Open Mike: Cultural Disruption

It occurred to me that the "The Frame TV" post on Tuesday (and my romantic musing about a virtual gallery) actually highlights a certain disruption problem in the culture of photography. We're all well aware of how digital disrupted photography when it comes to the manufacture of equipment and materials, and we're often alerted to specific changes and speculations about changes in habits, norms, and trends. But we haven't really sorted out yet the ways in which the culture of photography has changed—some aspects of it gone forever, other aspects new and as yet essentially unexplored...some of these merely predicted, not even existing yet.

Here is one (among many possible) comparisons between old and new paradigms of thinking:

The picture in the picture above (you're well aware you're looking at a record snap of it, not the real thing) is our most recent print-sale print. It is entirely a digital picture, but it was very carefully made by a very experienced artist, using the top-level camera and a carefully selected vintage lens. It was then printed with great care and deliberateness, with contemplation of a variety of subtleties. I then had it framed specifically for this spot in this house. It's meant as publicly-accessible art—it's already been seen by hundreds, if not thousands, of people (at least our print sale, times all the people who have seen each buyer's print) and will be seen by many more in the future (everyone who comes into my living room and cares to look around at the art on the walls, for example).

And unless you also bought this print, then you still haven't seen it. (If you ever swing by TOP Rural HQ in the Finger Lakes to shake my paw, you can see it then.)

This picture, on the other hand, was one quick snap taken with a smartphone, of something I happened to see when I parked at a restaurant last night. It was literally taken to share with only two people—two of my dog-loving friends. I sent it to them immediately, and both of them enjoyed it. End of story, if I hadn't used it as an illustration for this post. It never will be a print—that is, an object—and it was never intended to be. It's mere communication, like a text, and ephemeral from the get-go.

It seems to me that people have three baseline responses to changes in culture: a.) some tend to embrace the new on principle and might wish to sweep aside the out-of-date; b.) others try to hang on to what was best about the old ways and might scorn the coming thing; and c.) Eeyores who throw up their hands and say there's nothing they can do about it either way, so what's the use caring?

Without going into the larger questions here, I'll say I think a device like "The Frame TV" actually does highlight some of the questions we have. There's a certain demotic free-for-all that has evolved that we're aware of—millions of people take billions of digital photographs and throw them online, and you can theoretically go look at them there. But there's often very little editing by the maker, certainly very little winnowing or curating by any intelligent third party, and what you're seeing when you look at work that way is an uncontrolled approximation of what the maker intended, if in fact they even had intentions in the first place. It's like looking at postcards of Rembrandt paintings in the museum gift shop and then thinking you know what the paintings look like. And there's way too much work to look at anyway—no one can meaningfully "see" even a tiny fraction of it. Heck, I look at pictures for a living and I see just the merest wisp of wind-drift from the tip of the tip of the iceberg.

Inherent in my idea of virtual photography galleries scattered throughout the land is the idea that the auteur photographer could have some control over the way his or her pictures look. All of the screens would be the same make and size and all calibrated, all of the viewing conditions similar, so that what a digital image looked like on one screen it would look like on all the rest. It would preserve, to a much greater degree than the Internet does, the photographer's intentions for the way the work is seen. Presumably the images shown wouldn't be a random motley, but could be intensively worked on, selected, edited and curated like museum shows are today. But they'd be digital images shown digitally—because, really, how much longer can we go on pretending that things haven't changed, and that silver gelatin prints made from large-format negatives (for example—that just happens to describe the most recent museum show I saw) is in any way representative of what contemporary photographers are doing now?

So I suppose some could see the idea of a high-quality digital picture frame as being sort of quaint and pitiable, a rearguard action by fuddy-duddies who pine for the old days of fine prints on the wall. But I don't really think it is. I see it more as a tentative baby step toward whatever new culture is going to arise for valuing and sharing deliberately-made artwork created by dedicated, thoughtful practitioners.

Because we still need that, too, along with the billions of phone snaps shared between one or two friends.

Mike

"Open Mike," meant to be the editorial page of TOP, is supposed to appear on Wednesdays. But darn it, I just ran out of steam yesterday.

P.S. I should also mention that I think a reader named Thomas has the best handle on how "The Frame TV" might best be used. His comment came in this morning. He wrote:

It's interesting to hear many people frame this product (eugh) as a replacement for a fine print collection, instead of in addition to a collection. I cannot stand big black television sets amongst my furnishings. They dominate a room. Thus I currently don't have one [I don't either —Ed.]. This would happily sit on a wall with other work and would blend in, so the appeal is enormous for me. I miss watching movies on a larger screen. It in no way would replace good prints but I like the offer to have my cake and eat it (no noticeable TV set and watch movies). It would be good above a low sideboard with a discrete set of speakers that would otherwise run from a hifi. A vertical print next to it on one side could look cool.

That's how it's probably most useful. One frame among many, but showing a slow rotation (I'd probably change daily) of suitably-formatted digital images.

Original contents copyright 2017 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

TOP/Yale Spring Photo Book Offer
(Ends June 30th or when supplies run out)

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

robert e: "What I still don't understand is the need to see 'Frame TV' as a dual-purpose screen—as both art display and TV. I submit that this is another form of clinging to familiar cultural norms. In fact, I can't think of a situation where I wouldn't be compromising either my preferences for placing art or preferences for placing a TV screen in order to have one device serve both purposes. So why compromise? If I were to really embrace this idea, I'd get screen/frames that were 1) suitably sized for art and 2) hang them in suitable places, rotated to suitable orientations. On the other hand, when I want to watch a movie, I'd go to the suitable place and seat, lower (or raise) the appropriately sized and placed projection screen, and turn on the projector—wouldn't matter what's hanging on the wall.

"Regarding the digital gallery idea: These frames are both baby steps and quaint throwbacks, and will be short-lived because pretty soon we won't need to hang anything because entire walls or wall sections will be able to display any number and size of images at these resolutions, virtually matted and framed (or hang a real frame around your virtual matted art). Heck, people would be able to display a section of a wall at the Louvre or the Hermitage and replace the masterpieces with their happy snaps."

Mike replies: I agree that the dual-purpose nature of this product touted by the marketing strategy is probably "another form of clinging to familiar cultural norms," it's probably dual-purpose mainly because most people wouldn't consider spending $2,000 on a digital frame. Don't you think?

It might also help with marketing, appealing both to people who don't like the look of a big ugly TV in their living rooms as well as for people who would like to get more value out of their TV when they're not watching TV.

JG: "The issue I have with displaying art this way—my art, specifically, but also other people's art—is that unlike with a print, which I will have made and signed-off on (literally!), there is no way that I can control what other people will ultimately see.

"I would cringe when I saw my very carefully crafted photos via the web on the cheap, non-calibrated, 8-bit monitors used in the office where I worked. (I actually went so far as to bring my own monitor and a graphics card from home, because my work-issued monitor looked so awful and could not be calibrated nor profiled!) Or when a coworker would print one of those web-only JPEGs on a color laser printer (instead of paying me the measly $5 I asked for a proper print, to cover my paper-and-ink costs)...yikes! ('My eyes, my eyes!')

"But as bad as it is to see my own photos displayed haphazardly, it would be even worse to see a photo that I had paid real money for displayed that way. Until technology advances to the point where the photographer is able to remotely control the final appearance of a displayed photo or prepare it in advance for display in a defined environment, then so far as I'm concerned, it is a hearty 'No, thanks!' from me when it comes to using televisions as frames!"

Darlene (partial comment): "I see this as a new take on the slide show. And how popular were they while visiting your friends and relatives? I am bored already."

John Brandrick: "Two thoughts came to mind while reading Thomas' post. Regarding his distaste for the black blob in the room; we mounted the TV on a wall painted with a very dark, rich plum colour called Plum Martini. Visitors have walked past it several times before asking if that TV was always there. As well when viewed with the lights down low the image pops off the wall. Secondly, I agree to his assertion that this is in addition to the gallery show; something to do with the impermanence of an image on a screen. I think there is something in us that has us look at prints differently than when we look at them on a screen. For instance it seems common to miss details until the image is in print form. I've had to go back to cleanup specs that weren't seen while pouring over the image at 1 to 1 on the monitor. Maybe the permanence of the print slows us down in our viewing."

Mike replies: Now you and Darlene have me remembering my encounters with movies and rotating selections of images on screens when they're part of museum shows—hyped with the words "interactive" or "multimedia" or other trendy labels. I've never cared for those bits or been comfortable with them. Somehow it's something that's being done to me rather than something I can approach and investigate freely on my own terms.

Thomas (partial comment): "There are several remarkable video-image artists whose work I have seen recently at the NGV (Melbourne, Australia), and the medium is inherently for display on screen. The works are no less authentic or real, and didn't leave a lessor impression on me for it. We also had David Hockney and Ai Wei Wei showing in the last 24 months, and both had significant proportion of digitally displayed work. Both video and stills. I certainly don't deny the significance of printed photographs in editions or books—I love them deeply—but I think there is a knee-jerk reaction to non-printed work that is frequently encountered among photographers particularly."

Jim: "My equivalent is the screen-saver on my 27" iMac. I have almost 500 digital pictures—mostly abstracts—that it cycles through on two screens. It amuses me enough that I often get distracted when on the phone, and visitors too!"

Brian Taylor: "There's a contemporary photography gallery in a city not far from here that, I'm sorry to say, I've mostly found underwhelming. I'm not the only one to have found its ambience aloof and unwelcoming. With a couple of exceptions the exhibitions I've seen there have been forgettable. They seem to favour work that is abstruse and bleak, accompanied by pretentious text inferring privileged insight on the part of the artist. Work that, to my mind, fails both as art and social or cultural critique. I don't suppose you were proposing that 'deliberately-made artwork created by dedicated, thoughtful practitioners' is intrinsically better than work produced by the hoi-polloi, but I just wanted to put any such assumption in question. I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling that family snaps, especially if taken long enough ago to be of interest to the social historian, or if memorialising moments of intimacy, can be 'better' and more valuable than much of the stuff that curators see fit to hang on gallery walls. Rant over.  :-) "

Ed Buziak: "I heard about this a few months ago and know that Samsung approached MOMA, Tate Modern and Saatchi Art (possibly other galleries) for a selection of 'panoramic' 16:9 images for Samsung to license for this new TV idea. One of my abstract paintings was selected by Saatchi Art, and if Samsung choose it, and if purchasers of the TV select my image for their off-TV pleasure, I will receive royalties. So I'm hoping they sell a million+ of these!"

Mike replies: Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, brother Ed. (For those who don't know, Ed is the former publisher and founding editor of the UK's Darkroom User magazine. I used to write for him under a pseudonym.)

Comments

[Joe M Sankey]

Mike,
Curated showings by subscription? A way for museums and others to show collected works so those of us in the out of the way places could have access to fine photography, and perhaps even learn more about it other than buying books? I've been at this hobby for 50 years and engaged a bit directly and indirectly professionally, and have seen only a handful of showings of great photographers. None convenient. Just a thought.
Joe

[Sal Santamaura]

"...mere communication..."

From the person whose entire professional life has been involved with effectively communicating? Did the ironic oxymoronic nature of that phrase not jump out at you? :-)

...how much longer can we go on pretending that things haven't changed, and that silver gelatin prints made from large-format negatives (for example—that just happens to describe the most recent museum show I saw) is in any way representative of what contemporary photographers are doing now?

Why does a museum hanging such a show need to imply that such prints are representative? While not common today, working in those two media still happens. Materials and equipment are still made for those processes. Photographic "art" has always been about what's different than the masses' snapshots. Not much could be further from a smartphone JPEG than silver gelatin prints from large format negatives. I don't endorse this mindset, but simply seek to explain it. Note that I'm just an amateur who has never sold and doesn't intend to sell any of my photographs.

All that said, I've recently acquired a V850 and P600. After climbing the steep learning curve between darkroom and desktop, prints from my 8x10 negatives are starting to look quite nice. I'm particularly pleased with matte surfaces. Matte silver gelatin prints have never been able to approach a real black. Matte inkjet does it very well. If/when Fuji releases a GFX 100S, I might just repurpose the Phillips as a display piece. For now, though, there's no (even remotely affordable) way to duplicate what 8x10 film, inexpensively scanned on a flatbed, can provide.

[-et-]

FWIW, the "Wag More, Bark Less" line has been painted on the wall for several years at the Veterinarian we use, although he has the order reversed compared to your image of the bumper sticker.

He has several other relevant phrases on the wall, including "Dogs Have Owners, Cats Have Staff".

- Tom -

[psu]

Several years back in the New Yorker Adam Gopnick wrote a nice piece about the Internet, another recent cultural disruption, and classified the three attitudes as "never better", "better never", and "ever waser".

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/02/14/the-information

I think this matches with your summation of attitudes towards other disruptions.

Personally, while I enjoy and appreciate a well printed picture, and like to think that I have made a few good prints in my lifetime, I also enjoy and appreciate the look of a really good picture, especially in color, on a really good screen. So I guess I'll be neutral in this particular battle.

[Charlie Ewers]

Well said, but even two people looking at the same print in your living room won't SEE the same thing. A big part of the experience of art is the resonance it engenders in viewers--a different resonance for each viewer.

[Michael Perini]

The 'framed display' will definitely (in my opinion) have a bigger place in mainstream culture.
First, it is the evolution toward the perfection of the TV. TV's have been interesting since they brought us Uncle Milty, and informative since they brought us Edward R Murrow & Walter Cronkite.
But they have also always been Ugly, intrusive and dominating of any space we put them in. So the Idea of the TV as a multi function picture should appeal to many.
Second, they enable the trend of 'display without printing' in fact they seem to encourage a better trend of display in addition to printing.
Third, they solve the problem of 'not enough wall space' to 'hang' all the things we might like to have on our walls.
It's only a matter of time until they include phone integration and 'face time' becomes seamless, and we get a true digital hub.
Museums have used displays for a while, but usually only for video or narrative content. Increasingly our appliances have displays.
So the Idea of the display is only growing in our consciousness.

The Idea of remote digital display gallery , is probably a bit further off, because it has to overcome the inertia of "Don't make me drive to see something I can see on my iPad, or computer. I understand that there would be quality and environmental advantages, but don't think they would be widely enough appreciated to make those venues economically viable....at least for a while.

[Ken N]

Tangible vs. Intangible. Whether artwork, books, albums, or walking on a beach breathing fresh air and feeling the sand between your toes, we value the tangible far more. One is observed, the other experienced.

[Darlene]

I see this as a new take on the slide show. And how popular were they while visiting your friends and relatives? I am bored already. But to be honest, I studied art history mostly for the slide shows. So if the owner of the big screen knows what they're doing, maybe somebody will enjoy it. I find a more enjoyable experience with prints. I enjoy going through a box of unframed prints. A slide show cannot give me the visual and tactile enjoyment I receive from holding the prints I treasure most. Call it a love affair with my mind and my body, but this is an intimacy that cannot be replaced with electronics, nor do I want it to be.

[T. Edwards]

While there is a qualitative difference between viewing a fine print of a photo and viewing a high-quality digital rendering of it, I would suggest that the difference is less than that between viewing a painting in person versus seeing a photograph of it printed in a book. Yet, people have bought and enjoyed photographs of paintings for years.

There's certainly room for all of these things and the (current perceived) superiority of prints is not an argument against enjoying photos in other ways. Display resolution will keep improving and there are already photographs that I prefer looking at on a good screen rather than as a print.

[Clay Olmstead]

This may become an echo of the "is digital better than film?" argument from the last decade. More high-quality work shown on digital devices might spur a quantitative improvement in the quality of video displays.

It might also spur a qualitative decrease in viewers' expectations for the work they see.

Time will tell.

[David Brown]

It has always been the opinion of some that if photography is to die as an art form, it won't be because of digital, or even that millions are taking billions of images. It will be because there are no prints. However, maybe they're wrong. Slides, while film, were made to be projected - as is cinematography in any media. Maybe digital photographs should be viewed on screens. Or, maybe not.

[Not THAT Ross Cameron]

Hi Mike,
Sorry for the rambling comment, haven't had time to edit it - young mouth to feed.
There are some deeper thoughts bubbling under this - the difference between hardware & software, and more recently purchasing/owning something vs renting/licensing as a service.
Your two recents articles are focusing on the hardware side of the picture, whereas the bigger picture is with the software side of things. Hardware comes and goes and frequently gets updated. It's the software that drives what the hardware uses that is more critical. But even more critical than that is the content - digital content. Both software and now content is being provided as a service that you never own.
As Saint Ansel used music analogies, I'll try to as well. Music is still straddling the physical vs digital divide. Vinyl is still being produced, as are CDs, but music is also available digitally that you can own, or as a streaming service. Live performances are probably still the best experience, but we buy/rent music as a next best thing. Visual arts need to grapple with this too. Paintings by the greats are in limited supply, so we try to see them in galleries, or purchase prints. The same with photographic prints. The next logical step is to access art digitally, and even as a service rather than owning.

[Robert Newcomb]

"fuddy-duddies who pine for the old days of fine prints "
Not sure I care for being called a fuddy duddy. I understand that times are changing, but it doesn't make them better.
I just don't care for junk having a frame put around it and it being called art.
All those years of effort to have photography recognized as art are getting bashed by the millions of lollipop pictures turned out everday and hanging them on the wall is a little like putting lipstick on a pig.

[Edwin]

I had never thought about it this way until now.... I had two identical monitors connected to my desktop, one in landscape mode and one in portrait. I have the desktop backgrounds (yes, I'm doing Windows) on an hourly rotation basis, showing pictures from a collection of about 500 of my own work, (I'm adding about five per week to the collection). My original intention was just to have something other than a blank screen for my monitors, but I found that I was always staring at the random pictures (my own) and getting into thoughts of how, why, and where of the pictures, and started appreciating and then contemplating "improvements". The pictures spanned a time frame of over ten years, and the displays give me a very nice way of viewing my own works as an audience. By the way, Windows is clever enough to show landscape and portrait pictures in the respective monitor!!

[Thomas]

There are several remarkable video-image artists whose work I have seen recently at the NGV (Melbourne, Australia), and the medium is inherently for display on screen. The works are no less authentic or real, and didn't leave a lessor impression on me for it.

We also had David Hockney and Ai Wei Wei showing in the last 24 months, and both had significant proportion of digitally displayed work. Both video and stills.

I certainly don't deny the significance of printed photographs in editions or books - I love them deeply - but I think there is a knee-jerk reaction to non-printed work that is frequently encountered among photographers particularly.

Certainly Hockney doesn't say "I draw, and drawings must be pastel on fine paper", he just creates, and now draws on an iPad, and sometimes they are printed, and sometimes they are not. AND he makes videos, and some of those video frames are printed instead of displayed in motion. But the intent is always present. It is not mindless...

Circling back to the Frame TV post - I think the image of it may have triggered some of the reactions: Where is the other art? How could you watch a TV placed like that above a mantle piece? In fact... why would you hang a picture of significance there? (There is a tendency in interior designer land to style for the photograph of the room, rather than being in the room; thus pictures at standing head height for rooms you spend your time sitting in.)

I have since investigated and there are other product images that are more in tune with how I could see it used. We are looking at moving apartments in a year or two and one of these TVs will be seriously considered when furnishing. I wish Samsung much success with this line.

[hugh crawford]

Hmm, maybe a little motorized mount to spin the things 90º for vertical images is in order.

[robert e]

"...probably dual-purpose mainly because most people wouldn't consider spending $2,000 on a digital frame... It might also help with marketing"

No doubt. I just don't consider $2,000 for an unsatisfactory compromise a good deal. On the other hand, I can imagine many commercial situations where this would be great. Not just galleries, but, say, a restaurant that may want art most of the time but a TV screen for special events like Derby Day, the Super Bowl or venue rentals, and it would do wonders for conference rooms and hotel rooms. We've all seen Kubrick's 2001, and how disturbing and even disruptive large black slabs can be.

Having said that, perhaps the ideal customers are people who watch TV in bed. Art by day, TV screen by night, perhaps even specific art for wake-up time and sleep time...

[Phil Gyford]

In case you're not aware - I haven't seen them mentioned yet - there have been a few other digital "art screens" available for a while. For example, those by Electric Objects https://www.electricobjects.com and Meural https://meural.com . Both have some form of subscription or feed to provide your "frame" with changing selections of art. I don't have one, but friends who have them seem to really like them.

[Dan]

apologies if anyone has already remarked on that, but your disruptive idea is not disruptive enough. why have these frames on display in galleries? I want one in my home. I'll pay subscription to gallery services that would feed the frame with pictures, similar to how I subscribe to spotify for example. instead of a new gallery show, I'll pay an access fee and view the show in my home, etc.
viewing conditions? there will be qualified people contracted by the gallery who will come to my home and calibrate/validate viewing conditions so they match what the artist wanted me to see - that is if I care... if not, I will not see them precisely as the artist intended.
who the hell is this artist that he should get to have so much decision? did van gogh get to decide how his sunflowers are hanging in the Louvre? (rant over, sorry ;)