Instagram gratification is no substitute for art

nihonin says:

06:13am | 25/07/12

“Instagram? More like Wait-a-long-time-a-gram” I say loudly, grinning at my own wit. My girlfriend stares back at me in her usual way. The I’m-still-working-out-if-I-actually-like-you look.

With wit like that, can you really blame her.

Bitten says:

07:46am | 25/07/12

My girlfriend stares back at me in her usual way. The I’m-still-working-out-if-I-actually-like-you look.

Ah, yes. That look.

stephen says:

08:11am | 25/07/12

I studied photography at Ultimo TAFE about 8 years ago, (a very good course, too, but I only completed the film component.)
Now, with the development of digital SLR cameras and having seen some excellent photos, and now knowing the benefits of digital versus film, I regret not completing the course in total.
I always take 1 of each cameras when I go out, but it is the modern version which is the first I grab when I need a quick shot.
When I set up the tripod I will use film, mainly Velvia 50, or 100.

I used to hate photos that were manipulated through a computer, but then, when I am in the darkroom I also try to heighten aspects of a photograph to get the best result : in other words, I have in my mind’s eye what I expect the picture to show and I develop the print accordingly.
I cannot see, then, the difference between the 2 formats in respect of the the amount and type of post-shutter work that is involved.

I hope that soon, medium format digital cameras have a price drop.
Then, I’d get one next, before I get a car ... or a wife.

M says:

08:49am | 25/07/12

“The problem with Instagram is it’s not about capturing images, but sharing them.  It’s just our vanity coming out. “

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Nick says:

09:15am | 25/07/12

The subject of art and photography has been raging for years.The purists will say that photography is the documentation of a subject recorded by a device .
Adding filters and textures can look pretty but unless the photographer conveys a feeling ,emotion,mood or story to the image then art it is not.

Slothy says:

11:16am | 25/07/12

I’m not sure what the big deal is. The pure artistic form of photography is still there for people who who are passionate about it. They can frame their photos and play with f-stops and ISOs and wait for the light to hit the water perfectly as much as they like. I’ll admire their eye for composition and buy their work.

But I’m not an artist. I mainly want to take pictures of my adventures (I draw the line at food though) and share them with my friends and family. I’m not trying for brilliant composition; I just want to capture my friends covered in mud wearing tutus. If I can check I actually photographed the scene instead of my thumb and whack a filter on it to make up for the crummy lighting, I don’t think that’s keeping a purist from playing in their darkroom.

New tech will be integrated with old techniques to create new forms of art. Old techniques that still resonate will remain. People aren’t going to suddenly lose all asthetic sense just because someone has posted a washed out kissy face on facebook.

(Full disclosure, I only have one photo up on instagram. It’s a picture of a pair of Dr Who TARDIS socks I knitted as a birthday present. I’m not a grandma, I swear.)

Adam says:

12:37pm | 25/07/12

You lost me at “Gone are the days of…”

Terrible.

eRon says:

01:07pm | 25/07/12

Fifty followers for that? Wow!
Were any of them relatives?

steve says:

01:21pm | 25/07/12

Its a pity everyone was sick of instagram months ago, you’d think with digital media being on the internet they’d be able to keep up with the internet.

John Jon says:

01:29pm | 25/07/12

Instagram, its like taking a Polaroid, shoving it up your arse then producing it five minutes later as some sort of “artistic” shot.
Here is a hint people, they look shit and they make you look like an iMoron.

Kika says:

01:53pm | 25/07/12

There’s instagram and then there’s instagram. Yeah anyone can apply an effect to make it ‘art’ but without a good shot and artistic view behind it, it’s still just a photo.  I took one of my cat looking out the window in the morning, her face is looking back at her reflected in the window and you can see the city in the background. It’s my best photo ever. I love it.

Inky says:

02:55pm | 25/07/12

“The I’m-still-working-out-if-I-actually-like-you look.”

The best kind of look :D

Caitlin says:

05:12pm | 25/07/12

I’ve grown up around photography - my brother is a professional photographer (and has been for the last decade) and my partner is also a photographer. I’m forever getting caught in their discussions about tips, tricks and gear. Sigh.
I’d never call myself a photographer - I love taking photos, I love the memories, but I’m certainly not an artist in that sense.
I do, however, appreciate that there’s a lot of work that goes into taking a good photo. I’ve often accompanied aforementioned brother and partner on photography adventures and tend to use one of the more amateur bodies (a Canon 50D, for those of you playing at home) and I’m ridiculously proud of myself when I can take a photo that requires minimum editing - that’s what I consider a successful photo. It bugs me, people that take a crappy photo then mess around with it in post-production, and call it a masterpiece. It’s 1 part human, 3 parts computer - and that’s not art.

stephen says:

06:00pm | 25/07/12

The prime aspect to photography being considered an art is that is changes or confirms the way we see objects - familiar or not -  that are in the frame, and whether it is by film or digital, well, I can’t see the difference.
They both capture light.
But there is another point, and it is that in film, the photographer has to have in his/her own mind what they want in the frame, before they press the shutter.
It is almost as if this kind of shutter-bug has to have a narrative in mind, to apply what they see and how it may be applied to another object, ie. film.
Film is then like a book, and on it is a record, not only of what we see, but what we thought about the objects in the viewfinder.
It simply takes more time to take film photos, and the setting up of the tripod and the knowledge of the film camera required to take that final moment is an act of involvement that makes a good shot a very special moment.

Still, I like the convenience of digital, and it caters for folk like me who make lots of mistakes and don’t have too pay much for it.

Cynicised says:

06:36pm | 25/07/12

What a load of snobbish, elitist old cobblers. Photography (one of my hobbies, btw) has always involved maniipulation of the image, whether in the dark room or as now, digitally. So what if people can achieve an artistic-looking image simply by applying a filter in instagram? What do you think Photoshop or Lightroom does? And please, don’t insult my (sometimes fallible, I admit) intelligence by denying that many modern recognised photographic artists use algorithms to tweak their shots.

Art is about intention, art is about saying something, whether it’s said using silver nitrate or a plastic camera.  Honouring the skills required to produce art photography via traditional methods is cool, yet art still evolves, methods evolve, times change, boundaries are stretched. Just because a new means of expression which is highly accessible (like paints) is being used to produce mass photographs, reassuringly artists still come in all guises. Some use Instagram.