Photography Article in the Independent

Very interesting read, I think the point is really well made.
 
Hmm, not sure the "point" is well made at all. Is it that the world of images is saturated? If so then that's utter rubbish. If it's nothing is new then possibly if you lack imagination and are a major pessimist.
 
What was the point? That people taking happy snaps don't take as good photographs as the masters from the last generation?

That the writer isn't as good a photographer as Steichen?

"[...]Edward Steichen's humanist epic, The Family of Man, I almost believed that we were all the same, under the skin.
The images amassed on my hard drive seem vacuous by comparison. Our holiday photos are well composed, but emotionally blank, like all "good" photographs."

Really, what the hell? Or am I misunderstanding her?

I agree with the bit about the tribes, and the cool kids' modern cliché photos, to a point. But, then they're just happy snaps, so who cares.
 
The writer either seems so arrogant that it couldn't be her at fault so she's striking out at photography in general, or she's suffering from 'i've got a good camera, why aren't my photos good?' syndrome.
That holiday snap statement mentioned by james above is unbelievable. She obviously doesn't like her own photos yet still claims they are "good" and that it's just photography as a pastime's fault.

I found that article really annoying. I'll live my life in a way that makes me happy (which involves lots of photography) thankyou very much Charlotte Raven.
 
Last edited:
I think the pont being made is why do we take photos, and do we value them. Have they lost the impact they used to have? There are and always will be great photographers. Chris, I think you will find that the world of photos IS saturated, you only have to look at the change in stock agencies, read on here of people who are doing weddings after having a camera six weeks, flickr, facebook etc I think that because more people than ever have access to the technology, to produce a well exposed, correctly focused photo, this has led to everyone and his dog thinking they are good photographers, which leads to them devalueing, or not appriappreciating the work of good photographers. The other point, that I am guilty of as well is " What do we do with all these images?" I print very few of my images, I rarely look back at them, yet I still love photography Perhaps the question should be "Why do we do photography? I realise that pros have their reasons, but if your not a pro and you don't have a particular niche that you photograph, then why does the average enthusiast photograph????????
 
Last edited:
What a thought provoking, good read in that article. Much to think about and reflect on.

Thanks for the link
 
It's a rant from someone who either can't take a photo or doesn't like being photographed.The assertion that all photography today is flotsam is a vast oversimplification,just because there are more "Snaps" taken today does not mean there are not just as many high quality and meaningfull shots as well
 
Her arguements seema bit off, theres millions of kids playing football does that devalue the premier league, tennis will probably be the most popular sport in Brittain over the next few weeks does that devalue Wimbledon.
Some of her points ring true, but by suggesting the sheer volume of photographs devalue all is simplistic , and I tend to agree with one of the earlier posters , it does come across as someone who is arrogant and dismissive.
 
Was it someone trying to prove how knowledgeable they are. Scarcely a sentance goes past without plenty of name dropping: Florida, Ethiopia, Edward Steichen, Roland Barthes, Susan Sontag, Tony Blair, Le Monde, Lucy Mangan, Bob Dylan,John Berger

She's got a point about the prostitution of culture though.

I like the idea of quoting Susan Sontag's on photography
"To photograph people is to violate them, by seeing them as they never see themselves, by having knowledge of them they can never have, it turns people into objects that can be symbolically possessed. Just as the camera is a sublimation of the gun, to photograph someone is a sublimated murder – a soft murder appropriate to a sad and frightened time."

because in the same book she writes

"To collect photographs is to collect the world……. Photographs are perhaps the most mysterious of all the objects that make up, and thicken, the environment we recognize as modern. Photographs really are experience captured, and the camera is the ideal arm of consciousness in its acquisitive mood."

But then that would have contradicted the article ;)
 
:lol:

I think that what she says about being too busy taking pics or filming to enjoy an event does have a ring of truth to it. Have caught myself doing that a few times, it's worth having in mind but easy enough to avoid.

I don't agree with the rest of it, interesting read though.
 
She's painting all photography with the same brush in that regard though. I know for one that photography has enhanced my observation both at the time of capture and afterwards of wildlife and nature.
I really don't get her. She's basically using people taking quick snapshots at events to say serious/arty photography is at fault for missing life, then saying her own snapshots are "good photos" but she doesn't like them at the same time :lol:

mattyb said:
:lol:

I think that what she says about being too busy taking pics or filming to enjoy an event does have a ring of truth to it. Have caught myself doing that a few times, it's worth having in mind but easy enough to avoid.

I don't agree with the rest of it, interesting read though.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top