We’re a dramatic bunch, us visual artists. Photographers especially, in this age. While we are continually bombarded with shorter attention spans urning for more than just image- I think we sometimes easily forget the power of imagery. And forget its multiple uses. What this diversity of usage offers us.
I suppose I should preface my thoughts with a web of underlying thoughts. I am a firm believer in tools, and humans enthusiastically using them. Anyone can learn a new tool and make at least a half way decent attempt at using it to some degree, depending on skill and patience. In other words, I am not one to “put all of my eggs in one basket,” so they say. It’s healthy to cultivate multiple outlets of expression- no matter what your field of interest may be. For instance, my mother is an obstetrics nurse (she helps women give birth, takes care of newborns, in addition to a slew of other highly responsible tasks)- however, she has a deep and terrifying interest in baterial infections (the real nasty Contagion shit that could wipe out our species). This is a fascination she has always harbored, and understands on a level I do not. To the untrained mind, those two fields may seem to be polar opposites, but in reality they are intimately intertwined. They all fall under the diverse blanket of medicine, which encompasses a vast array of freaky shit. Why can’t artists embrace this same mode of thinking when it comes to visual medium? To art as a grand idea? As related to sound, to history, to evolution?
As artists we are amateur everythings- philosophers, historians, actors, anthropologists, scientists. We are a collective that becomes deeply inspired by the most diverse toolbox of ideas; the world. What we each make is a direct line to a huge complex string of interwoven ideas. To ask the question of whether or not photography is dead, almost limits us I feel. Why is this where the conversation has ended up now?
I think perhaps the way photography has been institutionalized and perpetually regarded as one of those “stand back and let the professionals do this, mam/sir” things in our culture, has made this new millennium a total shock to people within the field. Camera phones? Flickr? What people used to pay thousands of dollars for through a professional studio, an unaware patron and lover of selective color filters can hire a soccer mom to create for fifty bucks. Easy. Available. Everywhere. We must deal with this truth, and accept globalization for what it truly means. It means a disconnect from the old world. I’m sorry but we are simply not in the wet collodion age anymore- anyone can learn to do this, and I think the discomfort in what contemporary photography is in large part comes from more people trying their hand at it- and general ignorance from both parties of professional and common class. The fact that we (artists) still separate ourselves so distinctly from the rest of the planet is a clue to where our current state of disarray comes from. We need to get over these notions, as a civilization, let alone as artists. That means a shift in quality, in taste, and lack of patience on both ends of the spectrum, unfortunately. Mass transitions are never easy or without extreme forces of will and wit.
Of course, we know this as a class, we know this is a fundamental truth in our current age. What I suppose I’m trying to nail is the root of why the question is being asked. Why even ask this? If we look at history and truly look at what was going on, the documented image has been important since cavemen. That urge and thought process has been within us since the beginning. Simply because the medium is shifting and evolving we’re going to assume it’s death?
I’m on a serious Terrence Malick kick and I think the final scene of “The New World” is somewhat of an interesting parallel to the question of death at hand. The depiction of culture clash, the main characters’ exploration of foreign places, the idea of a “New World”- and ultimately Christain Bale’s reading to his son regarding “Rebecca’s” death. If you’re not familiar with this film, please watch it- its advertising in 2005, the time of its release, did not do it justice. The way in which Malick uses imagery is astoundingly pensive, and truly could be seen with different eyes every time. I could go on for days about this film, it is a very full experience and inspires a wide range of thought.
Is photography dead? … Far from it. A mind boggling amount of images are being made everyday on this planet- photography is still alive and happening all of the time (and I bet you a million dollars it will continue to remain alive and kicking, long after people that make images today are gone). I think a very important component of figuring out an answer to that question is isolating what exactly the meaning of “photography” is to each of us. Cinema is photography to me- another way to utilize the tool; motion, representation and confirmation of the real documented in time. But then we ask, what is “real,” what is “documentation”? If the question is only pertaining to one narrow field of the medium, which is the straightforward still- I’d still say “no” to the question of death, even though I no longer directly attribute myself with only that aspect of the medium. What we each embark on as artists within this realm is a complicated can of worms- each of us have a different convoluted story to tell, and I think it is safe to say no matter where we are in time we will have a medium to express it. Even if it isn’t as popular as it once may have been. It’s a new world for all of us.
I think maybe the real question is, does the institution have a place to stand in photography’s current space of existence? And to that I can only say that I think it’s simply time to keep pushing and moving forward with what we know.
Even if it were to die, does that mean it’s to be forgotten?
nothingislosteverythingisconnected 