the current internet boom and the way that it is being carved — like apps and micro social networks — still leaves a general trend with insidious persistency: the democratization of certain art forms, and the talents that are lost.
the starting premise has to be that at any time, true talent is rare. this notion would not have been difficult to accept a few decades ago, and could have eroded with time, and now fully distorted under the bubbles of the internet. however, if thirty years ago it was easy to accept that 3.17% of the population was talented at photography, then nothing has changed to increase that rarity. there is no technology that can (arguably) affect an innate talent. yes, technology has increased the number of people that can be competent at a craft, but that is not the same as being... well, creative within that craft. « Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere » said Albert Einstein, and in creativity, we are looking for the (rare) presence of imagination. at the same time, we can welcome the increase availability of the "logician" that can execute the craft.
a casual perusal of social networks demonstrates that there is a given currency within a site to draw attention. in the case of photography, we can point to flickr, Instagram or 500px as sites where a photograph is the social currency for attention. in some instances, the photograph is not a means to pursue art, and in other cases, the originator does pursue a form of art to be validated by the social interaction. unlike "old media", there is no curator to filter the art. this can be viewed as a freedom gained by the internet, but Andrew Keen argues otherwise [ link to YouTube interview]:
« ... problem with democratization: it's so soft, so ordinary, so lacking in innovation, so unshocking. [...] so the democratization ethos of the internet is of ordinariness... of boredom... of garbage... of shit. »
and in this context, Moby expands with [ link to YouTube interview ] the insidious democracy offered by the internet :
« sacrificing rare creativity that has depth for ubiquitous creativity that's very shallow »
in no instance do they offer a solution, and a solution would not be easy to forment, as in the assertion from Andrew Keen that we need the curator of the pre-internet age. and thus, for the photographer with a talent that could have been brought to prominence in the old system, it is now to be lost in a sea of shit.
Jörg M. Colberg offers the following modification on a Thomas Mann quote about writers:
« a photographer is a person for whom photographing is more difficult than it is for other people »
in which it means to Mr. Colberg that: « Photographers, stop whining about Instagram or the "flood of images." It's hard to be a photographer not because of any of that. It's because what it means being a photographer. » and there is a point to this: a photographer should be so busy with their quest and fostering of their rare talent, that what happens on the internet should not play into their concern with their pursuit.
while the quote is quite fundamental to the pursuits of a photographer, there is the problem for those people that pursue photography as profession to highlight their talent: there is a sea of shit still happening, with a complacent/vapid mass which lends credence to the idea that likes/faves/followers correlate with talent.
thus, we are still left with Jean-Paul Sartre's notion that "hell is other people." or should we modify it too for the photographer world?
personally, I am lucky to be in a position where photography is a tool for an inner quest, which does not rely on the externals of the past — seeking representation — or the present: navigating a vapid sea of complacency and quid pro quo magnification via passive-aggressiveness "social actions." however, this trend is one that piques my interest as many other ways that the masses trivialize what is good photography to maximize the inclusion of a greater number of people under some misperception that there is more talent available under the guises of technological advances.
"pontificators of grandeur**" are relegated to blogging, or curating, but with a lesser effect due to a "tl;dr" audience that processes too much information. on the other hand, there does not seem to be a means to coalesce those people that can educate, and properly curate bodies of work, to offer a new means of utilizing the internet to sustain the discovery of talent within photography. instead, there are the bubbles of the "internet photography" and the "gallery photographer." the latter seem to use the internet solely as a means of advertising, rather than a tool to further the foundations of its pursuits.
** this label came to mind in a snark-reply to one of the famous internet "photographers", and I am still fond of the term: it is endearing in some ways.
[ link ] a nice discussion has happened on this article on facebook (public post)