- I would go for a square crop - MeckiMac
The New York Times on the New Art of Flickr
The New York Times Magazine has an interesting article that will run in this weekend's paper on the new art represented by Flickr and online photography.
The article contrasts the predominant popular styles on Flickr with the old fine art photography of the past. I was interviewed for the article.
Personally I believe that one of the greatest things that Flickr represents is a new democratization of fine art photography.
For the past 100 years, much of what the world considers fine art photography has been bestowed upon us by a very small handful of influential gatekeepers. Literally, at any given time, probably less than 100 people control 95% of what the world is told to consider fine art. These are a few major museum curators, select gallery owners, and other influencers. These individuals not only control the prices that fine art photography will fetch, they quite literally control what is considered the best fine art in the world today. They tell people what photography ought to be deemed great and what ought to be deemed amateurish.
With the advent of the web much of this is changing. In the past without the cooperation of the art elite most photographers saw their work fade into obscurity. Sure, they might win a bronze sticker at the local county fair for their photograph, but really nobody would ever see it.
Today the web is allowing a new breed of photographer as artist. An artist that is increasingly able to bypass the fine art elite and promote their work directly to the public. Although the fine art prices have not yet been attached to today's new "Flickr Famous" photographer, this too will come in time. Step one is simply getting the exposure.
One of the stories that I conveyed to Virginia Heffernan, the reporter at the Times who wrote this article, was a story of a Cartier-Bresson photograph which a critique group of Flickr shouted down as inferior photography without knowing it was an actual Cartier-Bresson. While one take away from that story might be that the general Flickr community simply has poor taste in art, another take away might be to question the previously unquestionable. Was Cartier-Bresson actually that good? And would his work stand up today as it has in the past?
Many in the fine art and photography community would immediately label me as heretical for suggesting the possibility that Cartier-Bresson, regarded by many as the finest photographer the world's ever known, might not be all that he's made out to be.
And yet Cartier-Bresson prints sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars, while my Flickr famous Pal Merkley sells his prints online himself for hundreds of dollars instead.
But the mainstream press is beginning to take notice of the new trends in fine art photography that are beginning to take form on Flickr. For some of the photographers mentioned in the NY Times article this is a whoo-hoo moment. The NEY YORK F***ING TIMES!
But mark my words. The naysayers will be here shortly. The fine art world has a lot to lose. Literally millions. But more significantly, control. Control over what is good fine art and what is not. Right now the the wealthy patrons that they advise still believe in what they push. But as the marketing of art by a talented new bunch of artists and photographers learn their very same promotional techniques -- it won't be long.
And this is what the internet does best. Tears down old ways of seeing the world and brings entirely new ones.
Don't get what I'm saying wrong. I do believe that some of the photographers that the fine art world has historically bestowed as worthy are very much in fact worthy. But there are many new photographers that I believe are every bit as worthy. And I think that they too will begin to see the success that they equally deserve -- even without an MFA, even without networking like hell with the fine art crowd, even without the right group shows or whatever that civ thing is that the fine art types tend to obsess over, and even without being 21 and beautiful and just the right type that just the right curator likes to sleep with.
Worthwhile reading: Merkley's treatise, "I'm Not a Photographer."
NY Times article on digg here: digg.com/arts_culture/The_New_York_Times_on_the_New_Art_o...
Comments and faves
Christine Huff Creative Touch Photography, noeltykay, mbshane, napaeye, and 198 other people added this photo to their favorites.
Christine Huff Creative Touch Photography (62 months ago | reply)
Love the B&W! !~!~!
As expected, Your information is deep,multifaceted and completely intriguing. Flickr is one of the new "frontiers" with endless possibilities. There will always be the Nazi art clicks that will attempt to control the flow of freedom that steams from the Artist.
Oh well, so on it goes.....
MOVED TO PIXELENS FOLLOW ME THERE! [deleted] (62 months ago | reply)
Nice photo, interesting read!
--
http://friendfeed.com/?service=flickr (?)
MOVED TO PIXELENS FOLLOW ME THERE! [deleted] (62 months ago | reply)
Hi, I'm an admin for a group called You've been Expl(wh)ored!, and we'd love to have this added to the group!
Stuck in Customs (62 months ago | reply)
Well shot - I dig it!
EcoSnake (62 months ago | reply)
You are right - technology has enabled us to share talents we couldn't share before...and create a world wide network of people who share our values and talent...
mbshane (62 months ago | reply)
Thank you so much for sharing this. I took the liberty of submitting it to Digg to get this noticed:
digg.com/arts_culture/The_New_York_Times_on_t he_New_Art_o...
Gabriel M.A. (62 months ago | reply)
Personally I believe that one of the greatest things that Flickr represents is a new democratization of fine art photography.
I think people are confusing "democracy" with "oligarchy". Flickr does not represent "democratization" of (...) photography*, but rather an oligarchy of users who know how to pull innate political rules of social networks in order to bring about the appearance of a democratic voice which apparently dictates what is "good fine art and what is not" giving them control over some popularity which is oftentimes the goal (or not).
And Henri Cartier-Bresson wasn't "all that he's made out to be", that's true. A lot of people make him out to be something they misunderstood what other people made him out to be. Attacking Cartier-Bresson is as much a means to control self-doubts about one's work. Over-exhaltation of his work is also just as flawed, when praised merely on the basis of his name and not on a deep, detailed analysis of his life in a proper historical context.
Oversimplifying the Delete-Me Group thread as an incident where HCB's photograph was called "inferior photography" is another example of not even half-understanding today's photographic trends nor yesterday's photographic discipline.
Surely W. A. Mozart would not sell as many concert tickets as the Rolling Stones would today, and surely his music would not stand today as well as the Rolling Stones'. Comparing Mozart with the Rolling Stones to draw a conclusion that one is "better than the other" would only show a very narrow understanding of either genre, and a lack of understanding of Music as a whole.
* (and just to clarify meanings, I do not mean to say that Flickr is an oligarchy. It represents this facet of popular social networks, and is not inherently the only thing it represents. Just like you can say that one of the greatest things that table salt does is add flavoring, salt is also a risk factor for heart disease. Because salt can be bad it doesn't mean that it's bad, period. There are many good things Flickr represents. The topic here, however is, the exaltation of its seemingly-inherent "democracy". We should be aware that one of the driving forces behind the referenced article is this perception)
NikkiRMZ (62 months ago | reply)
cool shapes.
sjon blackwell (62 months ago | reply)
this rocks
smoothdude (62 months ago | reply)
great work TH
Thomas Hawk (62 months ago | reply)
Oversimplifying the Delete-Me Group thread as an incident where HCB's photograph was called "inferior photography" is another example of not even half-understanding today's photographic trends nor yesterday's photographic discipline.
The Deleteme group's thread was not oversimplified. The group prides itself on their ability to choose superior photography (interestingly enough I've been permanently banned from the group -- even when at one point I had the most saved photos in their archive personally).
They deleted a Cartier-Bresson. This much is fact.
"Today's photographic trends." "Yesterday's photographic discipline." Gobalygook.
Certainly Flickr is no pure democracy. Pure democracies rarely exist. But it's a hell of a lot closer to a democratization of fine art photography than those that largely control fine art photography today. And far from an oligarchy.
Attacking Cartier-Bresson is as much a means to control self-doubts about one's work.
It's interesting that you would see a question regarding Cartier-Bresson's placement in the canon of photography as an attack. Just goes to show you how precious our idols can become.
Pat McDonald (62 months ago | reply)
Tom, very impressive image ...
Very interesting debate ....
The Web is creating new opportunities, new rules and new ways of disseminating great work - and tripe.
~Mystrish~ (62 months ago | reply)
Without Flickr I would not be presenting my work at the Metro Galleries. I have learned much from the many wonderful people I consider photographers regardless of their status or degrees. Flickr is truely amazing and opens doors for aspiring artists to build on a dream!
leebug87 (62 months ago | reply)
this is awesome!
Dalmatica (62 months ago | reply)
great photo and very interesting write-up. thanks Tom.
Dalmatica (62 months ago | reply)
oh, and i read that Merkley thing too.
he's a long-winded fella, huh?
some personal issues there? haha! fun stuff!
t-squared (62 months ago | reply)
Fascinating dialog. We're barbarians at the gates.
caroline.sfc (62 months ago | reply)
awesome.
Gualo (62 months ago | reply)
muy buena......
HiYall (62 months ago | reply)
Wonderful capture
Seen in a darckr gallery of your flickr stream (mine, ?).
.rexguo (62 months ago | reply)
Thomas,
Have you read Andrew Keen's The Cult of the Amateur?
I think he might disagree with you about the democratization
part, in that "infinite monkeys (us) given infinite typewriters
(dSLRs) is a bad thing for our culture". But Flickr might be special
enough to warrant an exception. Personally, there's still
a long way to go before the Flickr crowd learns to tell the
difference between really fine art photography and pretty-but-
superficial photography. In other words, there's a difference
between photos that end up in a museum and those that
end up in magazines. There is demand for both in a
society. I look forward to the day where Flickr offers something
beyond Explore.
Thomas Hawk (62 months ago | reply)
Have you read Andrew Keen's The Cult of the Amateur?
I haven't. I'll check it out. In general I avoid books. They tend to be long and mostly boring.
Certainly there will be many, many cultural elite who for very important rea$ons will decry much of the new art being produced today. But remember, Andy Warhol didn't sell a single painting when he held his first show in Los Angeles. In fact he was largely mocked for painting a series of Campbell's soup cans. A window front down the street from this show put actual Campbell's soup cans in the window and encouraged people to buy it cheaper there. The exact same series of paintings that sits in the NY MOMA today and is certainly one of the most valuable series of paintings in modern art history.
To equate human creativity with infinite monkeys in any form I think is a mistake. But I'd need to read Keen's book really to know exactly what he was talking about.
Flickr's ability to designate fine art with their Explore algorithm vs. individual fine artists using Flickr to promote their work are two different things. Fine art is on Flickr, but I don't think Explore is necessarily the place to see the best of it.
counting chest bullets (62 months ago | reply)
Instafave!
Ane Zabala....:-) [deleted] (62 months ago | reply)
me gusta mucho
Life in AsiaNZ (62 months ago | reply)
For me, the article is two years too late. Both the photographers mentioned hardly post anymore. Guess they have largely moved on from Flickr which has lost some of its initial shine. It is disappointing the writer didn't choose a couple of the currently active photographers to write about. There is plenty of wonderful talent to choose from.
I also think selecting photographs by the majority, a computer algorithm, or even a select group of "critics" all have inherent problems. All have a use but none will get it right all the time. Flickr has helped some talented people make a name for themselves, but it is ultimately outside of Flickr that these people will need to prove their talent. Flickr doesn't pay the bills.
And the fact delete-me deleted a HCB photo doesn't surprise me or really mean anything. Even good photographers will take average pictures. But, it is their best photos that really define their skill as a photographer. And I'm sure delete-me has deleted some excellent photos and saved some that weren't very good as well. Just because ten people agree doesn't mean they are right.
ortizmj12 (62 months ago | reply)
Awesome shot!!
35mmfrog (62 months ago | reply)
This is an amazing photo, the best photo I have seen from you so far :)
dlemieux (62 months ago | reply)
read the article...loved the bit about the comments made on the Cartier-Bresson photo....does make one wonder about the past, present and future of photography....hmmm....
and I did read Merkley's 'I'm Not a Photographer' a while back and I have to say I laughed so hard I cried....
(where's MY mention in the ny times article?!?! poop! ;-P)
m, as me, a.k.a. marie [deleted] (61 months ago | reply)
very interesting debate...
and another beautiful photo of yours.
Wonderlane (61 months ago | reply)
control vs art
~ fernando [deleted] (61 months ago | reply)
I like the points that Gabriel made... and concur with his sentiments.
One of the most common approaches these days in the media (political or otherwise), is the concept that an example proves something. It is impossible to prove something by example, though you can disprove something. The Delete-me group deleted an HCB (which, actually, may be my favorite of his, though I am not a big fan) and that is fact and it does not prove anything on either side of the argument. It is an event and 10 people and ranting by all sides as to what happened.
That flickr is even a shadow of a democracy is something that I cannot fathom. I am not sure that was the intent, either, so I am speaking of what has turned out to be, rather than the company's intent (aside from making money). There are anarchistic elements to flickr (e.g., anyone can start a group), and certainly one can use it without interacting. That some photographers (as in people that take photos) can become popular, mainly through the exposure in Explore -- the early days are long gone -- is not a democratic means of making good photographers famous. The fact that it is an algorithm that can be played, and that people ascribe it some importance are not elements of democracy. Again, I am not sure that flickr (the company) should be bothered with being democratic, nor should we think it does.
In the same way that one can argue that the Billboard charts are not democratic (payola anyone?) and that does not constitute that Britney Spears is a musician, then there is no reason to think that flickr is re-defining the art world. Gobalygook indeed.
Rather than worrying about what is being defined as art by some establishment or whether flickr is re-defining it, what flickr offers is the potential for the casual, or even avid, photograph collector to find equally estimulating artwork here that they can purchase, without having to pay thousands for photos that have history and "art-world" mystique -- that is what the price of it reflects, no that the photograph is better than something here.
Personally, I see flickr more as a classroom (mostly on what not to do with photographs, or to photographs), than something that defines a new art world.
cheers!
Cri.sty (50 months ago | reply)
Wow great shot!
adameros (43 months ago | reply)
This image is excellent, except the railing on the right.
-Voted 'delete' (by the Delete Me Uncensored Group) using csratr
MB fp (43 months ago | reply)
Yes... you should eliminate the handrail and I'll save it
delete
Gary Denness (43 months ago | reply)
TH, your photography is sometimes too good for your own good. Perfection or bust sort of thing.
The rail isn't nice. And the chap on the far left....he has a bit of colour and that takes away the silhouette feel.
-Voted "delete3" (by the Delete Me Uncensored Group)
tomms (43 months ago | reply)
the bar ruins it, PLUS...
you didnt vote
delete
silwer star (43 months ago | reply)
super photo
Nice view
save
i.jango (43 months ago | reply)
Yes, railing out. I would feel better about the light on the guy on the left if there were hints of light on one or two of the others, just to mess with my perception of dimensionality while looking at the silo'd figures. But with just one lit figure, I'd rather he not be there at all.
delete5
Marc Evans Photography (43 months ago | reply)
nothing special
-Voted "delete6" (by the Delete Me Uncensored Group)
A. Vandalay (43 months ago | reply)
I think the lighting on the left guy and railing work well
-save2
@notnixon (43 months ago | reply)
Get rid of the hand rail, and this is a save. I like the touch of colour on the far left.
-Voted 'delete7' (by the Delete Me Uncensored Group) using csratr
wendy martyn (43 months ago | reply)
empty DELETE8
blowback photography [deleted] (43 months ago | reply)
This has a lot of character. I like this.
save
Ivan Makarov (43 months ago | reply)
how's this being deleted?
save
MeckiMac (43 months ago | reply)
see my note - I would make this a square crop. The two persons on the left don't add much and one is already sliced in half.
-Voted 'delete9' (by the Delete Me Uncensored Group) using csratr
Bowman! (43 months ago | reply)
that handrail screwed the composition.
delete
Ivan Plata (43 months ago | reply)
Very interesting picture.
Save
Liliana.Oliveira (36 months ago | reply)
Excellent work! ;)
nepalseo (36 months ago | reply)
This is a great unique photo, everybody is minding his/ her own business..........great work
I think I have to use it for my new website page Internet Marketing Service
UNDERGROUND. (32 months ago | reply)
great!
B a k i (32 months ago | reply)
love it
Grant グラント (15 months ago | reply)
Came for the photo, stayed for the read. Both really caught my attention and struck a chord with me. Do you have this writing up on your blog? It seems a shame that it may not reach the broad audience it deserves if it's only written here.
gwendolen (11 months ago | reply)
Love this image. I'm using it on my blog icommunicatie.nl/
Thanks Thomas.