Well all right! Let the games begin, shall we!
A couple of week ago my wife showed me an article in the Bucks County Herald concerning an annual photography show now going at a well-known venue. It’s been bothering me ever since so now I’m writing about it. The story described the show and contained reprints of pictures that were selected for awards. She likes things done in good taste, so she was complaining that they looked heavily altered and … well … kitschy. She also lamented about the sad state of affairs for photography.
Interesting.
It’s not just how digital images look vs. analog, it’s all the obvious and over manipulation that is done to create what can only be described as tacky. What I saw in horror was not limited to color. No. Black and white was not spared either. Perhaps one of the problems is just how easy it is to create this stuff, allowing those who produce it the unbridled power to let their worst excesses run wild.
So just to be fair, I’m not a fan of manipulated analog photography either, although what I have seen does not sink to the levels of tackiness exhibited by much of the manipulated digitalia. Why? Perhaps, because it is so easy to accomplish. It would have been too difficult to achieve the same level of tackiness with analog.
This week in the same paper, I saw a couple of articles discussing two art exhibits, one focusing on work by students, and the other a call for entries for a statewide show. It was interesting that the categories of art for both shows included photography, but also digital media. Something I have been thinking about for a long time apparently has thankfully been accepted … the unambiguous difference of images created by analog and digital means!
Such clarification is a good thing and can only be helpful to the well being of analog photography. That having been said, now that the differentiation is established, I think it is also necessary to also consider the establishment of an important sub-category within the domain – that of kitschography or digital kitsch. I could be happy with either term. One problem though – I’m struggling to decide which is tackier, kitschography/digital kitch or portraits of Elvis and Jesus on black velvet found in Greyhound bus station lobbies. Tough choice!
Seriously though, all of this has broad implications on what is considered art, let alone good taste. While unimportant to the vast majority, it does force those that are serious about the art they create with a camera to consider what in fact is good art.
So there you have it. I’d love to know what you think.
Stay safe,
Michael