civilized ku # 2163-71 ~ prolific photographic promiscuity
Wednesday, April 18, 2012 at 10:45AM 
Pyramid ~ Ottawa, CA • click to embiggen
Valves ~ NYC, NY • click to embiggen
Restaurant ~ NYC, NY • click to embiggen
Construction ~ NYC, NY • click to embiggen
Red house ~ Au Sable Forks, NY • click to embiggen
Fishin' ~ Au Sable Forks, NY • click to embiggen
Main Street ~ Malone, NY • click to embiggen
Onion rings ~ Ottawa, CA • click to embiggen
Les armes ~ Ottawa, CA • click to embiggenIt has been claimed that, of all the pictures ever made, 90% of them have been made in the last 10 years. Don't quote me on that because I may have my facts and figures wrong, but they are pretty damn close to what I remember reading somewhere (but I can't remember where).
In any event, suffice it to state, we are making pictures at an incredible rate. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that that rate is driven by the proliferation of picture making devices, their ease of use and portability, and the negligible cost of making pictures (assuming one doesn't make prints or, if so, not many of them). Making a picture has never been so easy, convenient, and low cost as it is today.
This picturing proliferation is not limited to just the camera phone toting trolls or the soccer moms and teens with P&S cameras who snap away at anything and everything. In fact, the ease / convenience / low cost factor has also created an explosion of picture making within the "serious" amateur crowd as well. The evidence of that can be found everywhere online - photo blogs, photo sharing sites, photo forums, et al.
In my own picturing endeavors, I can reasonably state that I have, over the past 10 years since jumping on the digital bandwagon, made at least as many pictures as I had made in my entire 30+ years professional picturing life. Most of that recent (10 years) digital picture making activity has been devoted to the making of art, not in the cause of commerce.
That said, I have amassed 4,000+ "final" pictures in that time frame. Many of those pictures fall into individual and separate bodies of work but, in fact, most do not, other than in a very broad sense. As an example, about 30-40% of the pictures could legitimately be labeled "landscape" or "nature". That group could be further divided into sub-categories such as near, middle ground, and distant.
However, the balance of my pictures do not fit under any single umbrella other than a very broad label of "observations" - things seen in my daily life. For a considerable length of time, that broad-based body of work, which defies an easy categorical organization, has given me fits of ongoing what-the-hell-is-it? angst.
To wit, the Art World, Photography Division, is much given to the appreciation of - one could even say, "demanding of" - tight and tidy / coherent bodies of work. Prolific and promiscuous bodies of work are not looked upon as particularly worthy of consideration. Such bodies of work are thought to be lacking in a singularly coherent and discernible underlying theme, concept, or consistency of "vision".
In many cases - "serious" amateurs who jump all over the effect / technique picturing landscape, as an example - I'm not certain I would disagree with such an assessment. However ....
.... IMO, in light of the new picture making paradigm - which is nothing if not prodigiously prolific and promiscuous - a new way a thinking about and dealing with pictures called for. That is not to state that the tight and tidy, well focused body of work is a thing of the past. I am certain it will not be disappearing anytime soon. However, I am equally certain that there is a new manner of making, if not thinking about and dealing with, large and categorically diverse bodies of work.
Consistency of vision is not inconsistent with large diverse bodies of work. What is inconsistent with them is trying to view and understand them by employing the traditional / classic way of thinking.
We live in a media saturated culture where we are bombarded with images and messages. Stimulation, especially by means of our visual senses, is all around us. We are told, in our working lives, to develop the skill of multi-tasking. Information comes at us like a runaway freight train. If you can't go with the flow, you might better get out of the way.
Many have learned to swim rather sink in this deluge, some have not been so fortunate. In the Art World, Photography Division, many of the classically trained thinkers, critics, curators, gallery directors, et al are, if not swimming against the current, not exactly embracing it either. My belief is that many of them are not especially thrilled with the idea of (figuratively speaking) trying to herd cats, especially art cats.
I would be foolish to state that the wave of the new paradigm of prolific photographic promiscuity will be swamping the academic, institutional, or gallery world boat anytime soon. Those fortresses are well entrenched and will not loosening their grip on the Art World without a struggle.
In the meantime, a flood of interesting and "vision"-ary picture will continue to be made and make their presence known and, IMO, felt and understood.
Reader Comments (2)
I wonder how many of today’s uncountable picture makers know or care about the Art World that you are referring to. That institution (if I may call it so) has more or less made itself irrelevant, except perhaps to a handful of stuffy and pretentious collectors.
The "Art World" could well end up a tiny island in vast stream.