Is photography too easy? This may seem like an odd (and possibly pretentious) question coming from one who photographs, but I think it’s a fair one.
There’s no doubt that it’s now easier than ever to make a photograph. Digital technology has eliminated the requirements for developing film and printing in a wet a darkroom. And computer software makes it relatively easy to produce a polished-looking photograph that can be quickly and easily printed. The barriers to entering this discipline have never been lower, and the world has never been flooded with as many photographs.
They’re not all good photographs, of course. Most probably are in fact simple snapshots, with no aspirations toward being anything more, quickly taken with a mobile device of some kind simply because it was easy to do so, and destined for no purpose greater than being shared on a Facebook page or something similar.
Still. The sheer number of photographs being made today suggests that many will be “good” simply by being happy accidents. Beyond this, the lowered entry barriers to practicing photography means that more people are able to pursue photography seriously now than ever before, resulting in a larger pool of increasingly accomplished practitioners making work. And among these practitioners, digital processes mean that they are producing more work more quickly.
As a result, there really is a large amount of very high quality photography being done today as compared to even 10 or 15 years ago, at least in my opinion.
I wonder, does this devalue the worth of photography as art? Fine art photography has always labored under a legitimacy issue when it comes to being taken seriously as an art form. In my experience, it still does not get respected by the public as art in the same way that, say, painting does. Has the increase in the amount of good photography being done these days created a glut that further threatens the legitimacy of this discipline?
Or, is there still room for individual photographers to create unique, compelling art? At the very least, I think the bar has been raised. It’s no longer enough to make technically proficient, aesthetically beautiful photographs. There’s just too many very good photographers who can do this. I’d like to think that technical proficiency and aesthetic beauty are still prerequisites to good photographs (sadly, much of what is regarded as contemporary photographic art seems to lack these ingredients), but really good photographs require something more. Reaching what that something more is is not easy to do, though I do think there are a number of contemporary photographers who get there. The really interesting question is if these achievements will be recognized and embraced in a time when making photographs is just so easy.