It depends what you shoot. IMHO (I'm gonna get bored of doing that... so consider it my default position) Wildlife is more about patience, luck and gear. Some photographers ARE artists. It's nothing to do with vanity at all. They produce art, so they are artists. I just find that some people are bitter, angry and resentful because imagery they see as technically flawed and not as "good" as theirs gets praised, exhibited, published and acclaimed, and shots of birds on twigs, or sentimental lendscapes do not.
I also find it strange that people who know nothing about art are able to make statements regarding what is, or is not art. They'd not pretend they know a great deal about other things they're not involved in, yet because they're photographers they suddenly feel they have a right to comment on what's art and what's not.. usually in a very negative, derisive way towards photographers who are artists.
If you have 10fps, do you NEED a decisive moment any more? Would a photo that captures a decisive moment not still have worth, even if it was captured by firing off 10 frames before, and 10 more after just to make sure you have it in the bag? Or is that kind of photography redundant, old, and pointless now? With billions of images being taken every year, there are millions of great images that capture the decisive moment now - they're usually vernacular or journalistic, and the decisive moment is no longer something that's a pre-requisite for a good photograph if you ask me. It's too easy now. When Bresson was using a Leica, one frame at a time to do it... sure... that was cool... but no biggy any more... any fool can do it now, so those kinds of images were of their time, and that time has passed.. except in the curious time loop of the amateur, where it's still held up as some kind of super-sense that mystically makes an image wonderful. It doesn't.
Photography has changed. It's saturated with decorative, aesthetic imagery to the point where it makes me physically sick to look at it any more. I feel like a foie gras goose being force fed this high calorie diet of hyper-aesthetic, super-sensory overload of post processing, and it makes me want to scream in frustration. The bickering, cynical competitiveness of amateurs has gone into over-drive, all trying to out DO each other, and out KNOW each other... for what? That 10stop waterfall image, or that shot of a famous landscape.. already done... but done BETTER by you? What for? No ****er else is gonna care who's is best... no one will buy it, hang it, exhibit it... Work has to be either innovative, or it has to DO something. That's all that matters now, which is why amateurs are just left bewildered, and blinking like myopic owls in confusion at how "this art farty b******s sells for so much money. It reminds me of 70s light entertainment has-beens being bitter and angry that they're not relevant any longer, and mourning the loss of the good old days of Tarby, Brucie and Paul Daniels. Tough ****. Move on.
Times change. No one really gives a **** about how "good" you are by obsessing over metrics such as sharpness, composition, exposure... why should we be? Those skills are easy now. Either camera does it for you, or there's a million you tube videos to get you where you need to be, How can THAT still be a relevant measure of what's good any more? If anyone can do it... it's worthless. I'm not suggesting no one expects those things to be present... of course we do.. even MORE than ever, but not because they're so important, but because they are so EASY!
Amateur photography has it's head up it's own arse even more firmly than it ever has at any time I can remember, and that's both sad, and ironic when you consider it's easier than ever to access a wide range of lens based art now than it's ever been.
Wagon circling.
