What has the consequences been since everyone has access to either a digital camera or a smartphone with up to 200 MP sensors? Snapshits were easy to identify in the 80s because they were often shitty point and shoot, or Polaroids, but what gear does the snapshitter use now other than smartphones? Has the ubiquity of photography destroyed whatever strange, new artform was budding?
It has phenomenologically desensitized people to photography and visual imagery in general.
>>4522209>noooooo you cant take photos casually everyday its a high art form you wouldnt understand i hate normies reeeeeeeeeeelol what a loser
>>4522209That album is such overrated pretentious crap. I bet most people on /mu/ now are too new to even know what it is.
>>4522217Both can be true anon.There was once a time where driving was seen as an upper-class privilege, and even renting a car or being lucky enough to chauffeur was a big deal. That isn't to say that greater access to car-transportation was a bad thing, but it certainly made it less noteworthy. If I were to weigh in, it would be a resounding yes that cameras being everywhere has deminished the value of photos. That's fine. When it was novel or difficult it had merit. I don't need my holiday pictures or car show snapshits to be le art, I just want them to look nice.
>>4522209The perspective that an art form get destroyed because it gets more accessible is defended solely by people who don't practice it. Art is about practice. I don't give a shit that "anyone could do it" because the only life I experience is mine. This board is dead because it's overrun with miserable people that came into photography with the hope to prove they're unique and special through their production. For them it's a big issue that everyone has a camera, because it raises the level of work they need to put in to feel unique compared to 70 years ago where just taking a photo made you an outlier. They don't realize being unique and special is just a contemporary social incentive. 70 years ago, they would have simply followed the social incentive of the time, not gone out of their way to practice alone a clunky and expensive hobby which was barely considered an art form. Because their mindset doesn't provide them with any motivation to actually practice photography, they default to the easiest, second most important social incentive: BUY BRAND BUY BRAND BUY BRAND BUY BRAND.Today like 70 years ago, the actual photographers are doing photography for themselves, because they truly enjoy the process. To them, posters stating photography has been destroyed are nothing but laughing stock.
>>4522219The:literal,only,singular,lone,reasonit's a problem is if you base your worth upon other people's opinions or attention, like a whore
semen stains the mountain tops
>>4522230>To them, posters stating photography has been destroyed are nothing but laughing stock.actually i see such posts as boring spam
>>4522230This, so much this! Photograph for you, for your enjoyment and fuck all else. If the world likes that, fine. If it doesn't, so what, you have enjoyed it and that is enough.
>>4522230>the actual photographers are doing photography for themselvesNo, this is what coping hobbyists tell themselves. Most artists actually want their art to be seen and published. This has always been the case. "Art for arts sake" is total amateur meme. Anybody that's actually serious about their chosen discipline wants to do it in a professional capacity and get noticed for it. The problem with that is that it puts a condition on yourself. If you don't manage to get seen you're a failure (which is true), a fact that is psychologically untenable for most people. Much easier to hide behind the shield of "I'm doing it for myself", that way no matter how shitty your photos are or how unsuccessful you are, there's never anyone or anything that can make you feel bad about it.
>>4522358> The problem with that is that it puts a condition on yourself.More than that, it actually kills the motivation to practice by shifting its source from genuine enjoyment of the expressive mean to expectation of recognition from the public. What you are describing is the perfect recipe to coerce yourself in either doing nothing, or doing commercial art meant for enjoyment by the masses.> If you don't manage to get seen you're a failure (which is true), a fact that is psychologically untenable for most people.If I stick posters with my photos all over town I will get seen, yet I'm sure you wouldn't consider that a success. So what do you mean by seen? Do you mean "generating engagement on social networks"? No, I don't think you're a failure if you fail at that. A lot of great artist are only seen in specialized communities precisely because they are master that take taste to enjoy. Most importantly, you should not aim for engagement on the internet, because it will make your art shitty. The mass likes shit. Do you mean "seen in the same place and context master of the art form are seen", like in national geographics, magnum, or national museums? I agree that it's something to be proud of, but saying you're a failure of you didn't make it there is just retarded. It's a meaningless objective and a mindset that will make you life a sad one.> Much easier to hide behind the shield of "I'm doing it for myself"Tell me, between the person continually fails to hit any metric of success but continues for the love of the game, and the person who's stopped practicing or sharing because they didn't hit whatever metric of success they had set, who is hiding?> that way no matter how shitty your photos are or how unsuccessful you are, there's never anyone or anything that can make you feel bad about itThe belief that feeling bad is a redeeming quality is the mark of losers.
>>4522363>>4522358Forgot obligatory martin parr rules for emerging photographers
>>4522358What an empty and soulless way to think about art. You must live a very sad life.
>>4522358Two tribes control english language art publishing and they have godawful taste that has been described as demonic at the worst and ignorant of aesthetics and using art as an extension of word game postmodern pseudo-philosophy and status signaling at the best. Not giving a fuck about major publishers is increasingly normal now. Jews and american WASPs have genuinely bad taste in visual art. They have money, but just look at the blocky dogshit architecture in israel and all across the states. They have no taste. For years anglos and francs questioned if there was someone worse at the visual arts than the german. The answer has become abundantly clear. Our hebrew and american brothers must stick to math, law, medicine, jazz and klezmer, for everyones sake. If there is an explanation it lies in script. The german is bad at art and produces visually offensive clunky shit because of fraktur and print. The anglo, franc, and arab are good at art because of cursive. The asians are ok at art because of hanwen/kanji (but japan makes uglier shit than china). The american is godawful at art because of their complete lack of penmanship. The hebrew is bad at art because of blockletter hebrew, the only language that is almost as ugly as american handwriting. Unless you actually want to be another mark cohen, joel witkin, or andre serrano then absolutely care and go join the ugly club.
>>4522358This must be some of the dumbest shit I've ever read on this page, and that is counting in /b/ since 2006.Do what brings you joy. Fuck all else. We all die in the end, I'd rather die fulfilled and happy. You don't get there chasing others acknowledgment. ... Oh, you're just trolling. Nevermind!
>>4522209Better quality amateur nudes are a plus!
