Jason Evans is the author of
Online Photographic Thinking and the creator of
http://www.thedailynice.com, a site where he daily uploads images taken by others that make him happy. A nice idea in theory but potentially problematic?
In Evans article explains his thoughts as to how photography is currently functioning on the internet. He says on the first page that, "I am underwhelmed by photography's presence online and the lack of innovative explorations of the new medium." He goes on to also express his disapointment in serious or professional photographers lack of presence on the internet. Perhaps it is too soon to interject with my own thinking but I agree with this statement in the way that many professional older photographers are lacking in either having a website or a manageable one. Sure they were big in an age when technology was not so abundant but this is an example of how photographers should try to change with the times, professional websites are important to have as far as I'm concerned. However Evans seems to be concerned with an internet presence rather than a photographers personal/professional website, Evans is looking for some sort of online collective it seems.
Evans begins talking about his own introduction to getting work on the internet in 2001, he says that a lot of it came from shooting digital editorial work. He says that he felt freed from the worries of shooting film. ( I personally disagree with some of the things he says about shooting film. but I will skip over that for now.) I am more interested in his description of thedailynice.com which he started in 2004. The site shows only one picture a day and there is no archive or title or even artist name. He comments on how the images are temporary and how this could cause anxiety in some viewers. However Evan's sees this as "kill[ing] my darlings one by one." Evans sees the sight as something "nice" that he gets to share with others, apparently 34,000 visitors a month.
The amount of visitors is very important to Evans it seems, he says that without the internet he could not reach as many viewers especially on an international level. The internet is also intriguing to Evans and others in the way that it allows you to see exact statistics as to how many viewers and from where access your website. I would argue that magazines, books and exhibitions can still somewhat keep track of numbers but yes not as exact. Evans also comments how the internet is such a great way to reach a huge audience for a cheap fee unlike publishing a book or magazine or showing work in a gallery setting. This affordability and inability for the work to be bought or owned like much successful contemporary art is, Evans describes as being free of "capitalist objectification", I suppose this is good for some and bad for others depending on your own perspective.
Evans also talks about his site,
http://www.thenewscent.com/, which he doesn't describe but only says that it also has thousands of visitors. It seems that Evans thinks that he is superior just because he can make a website with images on it... Anyway he goes on about the internet being the best tool to show photography if an "audience is what you prefer as opposed to a physical thing... to show as testimony to you photographic talent." Of course (as some of the responders say) just because you have thousands of viewers doesn't mean that they do (or that you can even know) that they enjoy or appreciate your photography.
Evans own website is also strange to me, it appears different every time you reload it and it seems to just be a hodgepodge of photographs without titles or any information about the photographer. See for yourself
http://www.jasonevans.info/ . Also here's a couple of Evan's photos from his website:
Jason Evans also touches on his feelings about digital photography over multiple pages, they can be described as a support for the medium and an appreciation for the freeness it gives the photographer.
However Evans goes right back to the internet again with the intro of how some digital tools (like unbalanced monitors) keep serious photographers away from using online sharing devices.
In my opinion he convolutes his previous thoughts on the lack of professional photographers on the net when he talks about how he knowns that not all images work on the internet, but I actually agree that yes, not all photographic work belongs or functions well on the internet. Of course Evans uses the weird example that the most popular type of imagery on the internet is porn, yeah that makes sense but is it relevant, I thought we were talking about art photography here? Of course he also mentions how editorial photography works very well on the internet which I agree with, it's made to be see by many and usually quickly and not in an intimate way like fine art photography. Something like Workbook photography's site works well, you can quickly and casually browse through editorial and commercial photographers work. But then again I could like this because the work is put in portfolios, it has a context, which Evans is not concerned with.
http://www.workbook.com/photography
Joe Pellegrini (Who's image/ portfolio was featured on Workbook's main page.)
Towards the end of his essay Evans' lists other websites showcasing photography and describes his opinions of what they are doing:
1. He says that
http://www.usefulphotography.com/ is a bad example of digital photography being used on the web. I'm confused why he says this but I also don't understand the website, it has weird drop down menus, perhaps he is bothered by the fact that the images have context and that they are grouped together?
2. Evans praises the site,
http://squareamerica.com/ for being the best curated site of found images that operates better than magazines that have a similar objective. Unfortunately their site was down.
3. Evans gives praise to a certain Flickr member rather than talking about Flickr itself, which I found strange in comparison to what he has talked about previously. He talked about the Flickr member
Zimbaman and how his collection of images was successful in showing a certain lifestyle, he even compares him to Collier Schorr. Upon looking up Zimbman who appears to have a Flickr full of random snapshots, I am even more confused by Evans arguments.
I can maybe see the Collier Schorr reference in this image by Zimbman
But not in these "myspace" like shots, also by Zimbman.
Collier Schorr
Collier Schorr
4. Evans applauds
http://www.in-public.com/ and their sucess at keeping a somewhat 'dying' genre alive on the net. One could argue that this site gives street photographers a sense of community.
5. Evans is also a fan of the recent college grad,
Kevin Beck but doesn't really say why other than that his website, "offers critical closure in what is otherwise an unstoppable stream of image production." I don't get this and mentioning him seems pointless. His website is as jumbled and hard to navigate as Evans, though he does have a few nice images.
6. Evans says that Tim Barber's
http://www.tinyvices.com/ "beats all other photography sites hands down." He says that Barber has a good mix of images that work in an organic way. He also appaudes the DIY-ness and non profiting of the site. This site is probably the most sucessful for me out of all of Evans' somewhat weird and confusing examples. tinyvices actually list and gives credit to their artists, I even found a few familiar names.
Greg Stimac, New York City to Pittsburgh to Cleveland
Brian Ulrich
Evans' sums up everything saying that he doesn't think that the internet should be the only new place for serious photography to go but rather he thinks that it is an interesting platform that should just be further explore. To me Jason Evans' brings up some good points in this article but he also seems to be a little bit all over the place. I agree more with a majority of the people who responded to his article.
It's interesting that all of the respondents are also more serious photographers or artist.
1. Like me
Amir Zaki thinks that Evans' makes some valid points but is not quite on the ball. Zaki thinks that showing work online has its positive and negatives but ultimately those who participate in it are doing to to be part of a shared "language or history." This reminds me of Ribaltas need for digital photography to create new communities. Zaki also mentions that unlike the gallery driven art world the internet has no power structure and there is no sense of public embarrassment, if no one looks at your website, you are the only one who knows, it is much safer to hide behind a screen than try to make it in a gallery.
Sharing on sites like Flickr can provide feed back or a sense of community but does the artist really grow like they would by showing work in the real world? Zaki mentions mindless websites that imagery ends up on like myspace.com or youtube.com, images and videos on these sites get millions of hits but that doesn't mean that they are well done pieces of art.
To me the same can even go for Flickr, the same kind of work, HDRS, bokeh, and faded layers for a few examples seems to get shown over and over.
Zaki says that he would rather have serious art audience view his work intimately than have thousands of people browse over his site.
Amir Zaki, Untitled (Tower 30)
Zaki interestingly enough is an artist who is working with digital manipulation and video, he is a very contemporary artist.
2. The second respondent is Nicholas Grider another photographer who brings up better points than Evans did. Grider brings up the points of how inexpensive it is to show work online but how in order for the internet to operate like a gallery someone must make a profit off of it. He also brings up the important point that photography on many group internet photo sites acts as a single image and not a collection by the photographer usually. The image gains all importance while the photographer is often neglected. This is opposite of the gallery world where the artists name is the big indicator and the images come second. Also the galleries audience is known and there for they known who to cator to but the internet it anonymous and too wide spread.
I completley agree with Grider when he says that what the internet is really good at is providing information to users. I also agree with him even more on the fact that http://iheartphotograph.blogspot.com/ is one of the best photo sites out there. It is a mix of well known professional work and new up and coming ammeter artist. The site mixes pictures along with information about the artist Grider says that the internet offers an "overwhelming ammount of undifferentiated information." I agree, I think that photo can find a way to really function and work well on the web but it needs to be smarter and better organized. (unlike all of Evans' prefered layouts.)
Grider makes a lot of work but he is also a great contemporary example of using globalization in his work. His main series focus around aspects of the Iraq War.
Nicholas Grider
Nicholas Grider
3. David Campany talks about serial repetition of images and that Evans' sites that he prefers sort of feed in to this repetitive imagery. He mentions sort of like I did previously how sites like Flickr that were once un-hierachial now have an expected sort of image that becomes the most favored, over and over.
To prove that point I went to the Flickr explore page where they showcase the days most visited, liked or commented on photographs, notice how similar these two images by two different people are.
Campany makes a good point that photography on the web might now be able to reflect on it's own condition and this could be a problem.
David Campany does not seem to have a website of his own work but he is a photographer, writer and editor of Art and Photography and The Cinematic Anthologies.
4. David Weiner is perhaps another art writer, I unfortunately could not pinpoint who he is because his name seems to be more common. Regardless he also makes good points. He says that Evans' essay is missing context along with all of the photo sites he exemplifies. Weiner says that the sites Evans' mentions "decontextualize the images they show" which I agree with. He also brings up how the context of how viewers view things online is hard to control by the creator because the viewer has the ability to change things so quickly. He agrees with Evans' that commercial photography works best online because it is already decontextualized.
Weiner says that both Evans' personal site and thedailynice.com offer viewers a chance to just briefly look at the images and then leave to look at something else. If you ask me this doesn't seem successful. These sites are unsuccessful because they are too temporary, Evans' site is always changing so how does a viewer get a good look at what his work really is?
Wiener provides us with both a question and an answer at the end of his response:
Q: "Is the type of viewing that the web can sustain compatible to the type of viewing that is associated with non-commerical photography?"
A:"There is currently no context online for a sustained look."
5.
Lester Pleasant is another responder and photographer. He argues that the changes that digital and online formats that are made in photography must be made by photographers and not the makers of institutions. He also says that these changes might not come until there is a generation that is free of the past ways of photography and that is very intergrated in with technology and the internet.
Pleasant seems to be most on board with Evans'. His own site is lacking titles and context, however there are some images I respond to.
6.
Penelope Umbrico is the last respondent and a really great contemporary photographer who happens to appropriate a lot of her images from internet sites like Flickr.
Suns (From Sunsets) from Flickr, 2006-ongoing
Umbrico compares web-surfers to photographers in the way that they both have access to other worlds. They also both get to search and collect information, and can share it with others. She also compares cameras with computers, the are both mechanically driven and can both record current culture. Umbrico also says that the internet allows us to exchange and engage in many ways as never before, much like her own work that engages with the photography shared by others. Umbrico notes that sites like http://rhizome.org/ and http://turbulence.org/ that support artists projects are most successful for her. Ultimatley Umbrico thinks that artists need to utilize the tool that the Internet can be.
Lev Manovich's The Practice of Everyday (Media) Life: From Mass Consumption to Mass Cultural Production? seemed much more intellectual to me. Manovich is an author, theorist, developer and professor.
This essay is all about how social media propelled by digital photography now effects the medium.
Social media is something completely unique to the contemporary. It is also something that is usually free or very cheap ( similar to digital photography.) This has led to a mass amount of non-professionals accessing, using and producing on the web. Unlike in the 1900’s in the 2000’s the web is dominated by amateurs and a small number is professionals. Also in 1990 the internet was about publishing information, in the 2000’s the web is all about communication between users. Manovich says that before most people using the internet were just consumers of content but now more and more people are engaging in online communities, even for the most obscure of interests. Manovich talks about how everyone in every industry celebrates the internets new interests but he wonders why no one questions the motivations of industry producers of products like digital cameras and laptops of if they have ties to websites that promote the use of their products, like Nikon and Flickr for example. We do of course live in a consumer driven world. He goes on to talk about how peoples identities are even more commercialized or shaped by commercial media than ever before. For example Facebook is a laid out template that we attach our identities to. Manovich also brings up Michel De Certeau’s The Practice of Everyday Life. In regardes to this he talks about how people adapt to how things are laid out for them and they develop a tactic as how to interact with it. We live in a society of mass-produced goods and people build themselves around these consumer items. People also mix and match these consumer items in a way that is synonymies to remixing. Social media sites take this idea to a different level, they make their products to be customized by the user. Video games, blogs, and networking sites are made to be customized by the user but not necessarily remixed. Although many internet media sites do intermix for example Facebook with Tumblr or Flickr.
Peoples cultural tactics are then discovered by producers of products, they turn the tactics into strategies and then sell them back to the people, basically humans, no matter what group you belong to are predictable in some manor. This idea kind of expands into the internet in the way that people now want to share and record their daily lives by constantly uploading it onto social networking sites. (woah.) They are (maybe unconsciously) trying to break this mold set out for them by using sites like Facebook that can be changed by the user and that are always changing by the producer. Manovich even says on page 325 “broadcasting of one’s life becomes as common as email.” Its true though, people upload the most horrifically boring things about their own lives to sites like Facebook. From things like gaining weight to what they ate for breakfast, let’s face it most people don’t care. Manovich also talks about how the act of posting starts to become representative of something else, like how users can give each other gifts or like images. Those acts aren’t really about giving or sharing they are about making a mark on a webpage. Flickr is probably the largest photo sharing websites, though many images are uploaded to Facebook, Flickr is specifically about images and not words. It also allows for a sense of community in many ways, users can respond to pictures and other comments. People can also comment on pictures no matter where they are or what time it is, it is a globalized community that bridges space and time. Also with that conversations on photographs can essentially last forever. I have old images on Flickr that are almost 2 years old that I still receive new comments on. Which leads me to think though Manovich doesn’t directly mention how Flickr also works as an archive. Manovich also goes on to compare modern arts conversations between artists, critics, curator, institutions and so on to the way that social internet sites now function. Basically they both thrive off that communication and interconnection. Like many other Manovich raises the question, does Social Medias accessibility make professional art irrelevant? And he answers it like the rest by basically saying no, it just changes it. Contemporary art is now a part of mass culture, which is actually a good thing. It is more often purchased, collected and sought after globally more than ever before. Small amateur projects, photographs and videos that are posted on internet sharing sites are now changing how professional artists operate, there for the work by the amateurs is actually very important. Manovich ends by saying, “The real challenge may lie in the dynamics of web 2.0 culture-its constant innovation, its energy, and its unpredictability.
The small photographer influencing how professional work is made makes me think of an artist who is also now a bigger more professional photographer herself. She also incorporates a strong aspect of digital photography and manipulation. On top of all that she has very strong ties to social networking sites like Flickr and youtube. I actually was even able to watch Brooke Shaden grow in popularity through the internet site Flickr with my own eyes. She was one of my first Flickr contacts and we actually commented on each others work regularly. Her wok has grown a lot since she first joined Flickr in 2008, so much that it can now converse with professional work like the Parkeharrisons for example.
Here is a link to both Brooke's Flickr and her website, where you can also find links to her other social networking sites. Below are untitled works by Shaden.
Digital Images, Photo-Sharing and Our Shifting Notions of Everyday Aesthetics by Susan Murray looks even deeper into social networking sites that are heavy on images like Flickr.
Murray talks about the organization of Flickr, how it is not just technologically laid out by tags and groups and so on but it can also be categorized by things like fetishes, memory, importance and flow, to name a couple. She even talks about the new mapping feature that allows users to map where the image was taken through the GoogleMap site. This again globalizes the images, allowing viewers to see different locations in the world.
Flickr is also interesting when you break it down like Murray does. There is the user’s individual page that can be somewhat customized but essentially everyone has a similar layout. Then that individual can become part of a larger online community depending on who they ad as a contact and vis virsa , what tags they use on their photos and what groups they decide to join. Flickr with all of this interaction becomes a collaboration. Murray also says that the use of the digital image is shifting how we engage with the everyday world. Many people on Flickr are capturing the everyday. The everyday becomes taken out of its worldly context and is seen more. In places like Flickr a certain aesthetic of the everyday image is created and it does not have to follow a hierarchical format that the rest of the photo world follows according to Murray. She also says that digital photography makes photography no longer special, it is no longer precious like film, it has become immediate almost instant, because of this the amateur photographer can create, dictate and share over and over easily while still maintains authority in their online presence. Murray comments on the history of amateur photography and how it has been around since the creation of the Kodak Brownie. Photographing life has always been a leisure activity where usually the middle or upper middle class can express some creativity in their daily life. However now with the digital point ad shoot or easy to use DSLRs we are seeing more serious amateurs. In fact Murray even mentions how on sites like Flickr, it is sometimes hard to tell the professionals from the amateurs. Murray also touches on how according to previous critics like Benjamin and Barthes have talked about photography in relation to history, memory, absence and loss. We know that Barthes thought that photos were only successful if they captured the death of something but Murray argues that these new digital images on sites like Flickr have nothing to do with loss and a lot to do with transience or the passing of time or something short-lived, losing its existence. I suppose loss and transience is similar but transience seems less fleeting. Flickr is like a daily diary so perhaps loss is an impropriate term to use for daily life. Murray quotes the founder of Flickr Caterina Fake,  “The nature of photography now is it’s in motion. It doesn’t stop time anymore, and maybe that’s a loss. But there’s a kind of beauty to it. A user’s Flickr page works as autobiography or diary by layering an ever changing or growing stream of photos on their page.”
Flickr users can make their own personal narrative through their photostream and then a larger collaborative story when they add to groups. With these groups and collaboration on sites like Flickr a new history is being made and documented. Sure digital has moved us away from the indexical of film but perhaps there will someday be something indexical about the use of online forums. It could be argued also tha Flickr can build a large history because anyone can join. It is free (unless you buy the $24 pro account) and anyone can make any group, upload almost any image and there is no hierarchal power governing them. (other than the Flickr sites few rules.) Flickr allows anyone anywhere to share images of their life. |
Vince Aletti spoke in his response about the disappearance of processes through out photography's history. Daguerreotypes, tintypes, cyanotypes, albumen, salt, platinum-palladium and collodion processes are all a thing of the past compared to most photography today, but what about photographers like Sally Mann? Old processes die out but some people still hold on to them. The same will most likely go for silver gelatin and traditional color darkroom printing, someone will still continue to use them. He says "There's never been just one kind of photography, and now there are many."
I also found Jennifer Blessing to be very agreeable. In her response she brings up how photography has always been associated with an aspect of death. Photography is able to capture a moment that has since passed after viewing the photograph, many critics like Barthes have brought this up as well. She also says that many types of photography have died before and this will continue to happen but yet whatever photography will become it will still always be tied to the common line that has passed down through the ages. She says it will always be "lens based" and a photograph will always ae connected to a specific time in some manner. 
Peter Galassi also thinks that photography is not over. He talks about how it has become a useful tool in todays life so of course it is not dead and it is so useful that it will never be dead. I appreciated Galassi's comparison of photography to the rest of the art world, like painting or scultpture, both of which have gone through their major changes. I'm sure that in the time that Jackson Pollock and many other abstract expressionist painters first arrived on the scene that many traditionalist though that painting as they knew it was over. In support of that photography is much younger than any other medium so perhaps we are just now reaching our rebelious teenage years where the medium is branching out or changing from what it used to be. Galassi sees this concern about photography as something that has already been worried about in the art world's past. 
Blake Stimson agrees with me on the fact that photography is probably not over but is only just beginning and like Galassi he aligns photography's growth through time with painting. He like many others says that the institutions give photography context and I believe that this can not be helped, it happens even if we do not like it. Stimson focuses on photography's important role with history and society like many others had. He strangely mentions photography's perhaps important role over social media at the end of his response. 
Corey Keller notes the need to define photography and the use of photography by virtually everyone now a day. She also brings up that it's challenges today are not so different than they have ever been. She mentions Stieglitz and his Pictoralist movement and strive to make photography recognized as a real art form. I think the real question is, what makes photography art now? Photography has always operated outside of the art worlds standards, so how does it function now that so much has changed. Keller also comments on photos other role to take a political stance. So does this mean that photography wither has to be aesthetically pleasing or politically powerful, there is not yes or no in reality but yet both do function in the world of fine art photography. 
Robert Mapplethorpe, Self Portrait in Drag 1980
