The New Democracy
When
you are taking photos–—recording a trip, a party or a family event—does it
ever occur to you that you’re taking part in a democratic art form? It seems a
paradox to use the word democratic as an adjective for the noun art. But there
it is. I have seen these words used together in regards to George Eastman’s
invention of roll film, which is usually said to have democratized photography.
The idea is coming into usage again to frame the camera phone with its many aps
as the “new democratic art form.”
This
usage of the word democratic in conjunction with art is an interesting
juxtaposition. It links together two very alluring words. Democracy (a
political philosophy that changed the Western world) and art (a means of
creative expression that is inseparable from our very nature) are two very powerful
concepts.
Seeing
ourselves as a democratic society has always been at the forefront of our national
self-identification. Today we extend, or want to extend our conception of American
democracy to the rest of the world. Indeed, our possession of the democratic way of life is part of
our national mythos.
In
its simplest terms, democracy is the principal of one-person, one-vote. We all
get a say in who is elected to represent our interests, understanding that the
majority of votes decides the outcome. To state that photography is a democratic
art form is a way of saying that it’s not exclusionary; it’s an activity that everyone can take part in. If you have a
camera you can use it to vote on your vision of the world. Just point the lens
and press the button. The insinuation is that photographic selection, the
activity of taking a picture, is a form of participation in both democracy as
well as art (as we generally agree on their meanings). But by doing so have you
actually done either?
To
different degrees, we understand what democracy is, and what democratic principles
are; but do we understand what art is or the principles that inform an artistic
act? By putting forth the notion that photography is the democratic art, are we proposing that an indiscriminate act of
taking a picture is in some way a democratic or artistic?
In
fact, is making art an intrinsically democratic process? I cannot associate
art, at least as it applies to Euro-American history or ideals, with the
political philosophy of democracy. Rather, I think our society (through our
economic system) transforms art into an instrument of consumerism. Making and
buying art is a consumptive activity. Taking a photograph could better be seen as
an acquisitive act than a democratic one. Taking and keeping a photograph is a
way to later consume a moment in one’s life.
Here
is perhaps the most important question: Is the freedom to photographically memorialize
our lives, through the canard of making art, an act of a democratic society or
a consumptive one?
Frame
4A
Addendum:
http://www.countriesquest.com/north_america/usa/culture/arts_and_letters/visual_arts/photography.htm
Tell me what you think.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLinking democracy and photography depends on specifying one of many definitions of democracy and art, each of which is the subject of many debates. For instance, when speaking about photography a hundred years ago, it might not have been considered art at all when the definition of art only included “fine art” such as painting and sculpture. The same can be said of democracy in that the United States is a representative democracy, which is very different from “pure” democracy as implemented in ancient Greece. Democracy in the governmental context involves the actions, rules, etc. of a group being determined by the opinions of the largest number of members of that group. All members of the group are expected to abide by the results of those choices, even if they don’t agree with them. Art doesn’t have the same rules. A work of art can exist in complete obscurity, having been created by one person and shown to no one, but it is still an expression. At the risk of gross oversimplification, democracy is an expression of collective choice and art is individual expression. In that respect the concept of democracy is irrelevant to photography – the individual photographs don’t require the existence or approval of a group.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that photography is more democratic than other art forms (or is more democratic now because it is practiced by most Americans) is heavily influenced by the perceptions of democracy and art. Digital photography, the miniaturization of digital cameras, and their integration into phones increased access to the point of ubiquity. If democracy in this case is being used somewhat inaccurately to simply mean “used more”, then photography is incredibly democratic – more so than American democracy itself in terms of the number of people consistently involved in it – but it is more useful to apply the idea of democracy as government to the community surrounding photography than to photography itself. Whether something is or is not accepted as a work of art is ultimately dependent on the opinions of the community that has access to or is aware of that art. With photography, the proliferation of the ability to create images has expanded the group of people that are aware of photography as a means of expression as well as those who are capable of creating it. Photography can be created by nearly anyone, presented to a potentially massive audience, and evaluated by that audience very rapidly and frequently. Evaluating photography (or any other art) is similar to democracy in that acceptance is determined by a group. It is very democratic in that anyone can create and evaluate anything that they’re aware of.
Photography is not democratic in two important ways. The community that evaluates a given piece of art is dynamic and its members are determined by the act of evaluation, not geography, citizenship, or other codified, predetermined membership like democracy. The success of a photograph is largely determined by popularity - a critical mass of support, not a ratio of likes and dislikes. Opinions may influence each other, and some support, such as galleries, may carry more weight, but there is no static audience for a piece of art. Second, the opinions of a given community regarding a piece of art does not have enforceable consequences for the rest of the community. If the majority a group of people that is aware of a photograph decides that they don’t like it, their opinions don’t prevent the part of the group that does like it from enjoying the art, purchasing it, etc. With some exceptions, such as published critics, most who dislike a piece of art leave the group that evaluates it. In democracy, that would be like leaving the country because a bill wasn’t passed. Some avenues may be closed without a minimum amount of support, but in general the art is still accessible. This is truer as access to distribution increases.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThanks Ryan, for your thoughtful and thorough reply.
DeleteI'd like to address your last paragraph. I agree that photography is not democratic, just as taking a picture is not art. Both have complex and historical structure that define, protect and promulgate what democracy is and what art is. But. in it's simplest terms, if we think about what is at the basis of a democratic act– a vote for or against something, and if we agree that any creative act is in some sense an artistic act, then perhaps taking a photograph is both. I think this becomes especially true when you throw in how we express our "likes" and "dislikes" about that photograph on social media.
Perhaps it's the web that has created an illusion of a democratic market place or as a forum for artistic expression. Over the last 175 years, photography has been at the forefront of challenging our thinking about what constitutes art or an artistic act. Posting images and having people vote on them (see my reply to Brigette below) is both a metaphor for democratic activity– one person one vote, as well as the acceptance of an "artist's" work by a critical establishment, in this case viewers on the web.
It seems to be reiterated in some of T.V.'s most popular programs– American Idol and that ilk. To phone in or click a button which records a "like" or "dislike" becomes in some perverse way, aping the act of casting a vote for a candidate for public office. Social media, really any popular entertainment media are beginning to blur what is an important or unimportant decision. For good or ill, it's something we have to contend with.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo say photography is democratic begins with one's choice to participate in photography in the first place. Since photography has become more accessible to us has certainly made photography more democratic. You could say that photography is a more convenient and successful form of democracy. People are more apt to make sure that they have a phone with a camera on it than to vote.
ReplyDeleteWhat rings true the most with this comparison is even if we don't participate in photography it keeps evolving and revolving around the consumer. I remember having a dinosaur phone and not caring if it had a camera on it or not. Now I'm completely addicted to my Iphone and photographic apps such as Instagram and Pintrest. For the most part one's interest in "phone photography" comes from a consumptive angle to memorialize our lives. It offers a more easy,instant and widely available form of communication. Again more effective then our democratic government. We feel like we make a difference by receiving more "likes" on Instagram then by casting our ballet into the sea of other opinions (I mean how many do they really count).
Photography being an act of democratic society or a consumptive one is funny to me because they go hand and hand. One chooses to be a consumer of photography because they want to show the world images that will make us want to consume them. I can rant about how democracy is packaged to make consumers of it think that we have a say and we can express our opinion. Photography move along those very same lines. One's photograph is a package to the world. Photography is the most practiced "form of art", whether or not the result of this art form is actually art is up for democratic debate. Just saying that most of it is not art. The majority of painters do not paint things with the intention of not producing art. Photography is used at the discretion of the consumer. Until a faster and more versatile art form is produced photography is stuck with those that use it for means of consumption.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThanks Brigette,
DeleteYou raise an interesting idea that I hadn’t though about, which how the "Like" button implanted into Facebook, along with the equivalent expression in other social media, acts as a voting mechanism. It's strange to think that our democratic process is acted out metaphorically through our web interactions, thumbs up or down.
As Ryan said above, in regards to the one of the dissimilarities of photography as a democratic form, "the individual photographs don’t require the existence or approval of a group." To be sure, once taken, photographs do have an existence. However, someone may take down their image based on a group's reaction to it. Or, the social media site may take it down due to an infraction of their rules concerning nudity or the like. In a sense this is a type of vote, as its opposite, getting 100 “likes” for an image.
When I put forth the idea that, in critical essays and in advertising, photography is referred to as a democratic art form, my comment was to make us question what we mean by democratic/political structures. Just because an activity is open to anyone, does it make that activity democratic, and if it does, then what does "democratic" really mean?
Perhaps the thoughtless taking of pictures of everything and anything and then posting them on a social media sight to be voted on, becomes an echoing of how we use our political democratic process. Voting becomes an off-the-cuff approval of an image or event, which then subtly, subversively, waters down any thoughtful or meaningful democratic/political processes. When we go to the polls and vote, perhaps we are metaphorically clicking on the "like" button for whoever our choice is for office? Perhaps this has been the subtext of our democracy since Nixon debated Kennedy?
Who will come to your blog to read and leave a comment, if you delete the post?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.appsta.com/android-tablet