I am a photographer?

Coelynn McIninch

I am photographer caught in the middle of the shift from mechanical to digital. Like many a starving artist, I worked my way through college by waiting tables and bartending. Being in a profession that requires extensive amounts of small talk, I had many occasions to defend my decision to study photography. The most common question being “what can you going to do with a photo degree?” My practiced response at the time was: “when was the last time you went through an entire day without seeing a Photograph?” Naturally I was thinking that there are so many images around us that making a living as a photographer would be easy. At the time I thought I was being witty but now, seven years later, that same response causes me more worry than hope. With the huge shift in camera technology and the huge wealth of images accessible over the Internet, the lure of being a photographer, for me, has lost some of its mystique. I am spinning in circles trying to figure out what photography’s place is in this information age as well as what the future may hold for myself as a professional photographer.

Photography used to be a hobby or a profession involving training, skill and specialized knowledge. Now everyone has a digital camera. It has become an affordable luxury, compact and even fashionable. Thanks to advances in optical technologies and creative marketing strategies, Nokia and Motorola have converted millions of cell phone users into amateur photographers.

With the advent of online photo galleries like Snapfish, Flicker, Shutterfly and Photobucket, anyone who has a computer can now display and market their images all over the world, turning the internet into a massive global gallery loaded with snapshots and creative musings of a hoard of untrained, would-be artists. This shift from professional control of the image market to public participation in the visual culture is very similar to Walter Benjamin’s description of the shift in the European press that helped to give the general citizens a public voice and an opportunity to actively participate in the social and political dialogue of the time.

“It began with the daily press opening to its readers space for ”letters to the editor.” And today there is hardly a gainfully employed European who could not, in principle, find an opportunity to publish somewhere or other . . . Thus, the distinction between author and public is about to loose its basic character.”

In the same way that the newspaper gave a literary voice to the common man, digital cameras have given a visual voice to the everyday consumer. Unlike the “letter to the editor,” however, visual literacy is not actually a prerequisite for image publication

This mass expression and image sharing does not necessarily create a new wealth of professional photographers but as Walter Benjamin states: “mechanical reproduction of art changes the reaction of the masses to art . . .It is inherent in the technique of the film . . . that everyone who witnesses its accomplishments is somewhat of an expert” Walter Benjamin was speaking about motion pictures but the argument holds just as true for the act of playing photographer as well. The ease of image capture and reproduction, on the consumer level, empowers the everyday consumer to assume the role of photographer thereby eliminating the need to hire a professional photographer for many occasions previously assigned to a professional. Digital technology makes the turnover time from capture to print so fast and efficient that it appears downright simple, so simple that a professional holiday portrait at a private studio no longer seems unique or worth the expense. There are one hour portrait studios in malls and department stores all across America that are more than willing to sell you any one of ten convenient packages with a free mug and keychain included; a prepackaged formulaic event, masking itself as creativity and originality are offered up with practiced sincerity, all for the sake for convenience. Walter Benjamin talks about the aura of an image and its diffusion with the advent of mass production. I believe that with the advances in digital technology and the mass circulation of images his theories concerning the aura could be extended to the concept of the photographer itself.

“ . . .the desire of contemporary masses to bring things “closer” spatially and humanly, which is just as ardent as their bent toward overcoming the uniqueness of every reality by accepting its reproduction.”

Taking pictures has been so completely automated by the smart settings on the camera that all the mystique and allure of being a photographer is gone. One could say that the inherent ability of photography to record reality has been absorbed by the general populace leaving the professionals to hunt down commercial contracts and pump out digitized fantasies.

New advances in photography dictate the need for the professional photographer to reassert his/her place in the photo world. With such a vast array of images, a photographer must be very resourceful in order to rise above the ocean of imagery. Even if you are amazingly skilled photographer, it is imperative that you are media literate and an active participant in what Marshal McLuhan calls the “global village.” Without a snazzy web page and all sorts of digital capabilities for capture, manipulation and reproduction of your personal style across multiple media platforms, you may as well be a four year old with a disposable camera. The cyber advertising package becomes a sort of prosthetic aura that reaches out to grab potential clients from the vague depths of the collective intelligence.

Thanks to the creative genius of the corporate commercial conglomerates, the majority of consumers today appear to believe that newer equals better. Consumers have become accustomed to the sales pitch that technology makes our lives easier and in turn, makes each one of us a better person. So attached are we to the advances of modern technology that we instinctively associate newer technology with increased ability and worth. The digital camera has become a form of visual cybernetic upgrade promising a direct correlation between mega pixels and photographic genius. Ironically, with our acceptance of this new technology as a natural enhancement to our own perception we are, at the same time, sacrificing our faith in the veracity of our visual world.

William J. Mitchell places all imagery along a line that measures from purely algorithmic in its record of reality to fully intentional in its construction of the final image. When discussing digital photography, he states “ the distinction between the casual process of the camera and the intentional process of the artist can no longer be drawn so confidently and categorically. Potentially, a digital “photograph” stands at any point along the spectrum from algorithmic to intentional.” This variable range of connection to the original referent has caused a dramatic shift in what we as a society are willing to accept as truth. We now possess the technology to remove photography from its inherent ability to record truth improving on and even creating new truths.

Every day major advertisers pump out new and amazing images of what Jean Baudrillard refers to as the “hyperreal:” reality only better. Digitally manipulated views of “the good life” where we, as viewers, are emotionally and psychologically stuck somewhere in between our want for the offered hyperreal and the sad realization that it doesn’t really exist. The On the one hand, William Mitchell states, “ . . .a photograph provides evidence about a scene, about the way things were, and most of us have a strong intuitive feeling that it provides better evidence than any other kind of picture.” On the other hand, the unfortunate consequence of our technological advances is that the over-prevalence of manipulated images has permanently altered the way we view images to such an extent that even the most overtly genuine image will be examined with a critical eye as to how it may have been constructed. The simple acceptance of any image as irrefutable truth is no longer possible. Through technology we have culturally eliminated the inherent nature of photography as a medium.

According to Jean Baudrillard, our current love of Photo manipulation will inevitably lead to a burst of nostalgia for the old wet processes and pure image capture manifesting itself as a “panic-stricken production of the real and referential.” A desperate attempt to reclaim some of the mystique and substance of truth that traditional photography once held in our society. “When the real is no longer what it used to be, nostalgia assumes its full meaning.” After this inevitable resurrection of the real there is no telling what possible place wet-process photography might hold in a digital world that could replicate the same effect with a few filters in Photoshop.

For any image to be successful in today’s traditional art photography market, it must be presented in as many venues as possible and be circulated by as many technologies as possible, essentially, a global teaser to advertise the actual tangible print; a voluntary weakening of the “original” aura in order to imbue the image with deeper cultural/social significance. As Walter Benjamin states: “quantity has been transmuted to quality.” This holds true only for images that have an actual physical copy. For the vast wealth of images that only exist in digital form as free floating files in cyberspace, there is little or no definitive control over the use and distribution of images on the internet and therefore, it is difficult to assign worth to their existence and use. John Perry Barlow explains: “ the riddle is this: if our property can be infinitely reproduced and instantaneously distributed all over the planet without cost, without our knowledge, without its even leaving our possession, how can we protect it? How are we going to get paid for the work we do with our minds? And, if we don’t get paid, what will assure the continued creation and distribution of such work?” This recognition of the overwhelming lack of control of Internet-bound images seems to reinforce the significance of the physical “Fine Art” photograph, digital or not, simply because of its guaranteed existence and permanence. The apparent mass reproducibility of a physical digital print pales in comparison to its potentially infinite dissemination by digital means.

The digital simulation of the photography market has manifested itself in such a way that the artist is now selling viewing and usage rights rather than actual prints. There is a huge digital marketplace on the Internet comprised online galleries in cyber realities like Second Life, MySpace backgrounds, wallpapers, cell phone wallpapers, avatars and innumerable other venues. Because of the nature of the Internet, the cyber destination for the images is small scale and low resolution. The images are so hard to regulate that brand name has surpassed aesthetics in terms of worth. According to William J. Mitchell “ we must abandon the traditional conception of an art world populated by stable enduring, finished works and replace it with one that recognizes continual mutation and proliferation of variants.”

A photographer in the midst of the information age, needs to dive deeper into the simulated world of digital photography if only to gain a clearer understanding of the future of image use. There is no need to break with traditional ideas of imagery entirely, however; with the acknowledgement of the hyperreal and the potential for mass reproduction, future success will be determined by the photographers ability to effectively bridge the gap between an image’s aesthetic value and the mass marketability of its intellectual significance across all media platforms.

References and readings:

Barthes, Roland. “The Photographic Message” A Barthes Reader. Hill and Wang, 1983

Trans. Howard Smagula. Prentice Hall, 1991

Barlow, John Perry. Selling Wine Without Bottles: The Economy of Mind on the Global Net

Baudrillard, Jean. “Simulacra and Simulations” Re-Visions: New Perspectives of Art Criticism.

Benjamin, Walter. “ The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” Illuminations:

Essays and Reflections. Schocken, 1969

McLuhan, Marshall. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996

Mitchell, William J. “Intention and Artifice” The Reconfigured Eye: Visual Truth in the Post- Photographic Era. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1994