4 ms·

I had a difficult time reading this article, because it provided no source or argument for: "When photography was first becoming popular, it was mostly used as

I had a difficult time reading this article, because it provided no source or argument for: "When photography was first becoming popular, it was mostly used as a form of artistic expression." Which completely ignores how photography displaced painting in the genre of portraiture, and made it more accessible. Then Mr. Curtis explains haughtily that communication is the new use for photography and that of course is an entirely different thing from artistic expression. In fact, artistic expression is bad because it inhibits us! I highly doubt the majority of people using Instagram are engaging in a visual language of symbol and metaphor (oops, that sounds like communication!) So we have it that communication is better when it's easier and we are no longer shackled by the editorial desire to not produce a bunch of junk. Now, Mr. Curtis says, we can communicate that we like the hit television show Breaking Bad by taking a photo of our screen with a thumbs up! What a glorious age we live in.

FireBeyond 14y ago
Yeah, I have to agree. Photography can be used as a communication tool now, thanks to Treehouse and Snapchat? Thanks, Mr Curtis, for the insightful wizardly pronouncement to the masses. I'm sure photojournalists of the last 100+ years will be pleased to know that there now is a reason or platform for their efforts. Seriously? Curtis lauds people writing a comment on a scrap of paper, taking a photo of it as a means to circumvent the lack of a commenting system on a website and hails it as "Photography's Third Act"? Wow, just... wow.
- _feda_ 14y ago
  You're glossing over the author's solid point on the nature of design, that over-engineering can stifle creative input. In the example he provides, the users became distracted from the purely photographic form of communication by a text-based one.
  - ivv 14y ago
    I like a related point I think he makes: that adding a feedback mechanism to a photo site turns the site from being about photography to being about feedback. In other words, it moves from being a site where people post photographs they like to a site where they post pictures they think others will like.
readymade 14y ago
Agreed, I nearly laughed out loud when I read that line. Ironically, this is a situation where one of those useless college degrees everyone here loves to hate (Art History, for example) would come in rather handy.
dcurtis 14y ago
I updated to post to reflect what I really meant. The first non-commercial uses of photography were for experimentation and artistic portraiture. I don't understand why you disagree with me. I'm not saying there's no future for artistic photography; I'm saying that there are new use cases that haven't yet been fully developed.
- antiterra 14y ago
  Where did non-commercial come from? You think artistic portraiture was non-commercial? Heyy.. what's going on in this drawing by Bruegel http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/bruegel/buyer.jpg http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/bruegel/buyer.jpg ???
- kaliblack 14y ago
  I found it hard to agree or disagree with you, because I couldn't imagine how images would be a more convenient than text to communicate. I would have loved more detail around the new use cases you see being part of this 3rd wave.
_feda_ 14y ago
take a gander at some art history. when photography was first introduced in France in the first half of the 1800s it sparked a longrunning debate concerning the medium's place amongst other art forms, or even whether it should be considered an art form at all. Part of the debate was centered around public figures such as Nadar (who made photographic portraits of people such as Jules Verne and Charles Baudelaire). Nadar was so reviled by some for his insistence on photography as a high art that he was the subject of ridicule in the popular press, for example in this caricature [1]. It seems odd that something so banal to us as a photo should provoke such a debate, but photography had a highly disruptive effect on the rigid, academic art world of the day, in a way reminiscent of the anger caused by the introduction of the railroad not long before, or the way some individuals have predicted 3D printing technology could disrupt manafacturing and the power structures associated with it. [1]"nadar raising photography to the height of art" by Honoré Daumier http://bit.ly/12qOL4Z http://bit.ly/12qOL4Z
- antiterra 14y ago
  > take a gander at some art history. I have. Hence my reaction to the article's unqualified introductory move "when photography was first popular it was used for x." We don't know how the author measures 'popular' or exactly what time frame he's referring to by 'when.' It's the sort of statement that needs to be framed, explained and supported, not one that can easily be taken for granted.
_feda_ 14y ago
Keep in mind that art is most properly classified as a subset of communication, so in certain cases a very similar vocabulary will be used regarding them. You say the author is incorrect in implying that artistic expression may inhibit us, yet in his context, artistic expressions or attempts thereof do inhibit the users, because they're attempting to communicate artistically, rather than directly and immediately as the author wishes.
- antiterra 14y ago
  > You say the author is incorrect in implying that artistic expression may inhibit us No. I didn't say any such thing. Please don't misquote me. It's not that I don't think that trying to make better content is inhibitive, it's that it's worth it. Quantity, populist or not, does not automatically usurp quality.

FireBeyond 14y ago

Yeah, I have to agree. Photography can be used as a communication tool now, thanks to Treehouse and Snapchat? Thanks, Mr Curtis, for the insightful wizardly pronouncement to the masses. I'm sure photojournalists of the last 100+ years will be pleased to know that there now is a reason or platform for their efforts. Seriously? Curtis lauds people writing a comment on a scrap of paper, taking a photo of it as a means to circumvent the lack of a commenting system on a website and hails it as "Photography's Third Act"? Wow, just... wow.

_feda_ 14y ago
You're glossing over the author's solid point on the nature of design, that over-engineering can stifle creative input. In the example he provides, the users became distracted from the purely photographic form of communication by a text-based one.
- ivv 14y ago
  I like a related point I think he makes: that adding a feedback mechanism to a photo site turns the site from being about photography to being about feedback. In other words, it moves from being a site where people post photographs they like to a site where they post pictures they think others will like.

readymade 14y ago

Agreed, I nearly laughed out loud when I read that line. Ironically, this is a situation where one of those useless college degrees everyone here loves to hate (Art History, for example) would come in rather handy.

dcurtis 14y ago

I updated to post to reflect what I really meant. The first non-commercial uses of photography were for experimentation and artistic portraiture. I don't understand why you disagree with me. I'm not saying there's no future for artistic photography; I'm saying that there are new use cases that haven't yet been fully developed.

antiterra 14y ago
Where did non-commercial come from? You think artistic portraiture was non-commercial? Heyy.. what's going on in this drawing by Bruegel http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/bruegel/buyer.jpg http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/bruegel/buyer.jpg ???
kaliblack 14y ago
I found it hard to agree or disagree with you, because I couldn't imagine how images would be a more convenient than text to communicate. I would have loved more detail around the new use cases you see being part of this 3rd wave.

_feda_ 14y ago

take a gander at some art history. when photography was first introduced in France in the first half of the 1800s it sparked a longrunning debate concerning the medium's place amongst other art forms, or even whether it should be considered an art form at all. Part of the debate was centered around public figures such as Nadar (who made photographic portraits of people such as Jules Verne and Charles Baudelaire). Nadar was so reviled by some for his insistence on photography as a high art that he was the subject of ridicule in the popular press, for example in this caricature [1]. It seems odd that something so banal to us as a photo should provoke such a debate, but photography had a highly disruptive effect on the rigid, academic art world of the day, in a way reminiscent of the anger caused by the introduction of the railroad not long before, or the way some individuals have predicted 3D printing technology could disrupt manafacturing and the power structures associated with it. [1]"nadar raising photography to the height of art" by Honoré Daumier http://bit.ly/12qOL4Z http://bit.ly/12qOL4Z

antiterra 14y ago
> take a gander at some art history. I have. Hence my reaction to the article's unqualified introductory move "when photography was first popular it was used for x." We don't know how the author measures 'popular' or exactly what time frame he's referring to by 'when.' It's the sort of statement that needs to be framed, explained and supported, not one that can easily be taken for granted.

_feda_ 14y ago

Keep in mind that art is most properly classified as a subset of communication, so in certain cases a very similar vocabulary will be used regarding them. You say the author is incorrect in implying that artistic expression may inhibit us, yet in his context, artistic expressions or attempts thereof do inhibit the users, because they're attempting to communicate artistically, rather than directly and immediately as the author wishes.

antiterra 14y ago
> You say the author is incorrect in implying that artistic expression may inhibit us No. I didn't say any such thing. Please don't misquote me. It's not that I don't think that trying to make better content is inhibitive, it's that it's worth it. Quantity, populist or not, does not automatically usurp quality.