Is Photography Over?

So this lecture was really interesting to watch, I really enjoyed the fact that there were two different panels of people because it allowed this question to be answered a many of different ways.

The first question the mediator asked was if there is something in photography that is over and what is it? That made me think to myself and drift a little away from what I was hearing to come up with my own answer. I came to the conclusion that photography will never be over, but the traditional practice of photography is being replaced by the digital process so in a sense we are starting anew with the digital camera/photography. However, we cannot say that "analog" photography is over because while the mass majority of people are using digital DSLR camera's there are still those who use film (me included) and hold onto the chemical practices.

Corey Keller is the assistant curator of SFMOMA, and her argument I definitely agree with as well as Jennifer Blessing (why did I choose two woman?). In any case they made very clear points about the ontological identity of photography. Blessing made a point to say that the she belongs to one niche of photography-being contemporary (conceptual) photography and to lump all kinds of photography into one solid mass would be to miss calculate. By miss calculate I mean that you cannot describe or theorize one thing when it is made of many things, you must break it apart and start with each individual piece.

A lot of the discussion fell off the band wagon and trailed onto other topics, knew that was coming, but it was interesting to hear what all these different people from different walks of life educated in the art world came to understand. I can't remember who said this but they said, "photography is a forward thinking medium" and this really made me think. What does he mean? Is he talking about the literal forwardness of photography or the ever moving change in photography? I understood this to mean that photography has come to be something of a cataloguing machine, it represents our history and propels us forward. With out  images as pictures, images as history where would we stand now? To answer my own question, we would probably still be building things that fell apart and non complacent about racism, terrorism and all the other ism's.

On a totally different tangent I want to bring up one more thing that Corey Keller said. She stated that there was a decline in quality in the prints being made. The photograph looked awesome on screen but then when it was printed it wasn't desirable anymore, also saying that people now don't know what a good print looks like or even how to achieve what they see on screen. This is a true statement because after working in the digital lab for about 2 years I have seen some of the most horrendous prints and being such a fan of analog printing (having taken b&w AP photo for 4 years in high school) it really shows the lack of care that people have with digital printing. If someone were to make the same print in the darkroom it would have to be perfect before leaving because after spending so much time, why would you walk away with a mediocre print? If there is something in photography that is over then it is the relationship between the creator and the creation, we have lost touch with what it is we are actually doing. It has become a ubiquitous form of everyday life.