Photography: A Lost Art?

The rising popularity of mainstream, hi-tech digital cameras and the constant presence of photo-editing apps make one think: has the art of photography been trivialised? Have digital advancements killed the art behind taking a good photo? 

Cameras are now being marketed to us as anticipating a photo-worthy moment before the photographer has the chance to press the shutter. We are encouraged to believe that digital tools such as these prevent us from missing the perfect shot. However, in preventing us from missing that perfect capture do they eclipse the necessity for hard practice, of developing a photograper's eye for detail and timing? When the camera can do the job for you, artistic license is arguably stifled, as are the beauty of fluke shots. Could the lack of these render the role of the photographer redundant?

Cameras are constantly praised for their ability to make photography accessible. Yet when focus, contrast and timing are all automated, it seems the individual is more alienated than included.

This alienation would extend to our experience of viewing, as well as taking them. Internet sites, especially social networks, would slowly fill with formulaic photos, each lacking human expression and individuality. Where once there would have been a wide variety of styles in our daily lives, the uniform would prevail.

Inevitably, these implications reach beyond the amateur photographer, the professional will also be affected. When cameras are consistently being personified, described as ‘intelligent’, with an emphasis placed on their speed and autonomy, could this plausibly reduce the status of the professional practice of photography - will the viewer be asking: Did they take the photo or did the camera?

But perhaps the powerful presence of savvy cameras merely mirrors the wider artistic world, reflecting the emphasis on instantaneous production and immediate gratification that is often associated with digitally centred contemporary culture. In this case, the elimination of the human touch is merely photography keeping in step with broader artistic and technological developments.

But keeping in step shouldn't mean the disavowal of the expertise behind truly great photography. Did Ansel Adams have a camera that boasted a super high speed AF CMOS sensor? Did Diane Arbus or Man Ray need interchangeable lenses in an array of candy like colours? No. Whichever way you look at it, the intricate planning and momentary enlightenment traditionally associated with photography appears to have been cast aside in favour of complete control over the end product.

But where there is a decline in one skill, inevitably another takes its place. In this case, it's the art of postproduction photo treatment. With the rise of automated technology, artists must work that bit harder to create something original and innovative. 

An image currently featured at the National Portrait Gallery epitomises this constant battle between art and technology within the photographic world. It's an exemplar of a possible middle path between the sides of automation and human touch. Michael Reisch’s image of a landscape has been digitally altered to appear untouched by humans. It's clearly meant to conjure the high emotion often associated with art.

The intriguing dichotomy it raises is that the sense of expression and nostalgia the work arouses is the effect of an artificial composition, a natural landscape that has been manipulated to induce emotionality.

Reisch’s powerful image summarises my final thought on the issues at hand. Photography is an art form of expression, imagination and identity. However, to convey such emotions and beauty, ironically, it appears as though the helping hand of automated tools is sometimes required.