Digital Photography as Cultural Practice
When I came across Carolyn Hack's pictures of people making images with digital cameras in the Lourve I was once again struck by the pervasive nature of photography in our culture.
This is even more true now with digital technologies. The Mona Lisa is a cultural icon without question and one of the most famous and more frequently reproduced works of art in the history of humankind. When visitors pack the small exhibition space in the Louvre to see the diva they are kept at a distance and are spearated by a layer of bullet proof glass protecting the painting.
Although it is easy to get caught up in the hype of technology what seems more interesting to me is the actually act of photography as cultural practice in a digital age.
How do our expectations and obligations change with the immediacy of digital photography? Is there anything different about using digital photography instead of film?
Do we take more pictures now with digital, and if so what are we doing with all these images?
I have argued that one of the most important aspects of digital photography is the ability to immediately review images after capture. Along these lines, once we can see the pictures on the back of the camera immediately after making them, we can also share them with others. The digital camera's potential for making the cultural practice of photography more collaborative and perhaps even more democratic is significant and should not be overlooked.
People make pictures for a multitude of reasons, but it is in the expectation that a "moment" can become fixed in time and memory through photography that gives it social and cultural relevancy.
We take pictures to remember experiences, but also to create and shape self and social identity.
Making pictures of the Mona Lisa is a way of telling people, "Look what I saw...isn't this cool...aren't I cool?" Picture making is inextricably tied to self and social identity. We shape our identity in the eyes and minds of others by exposing them to the parts of who we are and what we do that we want them to see.
Digital photography is making this process increasingly easier and faster.
Carolyn Hack is noticing something about how people use digital camera that seems a bit different than prior experiences with film cameras too. After seeing Carolyn's images online I sent here an email asking her to comment. Here is what she has to say:
The photo I made reminds me that although digital photography has become commonplace, people still maintain an interest in its ancient history: DaVinci's image-making via brushstrokes on canvas. Because it's a photo of a moment in time, I enjoy it more and take more pride in it than I would if it were just a photograph of an object (even the Mona Lisa) sans context.
In my opinion, having an image is not only a way of possessing the things we have seen, as you said, but of permanently connecting ourselves to places we've been. For example, I joked with a friend about the people who had been using camera-phones to take pictures of the Mona Lisa. It is highly possible that those phones already contain a stock image of the Mona Lisa (or some other famous work of art) meant to be used as a background or wallpaper image. Now, however, these picture-takers can use a photo of their very own creation for the same purpose, telling friends, "No man, that's not the picture that came with the phone. I was there!"
Still, a question remains in my mind: If these people return to the Louvre in the future, will they take another photograph of the Mona Lisa? Chances are she won't have changed. Does an identical image taken years later still have value if it doesn't show the passage of time? Are people motivated to take photographs simply because they can and because their cameras happen to fit in a pocket?
