use my selective approach garnered from the experience with the view camera. Does the abundance of images that we are bombarded with daily dilute true art? I don't think so. Most of the images have no emotion or meaning and I find 95% of them to be extremely lackluster in their presentation and subject matter.
Thank you for your blog. It makes for thoughtful reading. I love the Frank quote about "There are too many images ... Too many cameras now..” It nicely sums up what I have been feeling about the current popularity of the camera and the ‘images’ that come out from them; being produced by the masses. While I have been doing Photography as a hobby for 30 years, I can find a wealth of images from many photographers that are more enlightening, than any thing I have produced. Yet that has not deterred me from pursuing my own holy grail of sorts, my attempt to produce an image worthy of respect.
I have always upgraded my camera (when I could afford to) as technology has advanced and enabled simple cameras to do some really cool things; and at a faster speed. I have noticed myself shooting faster and faster and became upset when my own ratio of keepers dropped dramatically. When I bought my first digital camera, I was even more dismayed at how many images I would come home with that just plainly sucked and needed to send them to digital oblivion.
That’s when I realized that I needed to really get to know my subject, spend time with it, and really think about the image I wanted to create. Only then did I discover Large Format. I love it. I would love to try my hand at 8x10, but fear time is running out…
First, a memo from the Pedantic Proofreader - it's "nigh", not "neigh". Horses neigh. Possibly when they get too nigh each other.
Meanwhile, back at photography, nope, too many images won't do any harm to photography as an art. People have written as a hobby ever since writing was invented. Doesn't seem to have harmed literature any. Same with painting, drawing and sculpting. The actual Art may be buried a bit deeper in the dross, but it'll be there.
I think Jim was being a bit generous by saying that 95% of images were "extremely lackluster". I would put that closer to 99.9%, and that's just where it should be: 1 in 1000 images rising above the fray seems a good number to me. Maybe a bit high yet, though.
As for the photographic hordes cheapening photography as "art", I cannot say. With more photographers shooting more photographs than ever before, it only stands to reason that there will be many more GREAT images (simple math) by a larger selection of shooters. Will we become what the music industry is today? A series of flash-in-the-pan one (or two)-hit-wonders whose works are touted on day, and forgotten the next when a new blonde bombshell comes along?
I am leaning towards what seems to be the prevailing view here, that photographic art will survive and be relevant. However,I doubt it will be like it is today where a small handful of old masters are upon sitting upon a high pedestal. Instead, I think we'll have many more lesser masters (mini-masters?), and a bit shorter pedestal.
But, does that mean that 'pictures, pictures, everywhere' will cheapen photography as an Art form?
I am fairly certain that 99.9% of the population who make photographs never consider their work to be art (or Art). They are just happy to record the life and places around them for their own memories, and to share with friends/family.
Is the rise in image making related to commodity fetishism, driven by a "gotta have" interest in people who might otherwise not have paid attention to an analogue camera? They now have the latest camera technology, and as a result spend weekends machine gunning and uploading. Spend some time on some of the online photo forums, and you can easliy come away with that sense.
You seem to not recognize the benefit of all those years of experience in your production of images now. At least one would hope to get better with years practice. Technology has made it easier for everyone, including well practiced photo-artist who make meaningful images, to contribute to the flood of images. As one of your readers has suggested, there are only a few making "art." It all started when George put the first simple camera in the hands of the average consumer, and it continues as the electronics industry puts simple digital cameras in like hands. Too many pictures? Maybe. As a photo teacher in an art department, I see very few who rise to the level of artist.
I think Robert Frank, and I concur with him, laments the influence that this deluge of pictures has on the perception of everybody. Every single visual experience, be it direct or representational gets steadily devalued and diluted in intensity. This is physiologic adaptation at work.