An interesting, but limited view on the future of photography. I completely disagree on their notion that photography hit its puberty when it moved to digital. I’d place puberty way back when Eastman first democratized photography with his handy cameras. Digital was maybe the entry into the elder years, but a “life timeline” itself is a clumsy metaphor for photography. I’m glad to see someone mentioning that digital cameras, phone or otherwise, are already processing your image away from reality, essentially making decisions for you, so there isn’t a such thing as “no filter”. Maybe, no additional filters outside the digital camera itself.
But let’s be basic here. The camera, regardless of when it was created, is a tool. That’s all. What made Ansel Adams cool, wasn’t merely his technique for taking the photograph with his zone system and use of filters, subjects and framing. Adams was a master printer. He burned, dodged and painted with the best.
Not to impose my own aesthetics, which are mostly Joyce’s anyway, but it is what is in the frame that matters. How the elements in the frame relate, or not, to each other. What is the pulse or vibration of the image, does it move with Western ideals of design (or subvert it, play with it, expand it, shrink it), and does it evoke something (story, emotion, wonder, awe, disgust), or make you stand still in rapture. That won’t change. That is what the human brings to the image, regardless of the tool.
the article: give it a read. Let me know what you think