Being a photographer in today’s world is vastly different from being one in in the years before: the times before digital photography and Instagram. Due to the rise of the ubiquity of photos, video, and imagery in our culture, the way we use and consume media is drastically different. And this in turn, affects photography as a tool and an art medium. The changes are drastic enough to warrant new critical thought and eyes.
In many future posts, I would like to share many ideas and theories I have on art and imaging in a post-internet world. Mostly, these ideas stem from a creative frustration with the image-making mediums and being unable to actualize creative thought in said mediums.
But before I write about these ideas/theories, some background and context is necessary. So in this post, I’d like to outline some of my opinions on the changes in the field of photography as a profession and as a medium in general: the current state of photography. And by state I mean two different concepts:
- The current place in time where the medium is — its relation to its history as well as its evolution.
- State as in an analogy to a chemical state of matter (solid, liquid, gas), in which, photography is now in a “liquid” or “soft” state. And that we are soon approaching a more “gaseous” form of images (maybe a stretch in analogy/metaphor but hear me out). I’ll be exploring this concept in part 2 of this series.
Shoutouts first: a lot of what I developed came from reading through the works On Photography by Susan Sontag and The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction by Walter Benjamin which influenced me greatly and helped me understand a more of the relationship of art, photography, and media with the surrounding world. Though the works were written in the 1970s and the 1930s respectively, I believe they still apply to the contemporary world. I extrapolated what I could and applied it to what is currently occurring in the fields of art and media. So I highly recommend the two works above if you’re interested in those areas.
The Current State — Where Photography is Now
It’s no secret that photography has become a ubiquitous tool and form of art in modern society. By this, I mean that our society is an image-driven society and many people partake in photography in some form or another. More and more, do we communicate through images and symbols (Instagram, Snapchat, sending quick photos, emojis, emoticons, “reaction” symbols and memes).
Our phone cameras have changed the way we approach operating in life. Because phone cameras require almost no skill to use, photography has turned from a skilled hobby to being integrated with our lives as a way of living and communicating. Photography can be used as a based tool of recording — a pure utility and an extension of our eyes and memory. This is due to the instantaneous nature of phones. How many times have you seen (or you yourself) taken a picture of a menu or a poster, just to remember it later? Photos can be used as pure informational transactions. This leads to blurred lines in the field of photography.
Blurred Lines
The unique characteristic of photography is that the line between art photography and utilitarian photography (photojournalism, personal photos, or photos for records, scientific purposes) has always been blurred from the beginning. So is the line distinguishing professional photographer from amateur. Why? Because all photos are mediated through the same machine. In On Photography by Susan Sontag, she writes:
“…Commercial or merely utilitarian photography is no different in kind from photography as practiced by the most gifted professionals: there are pictures taken by anonymous amateurs which are just as interesting, as complex formally, as representative of photography’s characteristic powers as a Stieglitz or an Evans.”
During the era of film photography, the line of professional/amateur was already blurred. In the era of digital, the blurred line has become barely visible and perhaps only contingent on the caliber of the camera and skill of the photographer (and even those are not necessarily indicators of professional vs amateur). The rise of the image-driven culture has influenced many people to invest in high quality cameras. Coupled with the falling prices of these cameras and increased camera literacy, many people have become photographers. Thus, the weight of the term “photographer” has changed. It is not the same with the term “filmmaker” — many people record videos with their phones but do not call themselves filmmaker. Photography has no such distinction (I’ll explore this concept in a future post). A photographer is a photographer of any kind. Amateur or professional, art, or utilitarian.
Digital Photography and the Proliferation of Images
Digital photography and digital platforms have changed a couple of things compared to how we used to approach images. Digital photography and the digital distribution of photos has allowed for photographers to take almost infinite photos and photos of everything. So logically, there is a proliferation of photos and images being shared. Because we all can take photos (with the availability and ease of phone cameras), we do so in order for easy recollection as well as to share experiences with others — taking photos of mundane things because we can rather than to preserve very special and unique memories. If given the choice of taking a photo or not, I tend to take the photo “just in case” because I can, rather than thinking about if it’s worth it — worth developing the film, worth the time of adjusting camera settings. The “specialness” of a photo has lessened and instead when you see someone’s photo online, the reaction is more like “Oh, so-and-so traveled to Bangkok, cool.” before scrolling down to the next person’s great life adventure photo.
Like basic economics, when there is more supply than demand, the value of the product goes down. When there is high demand, and low supply, the product becomes a rarity and thus the value rises. While people demand media, content, and photos more often nowadays, the difficulty of obtaining them has lessened. There’s even sites like Unsplash which give away hi-res photos for free (of which I sourced some photos from for this article. Thanks Unsplash!). In a more general sense, the presence of more photos (whether personal or commercial), leads to the decreased power of photos and value. In the birth years of photography, the power of the medium was that it allowed people to see from new perspectives and virtually visit new places. Now that most of the world has been documented in one form of another (and is continually being documented), the value and worth of any one photo has gone down (“Value and worth” as defined by society rather than the individual. Personal photos can still hold great emotional value).
Digital Landscape and Platforms
The rise of digital platforms have also changed the field of photography. Before the advent of digital platforms, photography was mass consumed only through print media, billboards, posters, fine art galleries/exhibits. There was a separation of professional photos and personal/amateur ones (which were privately consumed). Digital platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Flickr, 500px, etc. have erased this boundary. The personal and the professional are both on the same platform. Moreover, the personal photo can also function as the professional/commercial photo and the professional/commercial can act as the personal (think of Kim Kardashian’s Instagram). The playing field has been leveled and democratized. With equal opportunity for distribution of photos through digital platforms, the traditional boundary of commercial vs. personal, professional vs. amateur photography are no longer. A friend’s photo can stand next to a professional’s photo on Instagram — in equal size (literally) and in equal importance.
Moreover, a “feed” allows for many great photos to be posted. The feed gives equal weight to each photograph. No longer is the professional’s photo only confined for the magazine and the amateur’s confined for private viewing. We are all on the same platform. The continuous scroll of the feed also gives the illusion of infinity and a plethora of great photos. One may see a great photo on Instagram — a photo worthy of National Geographic and of awards. But it’s only a matter of seconds before one scrolls down to see the next photo that is worthy of accolades… and then the next and the next photo.
But the funny thing is that photography has always been like this, and perhaps was meant to be democratized. The skill set necessary for photography was never truly high (as opposed to other forms such as painting, drawing, music). And I am not demeaning the skills of photographers as I know there is a lot that goes into a photoshoot, lighting, art direction, etc. I am talking about the operational skills of taking a photo. Whereas it may take years to master musical scales and compositions, or proper painting technique, a photo could look good straight from the outset (I recognize there is a range — people don’t shoot like Annie Leibovitz straight away). Photography was never snobbish. But I will explore the history of photography as a democratized tool and art form in another post.
Furthermore, digital platforms have changed how we approach photography and what is considered good or acceptable photography. In the essay, Some Social Implications of Modern Technology by Herbert Marcuse, Marcuse writes on how the prevalence of the “apparatus” (industry, consumerism, social media platforms, etc.) affects individual thought. Although this essay was written in 1941, there’s a lot that is still relevant and applicable.
“Profitable employment of the apparatus dictates to a great extent the quantity, form, and kind of commodities to be produced, and through this mode of production and distribution, the technological power of the apparatus affects the entire rationality of those whom it serves.”
“[An individual’s] liberty is confined to the selection of the most adequate means for reaching the goal which he did not set. Whereas individual achievement is independent of recognition and consummated in the work itself, efficiency is rewarded performance and consummated only in its value for the apparatus.”
So how does this apply to photography? Marcuse is saying that the form/aesthetic qualities of the “commodities” (in our case, photos and media) is shaped by the potential profitability of said commodities. And when he writes on “profitability”, I think it can be switched out with any kind of economic and social value. So what we are seeing now is that the “quantity, form and kind” of photos we see on social media and digital platforms is shaped by what brings the most social value. “The technological power of the [digital platforms] affects the entire rationality of those whom it serves.” In other words: social media affects our thought processes and sets standards on what is good/bad by categorizing what most efficiently brings about economic and social value.
Let’s take Instagram for an example: in order to be “profitable” or gain social value, there are now standards set on what subjects to photograph, how to photograph them, how to pose, how to light, etc. We see many copy-cat accounts and similar looking photos. The only explanation would be the rise of the apparatus/digital platform changing the way we distinguish what is good and bad and what gives one social value (likes and followers) and potentially economic value (sales, compensation, sponsorships). Follow the standard and you will be rewarded by the apparatus.
(A note: this isn’t true across the board. Many Instagram accounts and people are wildly successful because they do not abide by the rules. But perhaps it is because they recognize how the “apparatus affects the entire rationality” that they are able to differentiate themselves and stand out. But public acclaim by the apparatus is slower to gain when the work/commodities do not fit with or serve the apparatus.)
The last thing on digital platforms: due to the popularity of mobile platforms, the way we distribute and consume photos must fit into the package of these mobile platforms. Something must look good on the small screen of a phone or medium size screen of a computer because that is how most people will consume it if you plan on digital distribution. We are becoming accustomed to smaller displayed photos (not necessarily a bad thing). Megapixels do not matter as much when you post on Instagram. But I do think it is unfortunate that the capabilities of high quality cameras are not fully taken advantage of (at least at this stage in time) due to the consumption through mobile devices (although one could still perceive the qualitative difference between a high-quality camera and one that is not).
Digital Duplicity & Editing
The last aspect that I’d like to talk about on the current state is the capabilities of editing, copying, and duplication. With the internet, images move at a viral pace. Duplication is instant and it is ubiquitous (I like the word ubiquitous. Don’t front). Thus, it is difficult to distinguish which is the original image, and which is a copy. But the question is, does it really matter? Photography is a medium where the product is meant to be duplicated. From the outset, the advantage of photos (vs. painting) was that one could make copies. I’d only say though that, in the days of film, it was easier to trace an image back to the original — (because film and prints were physical objects) and thus the original had more of a special “aura” to it. With digital, the state of an image is soft and immaterial. A print of a digital photograph is not necessarily the original. The original is a file. But files are able to be duplicated without reduced quality. Thus the original has become irrelevant. It allows for a great multiplicity and plurality of any one photo. A photo that can exist in many different forms, quantities, and qualities.
With the ease of duplication of images and the viral nature of photo and media sharing, rises internet and meme culture. Photos and images are a shared “art form”. People build upon photos by photoshopping and altering them. One of the great aspect of memes is that anyone can make them, and it’s made better when people add their own personal voice to them.
Having a multiplicity of photos is not a negative aspect in the field of photography. But some act as if, due to the wide-spread copying of photos online, there is a need to scale back and uphold the “original” and the single great photo. Like music piracy, record executives first wanted to stop the flow of online duplication and keep music a rarity by channeling the distribution to certain outlets. But executives gave in to the rampant copying of songs and now internet culture and platforms such as Spotify, Soundcloud, Apple Music, Tidal have given rise to free flowing music.
Conclusions
The field of photography is changing due to the ubiquity of high quality cameras, new means of digital distribution and platforms, as well as an image-driven culture. Photography and imaging now are used as instant communicative tools rather than just for memory preservation, art, or commercial advertisements. With more democratic social media platforms, the commercial and professional are not necessarily different from the personal. And with digital images and the internet, photos are able to be duplicated and shared at ever increasing speeds — thus reducing the importance of the “original”.
But the cool thing about photography is that it is merely a tool. It could be used for fine art, it could be used for photojournalism, and it could be used for everyday photos. It is up to the user. Not everyone does photography for a grand purpose. And the rise of digital technology has allowed more people to enjoy photography as a hobby. There is a joy in photographing and preserving the world around oneself. The rarity and value of photography has lessened in my opinion but it doesn’t change too much from the fact that more people do photography. It is a matter of adaptation. When Julia Childs or Bob Ross began “revealing” the secrets of French cooking and painting, chefs and painters didn’t run for the hills because everyone could do what they do. They were confident in their skills and evolved their craft.
It is akin to automation and robots beginning to usurp jobs in various blue collar and white collar jobs. The leveling of the field of photography is the automation of the industry. When sites like Squarespace and Wix allow anyone to make a website, the need for website designers decreases except for specialized custom circumstances. With new digital camera technology and digital platforms, the need for photographers decreases except for specialized custom circumstances.
This does not diminish the art and skill of photography. Website designers provide a great service and the skill of a good photographer is irreplaceable. But in any professional skill and career, the democratization of a skill set causes a crisis. A time of reflection is necessary to push the medium and for it to continue to grow and evolve. When photography was first invented, painters had to reflect as well on the state of their medium — when exact likeness and representation could be achieved through a photo, where could painting go? It was both confining and liberating. Thus, similarly, with the automation of photography, when everything is documented around us at all times, where else can photography go? What new things can we explore, what new point of views can we see?
In the next post, I’ll cover part 2 and explain my theory on the “state” of photography as an analogy to chemical states. Woohoo, yay art!
