Is Photography Dead?
If what we read on the Internet is to be believed (and who doesn't believe everything they read on the Internet?), photography is dying before our eyes. But is it, or are we simply entering a new phase of the creative age?
I have long been passionate about photography. I am fascinated by how a photograph can transport the viewer to a different place, at a different time, allowing them to experience the moment for themselves. Photography heroes like Henri Cartier Bresson, widely regarded as the father of candid photography, have inspired me to add my contributions to the visual records of our age through the photographs I capture. And yet, I know that photography is changing. Some believe those changes are for the better. Others see them as signs the art form has entered its final days. I decided to try and argue both sides of this (not so) hotly debate for myself, and see if I could find an answer.
Photography is absolutely dead; technology killed it
Creative photography died when a camera lens found its way onto a cell phone, and everyone in the world became a photographer. For over a hundred years, photography has provided a creative outlet for generations of artists to capture the heights of human achievement and the depths of human depravity, the wonders of the natural world and the tragedy of global decay. Photographers were the visual storytellers of the 20th Century. But in the 21st Century, photography as an art form has been diluted to almost complete mediocracy. Today, visual art seems to extend no further than applying a filter to yet another "selfie", shared on whichever social platform has achieved critical mass on the day (only to be replaced tomorrow).
In many ways, this decline began with the onset of digital photography. Where before, capturing a correctly exposed image required technical knowledge, photographic skill and creative vision in equal measure, today, computers built into every camera have assumed responsibility for 99% of all photographs captured in the digital age. Photographers have been reduced to pointing the camera in the general direction of the subject and pressing a button. As a result of the rapid advancement of technology, anyone with even the most basic camera can now achieve results which was previously the exclusive preserve of the professional photographer.
Evidence of the demise of authentic photography can be seen in the decline of the photojournalist. Where once dedicated and skilled photographers would tell the story of world events through the photographs they captured, today, most newspapers have laid off their entire team of photographers, relying instead on photos supplied by their readers for free. Decades of photojournalistic traditions have been reduced to something anyone with a cell phone can do. Henri Cartier-Bresson must be turning in his grave at the thought of what we have done to his noble art.
Photography may have enjoyed a proud heritage throughout the 20th Century, but now photography is dead, and it was technology that killed it.
Dead? No way. If anything, the golden age of photography has only just begun
No photography isn't dead. If anything, we are witnessing the start of a grand revival of the art. Technology has put a camera, of one description or another, into the hands of more people than ever. Every day people from all walks of life are creating incredible images, documenting the world around them in every conceivable way. The collective output has seen an explosion of creativity, which we have never experienced before.
Of course, most of the millions of photographs shared online daily are pretty mundane and uninspiring. But hasn't that always been the case? The creative elite of every generation has always, by definition, sat ahead of the masses who followed. The difference is now the sheer number of photographers who make up those masses are driving the new elite to ever higher levels of creativity, forcing them to be better. Getting better can only ever be a good thing.
Moreover, it has never been a better time to become a photographer. The Internet has proved itself the most incredible learning tool ever. The wealth of video guides, tutorials, and other photography education available online is staggering, allowing people who might otherwise never have had the time or opportunity to become photographers to learn at their own pace. Technology has removed virtually all the previous barriers to entry into photography.
I can't help but wonder whether some of the doom and gloom talk about the future of photography is fuelled more by the fear of change than the reality of the art form. Photography is changing but not every photographer wants to adapt. Many are content to remain strictly within their comfort zone, the warm fluffy place where they feel safe and in control. In my time, I have seen all sorts of uninspiring, repetitive images produced by aged photographers who claim decades of professional experience. I have also seen mind-blowing creativity from 15 years olds with nothing more than a mobile phone and a sense of flair. As a creative art, photography has always had far more to do with the person behind the lens than the equipment they are using. This is as valid now as it has ever been.
Photography isn't dead, the fun is only just starting, and I am pretty sure if Henri Cartier-Bresson were here today, he would be shooting with a camera-phone!
The Jury's Decision
So there you have it, my thoughts on this (hypothetically) great photographic debate. In truth, I am not sure how successfully I have argued both sides of the discussion equally; in reality, I believe photographers have never had it so good. The availability of cameras, the ease of online learning opportunities, and the rise of social media to reach a global audience have combined to this being one of the most exciting times to be a photographer. But those are just my thoughts. What about yours? Is photography alive and kicking or dying on its feet? The debate will likely continue for decades to come.
