Look out Art - here comes Technology...

it seems every generation of new technology attacks an established art-form. There is much history to this - not just photography. As technology makes advances - it often jusifies itself by displacing the skills and talents of people who have spent much of their lives honing them.

Technology is a dispassionate juggernaut that allows men of simpler minds to move closer to the masters.

When video replaced film - the "videographer" was born and knew little of the art. We saw these geeks breaking long standing rules of composition through both ignorance and new-found creativity. Today things in that category have settled down - though irrevocably changed.

When photography challenged the painter the result was a new expression from both. One did not suplant the other and neither was compromised. Only those who feared the change were injured by their own dismay.

Printing
Transportation
Writing
Music

All are examples of skilled human expression that have faced the challenges of technology - though all have been augmented.

Where are we with Digital Photography? The very definition of an image is being changed. We can no longer trust that Bobbi McCaughey's teeth weren't enhanced on the cover of NewsWeek. We can't even be sure that wasn't Jar Jar Binks-technology as Osama Bin Laden gloating on that video.

We are in transition. Watch or participate. Enjoy the ride.

Des

Dan Desjardins said:

it seems every generation of new technology attacks an established
art-form. There is much history to this - not just photography.
As technology makes advances - it often jusifies itself by
displacing the skills and talents of people who have spent much of
their lives honing them.
Technology is a dispassionate juggernaut that allows men of simpler
minds to move closer to the masters.
When video replaced film - the "videographer" was born and knew
little of the art. We saw these geeks breaking long standing
rules of composition through both ignorance and new-found
creativity. Today things in that category have settled down -
though irrevocably changed.
When photography challenged the painter the result was a new
expression from both. One did not suplant the other and neither
was compromised. Only those who feared the change were injured by
their own dismay.

Printing
Transportation
Writing
Music

All are examples of skilled human expression that have faced the
challenges of technology - though all have been augmented.

Where are we with Digital Photography? The very definition of an
image is being changed. We can no longer trust that Bobbi
McCaughey's teeth weren't enhanced on the cover of NewsWeek. We
can't even be sure that wasn't Jar Jar Binks-technology as Osama
Bin Laden gloating on that video.

Click to expand...

I can remember in my HS serior year assisting a photographer to colorize (paint) our senior photos. Sometimes the more thing change, the more they stay the same.

Enjoy the ride.

Regards,
Trent

Dan Desjardins said:

We are in transition. Watch or participate. Enjoy the ride.

Des

Click to expand...

technology doesn't help the masses get closer to the masters in any art. There's a difference between giving someone a camera, pointing them to a vacant lot, and getting "art" as a result, and giving them a camera, pointing to the exact tripod marks pointing to a well known scene that a master produced, and saying "copy". When abstract painting emerged, everyone thought all it took was a canvas and the ability to toss paint onto it to become a master. Then there's a camera. Point them to Weston's cabbage leaf, and you hear.. "i have a camera.. i could have done that.. what's the big deal". You hear the same thing now with digital cameras.. and what you have are millions of technically good, boring jpegs floating around the internet. The technology never displaces the skills and talents, although it may give the illusion of doing so. Using a photocopy machine to copy a Van Gogh, doesn't make that person an artist

All technology provides are new tools for artists to express themselves.

Dan Desjardins said:

it seems every generation of new technology attacks an established
art-form. There is much history to this - not just photography.
As technology makes advances - it often jusifies itself by
displacing the skills and talents of people who have spent much of
their lives honing them.
Technology is a dispassionate juggernaut that allows men of simpler
minds to move closer to the masters.
When video replaced film - the "videographer" was born and knew
little of the art. We saw these geeks breaking long standing
rules of composition through both ignorance and new-found
creativity. Today things in that category have settled down -
though irrevocably changed.
When photography challenged the painter the result was a new
expression from both. One did not suplant the other and neither
was compromised. Only those who feared the change were injured by
their own dismay.

Printing
Transportation
Writing
Music

All are examples of skilled human expression that have faced the
challenges of technology - though all have been augmented.

Where are we with Digital Photography? The very definition of an
image is being changed. We can no longer trust that Bobbi
McCaughey's teeth weren't enhanced on the cover of NewsWeek. We
can't even be sure that wasn't Jar Jar Binks-technology as Osama
Bin Laden gloating on that video.

We are in transition. Watch or participate. Enjoy the ride.

Des

Click to expand...

--
jim collum
http://www.jcollum.com

It's agreed that it takes more than the tools to be able to create, but with new technology, but the ability to demonstrate "skill" (note, I didn't say talent) is much easier with the fast turn-around of digital photography and the ability to photo edit with software. A process that, for even someone skilled, would take a couple hours in film development, to printing, to touching up the print to get it just right. A process pretty much impossible for an amature without the facilities.

Now, it takes a few minutes to transfer the files and bring them up in photoshop.

It's on the artists, now, to differentiate their skills. The thing is that once amateurs can "copy" the masters, the masters become less impressive to the mass simply because the differences become more subtle.

jim collum said:

technology doesn't help the masses get closer to the masters in any
art. There's a difference between giving someone a camera, pointing
them to a vacant lot, and getting "art" as a result, and giving
them a camera, pointing to the exact tripod marks pointing to a
well known scene that a master produced, and saying "copy". When
abstract painting emerged, everyone thought all it took was a
canvas and the ability to toss paint onto it to become a master.
Then there's a camera. Point them to Weston's cabbage leaf, and you
hear.. "i have a camera.. i could have done that.. what's the big
deal". You hear the same thing now with digital cameras.. and what
you have are millions of technically good, boring jpegs floating
around the internet. The technology never displaces the skills and
talents, although it may give the illusion of doing so. Using a
photocopy machine to copy a Van Gogh, doesn't make that person an
artist

All technology provides are new tools for artists to express
themselves.

Click to expand...

Chrispy said:

It's agreed that it takes more than the tools to be able to create,
but with new technology, but the ability to demonstrate "skill"
(note, I didn't say talent) is much easier with the fast
turn-around of digital photography and the ability to photo edit
with software. A process that, for even someone skilled, would take
a couple hours in film development, to printing, to touching up the
print to get it just right. A process pretty much impossible for an
amature without the facilities.

Click to expand...

good retouching skills will make a good craftsman. fast turnaround allows for quick learning of the technical skills of photography. a camera is not a technically difficult thing to master the skills of. what the digital camera allows is someone to quickly learn the craft of photography.

a million tripods have focussed on Yosemite Valley from Inspiration point, yet only a handful (and that handful are from artist who have consistantly produced work) have demonstrated the drama of "Clearing Winter Storm". An artist isn't someone who accidently takes a well composed photo every now and then.. they have a vision of what they want, even before picking up the tool to use.

the differences have always seemed subtle.. few people ever buy original art.. or ever have. a lot of people feel they can do just as good (although never demonstrate it.. just parrot that historical line). Why buy a van gough for a million, when i can go to the corner parking lot and buy a poster for $10. Why buy Campanegro's "Running White Deer", when all you need is a camera and a field full of deer to "copy" it. Everyone thinks they can now duplicate Jerry Uuelsman's work, now that they can use photoshop and a scanner.

The tool is irrelevent, the vision is what counts.

Chris M said:

Now, it takes a few minutes to transfer the files and bring them up
in photoshop.

It's on the artists, now, to differentiate their skills. The thing
is that once amateurs can "copy" the masters, the masters become
less impressive to the mass simply because the differences become
more subtle.

jim collum said:

technology doesn't help the masses get closer to the masters in any
art. There's a difference between giving someone a camera, pointing
them to a vacant lot, and getting "art" as a result, and giving
them a camera, pointing to the exact tripod marks pointing to a
well known scene that a master produced, and saying "copy". When
abstract painting emerged, everyone thought all it took was a
canvas and the ability to toss paint onto it to become a master.
Then there's a camera. Point them to Weston's cabbage leaf, and you
hear.. "i have a camera.. i could have done that.. what's the big
deal". You hear the same thing now with digital cameras.. and what
you have are millions of technically good, boring jpegs floating
around the internet. The technology never displaces the skills and
talents, although it may give the illusion of doing so. Using a
photocopy machine to copy a Van Gogh, doesn't make that person an
artist

All technology provides are new tools for artists to express
themselves.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
jim collum
http://www.jcollum.com

Dan Desjardins said:

Technology is a dispassionate juggernaut that allows men of simpler
minds to move closer to the masters.

Click to expand...

This is a common mantra I hear among people I would associate as "purists", but it is something I cannot completely agree with. Another person on this thread mentioned that "it's not the tool that counts, it's the vision". I feel that this sums it up nicely.

When camcorders and home editing stations became affordable and commonplace, most professionals in the movie industry were not overly concerned about "every guy and his dog making a movie that will dilute the playing field". They could rest easy with the reassurance that making marketable films is still prohibitively expensive for many, and more important, a digital camcorder and some editing software will not magically turn your average person into Spielberg or Scorsese or Kubrick. Do you really think a digital SLR and Photoshop will turn legions of people into Cartier-Bresson, Andre Kertesz, or Ansel Adams? I don't.

I do agree that it becomes more difficult to establish "reality" with a digitized photo or video clip, if only because the relative ease of manipulation makes such presentations vulnerable to fakery, but when you really think about it, that's almost always been the case.

Anyway, thanks for an interesting and somewhat provocative topic - I am curious to see what others think.
Best,
M.

I'm not 100% convinced that making the craft easier doesn't make the art less unique. It's irrelevant who buys original prints and who buys the posters and who just downloads jpegs and makes backgrounds out of them, it's all part of the audience. The more accessible your craft, the smaller the audience. I have an audience of 1 (myself), but to be an artist is to sell vision, not just prints. And the more lost the artist's work is among the mass of ho-hum wanna-be photoshoppers out there, the less the vision is sold.

The age of the digital is like any other change in artistic history, it will make something new of the art, create a different brand of skill and change what photography is, better or worse. Vision will change to keep up with the technology because that's how it works. Why do so many photographers still shoot B&W? Because it's far easier and cheaper to process. It doesn't mean that a lot of people won't stop clinging to their old manual 35mm bodies, but in the end, the easier medium will win.

It won't be the first time photography has seen changes, it won't be the last.

jim collum said:

good retouching skills will make a good craftsman. fast turnaround
allows for quick learning of the technical skills of photography. a
camera is not a technically difficult thing to master the skills
of. what the digital camera allows is someone to quickly learn the
craft of photography.

the differences have always seemed subtle.. few people ever buy
original art.. or ever have. a lot of people feel they can do just
as good (although never demonstrate it.. just parrot that
historical line). Why buy a van gough for a million, when i can go
to the corner parking lot and buy a poster for $10. Why buy
Campanegro's "Running White Deer", when all you need is a camera
and a field full of deer to "copy" it. Everyone thinks they can now
duplicate Jerry Uuelsman's work, now that they can use photoshop
and a scanner.

The tool is irrelevent, the vision is what counts.

Click to expand...

Hi Maine

There are many professions that are touched by the latest technologiacal revolution. The computer is an interesting gadget. It transforms itself according to the software being used. A computer can be a weaving machine. Many cloth mills are now controlled by computers, computer controlled lathes, architectural CAD programs. The list is endless.

In the feild of talent, one must ask, how much talent is out there?

For example take two individuals, both with equal talent, both wishing to learn photography. One, gets married, has a family, bills to meet, ect. He loves photography, but the time, the expense - What the heck, it becomes an occasional hobby. The other dedicates themself to learning the trade, every penny goes into equipment. You get the picture.

How much talent is actually out there? The computer lowers the barrier to talent. If you don't have the talent you can still learn the craft but the results are mediocre. The bottom line remains talent but now the barriers of time, expense and effort are dropping.

Dave

MainePixels said:

Dan Desjardins said:

Technology is a dispassionate juggernaut that allows men of simpler
minds to move closer to the masters.

Click to expand...

This is a common mantra I hear among people I would associate as
"purists", but it is something I cannot completely agree with.
Another person on this thread mentioned that "it's not the tool
that counts, it's the vision". I feel that this sums it up nicely.
When camcorders and home editing stations became affordable and
commonplace, most professionals in the movie industry were not
overly concerned about "every guy and his dog making a movie that
will dilute the playing field". They could rest easy with the
reassurance that making marketable films is still prohibitively
expensive for many, and more important, a digital camcorder and
some editing software will not magically turn your average person
into Spielberg or Scorsese or Kubrick. Do you really think a
digital SLR and Photoshop will turn legions of people into
Cartier-Bresson, Andre Kertesz, or Ansel Adams? I don't.
I do agree that it becomes more difficult to establish "reality"
with a digitized photo or video clip, if only because the relative
ease of manipulation makes such presentations vulnerable to fakery,
but when you really think about it, that's almost always been the
case.
Anyway, thanks for an interesting and somewhat provocative topic -
I am curious to see what others think.
Best,
M.

Click to expand...

And one BIG kewpie doll for Dave - the man who has identified a wonderful and not-obvious issue!

Talent, vision, wisdom and tools all work together. Talent, vision and wisdom are largely innate. Tools must be purchased - and our life-paths sometimes make attaining them difficult. Sometimes we find our way to the tools - sometimes they find their way to us.

Excellent observation Dave!

Des

Dave said:

The computer lowers the
barrier to talent. If you don't have the talent you can still learn
the craft but the results are mediocre. The bottom line remains
talent but now the barriers of time, expense and effort are
dropping.

Click to expand...

Dan Desjardins said:

it seems every generation of new technology attacks an established
art-form. There is much history to this - not just photography.
As technology makes advances - it often jusifies itself by
displacing the skills and talents of people who have spent much of
their lives honing them.
Technology is a dispassionate juggernaut that allows men of simpler
minds to move closer to the masters.

Click to expand...

Dan Desjardins said:

When photography challenged the painter the result was a new
expression from both. One did not suplant the other and neither
was compromised. Only those who feared the change were injured by
their own dismay.

Click to expand...

This same argument was probably fought when pre-made brushes and pre-packaged tubes of paint became available. "No Leonardo I disagree. You're right in that the masses will have greater access to paint. But will they know how to apply them to canvas?"

The one great thing I've seen in the advances of photographic technology is that people can be encouraged to continue to explore this medium because they actually get results to look at. In a little more than a generation we've gone from Rangefinder/Twinlens reflex, SLR, instant return mirrors, built-in meter, motor-drive, auto-exposure, auto-focus, auto-focus that worked and now digital. Or perhaps, roll film, Instamatics, roll film point-n-shoot, 1-hour minilabs, disposable cameras, digital point-n-shoot would be the track most of the population has seen.

Every one of those technological breakthroughs made it a little more sure that there would be a viewable result. Every one of these advances allowed/encouraged another percentage of the population to stick with learning how to make good pictures. I handed my 9-year old niece a digital point and shoot, let her blaze away for a while. The cat has left the house! Then showed her "her" pictures on the TV. Talking about instant gratification. She grabbed the camera to go find someone else to "make pictures of." Does Annie Lebowitz have competition? No, at least, not yet. But look at the learning curve. Even with a conventional film point and shoot she'd be waiting a couple of days to see her pictures. If someone was even willing to let her fire away in abandon with a film camera, given the cost of film and processing. Once you have the camera, digital photography allows for immediate and inexpensive feedback. Given time a person moves on from being satisfied with just "getting something on film" to wanting to make better and better photographs. People will stop trying to learn and stop buying more sophisticated equipment when they reach the level that satisfies their photographic desires. With digital photography if a person wants to explore composition and change elements within a photograph, it's only a matter of software and turning on the computer. How many people have a darkroom vs how many people have a computer? How many of us would let a 9-year old process their own film and make their own prints. How many 9-year olds would want to? Put an image up on the screen, try this, try that. Oh, I didn't like that! Command "Z", let's try it again. Most of us learn something by doing it. Try something, look at the results, analyze them, decide on changes, try something again. With a digital camera that learning loop becomes so much faster and at the same time can encompass so much more. Now she wants her own digital camera to make pictures. And if the interest survives till Christmas, Santa might send a 1 or 2 megapixel camera to a budding photographer.

If she is representative of her generation then the arts should be in good hands. With the experience of the doing of something should come a greater appreciation of those who excel and master that very art.

Regards,
Bill Faulkner

Will -

you said:

I handed my 9-year
old niece a digital point and shoot, let her blaze away for a
while. The cat has left the house!

Click to expand...

The feedback loop is shorter and more accurate than ever. You've made a very good point - technology opens doors for people in spite of how it may stress the art.

it's arguable that it took, or developed, more passion to plow through the barriers - but I'm not sure those impediments didn't deprive the world of some greatness too...

Please don't be surprised - 30 years from now - when your daughter's third book includes some of her "early work."

Des

Dan, and all- Great thread. One point I'd like to add. The acquisition of some skills and knowledge in any art produces a more sophisticated appreciator and consumer of that art as well. I believe many more people will find their way to the Cartier-Bensons' and Ansel Adams' of the world as a result of the inevitable education of sensibilities. Some people will only learn to appreciate the difference between a master work and a snapshot because of the education digital photography provides. I'm of the belief that more information and more availabilty of resources to more people, in any field, greatly promotes that field..Peter

Dan Desjardins said:

you said:

I handed my 9-year
old niece a digital point and shoot, let her blaze away for a
while. The cat has left the house!

Click to expand...

The feedback loop is shorter and more accurate than ever. You've
made a very good point - technology opens doors for people in spite
of how it may stress the art.

it's arguable that it took, or developed, more passion to plow
through the barriers - but I'm not sure those impediments didn't
deprive the world of some greatness too...

Please don't be surprised - 30 years from now - when your
daughter's third book includes some of her "early work."

Des

Click to expand...

Hi,

I see the photographic technology available today as something quite apart from the art of photography.

If you look over at the newbie D60 owners' galleries that they're posting, it's quite obvious that people are dropping big dollars on high end cameras and lenses only to produce shots which you would call snapshots if you were bing kind.

A well exposed and sharp snap shot still leaves a great deal to be desired photographically. Doesn't matter whether it was shot with a D60 or a disposable.

When DSLRS come with "interesting composition" and "best possible moment" custom functions, then those who pursue the art can start to worry about its fate.

Camera houses can put as much technologically advanced imaging equipment in people's hands as it likes, the differences between those with talent and those without will still be obvious, I think.

--
Regards

Andrew McGregor

http://www.geocities.com/andrewmcgregorphotography

David Barkin said:

A
computer can be a weaving machine. Many cloth mills are now
controlled by computers, computer controlled lathes, architectural
CAD programs. The list is endless.

Click to expand...

Weaving is an excellent example, because it's been "computerized" longer than anything else. Look at where punch cards came from... Jacquard's in 1802. If you want to know where the art of photography will be in 200 years, take a look at weaving.

I have a hard time agreeing that as technology creates quick satisfaction, that it will also create more art. Programs such as Dreamweaver and GoLive promise to help create web sites faster, and with much less learning curve. Yet, its obvious when looking at the web sites from other photographers with “ Real Vision”, they are far from successful at producing anything remotely interesting unless its behind a lens. If technology provided a easier path to producing successful art, then most successful photographers would have a web page that isn’t an absolute visual disaster.

This isn’t an attack on anyone, are an invite to be flamed. I am just using this as an opinion that just because technology makes things easier, it doesn’t make it easier to create something worth my time to look at.

David Barkin said:

Hi Maine

How much talent is actually out there? The computer lowers the
barrier to talent. If you don't have the talent you can still learn
the craft but the results are mediocre. The bottom line remains
talent but now the barriers of time, expense and effort are
dropping.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't quarrel with those thoughts.

The thing is, really, that anything you do is not about the tools. It's about a whole bank of knowledge gained along the way.

jim collum said:

Using a
photocopy machine to copy a Van Gogh, doesn't make that person an
artist

Click to expand...

Sir,

You insulted me. I relish photocopying Van Gogh's and calling myself an artist! What's wrong with that?

Just kidding.

I do have several Van Gogh's, all of which are expensive licensed 3-dimensional reproductions from that Canadian company. Thick paint brushstrokes (made by machines of course) and hand-enhanced by artists. Many have said they cannot tell the difference between these 3-D repro's and the originals. And I get to enjoy them every night. Eat your heart out!

Starry, starry night...

James

Dan Desjardins said:

Where are we with Digital Photography? The very definition of an
image is being changed. We can no longer trust that Bobbi
McCaughey's teeth weren't enhanced on the cover of NewsWeek. We
can't even be sure that wasn't Jar Jar Binks-technology as Osama
Bin Laden gloating on that video.

We are in transition. Watch or participate. Enjoy the ride.

Des

Click to expand...

Hmm, IMO digital adds a new twist, but IMO the impact is more in that now consumers have this type of ability at their desktops and printers.

Manipulation of film is nothing new. Digital manipulation is nothing new. However both in the past have been much more difficult and expensive. But Star Wars showed that in the 70's film did not necessarily have to be based on reality to look real.

Ron

Hi Chris

I live in the Lower East Side of Manhattan. I can walk along and visit 30 or 40 galleries every day if I choose. The amount of BAD art is quite striking. Good stuff is harder to find, but you know what, I doubt if the percentage of good vs bad art has changed, there's just more of it.

Someone earlier posted that (not a quote) that participating in the artistic process is an artistic education. There are more people making art, there's more good art, you just have to hunt a bit more to distinguish it.

Your point about web pages can also be used to describe every aspect of art that the computer makes accesible. You want to make a Web page or for that matter a printed page, it's a craft to be learned - That takes you up to mediocre. Within that group of the mediocre are number of great artists. A great photographer who has mastered their craft cannot expect to translate one talent into another withut putting in the work!

The point is that the barriers to people of real talent are falling. Certainly that means that the barrier to mediocre talent is also falling but as the paraphrased poster points out - This creates a greater, more appreciative and growing audience.

I should also point out that there's nothing "wrong" with mediocre. Hang it in your house - Let people appreciate it. If you've learned your craft even mediocre art may have something to say.

If I have any problems at all with the artistic revolution it is with the hacks who write about it and are reduced to using expressions like "post modern" to describe our present era. And it is with "artists" who never learn their craft (no matter how much talent they actually have) because these same hacks are applauding "spontnaity."

Dave

chris v. said:

I have a hard time agreeing that as technology creates quick
satisfaction, that it will also create more art. Programs such as
Dreamweaver and GoLive promise to help create web sites faster, and
with much less learning curve. Yet, its obvious when looking at the
web sites from other photographers with “ Real Vision”, they are
far from successful at producing anything remotely interesting
unless its behind a lens. If technology provided a easier path to
producing successful art, then most successful photographers would
have a web page that isn’t an absolute visual disaster.

This isn’t an attack on anyone, are an invite to be flamed. I am
just using this as an opinion that just because technology makes
things easier, it doesn’t make it easier to create something worth
my time to look at.

Click to expand...