mcarthur said:
Image fatigue
In a culture saturated with visual images and increasingly cynical about their manipulation, photography is losing its status as an art form, writes Sebastian Smee
The author of this critique centers his argument on two main positions: 1-that photographs at one point were seen are represening reality, and 2-that there we were not inundated by photographs. I see a problem with both points.
First, not every photographer's goal is to create "realistic" photographs. It is not my goal for example. I aim for "believable" instead of "realistic" photographs in my work. Furthermore, while we are aware that photographs can be manipulated (they could be from the day photography was invented, though not as extensively as now), most people still believe what they see in photographs. In fact, few photographs are manipulated in regards to content.
Second, certainly there is an overabundance of photographs at our disposal. But there is an overambundance of just about everything when it comes to the media: movies, TV programs, videos, articles, you name it. Photographs are only one aspect of the media overabundance we are experiencing.
Is photography losing its status as art? Well, first, we would have to agree that it had a status as art. And if it did, why would a change in the technology make it lose this status ? Making this point would be, inherently, making the point that changes in musical technology (from acoustic to electric or digital instruments for example) made music lose is status as art! The same point can be made about technological changes in any other art medium.
I see this essay as being yet another voice wondering if photography is art. I don't see this writer believing that photography ever was art. Instead, I see this author as first, unsure about what can be said today with photography and, second, as unclear about where photography as art fits amongst the many other possible uses for photography.
Numerous people never considered photography to be an art form. So for Sebastian Smee to say that it has now lost its status as art is pointless since he may be one of those who didn't considerer it art in the first place! In other words his article may be just one more faulty argument about why photography isn't art.
What I do agree with is that the overabundance of photographs is making people unsure of what is a good photograph and a bad photograph. But again, this isn't very different from the situation say 20 years ago. Telling what is art and what isn't, and telling good art from bad art, has always been difficult.
That to me is the important point to remember. It is difficult regardless of the medium being used. The commodification of the medium is also an issue of importance. Because technology is becoming easier and easier to use, it is now possible for people to be "creative" using mediums for which they hardly have any training. Yet, this does not mean they are creating art.
Maybe what we need above all is an understanding of what is art and what isn't art.