Foto is good, provided you want a community exclusively made up of other photographers. If you want greater reach for your work, Instagram unfortunately is still the only option.
The worst thing about Instagram today for photographers and artists, is that to succeed, you have to effectively become an influencer and share reels of yourself and your process.
> If you want greater reach for your work, Instagram unfortunately is still the only option.
Wasn't people wanting reach what supposedly ruined Instagram in the first place? Seems like wanting it both ways if you want reach for yourself, but not for "influencers"
There was a time on Instagram when artists could grow their reach organically, on the merit of their work alone, but I don’t think that’s possible today without engaging in reels and positioning yourself as an influencer, which most artists I would imagine find abhorrent.
I mean I want to enjoy some wine, doesn’t mean I’m a hypocrite for disliking alcoholics and drunk driving.
It’s OK to believe both 1) social media can be a useful service for connecting with friends and interesting people, and 2) social media has feedback mechanisms that reward unpleasant and abusive behavior.
The reality is there is very little non-individualistic art (algorithmic, AI generated etc) that has much qualitative merit. Art for the most part has always been the expression of an individual, even art tightly bound to a cultural context.
>The reality is there is very little non-individualistic art (algorithmic, AI generated etc) that has much qualitative merit
Big opinions there. A large amount of art that you think comes from individual expression is often not. There are countless examples of artists that secretly used algorithmic processes. A great example is Vermeer: https://youtu.be/94pCNUu6qFY?si=M6UQ-XuHNtoj2-3a.
This is what I mean about how this individualistic philosophy of creativity actually just results in artistic gatekeeping and manipulation of the audience
It’s very common for artists to add on individual expression narratives at the end of the process just so they can market the art, and the reality is that the individualism was never there to begin with. It’s just manipulation and advertising, and it sucks because the success of advertising like this actually undermines the quality of the art world. Because audiences are so susceptible to advertising narratives, artists are forced to spend more time on advertising more than art
> Art for the most part has always been the expression of an individual, even art tightly bound to a cultural context.
This is also not true. This idea mostly comes from the Romantic period. Modern day versions of it are often really just referencing a single book from the 1930s called The Principles of Art by a guy named R.G. Collingwood. It’s a very recent way of seeing art. Historically, art was connected to religion, and therefore thought to be valuable because it was universal rather than individualistic and personal
Well aware of Hockney's work related to the use of technology in art, but there's a difference between producing purely algorithmic work and using a specific technique. Vermeer's style and work is still uniquely his.
> Historically, art was connected to religion, and therefore thought to be valuable because it was universal rather than individualistic and personal
If that were actually the case, we wouldn't be able to identify the style of individual artists and artisans, and yet we can of course, regardless of their intent. Giotto's only intent may have been to glorify god in his work, but of course, inevitably, his work is also a reflection of who he was.
This is precisely why AI art is so hideous and anti-humanistic - it can never been a singular reflection of the individual.
We can retroactively value art of the past using an individualistic philosophy, but that doesn’t change how it was valued in past. Artists of the past were considered good artists when they were capable of putting their own selves aside and allow God to flow through them. We now value their individuality, but they probably would’ve seen their individuality as their failures. It was a virtue to be objective rather than subjective. In literature especially we have are tons of letters between writers where they insult each other for writing in styles that are unintelligible to other people
I don’t necessarily ascribe to their views, but I bring it up because you said art has always been this way and it hasn’t always been this way
I'm still using an iPhone 12, and given I have a proper camera, see no reason to (ever?) upgrade. After a battery replacement, it still runs perfectly well. That seems like a problem for Apple.
It's a problem Apple could easily fix: put out another small phone. I'm in the "cold dead hands" camp with our 13 Minis: when the battery dies, get a new one and hope Apple comes to their senses in four years.
OTOH, maybe the iPhone Fold will turn out to not be two giant slabs of glass that still won't fit in your pocket. Maybe it'll be a reasonable size folded up, and big when unfolded. A person can dream...
I think the 12 was great, and the main driver when I upgraded to a 14 was much better stabilisation when shooting video. Otherwise I probably would've stuck with it.
Apple makes a sizeable sum through the App store and accessories. I don't think low churn on their flagship hardware is keeping their executives awake at night.
If you're looking for literary criticism and exploration that's a bit more leftfield and nuanced, highly recommend Sam Pulham's video essays https://www.youtube.com/@SherdsTube - I've discovered some brilliant writers through him that I would otherwise never have encountered.
The worst thing about Instagram today for photographers and artists, is that to succeed, you have to effectively become an influencer and share reels of yourself and your process.
reply