ĒOne of my biggest worries about photography over the last few years is that it has lost the ability to look deeply into anything, it has become superficial with only the immediate being considered of any consequence. This runs counter to the whole essence of art as I understand it where contemplation and consideration are important parts of appreciation and understanding. Now I'll be the first to admit that there is an awful load of waffle surrounding much of art but then again there is a great deal of intelligent thinking and analysis that has been applied to what we now consider great art.Ē
I agree with your thought there, Justin, but I wonder if itís a recent failure in people or more a corruption via instrument.
Itís my considered opinion, based entirely on my own experience, that digital capture is the villain in the piece. Itís all too cheap to shoot now and pay Ė sorry Ė think later. I see it every time I put a card through the reader. I didnít get that feeling with film at all. Because it costs, you take it seriously.
I once read that thatís the thinking behind gallery pricing, based on the experience of dealing with psychoanalysts (note how neatly and logically anal fits right in there) who charge highly so that you instantly understand the benefit of dealing with them. This may not have been a true tale that I read, but I think I give it the benefit of the doubt. But shrinks and galleristas aside, it does count when it hits you in the pocket Ė you (or at least I) do tend to think a little bit before going click if it costs.
Allied to this, of course, is the Internet and its instant scream of lookitme! There is no filter of validation via commerce and/or commission; everything goes.
I believe itís as simple as that; too much photo democracy.