Posted on Apr 01, 2010 | Comments 0
The abrupt crossing from analog to digital has stormed over the photography world.
The photography movement exploded in the beginning of the 80’s. The large majority of people bought then a camera in order to experiment and it really did not matter what.
The end of the century brought inside the market a terrible invention that made you and I look helpless how the photographer’s talent became a Cinderella of the trade, and that invention was the digital camera.
With the bad and the good the new digital technology brought with it some technical steps that our parents never could have dreamed when taking on a passion like the photography.
The passing from analog to digital was so abrupt that the classical photography on film crossed almost instantly from present to past. The new photographers, under the accelerated pressure of the new technologies have created and succeeded to impose a very young photography and this is how the notion of digital art became separated from the digital photography.
We have the picture as a symbol image, and the image as a result of an action. Practically in the photography, the image in general became a social instrument, a socialization tool, and the quality became defined by the message and the presence like the ones on the socialization sites and not by what the general exposure to a larger public for the sake of the art impression it would create. And this is how the quality of the photography speech was reduced to visual perception.
Slowly the photography art lost its financial aspect. The paradox is that even if every day more and more pictures are created – everybody takes pictures- the artistic quality dropped.
If we think for a second, most of the pictures are visualized on the screen and from the start the quality settings of the screen take a lot from the quality of the photography.
We do not see the digital picture, but an image surrogate limited to 256 nuances and a limited contrast and luminosity. So …unavoidably it’s not the luminosity, the color, the nuances of the photography message that counts but the shape. So there is no such thing as photography art but random pictures far from being admired and treasured.
The modern photography tends to become strictly figurative, to contain only a sweet story, primitive, not having that strength to become clear and powerful.
It appeals to primal instincts rather than immortal memory and its all about being practical. All of it works against experiment, picturesque resources and everything that makes the photography memorable.
So why are we surprised that the digital art is recognized as such but put aside from the other arts of the world? Aren’t the digital artists, as good and talented as the painters?
They certainly are, but making the photography an art by choice took from it the vision, the purpose and the creativity living ability and a possibility without the sense or purpose of creating a miracle worth to be called exceptional art.
Because in digital photography the art is there where the eyes can capture the extraordinary looking at the frame of a digital second stopped and made immortal in a unique way.
Posted in: Editorials