As the years go by many things come to mind on how you view your supposed area of expertise.
I have spent 40 years plus in photography and related image making. I have sixty-four years of being involved with the photographic process. Enough years have gone by for me to have experienced many technical changes on how a photograph is produced. At least until today, none of these changes challenged the nature or the definition of what photography is.
That is no longer true. We stand at a technical crossroads, an evolutionary transformation that forces us to rethink the very nature of what is considered photography.
You can find endless articles about the change technology is bringing to our medium. This is particularly true of how image making will be presented in the future. Not enough is said, however, about the change in the distinguishing nature or character of what has for years defined the photograph.
The power of the photograph has been the notion that it represents a captured moment in time that allowed you to preserve history. We are fascinated by photos that are a portal to the past, to an event, a place - or that simply allow us to relive the shared experience of someone or someplace special to us. The power of the photograph is the fact that we believed it to be true, an authentic representation of what no longer is.
We could always manipulate the photograph. However, these manipulations were acceptable because of the serious limitations the camera and the film process imposed upon us. We recognized photography as a limited medium that occasionally needed tweaking to better represent the scene being photographed.
For the most part, we were still stuck with what was there and whatever enhancements we applied strengthened that position. We were always aware the photograph was a representation and not a literal image. Nevertheless, all of this was acceptable within the boundaries that created an authentic photo. This is no longer the case.
For the doubters, simply show a magnificent landscape with all of it natural radiance to a younger person and the question will arise: has that been photoshoped? The immediate response from the viewer that the image may not be an authentic representation changes the perception of what a photograph is or was. The question is does this make any difference? For us I think it does since this change will redefine what a photographer is.
The nature of the changes that the digital process has given us changes the perspective of photography as a limited medium. The interpretive photograph has a new meaning and the new meaning requires fresh and better-honed creative skills.
For years, we confused craft and technique with artistic talent. Since the craft, for the most part is now done for us, that perspective no longer prevails. The required skills will be the ability to tell a visual story, a keen sense of visual language that will include a fine sense of editing, use of symbols, color and design.
A sense of the whole that brings universal and holistic meaning to each image will be essential to the new photography. These will be the arenas that the professionals will use to separate themselves from the amateur.
From a professional perspective, this becomes a matter of survival. If we do not define who we are then the public and/or the technology will. If so, it is the end of our profession as we know it.
Is this good or bad? I am not going to profess judgments here. What I am professing is the change is upon us and is evolutionary in its significance. Are we going to be ahead of the change and help define it, or will the change wash over us like a giant tsunami?
And what will we call the new photography? That is still evolving. I am sure the term photography will be preserved by the film process, but the new photo imaging that is now with us brings an exciting new dimension that is different and will be identified as such.
Brother Giovanni, commenting for "Musings" a publication of the Pizzaonian Newsertainment Network, Diverti Mento, editor
.
Comments