Is Photography Over?

Is Photography Over? That was the question that a panel at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art asked.

The answers were varied and thought provoking.

Photography in general terms can refer to art photography, iPhone snapshots, X-rays and MRI imaging so is photography over, of course not. But is the art of photography coming to an end, I fear it is.

SFMOMA curator of education Dominic Willsdon emphasized digital technology as an anxiety-inducing novelty that made the question "Is Photography Over?" seem timely.  The panel's  reasonable presumption seemed to be that everyone in the audience has seen and snapped, so many digital photographs that of course photography wasn't over.

SFMOMA associate curator of photography Corey Keller suggested revising the title to, "If something with photography is over, what is it?"

Curator and New Yorker contributor Vince Aletti stated,  "What is over is the narrow view of photography - the idea that the camera is a recording device, not a creative tool, and that its product is strictly representational - not manipulated, not fabricated, not abstract ..."

So what is over? What has died? In some of this panels views and my own it is the photographer, not the medium itself.

Corey Keller mentioned that as a curator, she has seen in unsolicited submissions "an incredible decline in quality, because photographers don't know how to make their own prints."

This is something I have been saying for years, that the advent of the digital, "do-it-all" camera has the photographers of today relying on technology and not artistic talent. The images seem flat, cold and unrefined.

New York Museum of Modern Art photography curator Peter Galassi said "Digital is insuring photography's future life." Which led to an exchange in which Keller mentioned that the digital generation simply dumps pictures much more easily and frequently than its predecessors.

As a photographer of over 25 years I have seen the loss of quality and technical standards due to the digital era. No one needs to really look at lighting or a subject, they just click and keep clicking till they fill a memory card. Then they pick the handful of images that by shear luck, turned out good and dump the rest.

The timeliness of this symposium for me is perfect as I am currently working on an exhibition that will be almost 100% shot on film and developed by hand in my own darkroom.  I will admit that after being in the digital world for the past 6 years I am a bit rusty but pulling out my light meter, checking exposure times, and the actually slowing down of the photographic process has opened my creative mind back up. Photography for me is new again and I am in love with it as I was back in 1984 when I had my first solo exhibition.
I had a shoot yesterday with a few models and they actually had never seen a film camera before. They were amazed at the shear size of my Mamiya  RB67 and then that I could only shoot 10 images and had to reload. But in this slowing down of the process they also were able to think more about their poses, feel and refine them and actually became more connected with me the photographer.

I hope that panel discussions like this continue in galleries and museums all across the world. Photography fought to become a respected art form for many years and now that is has, lets not loose it.
I feel I owe it to the ones who went before me and blazed the trail. Artists like Minor White, Paul Strand, Alfred Stieglitz, Edward Steichen and of course Robert Mapplethorpe.

To read more about this discussion you can visit the art critics for the San Francisco Chronicle, Kenneth Baker, Chronicle Art Critic

FYI-The image I used in this blog was one I shot in 1989 on film and ten scanned for posting.

Film is not dead...really

When I decided to produce my next exhibition without the use of my digital camera systems I didn't think much of it. I knew it would be more work, cleaning up my darkroom,buying new chemicals and paper and buying more film.
Film is kind of like record albums, we remember what it is and how good the quality was but CDs and downloads are much easier.

The quality and the characteristic of film and real silver paper is unmatched by digital technology. The subtle tonality I can get with film is so beautiful especially with skin tones. So when the offer of another show came up I jumped at the chance to shoot it on film, go back to my roots.

Then came the process of buying my supplies. Kodak just discontinued the film I liked to use even though they have a wonderful film still available it is in shorter rolls so that just means more money in processing and chemicals.
Then there is the chemicals. There is a wonderful camera store in NYC that has what I need but they can't ship it since 9/11. Not sure why, didn't know terrorist were making bombs out of photography developer. And then there is the photo paper, for once the paper I use is still being made. Maybe becasue they are not a US company but I can still get what I need.

So what does someone who wants to be true to his art do? I mean, there is no question that film and silver paper printing is superior to digital so why hasn't some niche company kept up with film production? Why has Kodak basically abandoned the artist?

And one more interesting fact, I am going to have to teach the models actually how to hold a pose. You see film is a bit slower, I can't bang off 20 to 30 shots in a row and catch the model as she moves around. I am actually going to have to pose the and teach them how to work with a film camera. The pace is slower and much more deliberate. In a 90 minute shoot I used to take 300 digital images, now I'll probably shoot 30 to 40 shots.

As my wife has told me, this is what I used to do so why should it be so difficult, right?

So we shall see what transpires. I am excited and slightly stressed and I hope come August 14th there are actually prints on the gallery wall.