Come Together?
Wednesday, December 3, 2008Jake Stangel sent me an e-mail recently informing me of the launch of Too Much Chocolate, a new website for young, emerging photographers to come together. The site features a rotating gallery, a discussion forum and interviews. Very cool, I thought.
But it seems that a lot of these kinds of websites have been popping up over the last year or so, with the creation of Humble Arts, the Fjord collective, Flak Photo, Noel Rodo-Vankeulen’s We Can’t Paint network (including the recent launch of Wassenaar), Joerg Colberg’s Conscientious Google Group and a plethora of others.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that photographers are craving something beyond what blogs offer, something more dynamic where conversations and images aren’t so easily lost in the archives. Perhaps these “photography hubs” are the answer, the next step in centralizing the overwhelming amount of information that proliferates the Internet.
The more great places to visit online the better, obviously. But, I wonder, how is everyone in this online photography community expected to “come together” if there are so many places to choose from?
Just a thought. I’d love to hear what readers think.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:08 pm
What annoys me the most is how these sites seem to call for young emerging photographers, as if anyone who is over 30 is wasted and therefore not worth the time or effort.
How about just emerging photographers?
http://blog.magnumphotos.com/2008/12/allage_gut_strategy.html
I’d love to see more of a net/physical community arise, especially for those who are located outside of the key areas such as the US/Europe.
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:02 pm
I honestly have been thinking about the same thing for months. It’s becoming overwhelming. It is running through my head constantly how we can escape the internet or whether that is even necessary. I think things need to be reconsidered. Jake’s invitation to this site certainly threw me in a whirlwind of thinking.
I am not sure of the solution and often question my motives and solutions to this ‘issue’ as a nineteen year old. Are my thoughts legit and will they solve anything? What would a move towards reducing the presence of the internet in art and photography do? At this stage would the community benefit/be hurt from that?
I think a move towards tangibility is critical. 20×200. Zines. Galleries. We are seeing more publications go paperless. Yes, this is sustainable and great for the environment but what about feeling something in our hands. I know I want to explore the craft more and type less. I want to explore art as a commodity and art strictly as a passion. I know several people who are making small books, zines, and small prints and mailing them out. I’m interested in how punk rock shows cost $3-5. How is that idea of “affordable punk rock” being explored in photography and art? I think several are discussing this and others are implementing this mindset but I think there is more to to discussed.
I think my age does play into this a lot because I haven’t explored as much as others that are older. I also am a student and not “making my living” off of my work. I’ve yet to experience gallery openings every Thursday and have a collection of monographs at my finger tips. My current residence (Harvest, AL) certainly has limited me since I started shooting years ago and that ’s why the internet is so powerful. I know just as much about the newest openings as the New York undergrad student but the missing part? Seeing them, touching them. It’s a huge disconnect. I know this artist and that. But have I met them?
The other day Timothy Briner (huge fan of his work) posted me on his blog. I decided to thank him for his post and went to search out his email. Upon seeing the email address and copy pasting it I realized his phone number was there as well. I called him instead. It was genuinely refreshing to hear the up’s and down’s, asking new questions, and being in an active discussion with him. It was so nice to operate outside of text and my inbox. Then I realized that there is a problem if the phone is refreshing. What sort of disconnects are we experiencing living in front of a screen? (this discussion is huge with all media outlets of course.)
I could talk for days about this. I really could.
Thanks.
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:41 pm
hey, I recently listened to a episode of Radio Lab on choices. They mentioned an interesting concept that is particularly interesting in relation to this overload. Choice angst is the concept that is a modern condition where as we are more and more overloaded with choices humans freak out more and more. So, what do we do as a community of image makers with literally hundreds of blogs and a finite amount of time.
check out the show here:
http://blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2008/11/18/choice/
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Well, I just joined. I don’t really think there is any sort of “hub” for discussion out there were we can all get to know one another and discuss whatever is eating at our minds currently, so we’ll see if this is it. I feel like the Conscientious Group is more for discussing the theory of photography and personal taste vs. helping one another with advice. Plus, one might want to watch one’s words there to a certain extent considering how many juries Joerg is on…
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:30 pm
“What annoys me the most is how these sites seem to call for young emerging photographers, as if anyone who is over 30 is wasted and therefore not worth the time or effort.”
well, we’re all over 30 and have an active, vibrant community.
i know most serious fine art photographers have a certain revulsion for Flickr, but when used right it can be a great tool…
http://flickr.com/groups/lapuravida/
for discussion, we prefer chat to forums. Forums and discussion threads just end up being yawn feasts for people who enjoy listening to themselves.
in the phlow you can share view pix from Flickr as well. In Meebo you can share any links i believe….just something to consider.
http://www.photophlow.com/flickr/group/lapuravida
These communities and hubs are great. it’s another layer of filtering. it’s kind of absurd to try to follow hundreds of individuals. when people group up and work together to deliver content, everyone wins. there simply needs to a higher level of editing and more thought put into online presentation.
i’m not sure these communities will come together however. it’s gonna be survival of the fittest. some will fail, some will succeed, some will probably merge.
peace,
bryan
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Everyone has to do their part in the community.
It’s so easy to quit participating on a forum or discussion. If things start to get monotenous, most people will just move onto a different website without saying a word. Next thing you know the site has died. I’ve seen this happen a few times and it’s quite sad because if everyone had put just a tiny bit of effort into livening the place up things could’ve been different. Though the internet is VERY different from real life, you still have to work at your online relationships in much the same way you do with your real life relationships.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:07 am
I like Jake’s site because it has a message board where people who don’t have time for authoring blogs can share stuff and shoot shit.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:43 am
At the time of commenting on this post I have around 300 new emails (just from today alone) in the We Can’t Paint inbox all pertaining to the projects I run. What does this say about the Internet and its relation to artistic exposure?
I know I cannot speak for the other web-based spaces present in this post but, for me at least, it signals something lacking in the “tangible” world of art, a worthwhile anarchistic forum. While this may seem obvious to some of you, I think all of us (including myself) are not using the Internet to its full potential. I take every issue of Wassenaar (the one completed and the ones to come that is), every WCP Project, every WCP Blog entry as a concept, hoping in some small way that they can transcend their own hegemony and become a form of potential.
A recent post by Brad Troemel sums up this problematic stance: http://bradtroemel.blogspot.com/2008/12/stop-making-sense.html
We are all in danger of looking at, or specifically promoting, our clones, be it a limited focus on medium or on a group of artists, but it saddens me that some of us may think that these spaces, pages, whatever, are limited to reflexive self-promotion – that these opportunities (and whatever avenue(s) they open up) are rendered null by being subjective in relation to our interests. Troemel brings up some great thoughts in his post, specifically the fact that these spaces tend to backwardly emulate the elitist/commercialized concepts they so often want to rebel against. Should we all author anonymously? Should we set up spaces where uploaded content is refreshed by open/user submission? Is the Internet a place specifically for subverting the idea(s) of art (as it is so commonly proposed to be)? Is that all it’s good for? What is so revolutionary about pissing in the fire?
I would be willing to trade in the whole WCP Network in light of a better way to connect with, and expose, both new and old ideas of art as whole (not just photography) on the Internet. The amount of spaces isn’t the problem (as Shane suggests), just as the amount of galleries in your city shouldn’t be the problem (only if your city lacks galleries), but I wonder what is the need of centralizing anything?
Of course, this is the problem, everything we do, particularly in a collective and subjective sense, becomes masturbatory, becomes exactly how the individualized concept existed before unifying. But do I think that throwing it all away and doing nothing is less lazy than being interested? Fuck no. I’m not sure of the solution, or if we even need one at the moment, but I do know that the last thing we should do is construct utopic ideals with a signed guarantee.
PS: Daniel – I’m wondering where you found the emphasis on “young” photographers? Good work is good work, age has nothing to do with it. I think this issue only refers to the amount of work received by young photographers and not the fact that these “collectives” specifically cater towards an age group.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Wow, I come back a day later to some very good discussion. I had to take a break from the internet yesterday, and seeing the word ‘chocolate’.
I thought up the site while riding back home after meeting with Trevor Graves, who is the first guy I interviewed. He had about 45 minutes worth of invaluable advice about ‘making it’ as a photographer, advice I knew hundreds of other people who are sitting in my same place would like to know, but didn’t.
The rationale behind making this site is primarily this type of information sharing between photographers- of career advice, of inspirators, of discussions like this. Yes, there is Humble, there is We Can’t Paint (which kicks ass, Noel), there is fjord. But none of these sites have an area where photographers can have the ongoing dialogue I was looking to have. Sure Jorg’s got his google site, but as someone said, it’s more for direct commentary on his posts. And, I think they can all coexist. When I said I was looking to make a ‘hub’, I didn’t mean a singular, one-stop-shop, I meant it as a way to centralize a massive blogosphere. The only foreseeable irony will be is tons of these ‘hubs’ open up, and we end up back at square one.
As I said in my intro page, too much chocolate is going to really be there for the photographers that visit it, exclusively. I tried to keep my hand out of it, short of making it an anonymously-run site. I’m open to comments, tweaks, ways to make it work best for its members. A resource, first and foremost. Between the discussion area, the interview section, and the rotating gallery, I’m think it will serve its purpose.
In reference to Noel’s point that we’re (photographers) are not utilizing the internet as much as we could be- it’s totally true. It says something that I’ve been getting about 30 emails an hour to join the forums, and that there are already about 80 posts up, 24 hours after I ‘unveiled’ it. It all speaks to an inherent curiosity, and unsuredness of exactly what is out there. We’re all metaphorically reaching around in the dark, touching peoples faces.
One last point before my fingers fall off and my brain shuts down- TMC isn’t meant to be the end point, just a step forward, in a quest to optimize photographers’ use of the internet, as a medium of broad information sharing and communication. It’s a place where this kind of discussion can live, but it’s also a place to talk about your favorite type of film or a good book you just read. It’s going to stay as inclusive, low-key, and warm of an environment as possible, something I think the online photo community sorely lacks sometimes. Sure, the lack of narrow-scoped, higher-plane discussion might turn some people off, but I gotta say, alot of photographers have been posting and emailing me about how excited they are about the concept. I’d much rather join many and lose some, rather than make it an overly tight collective. Because those already exist.
I’ll leave you guys with an email that made my day yesterday, and solidify the entire purpose of creating the site:
“Hi Jake ,
I am an ‘emerging’ photographer and a lot of what you said on the intro page rings true for me.
I am self taught and only recently started taking photographs, but was lucky enough to be chosen for best of show at the International Photography Awards in October and will also feature in Vice magazine this December.
Unfortunately, I am 39.
I am kind of operating in a bubble with absolutely no one to talk to about ‘starting out’ and no real hope of becoming an assistant at my age but would like to participate .
Would this be possible ?
Good luck with your project either way,
Cheers,
RD”
December 4th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
I love this.
December 4th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
“I don’t believe in Beatles, I just believe in me”
December 4th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
There is a lot of valid reasoning already presented by the previous 11 or 12 posts, but I’d like to throw in a comparison.
I like to think of the more successful hubs and blogs that feature photographers or photography related content as filters that I can turn on and off simply by deciding whether or not to check them. Considering that everyone is able to create their own internet photographic representation, there is just too much information to sift through. I used to get my fill by skimming the recent photographs of several contacts on flickr, then I discovered some blogs such as iheartphotograph, or collections like fjord. I’ve found now that so many groups of internet photographer friends have created their own similarly selective clubs that take submissions. This causes other photographers, not part of their own collective already, consciously strive to find one or create one. Since we have so many groups now, I can’t imagine a hierarchy to them except in the eyes of the interested individual who views them day to day. This process can definitely be applied to most things in life. I feel like it is very intensified in photography, particularly when the individual isn’t in a location that provides a fruitful tangible experience with other photography or photographers, and can attain exposure through remote means and has to make friends online.
I think it can be compared to the decentralization of music today, as a result of the internet giving everyone a chance to display and disseminate their work. I feel however, that there are clear leaders on the internet for places to go to where you can find criticism on music. What I don’t like about this is that it can cause laziness, because many individuals will eventually stop searching the internet for new groups, ideas and work, and simply rely on that one central hub for cultural sustenance. I’m not sure I want there to be a centralization of photography on the internet, because I’m afraid that a good portion of people who are forced to find their fill of photographic discourse in several different places, will simply end up going to one.
What I like about the idea of Too Much Chocolate is that the gallery will be taken in a different direction weekly. Many selective photographic groups and clubs are very stagnant, and many blogs seem to run dry because one person only has so much they can share.
December 4th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
There is absolutely no need for a centralized hub of anything on the internet. That was all the rage between 95-99 and people still attempt it but the awesome thing about the internet is that it isn’t about centralization but quite the opposite.
That said, form time to time substantial and active communities do form in one place and evolve into “the” place that everyone ends up. This still doesn’t supersede individual efforts or the possibility of niche communities continuing to thrive.
We’re always going to miss out on something that’s going on. The immediacy of the internet does create a bit of a false pressure to be everywhere and to listen in on as many streams you can stand. What’s often missing is dialogue or even, to get all high toned, discourse. There’s no one answer to that since some people talk best in snippets and some can knockoff mind-blowing forum-post treatises without spiraling into their own navel.
Even in these comments there’s an “advice” versus “opinion” split. And that’s fine too. Some people need tech info, some want theory, some talk composition, and others balk at rules of thirds as old school guff. There’s all sorts and no need really for all of us to gather as a unified photographic world — we are already so much closer to that than we were less than 5 years ago.
So, I say bring it all on. Divide and come together. Lurk and speak volumes. Start blogs and read blogs. Why not?
December 4th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Oh, one more rambling addition… Despite what I just said about lurking, it would be more interesting to hear from more people in places like Jörg’s Google group. There are 145 members of that group and it looks like the same 10-20 post most of the messages. This is of course very much the internet norm but if we are all interested we should just ask questions and state opinions. I know people worry about looking foolish, not being informed enough or are worried about their careers — I have the same misgivings but talking is probably better.
December 5th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
I couldn’t agree with Davin more. The fact that this discussion gets so large, and happens so often is really irritating me (even though any sort of discussion should never be irritating).
People, this is the internet. Understand how it functions, understand its limitations, and move on with your life. This critical urgency that everyone is experiencing is precisely because you put way to much value into the FUCKING INTERNET. Does it really matter how many networking sites and webzines are out there, and what specific group you’re convinced they cater to?
Jake has a great thing going. He wants to start a messageboard where people can talk. No one, and I really mean it, NO ONE should feel threatened by that or like-minded efforts. If you do, or if you’re really convinced the internet world of photographers is a tight circle pushing against each other to let you NOT in, than you have serious illusions of grandeur.
December 9th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Seems like an exciting mix of democracy, nepotism and randomness all rolled into one. This chocolate site will be worth watching where it goes. Interest or inanity.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:35 am
[...] Shane Lavalette brought up a great point in his blog about the recent proliferation of these internet photo collectives/portals/galleries. He writes, [...]
December 18th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
I don’t know for certain, but I’m noticing that most of the people commenting here are male, as are most of the people in the conversation on the Conscientious group. I don’t think this tendency is just a reflection of the fact that many photographers are male, but that it also has to do with conversational style. It is worth thinking about why women aren’t joining the comments more often, at least in some places.
Web exhibitions and ‘zines are another matter. I’m really grateful for those. It is true that if you’re mostly self-taught, if you live some place far from a major city, and if you’re older than 35 (to say nothing of 50), these opportunities can be great, especially when they are not limited by age. (And why should they be?)