I’m sure Google had a similar sentiment in mind when they began their project documenting cities. By using semi-automated cameras designed to capture a 360º view every few metres, Street View is easily viewed as Shore’s ‘Circle #1’ on a massive scale. If you cut forward to today, Street View is now available for cities and regions in 48 different countries. Two years ago (when only 39 countries were available), they listed their data usage at 20 petabytes (20,000 terabytes). The project has covered over 5 million miles of road. It is the most ambitious photography project in history yet we rarely talk about it as such because its sheer breadth makes it unexceptional.
There are stylistic trends in art and in literature, and everyone acknowledges them. But rarely are they cited in photojournalism, perhaps because people still cling to the idea of photography as an objective or neutral medium that captures a shared truth. There is nothing remotely objective about photography. Where I stand, how I got to that spot, where I direct my lens, what I frame, how I expose the image, what personal and cultural factors influence these decisions — all are intensely subjective.
Without question, the 21st Century will be a photographic century. Photography will play a more fundamental role in the functioning of 21st Century societies than 20th Century practitioners working with light-sensitive emulsions and photographic papers could have ever dreamed. So while in one sense photography might be “over,” in another, it’s barely gotten going. And we haven’t seen anything yet.
Quality doesn’t mean deep blacks and whatever tonal range. That’s not quality, that’s a kind of quality. The pictures of Robert Frank might strike someone as being sloppy—the tone range isn’t right and things like that—but they’re far superior to the pictures of Ansel Adams with regard to quality, because the quality of Ansel Adams, if I may say so, is essentially the quality of a postcard. But the quality of Robert Frank is a quality that has something to do with what he’s doing, what his mind is. It’s not balancing out the sky to the sand and so forth. It’s got to do with intention
Make work that matters to you, that pushes you and the viewer to see the world in a new way. Make work that is in conversation with history, society, or with yourself. The Art in fine art Pho- tography is the most important piece of it all. Be bold and true to yourself.
Hamidah Glasgow, Executive Director, The Center for Fine Art Photography
On the one hand a kind of materialism, which includes the Marxist view of history. On the other a sense of the sacred, the religious if you like. This duality never felt contradictory to me, but most other people thought it was. It is beautifully resolved by Spinoza, who shows that it is not a duality, but in fact an essential unity.
Of course it’s not the same form of connection - but oh will I take it & it’s My non-business B-dear.
I have the internet to connect with 100s -1000s of folks now! not just my tiny selected mailing list.
I love Mac-screen picture-viewing - if someone wants to hold one or 2 = For Sale!:
Open 24/7/365 @ email@example.com & peoples’ prices = we are the 99.9%ers.
Or drag from my Website for free! Have a mini-picture. I’m a mini-commonist.
Four minutes is simply a very long time to stare at any image: Even the greatest Cezanne rarely gets that kind of unwavering attention. But that’s the kind of attention that Warhol’s “Screen Tests” demand of us. Since “nothing” happens in them – since there’s no larger plot or configuration to cling to – we can’t afford to look away, for fear of missing some telling detail. (Cezanne is full of details, too, of course, but we know that they will endure a lapse in our attention.)
Blake Gopnik talking about Warhol’s screen test, but applies equally to any Art.