Fighting for High Aesthetics in Digital Photography

[leicar7]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One of the responses on the S2 MTF thread mentioned one result of the digitalization of photographing: dropping standards of aesthetics and the eventual acceptance of such.

 

This phenomenon was anticipated by visual artists during the popularization of small format film photography years ago. The argument does not change with time, to wit, many more photos are being made with little concern or interest in visual quality being foisted on an always image-hungery world. Digital equipment has increased this flood of dross, along with good stuff, one hopes, probably by an order of magnitude.

 

One way to slow the growth if this trend is to recognize the need for image makers to train themselves in the objective aspects of images. There are objective, or nearly objective things that can be said, but precious little is available to interested seekers.

 

So I'll put out a blatant plug for some books that address this issue - the best writing on image design and composition in years. There are three excellent books now in print:

 

Michael Freeman's "The Photographer's Eye"

Harald Mante's "The Photograph"

Torsten Andreas Hoffmann's "The Art of Black and White Photography."

 

A fourth author, Alexander Lapin, Russian, has published several books that would comprise the only advanced level presentations on composition/design, but only in Cyrillic. If someone has concrete suggestions about how to get his work into English, I think it would be more than worthwhile.

 

Objectivity needs to reenter the arts education system at all levels, especially in the US, where it is flagrantly absent in course titles and published textbooks - to include the drawing/painting arts. Then, at least, those who have mastered this material will have objective means, not just the "I'm OK, it feels right" level of image mastery.

[pgk]

An interesting read is "Visual concepts for photographers" Leslie Stroebel, Hollis Todd & Richard Zakia, Focal Press1980 (out of print I'd guess, but probably findable) - a book which 'presents an interdisciplinary approach to the art of photography' by expanding on photographer's visual perception.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[stuny]

The same dumbing down of what is acceptable has been happening in digital audio, most particularly with the ubiquitous use of MP3 players.

[Puplet]

This seems a little unfair: aren't more people taking better pictures than they used to? Imagery that used to inspire admiration is now commonplace; and what used to be the domain of professionals is now a weekend project for a hobbyist. Sounds like a dumbing up rather than down.

[stunsworth]

My opinion is that there is still just as much great photography around, but the internet has allowed easy access to the crap. This can distort the reality and make it seem as if things have got worse.

[SJP]

Welcome to the modern age. 100 odd years or so ago only the rich few had a car, now many more have one. Have cars got worse in the meantime?

 

The only serious form of music used to be 'classical', now we have jazz, rock, hip-hop, punk, avant-garde, 12-tone, serialism, techno, house etc. Some of that is high and some is low culture, but culture none the less. (OK,OK, I am simplifying somewhat but you get the point I hope.) How about....

 

Appel, Picasso, Rembrandt, Escher, Ensor, Gaugin, Rubens, Mondriaan?

 

You can't take serious photo's with a polaroid..... ! That is what I guess they told Andy Warhol.

[John Thawley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The same dumbing down of what is acceptable has been happening in digital audio, most particularly with the ubiquitous use of MP3 players.

 

 

This is a good analogy. However, as a former certified OCB audiophile, I shared the same conclusion regarding the arrival of the CD.

 

But in fairness.... the CD gave more of the population easier access to "excellent" sound. Sure... not high-end, never ending pursuit of nirvana, "excellent," but certainly excellent when compared to what they had been listening to. Let's face it, they weren't listening to virgin vinyl pressings on a SOTA table coupled up to Krell electronics and Wilosn Audio speakers.

 

So, yeah... the purists fell back a bit... but the general population got wall-to-wall clear sound in their living room, car, and bedrooms.

 

And yet, the high end audio salons have adapted. The equipment as been tweaked at both the recording side and the playback side and now can reproduce "some things" equal if not beyond vinyl. You could even make an argument between tubes and transistors and even the hybrid.

 

MP3 players are more likened to a point n' shoot. Go with you anywhere... put out terrific looking photos... or playback terrific sounding music.... AND you can take your whole collection with you... lots of beneifits... but yes, some compromises. Though the process does continue to improve and brings additional access and pleasure to our music.

 

There's no arguing the "purist" pursuit of things. Obviously, someone will always seek the pinnacle of perfection. But I suggest, a lot of people benefit along the way.

 

One thing the internet, access, publishing and digital does do, though... while it may expose a lot of crap, it also gives an accessible stage to talent that may have otherwise never been seen. Maybe digital camera's ability to raise the "average" quality gave encouragement to a new photographer to keep improving. Maybe the new found "success" increased the hunger to learn and do better. And you can't argue that digital and the instant results (and EXIF) accelerates the learning curve.

 

And sharing sites like this one, or flicker, smug mug etc. etc. give people the ability to display their work, compare it, get feedback and grow.

 

I think all in all, it's a good thing. And I think new artists and new "masters" will more than likely arise from the growth.

 

Speaking for myself, I don't think I'd be half the photographer I am nor would my business have grown had it not been for the digital cameras, digital processing or the internet.

 

In the 70s and 80s... and went crazy over photography. But when the next step was to go into the darkroom and processing end of things, I just didn't feel like starting down that road. When I discovered digital in the late 90's my enthusiasm ignited again and I've never looked back. Granted I had an edge that I was already an accomplished Photoshop user and had been developing web sites since 1994... but those things came together for me in a near perfect storm.

 

So, while I'm no Henri-Cartier Bresson, digital has opened up a huge and professional world for me.

 

JT

[leicar7]

Read the second paragraph of the opening round. The whine of "Oh, the dross," has been out there for ever. First, painting/drawing would die. Then everyone could do it. Kodak made the company by making it easy for everyone. Nothing has changed with digital imaging except the quantity, of good stuff and of dross.

 

What has changed, though, since the 1950s, is the instruction of new talent, or not, in the visual arts. Classical training in the objective aspects of image structure is almost nonexistent. I cannot find a single instance in schools' photography or studio arts programs of a course devoted to composition/design. Design courses do exist, but primarily in the graphic arts concentrations. A very few topics on elementary aspects of composition are usually one of many parts of an introductory photography course, and that's the end of it, but for projects and critiques.

 

There is enough material now, even in print - which is rare in English - to develop at least one serious course on image design/composition from the basics to the intermediate level. Advanced level material is out there, but not in English.

 

Few photographers can articulate the structural reasons an image works or doesn't. My assertion is that when someone is trained in the grammer of image structure, that their learning curve is shortened and their attainment and consistency are likely to be higher. Grammar and vocabulary are boring in learning a language, but failing to master them may allow one to be fluent up to a point on the street, but the correctness of one's writing will be limited. Such a person is unable to figure out what is wrong, except by "feel." To paraphrase J. Itten, if one cannot make masterpieces without knowing the theory, it behoves one to learn the theory.

[johnastovall]

Photography Reborn: Image Making in the Digital Era

by Jonathan Lipkin shows what Digital Photography can off to "High Aesthetics."

 

As for composition and design give a look to:

 

The Photograph: Composition & Color Design by Harald Mante

[Gerhardt Isringhaus]

Read the second paragraph of the opening round. The whine of "Oh, the dross," has been out there for ever. First, painting/drawing would die. Then everyone could do it. Kodak made the company by making it easy for everyone. Nothing has changed with digital imaging except the quantity, of good stuff and of dross.

 

What has changed, though, since the 1950s, is the instruction of new talent, or not, in the visual arts. Classical training in the objective aspects of image structure is almost nonexistent. I cannot find a single instance in schools' photography or studio arts programs of a course devoted to composition/design. Design courses do exist, but primarily in the graphic arts concentrations. A very few topics on elementary aspects of composition are usually one of many parts of an introductory photography course, and that's the end of it, but for projects and critiques.

 

There is enough material now, even in print - which is rare in English - to develop at least one serious course on image design/composition from the basics to the intermediate level. Advanced level material is out there, but not in English.

 

Few photographers can articulate the structural reasons an image works or doesn't. My assertion is that when someone is trained in the grammer of image structure, that their learning curve is shortened and their attainment and consistency are likely to be higher. Grammar and vocabulary are boring in learning a language, but failing to master them may allow one to be fluent up to a point on the street, but the correctness of one's writing will be limited. Such a person is unable to figure out what is wrong, except by "feel." To paraphrase J. Itten, if one cannot make masterpieces without knowing the theory, it behoves one to learn the theory.

 

I learned the aesthetics of design at the Art Center School of Design while studying photography back in the '60's and I think everyone there still learns good design the first semester whatever their major. It is based on the aesthetics of natural design as found in nature. Times change, aesthetics may change, but the constant is how our emotions are shaped by those elements of natural design which we are programmed with from the moment of birth. Following this design of nature, some visual design/aesthetics work and provide harmony, while others create discord and chaos are not as pleasing to the eye. My 2 cents on aesthetics; whether it be digital or analog.

[AlanG]

What has changed, though, since the 1950s, is the instruction of new talent, or not, in the visual arts. Classical training in the objective aspects of image structure is almost nonexistent. I cannot find a single instance in schools' photography or studio arts programs of a course devoted to composition/design. Design courses do exist, but primarily in the graphic arts concentrations...

 

I was a student at RIT in the early 70s. All of the first year students, whether in the pro photo or fine arts photo program, had design classes that were taught in the fine art school by art instructors. After the first year there were numerous options if you wanted more design or art classes.

 

I just looked at the school's current curriculum and they have a section called the "Foundation Department" that oversees the design and other background courses for the photo and art schools. I looked at the photo BFA Advertising program and see that it has courses in design and drawing.

 

RIT : College of Imaging Arts & Sciences

 

My general feeling about this subject is that the overall level of photography that I see every day has gotten better throughout the years. Mine sure has and digital has helped with that.

 

From a purely technical sense I have better tools to work with now and can consistently get the quality that I am looking for with less trouble. At one time, I considered myself to be an expert darkroom technician, having been a custom color printer for a number of years. I do not think I ever made a Cibachrome that measured up to what I can easily produce on my Canon ipf 6100. So what if it is easier and more accessible technology for others? That's great.

 

In addition, digital technology gives me the opportunity to express myself in ways that were impossible with film.

[SJP]

Although I am not at all worried about how technology, internet etc. is changing the world, I am intrigued about the original question. It reminds me of mathematics discussions - should we teach long division or not at primary/secondary school? I think we should but 90% of the teachers can't handle that anymore themselves.

 

Learning stuff is good - especially for me as I basically have no idea of the theory. This probably explains why only a very small fraction of my pictures work. I read some books by John Hedgecoe a long time ago but that is basically all.

 

Are there any useful websites or online manuscripts dealing with composition, aesthetics etc. ? I have way too many books as it is & the majority of my professional literature comes via the web nowadays (I think I used the university library once in the past 8 years to get an article on paper).

[pgk]

There are a lot of good points made here. I do think that there are a lot of superb images being created digitally BUT I also think that there is far too high an emphasis being placed on technical perfection by many and this is often at the expense of the image content. Digital image creation is a very positive step forward IMHO. Its technology and immediacy do though, I suspect, have a tendency to lead to concentration on technical precision and a tendency to sloppier multiple image taking rather than fewer more considered images.

 

Of course, the we does allow us to be bombarded with more of the poorer images too, which does not help - although oddly enough I would say that actually shooting for web use (which I am doing more of) is quite difficult. Its technically somewhat less demanding, but given the small image size and often short attention time for which images are viewed, requirements are for simple, effective images. Such images require quite a lot of thought too.

[bobtodrick]

I feel this 'dumbing' down is all to prevalent in all aspects of society.

I don't think it has anything to do with digital (photography/audio/whatever) at all...it has to do with the current thinking...current as in since the mid 60's...that everyone can do it all.

That no one can fail, that everyone can, and deserves to do whatever they set their mind to.

Guess what...they can't.

In the past all those family snaps (for example) stayed where they belonged...in an album kept in the closet 'till family night.

Now, because they've been told everyone is an artist at heart, peoples 'snaps' are posted on the web and portrayed as art.

Bleccchhh!!!!

Same thing...years ago you had to work really hard to put out an music album, then some record exec had to like it...then hopefully you got funding to get it distributed.

Now you can record a CD in your basement, market it yourself, and you're an 'established musician.

Double bleeeccchhhh!! I get tired of hearing a cut from a CD that is passable...then you hear the rest of the CD and think...Oh my God, what crap!

On the plus I think there is a wealth of good/great imagery/music/whatever out there. You just have to wade through so much more dreck now to find it.

[Guest Luis D]

current thinking...current as in since the mid 60's...that everyone can do it all.

That no one can fail, that everyone can, and deserves to do whatever they set their mind to.

Guess what...they can't.

 

You mean like, blind men become music stars, or a deaf woman become TV/movie star? Or, a black man become president? If anything, the "current thinking" has not only led to people making achievements that were before thought impossible, but also led to great innovation in technology. But it is hardly "current thinking". Beethoven wrote great music after he was deaf. Einstein was called slow in his young days. It is not "current thinking" that "no one can fail", all that is changed is now there is more encouragement to try, as before it was mainly discouragement given.

 

 

In the past all those family snaps (for example) stayed where they belonged...in an album kept in the closet 'till family night.

Now, because they've been told everyone is an artist at heart, peoples 'snaps' are posted on the web and portrayed as art.

 

Or maybe because to have taken seriously an opinion on some internet forum these people feel like they have to put out their photos

 

 

 

years ago you had to work really hard to put out an music album, then some record exec had to like it...then hopefully you got funding to get it distributed.

 

Mostly someone had to pay off bribes a bunch of people to play music on the radio. Who did not or could not so afford, never got to be heard. It had not so much to do with talent.

 

 

Now you can record a CD in your basement, market it yourself, and you're an 'established musician.

 

Someone still has to like it or else it will not sell.

 

None of what you said has any reality. The reality is digital photography is only a further extension of technology that was already going before digital. Auto this and auto that. It does not make bad photographers good, or good photographers bad.

[Gentleman Villain]

I feel this 'dumbing' down is all to prevalent in all aspects of society.

I don't think it has anything to do with digital (photography/audio/whatever) at all...it has to do with the current thinking...current as in since the mid 60's...that everyone can do it all.

That no one can fail, that everyone can, and deserves to do whatever they set their mind to.

 

You're exactly correct. The disregard for form and craft in modern photography is a direct result of the counter-culture revolution that took place last century. But Shhh...don't say that...because the enlightened generation is conditioned to slander any critics of their 60s rebellion as supporters of the holocaust, colored water fountains, domestic violence, slavery, colonialism etc. They believe that any notion of "artistic standards" will eventually lead to women wearing burkhas or gays hiding in the closet.

[Tenor1]

Thanks for those book suggestions Leicar7. Although many of us do not meet your standards we appreciate the work and talent it takes to create a good picture. That holds true in most art forms. Being able to participate at a mere-mortal level greatly enhances my appreciation of the true artists.

[Gerhardt Isringhaus]

I have to agree with Alan Goldstein. Photography is easier and better than back in the days of analog. I also have to agree with stuny and see the dumbing down of society as a result of the quick exploitation for cash by the media of losers who wear prison garb and strut, spout, anti-social profanities to young followers that are looking for leadership. What can I do as I stop for a red light and hear their rap blasting about what," ho dis this, pimp dis that, etc. etc.? Should I bite my tough and say they're just kids expressing themselves? I don't think so. I can't exactly turn their radio off and roll my windows up as it still gives me their agonizing negative vibrations, and it's not the, "good vibrations," as espoused by the Beach Boys.

 

A great part of my decorative painting business is involved with getting rid of graffitti where these followers of bad aesthetics, "tag" a building to the detriment of the owners. How destructive is that? Sometimes I feel like the the only answer is cutting off their hand, like in the old testament days. Any thoughts on the proper way to deal with these aesthetic miscreants?

[elansprint72]

I'm waiting for a response from Brian Sewell.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest stnami]

Sounds like you some of you have to learn to filter, edit and ignore