“I can’t get over the feeling that pictures taken with a camera in a phone that everyone owns [iphone] have no value.” – Excerpt from APhotoEditor, Drowning in Photography
Sorry APE, forgive me for being prescriptive, but you’d better get over that feeling.
Just because “everyone’s doing it” — because there are a lot of photos out there in the world — doesn’t mean photography is headed for the shitter.
Two counter points cutting through to some clarity:
1. A similar argument “everyone’s doing it so photography is now lowbrow” was used in 1895 when Kodak developed roll film that could be loaded in daylight. The professionals argued that craft was now “completely lost to the amateurs”. Obviously that played out as an error in thinking, since nearly all the modern photographic “masters” have grown into being since this time in 1895, not before.
It’s just like your favorite band getting famous and then hating them for it, or talking shit about Nike and wearing Converse high tops – there’s no truth there. Nirvana changed music forever, regardless of how popular they became, and Nike owns Converse. The complaint about value is more about protecting the egos of hipsters, than a reflection of reality.
Now, before all photographers who have to work harder to make a living because of this (of which I am one) get mad, … we should remember #2:
2. Sure professional photographers must work harder today to differentiate their work, but that’s the case with almost every profession that invokes technology, or the fusion of technology and creativity. It gets harder to make the “same as it used to be” living over time in a crowded market. But this is not something that only photographers have to contend with. Almost ALL these such markets are getting more crowded. What marketplace stands still for its masses? None. Welcome to a nearly ubiquitous truth.
So, as I advocated in my Dasein Project, it might not be what some photographers want to hear, but let’s think of this a little differently. I prefer to make the argument that the snapshot has become perhaps the most human, the most important photography of our modern era. Professionals are still relevant for making statements and defining brands, genres, and movements, but it’s the snapshot that is today carrying the most metaphysical weight. Sure they’re everywhere, but that doesn’t make them worthless.
A great quote from a paper by Mia Fineman, photography curator at the Metropolitan Museum in NYC, comes to mind…
“We take snapshots to commemorate important events, to document our travels, to see how we look in pictures, to eternalize the commonplace, to extract some thread of continuity from the random fabric of experience. We try to impose a kind of order, but sometimes the process backfires, and the messy contingency of the world rushes back in, bringing with it a metaphoric richness that parallels that of dreams. The amateur photo-album is an anthology of errors: there are tilted horizons, amputated heads, looming shadows, blurs, lens flares, underexposures, overexposures, and inadvertant double exposures. And while not every bungled snapshot is a minor miracle, some seem to tap into a sort of free-floating visual intelligence that runs through the bedrock of the everyday like a vein of gold.”
So let’s reconsider the snooty position. Of course curators are important, whether that’s your friends Tumblr site or the MOMA, but with more cameras and more photos than ever before–and even BETTER photos–shouldn’t it be said that we’re not drowning in photography at all, that we’re perhaps getting metaphorically rich off more and more of these veins of gold?
——
The quote is taken out of context … and therefore a “Cheap Shot.” Here’s the full quote: “Then, I saw this press release yesterday :
‘Aurora Photos is excited to announce the launch of the myPhone Collection of stock photography, a collection of images taken with iPhones and other mobile devices by some of the world’s top photographers and iPhoneographers, and now made available to pictures buyers for both editorial and commercial licensing.’
What struck me was how worthless I think iPhone images are and how I can’t imagine anyone licensing them.”
So Rob’s really talking about the idea of a Stock Photo site that Sells Nothing but iPhone images. http://www.auroraphotos.com/ not about how worthless iPhone images are.
Read the original A Photo Editor article here http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2011/11/15/drowning-in-photography/
Oooh. One guy, two very different quotes. Chase? Your source?
It’s from the same article that was linked:
“What struck me was how worthless I think iPhone images are and how I can’t imagine anyone licensing them. Obviously, this blanket statement cannot be true since it’s never mattered what photographers used to take their pictures with but I can’t get over the feeling that pictures taken with a camera in a phone that everyone owns have no value.”
…and I agree that the quote has been taken out of context, it was with respect to the “licensing value” of the images, rather than the “artistic value” of the images so was less social commentary than suggested here, even though the two are obviously linked to some extent.
The final paragraph I think sums it up well:
“Creating value beyond how a picture was created and what the picture depicts is the most important challenge facing photography professionals today.”
I think the point here is that it’s not just anti-iPhone snobbery, it’s just a reference to the ubiquity of cameras. And what this is saying it that its not about the tool (how), use a Canon 5D2 or a iPhone 4S (as I do), it’s about the intent behind the image (why). Ubiquity of tools is awesome if we utilise them to say something meaningful that is an expression of our view of the world (of course, you could argue that at some level all images do that), and such images will always have wider value to society.
(I’d also add that that it’s not just the challenge facing them today as the quote suggests, it’s the challenge that has faced photographers for all time!)
Hey c d – rob is a good friend, so i’m certainly not cheap shoting anyone. so I ardently disagree. if you consider the context under which he’s envoking this discussion — around a photo of an art exhibit wherein the artist has printed 300,000 photos that were uploaded to flickr on a day — its clearly fair game to discuss the larger issue and not just the licensing of iphone images.
great post – as usual…
Taking two identical images, one with a telephone, the other with a top-class camera, I think we put more value on the one that we know the author was more committed to.
As aspiring path-setters what can we do? Get even more involved in it.
Marry photography.
Excellent article, many great points and I couldn’t agree more!
Well said Chase. The quality of an image shouldn’t be judged by the price of the equipment used to make it. The most expensive gear can still make a lousy picture!
Being able to duplicate a look or adjust settings to get the shot you (or your client) want is where a better camera helps.
I love you pov. Keep inspiring!