NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Processing & Publication => Topic started by: Andy on May 24, 2016, 02:16:52
-
FYI
http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/in-the-future-we-will-photograph-everything-and-look-at-nothing
rgds,
Andreas
-
Thanks for sharing this
-
interesting insights
-
Andy, thanks for posting this article.
I found it both thought provoking and at times confrontational. I am still left wondering whether this always-on computing power and image processing might will do anything at all to improve our seeing abilities and visual literacy.
-
Wenders stated this in "Lisbon Story"
-
hits the core. thanks for posting.
-
I have yet to read "Lisbon Story".
To me, the title of the article is remindful of Pierre Boulez' attitude towards composing music: the process is more important than the result. And the ironic result is, his musical production might well get forgotten, together with the processes he developed.
I must admit that I also cherish the tools (lenses, ..., organs...) and the process (of shooting, of playing...) as much as, if not more than, the results. Music is anyway fading, right? but concerning photos, apart from some online publishing (here, on FB, on Behance) and careful storage and indexing (using LR, keywords, the cloud and a RAID drive) I do not do a lot. To me it is enough if a pic raises an eyebrow or triggers a smile with a few people.
I am not building pyramids.
-
Eventually we forget the pictures even before we see them. Another evolutionary peak for mankind, I suppose.
-
I think digital cameras - including the much derided cellie - help me to See. Sometimes I use the camera just for that.
Sure, snapshots are omnipresent to the point of boredom. But photography as an art will not die out. There are still photography galleries and exhibitions and foto books. Deep explorations of themes or topics will remain important. Analogy: good writing is still around in spite of cellphone thumbing and laptop keying.
-
"Lisboin Strory" is a movie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisbon_Story_%281994_film%29
-
A very interesting read!
I will gladly allow a machine to sort out my photos and help me retrieve them, but I would still like to do the editing myself :)
-
"Real value creation will come from stitching together photos as a fabric, extracting information and then providing that cumulative information as a totally different package."
I find this very interesting. A whole new level. My impression is that this approach is believable and will be added to what we already do, instead of replace it. Will see.
-
I am not sure what I have read. A bit about the same things they said about the influence of the 'Television' when it was introduced. And some 'vision' of Google. Mostly what-if.
I can imagine some other what-ifs, for instance what will happen if the cloud will disappear. ;)
-
........for instance what will happen if the cloud will disappear. ;)
probably no rain for a while? :P
-
In the future?
-
"Real value creation will come from stitching together photos as a fabric, extracting information and then providing that cumulative information as a totally different package."
I find this very interesting. A whole new level. My impression is that this approach is believable and will be added to what we already do, instead of replace it. Will see.
He would think that, because that is what he knows how to do and if it isn't the future he will never be rich.
Collage is hardly a new idea, and although it had a moment in the early 20th century it has never since been more than one among many ways of making art. And in the photography realm it won't happen unless trends in copyright law towards an ever-narrowing scope of fair use are reversed.
The trouble with "combine and extract" is that it is very good at description, but very bad at critique - it is inherently conservative. For collage to become critique it has to be done against styles and tropes - as in Cindy Sherman's photographs (http://www.americansuburbx.com/2014/12/cindy-sherman-untitled-film-stills-1977-1980.html), but then we are back with the artist working alone.
-
Eventually we forget the pictures even before we see them.
Of course - because Instagrammers do not take pictures so they can look at them, they take pictures so their followers can look at them.
The key concept is public vs private meanings. Once upon a time there were only public meanings: a Madonna with Child meant what everyone could see it meant and what it meant to the painter, who had used his mistress to model the Madonna, did not matter. Then Freud showed the 20th century that private meanings mattered as much as public meanings, and then Marcel Duchamp created "Fountain" (http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/duchamp-fountain-t07573) and abolished public meanings altogether. The revolutionary thing about Instagram selfies is that they have only public meanings: they have no private meaning so there is no reason for the person who takes the picture to look at it.
-
Very interesting article. Thank you 👍
-
"The revolutionary thing about Instagram selfies is that they have only public meanings: they have no private meaning so there is no reason for the person who takes the picture to look at it. "
One might but wonder why they went to the effort of doing this in the first place ...
-
I have run across many who video everything they see and never look at it.
-
"The revolutionary thing about Instagram selfies is that they have only public meanings: they have no private meaning so there is no reason for the person who takes the picture to look at it. "
One might but wonder why they went to the effort of doing this in the first place ...
The communication function of an instagram is merely a means of proving that you exist. Moreover, its production is effortless.
-
Maybe. A communication process requires energy in some form or other. The internet servers certainly do. Cellphones do not manifest themselves out of thin air with no effort, energy, and material going into their making. And on the human side there is wear and tear on your thumb with future side effects and ramifications.
I agree however that actions into which no thoughts whatsoever have gone, probably exert very low energy drain on the brain.
-
The key concept is public vs private meanings.
Les, your take on public and private meanings makes a lot of sense.
-
Eventually we forget the pictures even before we see them. Another evolutionary peak for mankind, I suppose.
Did you mean to say trough? Everything has be going down hill since homo habilis.
---
On one reading I can't dispute much in the article but it doesn't quite apply to me. I don't care for social media, e.g. Facebook. I participate in a few forums to learn, help others and express ideas. I occationally produce a photograph I think some may enjoy seeing. I have a 3.5x7.3 meter (11.5x24 foot) darkroom I can't use for lack of time and of a sewer line. I want to print B&W as I love the whole process and I love the end result in hand or on the wall.
Books and literacy took away our memories...
When was the last time one here sat and had an accountant read the books of their businesses to them? To "Audit" the books was when an illiterate business man had his accounting read his books to him. Now business men and women can read their books for themselves. We don't have to "Audit" the books.
Now we don't have to remember as much as when most of us were illiterate. We store information in books and increasingly on our computers and again in the clouds. We don't have to remember we forget and read and forget and read again (maybe I should speak for myself?).
Dave