Although I disagree with the premise of this story, it is nonetheless an interesting read:
The last art form to be tethered to realism, its factual validity has lately been manipulated and pixelated to the point of extinction. Digitalization has made much of art photography’s vast variety possible. But it’s also a major reason that, 25 years after the technology exploded what photography could do, the medium seems to have lost its soul.
Nonsense. Soul comes from people, not technology.
Photography is no more dead than any other creative endeavor that mankind finds to invest in. We all mimic one another but in our own unique ways. It’s not the tool, the medium, or the technology but the spirit of life flowing through all of us, being expressed, that matters above all.
Here is what I said regarding the Newsweek article:
Comment: Is photography dead? I don’t think so. It is a bit strange to link digital photography and Photoshop to the beginning of the end for photography. For some fields, such as photojournalism, I do agree that photographers must be careful not to modify the image to the point that they are making history rather than reporting it. And I don’t care for some works of art that started with a photograph, but with software end up looking more like a cartoon or a Dali painting.
But for any work of art, be it literature, a painting, the cinema, or a photograph: the truth lies both in the eye of the creator and the viewer. We all have our own frame of reference and set of experiences that affect how we interpret the work of art.
With the advances in digital cameras and film, I think the art of photography is accessible to more than it has ever been today. As someone that still loves to load up a roll of Tri-X black and white film in my camera, or on another day take out my digital camera, I feel photography is very much alive. So grab that old film camera out of the closet, or that brand new 12 Megapixel DSLR, and lets go out and takes some photos for all too enjoy! Who’s with me?
Michael Watry