life in pictures # 9 ~ He's a real Nowhere Man, Sitting in his Nowhere Land, Making all his nowhere prints for nobody.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010 at 10:23AM 
Champion ~ Bell Centre, CA • click to embiggenAs is to be expected an entry on another blog, re: a new 18mp wunder-camera, generated a very large number of comments. Some of the commenters agreed with the entry creator that 18mp was simply overkill for an "consumer"-level dslr. Others were quite favorably impressed with this next-best-thing.
I, of course, was in complete agreement with one commenter - Mike Korvak - who stated:
.... don't you see the relationship that has been built between the high-tech forces of the world? 18mp in a consumer camera will require the user to buy a faster/larger capacity computer, larger/faster memory cards, a higher quality "pro" printer, new image manipulation software, and of course, lenses of greater quality to "match" the level of camera. And do not forget the banks and credit card companies who will reap the benefits of all this consumer purchasing. OOPS, one more interest that will be the recipient of great rewards..the landfill companies where all the outdated no longer worthwhile equipment will wind up. All this so the consumer user soccer mom can put her camera in "point-n-shoot" mode to capture little Johnny in the game of his life (at 7 years old). Sorry to be such a cynic, but I have reached my personal level of excessive consumerism tolerance. Get real America!
However, so much of the pixel-count yammering had me wondering - why is it that there are lots more "serious amateur" painters / illustrators making really interesting paintings / illustrations than there are "serious amateur" picture makers, AKA - photographers, who are making interesting pictures?
To be certain, that question / implied opinion is NOT based on any scientific survey - it is based solely upon my personal observations in the many "small-time" craft/art galleries that I visit on a regular basis. When doing so, I am often tempted to purchase (and occasionally do so) a painting / illustration but I am never, or at least so rarely that it seems like "never", tempted to purchase a photographic picture.
IMO, part of the reason for than situation is that so many "serious amateur" picture makers are so wrapped up in their picture making machines - my camera is better than your camera - and picturing making accoutrements - my lens is sharper than your lens - that they are both mentally and emotionally incapable of making an interesting picture. They invest all or most of their time in the mechanics of the medium and pay scant, if any, attention to what make an interesting picture interesting. Instead, when it comes to actual picture making, they stick to the tried and true - pretty pictures of pretty scenes.
In truth and in fact, there probably are more interesting "serious amateur" photographic pictures (vs. painting / illustration) out there than meets the eye. However, "small-time" (by which I do not mean "schlock") craft/art galleries have limited wall space and they tend to show what they think will sell and "pretty" pictures will outsell "interesting" pictures (in such settings) almost every time. Especially so, because "pretty" pictures are a dime-a-dozen and, most often, priced to match. That, and, as the saying goes - no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.
Consequently, there is much in the way of interesting pictures that simply doesn't see the light of day (properly filtered, of course) in small-time craft/art galleries. Unfortunately, much of the work of "serious amateurs", photography-wise, is caught in a no-see-um land between a rock and a hard place. The "rock" being the small-time craft/art galleries and the "hard place" being the big-time art galleries.
But, that's a whole other story.
Reader Comments (10)
Personally I have made my peace with the MPix I have and reached at least for the moment that "good enough" feeling, that allows to concentrate on seeing and image making and to use the camera as a self-evident tool, mainly by ignoring 90% of the bells and whistles the camera makers can't stop to implement. Seems to be a certain case of incontinence...
But I certainly would not be in the position to aquire a contemporary DSLR for my purposes without those millions of MPix fanatics out there that keep the machinery going and the prices dropping for those exquisite tools that even the entry-level DSLRs are. Sad enough, but I (and similarly all photographers) profit from what all too easy can be despised as an uneducate race for the bigger and the better.
I'm familiar with the post you are referring to, and it's just another dismal example of gear mania. And unfortunately it's easy to get caught up in that trap as well. All energy is spent on getting the equipment straight and none is spent on doing something creative with it. And I'll admit that this happens to me as well.
It's all because the serious part of serious amateur has contextual meaning. For the painters it is a question of devotion and artistic intent. For the photographers it is a question of money spent on gear.
I hope my photography never gets branded "serious amateur" (even though I've spent piles on gear).
Couldn't agree more with you Mark! Photographers need more books and less cameras. Most great photographs have been made with the simplest equipment.
The 'other blog' has run a few interesting posts on "what is art?". For many of the photographer-commenters, just about anything qualifies! Mike Johnston gave his personal definition which I found very helpful.
I can see a number of reasons for the lack of art in photography...
1. Most people who get into photography are technically minded by nature (myself included).
2. Following on from point 1, many photographers have no formal education in art (myself included).
3. Over time, a technically minded person can produce very competent photos. Many are happy with this and probably regard their handiwork as "Art" (capital "A" intended).
4. Compared to other mediums, I suspect it is very difficult to put a "personal signature" (style) into a photograph. Ultra-wide angles / over-saturated colours don't count.
I've looked at my photos in the last few years and recognised they lack the "magic" that Mike J alludes to.
I've found your blog - the Landscapist - and the 'other blog' - instructive as to what art is and how artists think. I've built up a small library (< 20 books) of well recommended photographic art books.
Come to think of it, I've spent more money on photobooks than camera gear. There might be hope for me yet ;-).
Hi Mark,
I have been meaning to ask you this question for quite some time. Based on the frequency of your posts, you seem to be producing a whole lot of pictures, all which look really well made (at least when viewed on the computer screen). I was interested in knowing how many of these pictures do you end up printing.
My own pace of producing prints is slow -- very slow. I consider myself lucky if I can get one or two new prints done in a month.
"For the painters it is a question of devotion and artistic intent. For the photographers it is a question of money spent on gear."
This fallacy is very... old by now.
Painters both old and new, are and where, very particular about brushes, canvas, oils... colors etc. Iirc, Van Gogh got money from his brother to afford the best of the best in brushes.. :)
When it comes to "this is not art, it is a snapshot".. well, lots of people buy cameras to take snapshots, to document their life. Those who get cameras to do art are just as competent as those that start painting to create art. An artificial dicothomy imo.
I disagree, Ulrik. Having the best equipment is fine, perhaps even an advantage. Constant drooling over new, better equipment to the detriment of time devoted to creative thought, however, gets in the way of deep reflection and awareness. Precision, quality equipment by itself does not signal misguided effort, but endless, circuitous obsession does.
Ulrik, you completely missed my point. That statement pertains to how the idea of "serious" in "serious amateur" is defined between the two groups. Painters, while they may obsess over kit as photographers do, are never defined by the quality of their materials as "serious" photographers seem to be.
I have yet to see anyone discard a good image beacause, when checking the exif, they found out that it was a nikon d40 that took it, or the other way around, anyone change their mind about a bad image, beacuase they found out that a D3x took it.. If you guys can point me in the direction of data proving that this happens all the time, I'll gladly accept your hypothesis, but before that, I call mumbo-jumbo-artificial-dichotomy.