I've gone through periods of time throughout my life when I've been obsessed with photography. Since I've traveled constantly the past ten years it is a perfect creative outlet. I've always admired architecture from ancient ruins to modernist skyscrapers, even though I don't know enough about the topic to engage in intelligent discussion. The only architect I have any sort of opinion on and absolutely hate, is Frank Gehry. He seems like a one-trick-pony, whose garish, bordering on obscene, buildings would have done themselves a favor and stayed in the conceptual design phase, like some of those haute couture runway fashions or prototype cars, that are meant to shock and gain attention, never to see the light of day. Perhaps I miss the point, falsely assuming that one of the purposes of architecture is to blend somewhat within its surroundings, instead of becoming an annoying blister upon the landscape.
Okay, enough about that. I had no idea a rant was about to occur and I apologize. Anyway, so I've taken some interesting photos of buildings from around the world over the years. I particularly enjoy capturing the nooks and in-betweens of buildings, e.g. alleyways, fire escapes. However, I've never kidded myself, as I'm sure, no matter how cool they might look to me, it's nothing that hasn't been seen in countess coffee table books.
This brings me to another point I'd like to discuss. A number of years ago, a talented photographer friend, who is currently also a pro photo-journalist, had a gallery show of a series of pics he took on a trip to South/Central America. They were very good and professionally matted, framed, etc. His prices were very reasonable. However, as I was acting as DJ and co-curator, a woman asked me if the photos were, "film or digital." I told her they were digital and she upturned her nose and snobbishly said, "Hmm...that's too bad." I asked what she meant by that. She replied, "I would have been interested if they were film." I was stunned and didn't know what to say. I used to be a bit of a snobby purist myself in the analog/film/digital debate, but at that moment, that feeling began to disappear. Yes, "the medium is the message," as Marshall McLuhan wrote, meaning that the form of the medium embeds itself within the message, creating a relationship that influences how a message is perceived. However, if the woman had to ask, it meant that she wasn't sure, and if she wasn't sure, then the medium shouldn't have mattered, right? She was interested in the content, the substance of the art, yet she was constrained by some notion of "real art=film vs. digital=amateur." This was about five years ago, so perhaps the increase in technology and prevalence of "digital" in our society, it has become more acceptable.
