Ever since the technology world flipped the digital switch, the debate of analog versus digital has been circling 'round and 'round, with no sign of stopping anytime soon.
I had a discussion with Robb recently about film photography versus digital photography and a similar discussion on the topic of artistic talent, whether innate or manufactured.
 |
| B&W film photo. Grain Belt © 2000 www.emilyjcole.com |
It used to be that to take good photos, one had to have a keen eye for value, color and composition. Photos shot on film involved either processing them oneself in a darkroom, or rolling the dice with a commercial developer. Either way, it was easy to tell a good photograph from the not-so-good ones.
Now, with digital technology, virtually anyone can be a talented photographer. Photo editing programs like Photoshop, Lightroom and even freebies like Google's Picasa mean that tasks like cropping, straightening, adjusting brightness/contrast/saturation, etc. can be achieved with a mouse-click and can make any old photo look like a masterful composition. All that is required of the eye is to see.
This is not necessarily a bad thing! It opens up a world of creativity to people who may never have dipped their toe in the creative waters otherwise. It does raise the bar, however, for anyone wanting to pursue a career in photography. Talented photogs either need to step it up a notch and produce great photographs, or get lost in the shuffle with the myriad of good ones.
I used to think of myself as a decent photographer and briefly considered delving into it as a sideline profession. But not anymore. The sheer cost of keeping up with the latest and greatest technology that is required to produce great vs. good photos has, I dare say, permanently relegated me to that of a hobbyist.
 | |
| Digital sketch. Lil Wayne © 2010 SEILER |
The same analog vs. digital conundrum holds true for painting and drawing too. I follow an über-talented art blogger named Seiler who is a successful caricaturist and artist in Chicago. He does everything digitally and can turn around a painting in a couple days and a drawing in even less time.
 |
| Graphite drawing. Muhammad Ali © 2001 www.emilyjcole.com |
When I think of the amount of time I spend drawing a portrait, I get irritated at the notion that someone else can do the same thing, minus the eraser crumbs and frustration, in half the time using a stylus and tablet with their Mac. It feels like cheating to me. And a little bit elitist. Forget about trying to compete with techno-savvy artists who can turn around multiple pieces in the time it takes to complete one portrait the old-school way. [Maybe I'm just jealous that he can afford the technology and I can't...!?]
I'm sounding like a crotchety old woman here! Perhaps the issue is less about the technology and more about finding one's niche in the market. There has been a resurgence of interest in vinyl records, tube amps, knitting, and pretty much anything "vintage" or hand-made. I suppose the same could hold true for art.
Until I win the lottery and buy all the fancy equip-
ment my heart desires, I will satisfy myself with that conclusion. At least I can rest assured that stained glass will never become digital!
Or will it...?
