Not to discount the photographer's eye, but painting a scene does take a lot more skill than taking a photograph. And photography is largely dying thanks to the smartphone. I like your point that we're entering a new age we don't quite understand yet, but some things will probably be lost as well.
> And photography is largely dying thanks to the smartphone.
I am not so sure about this statement. I would argue that photography has possibly been more prolific than it has been in the past.
If you mean "manual photography where the user manipulates shutter speed, ISO, and aperture" then I still am unsure about this as Instagram is a huge boon to that industry as well.
What? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills over here, how is photography DYING because of the smartphone? It would not surprise me if there's more fantastic photography being created in 2023 than in any previous year, and I say this as someone who will let go of my fully manual 50 when you pry it from my cold dead hands.
I think it's a pretty basic law of supply and demand: increase supply and value goes down. Sure, there's lots of "good" (mostly AI assisted) photography, and its value is mostly worthless.
Take Instagram for instance. If you use it, do you even remember a photograph you've seen in the last month? Things are so ephemeral now. Most things are not worth remembering.
>I think it's a pretty basic law of supply and demand: increase supply and value goes down.
Aren't you assuming photos are fungible? Smartphones have made "snapshot" photography more accessible than ever, and killed the basic 35mm camera market, sure. But most people never paid for anyone else's photos anyway, and they weren't going to start now. With exception of weddings.
There are a ton more photos taken now than there were pre-digital days, but as far as I can see the market for photos-as-art seems about the same as it was. This of course makes them a much smaller percentage of all photos taken, but most photos taken have a marginal value of zero anyway, always have (at least on an open market, where sentimental value isn't valued).
So, you're saying that "the value of art" is reducible to the economics of the price you can get someone to pay for it in a capitalistic marketplace?
I'm sure glad that there was sufficient demand for the 10,000-year-old cave paintings we still have access to when they were first made, so that the original artists had an incentive to create them.
Truly, what makes them so valuable as works of art today, is the lack of supply of new ones.
By "value" I mean "the nebulous value we as a species derive from art" not necessarily economic value.
Regarding cave paintings: You couldn't make new cave paintings even if you wanted to. We don't value the lines on the cave wall. We value the leap in human cognition. We value the evidence that humans advanced from the primitive animal mind to become an abstract thinker. And, based on how things have developed, I think we can conclude thinking symbolically and in the abstract was a pretty good idea! It's likely that contemporaries to cave painters had their minds absolutely blown by the first use of symbols. Cave paintings are high values now, but were probably also high value when they were created.
> By "value" I mean "the nebulous value we as a species derive from art" not necessarily economic value.
Huh. Because "a pretty basic law of supply and demand" sure sounds to me like you were talking about the value of market economics 101, and not that other thing.
Alive and well. Many photographers migrated away from instagram after the shift to reels, and you’ll find them on Vero, Flickr, Glass, etc.
While it’s no longer necessary to learn the complexities of photography or buy a standalone camera to take a reasonably good photo, the folks who love photography for the sake of it and dedicate time/effort to honing their craft and producing great photos are still doing what they do.
The quality gap between a modern smartphone and even a lower end mirrorless camera can be significant in the hands of a skilled photographer.
I'm not saying people no longer enjoy taking photographs. I'm saying that photography is no longer an art. Like I enjoy making a good cup of coffee in the morning. I grind the beans, use a Chemex, measure the temperature, etc. It's taken a long time to master. But, ultimately, my cup of coffee isn't fundamentally different than any other cup of coffee. It tastes slightly better. Making coffee in the morning is a hobby, not an art. And the same thing goes for photography. It's a fun hobby, but no one would really care if you stopped doing it. Viewers would get a different photo from somewhere else. Most people don't greatly prefer your photography over the photography of others. Photographs are completely fungible for the most part. There's no room left for artistry. Low-skill photographs are good enough as to be completely equivalent with high-skill equivalents for most intents and purposes.
I've tried to find the most charitable interpretation of this comment, and the only thing I can currently find is that appreciating photography just isn't your thing and that's ok. But generalizing your personal preferences to the general case is just fundamentally disconnected from reality and ignores the vibrant communities of photographers and people who appreciate the photos they take.
Your comment as a whole claims that I do not exist. It claims that the people I follow do not exist, and the people who follow me do not exist. It claims that collectively we have no good reasons to follow each other.
Since none of this is true, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that you do not understand why people value photography, or follow other photographers. That is also fine - you're not obligated do do any of those things, but again, that does not generalize to the conclusion you've drawn.
> It's a fun hobby, but no one would really care if you stopped doing it
This is just incorrect.
The last time I took a break from shooting and sharing, I had people reaching out asking if I was ok. When photographers I follow stop shooting, I care, and their communities care. Again this feels like a projection of your personal stance/tastes, but that simply doesn't generalize.
People still care about photography and following other photographers for a myriad of reasons. Photography is associated with a diverse set of communities, each with its own interests. Some topical, some geographical, some vocational.
> Photographs are completely fungible for the most part. There's no room left for artistry. Low-skill photographs are good enough as to be completely equivalent with high-skill equivalents for most intents and purposes.
You seem to be concluding that technical "quality" i.e. the visual quality of the captured frame is what primarily makes a good photograph.
Lighting, composition, perspective, leading lines, interesting subject, etc. are all far more important than the gear one is using, and none of these factors are magically solved by equipment that allows "low-skill" shots. There's a reason people spend money on wedding photographers in an era where everyone attending the wedding also holds a decent camera. And the same reason that drives people to hire a pro drives people to seek out and follow photographers who create excellent photos.
And while I get that this is not your cup of tea, there are plenty of us who actually like this kind of tea quite a lot.
Why would you say this? It sounds like pointless gate keeping (ie, artistic photographs can't use a cell phone). I think the art of photography is bigger than it has ever been. Every kid has a great camera in their pocket now. I would have killed for that as a kid. Instead we had to pay for and use disposable cameras.
