picture window # 2 ~ who knows
Wednesday, April 30, 2008 at 08:43AM 
Bathroom window • click to embiggenHey all, let's get serious about the picture window thing. The POD book thing seems to have fizzled, at least to my knowledge. So, maybe a smaller undertaking will be a bit easier to accomplish.
Two statements, each offering very opposing POVs about photography, have recently come to my attention.
The first is from an article in the NY Times, Sepia No More, that is receiving a bit of photo-blog attention. In the article, the author, Virginia Heffernan, tries to describe and come to grips with the Flickr phenomenon. She believes that there is a Flickr "style" that has emerged - pictures that "are digital images that “pop” with the signature tulip colors of Canon digital cameras ... (photos with) still more levels of processing — including the otherworldly contrasts achieved with high-dynamic-range photography ... becoming only more eye-popping and stylized." Pictures that are made specifically for online presentation - eye-catching at thumbnail size and easily "read" at typical online sizes (500-1000 pixels).
I thought this might be of interest to you because of a few comments made recently about making pictures with the specific intent of online presentation and "acceptance". But, the statement(s) that me most from the article were the comments by a Flickr "star" (profiled by Heffernan) who has;
...written a treatise extolling digital manipulation called “I’m Not a Photographer,” deriding mainstream art photographers who “show you shoes hanging on wires, pink boxes in the green weeds, little black girls with blue eyes and nuns sitting under billboards of naked men.” On his Flickr profile, he calls the classic film camera “The Robot Camera Machine” and proposes digital processing as the antidote to film’s inhumanity.
My only response to that is simply that it is spoken just as I would expect a child of the age of hyper sensationalized media saturation to speak. With the ubiquitous and dominate form of visual stimulation coming from the masters of manipulation - the advertising "experts" with films, television and the web running a close second, it is no surprise to me that someone who swims in that water or breathes that air thinks that a manipulated world is the norm. It seems that the "real" world is more than just a bit bogus to them.
Contrast that attitude with these 2 statement from of Walker Evans;
Photography is the capture and projection of the delights of seeing; it is the defining of observation full and felt.
Stare. It is the way to educate your eye, and more. Stare, pry, listen eavesdrop. Die knowing something. You are not here long.
By presenting these distinctly differing opinions about the medium, I am not trying to propose that one idea is right and the other idea is wrong. Evans' notions have stood the test of time and much great photography that adheres to his ideas has been created both prior to and after his statement.
Those of the Flickr "star" have yet to tested by time and only time will tell whether the pictures created to the flickr standard have anything meaningful and lasting to say or that they are just a passing thrill-a-minute kind of thing.
Reader Comments (3)
Evidently, Ms. Heffernan's never looked terribly deeply into photo history. If she had, maybe she'd have realized how "old" all that eye-popping colour really is. Pete Turner, anyone?
The SoFoBoMo project is going strong. You might want to check it out at www.sofobomo.org. Lots of great books being produced during this month. Some of them are landscape books you might like. I should have mine finished today although it's not landscape though. I decided to do portraits instead.
Mark, propose something for this window project. Anything I can do to help out, let me know.