[RobA_Oz]

People who would never ask someone else to take a picture of them at a given location can now do selfies with their own selfie stick. All that's happened here is shy people can get something the rest of us always got by being more out going and social.

In that sense, selfie photography has levelled the "here's a picture of me at Niagara Falls" playing field. You don't have to interact with strangers to get what you want. You don't have to trust strangers to not run off with your camera. Personally my take on this is completely different. I'm happy those folks can get what they want, without interrupting my day because they want a picture of both of them. This is a good thing. I still get the odd person seeing my DSLR and assuming I'm the kind of guy who should take their picture, but it's much less of an occurrence the last few years, since the selfie stick.
...

There's more "duck face" now, with the arrival of the selfie - that's another change.

However, my overall point was that, aside from these small differences, people's motives for taking photos haven't changed much. Some of us lean toward the artistic (to a greater or lesser extent), while others are taking memorial shots of some kind - same as it ever was.

[leekil]

The photo books I put together today are miles ahead of anything I ever did with photo albums Every picture is processed to a level that would be simply impossible with film, with appropriate text added where needed.

The difference between my photo books and my moms albums is night and day, and I often make multiple copies so I get one, my daughter gets one, my canoe buddies get them sometimes if it's an album including a trip they were on. I easily craft a book with different sizes of images cropped to fit together for interesting layouts, page by page. There are endless advantages to digital for the home photo book maker.

Not all people do photobooks, not all people made albums either. Some have a huge number of old photographs stored in boxes and suitcases,
I have a whole computer that does nothing but hold old images, for easy access.

So, once again, the reality of some doesn't match the reality of all. What some people remember as true is still true, for some people. It's the writer that has changed. He can't do what he used to do, but he could, he just doesn't., so he blames it on digital cameras or something new that he perceives as being somehow imperfect and makes sweeping generalizations to emphasize his point.

You are talking about something different than he is. Given that his tool was a Polaroid, he wasn't even talking about processing -- and many people who take photos with their cellphones don't do a ton of processing either. It isn't just the writer who has changed, but the way photos are taken and used.

---------- Post added 10-13-17 at 10:48 AM ----------

I think photography has always been about sharing. If you took a trip somewhere unusual, coming back and showing your slides or photos to your family and friends was part of the reason for taking them. That and remembering details of the trip long afterward.

The internet has broadened the ability to share. Facebook and Pentax Forum and other sites allow people with similar interests to share parts of their lives with others and that includes photos. It is a subtle shift, but certainly it isn't that much different from back in the film years.

If Wenders thinks that photography should be solitary then why is sharing his images now?

The sharing has changed, due to the medium thorough which it happens; you can argue the shift isn't that subtle, as the audience is somewhat more like a mass market than something just among a few friends. (I'm not saying whether this is good or bad, though.)

Also, I believe in the article, or possibly another one on the same topic, he said he was at first reluctant to share his photos.

[normhead]

You are talking about something different than he is. Given that his tool was a Polaroid, he wasn't even talking about processing -- and many people who take photos with their cellphones don't do a ton of processing either. It isn't just the writer who has changed, but the way photos are taken and used.

Why?

“It’s not just the meaning of the image that has changed – the act of looking does not have the same meaning. Now, it’s about showing, sending and maybe remembering. It is no longer essentially about the image. The image for me was always linked to the idea of uniqueness, to a frame and to composition. You produced something that was, in itself, a singular moment. As such, it had a certain sacredness. That whole notion is gone.”

The image for me was always linked to the idea of uniqueness, to a frame and to composition.

That's still true. Even if you shoot in burst mode it's still true.
To me this is a piece designed to generate interest in a an exhibition.
And almost an appeal to a generation of buyers, who long for a different time. It also has the required references to celebrities of another age. He hopes people with the same perspective he has will come buy his photos. But that hardly makes his viewpoint any kind of universal truth. It's more an appeal for support from a enervation confused by modern practices. I have no doubt any will read this and agree, but, it's an insular point of view for people who are confused by the modern age.

You really have to ask yourself, who would proclaim "Photography is now over." The logical conclusion would be someone trying to sell you something from the past. If you agree with his opinion you might buy his work. That's all that's going on here.

[dsmithhfx]

I'm hearing a lot of insecurity and defensiveness surrounding the quote where none is indicated. Photographers should instead welcome the opportunity to reflect on exactly what it is we are trying to do.

Human beings have pretty much always made images, first by hand, then with the aid of machines, and now machines make images with less and less human intervention, except as passive consumers whose sole contribution is to perhaps add an emoji.

What I think Wenders is remarking upon is the passing of the considered photograph, and its replacement by a tsunami of visual ephemera. The movie "Paris, Texas" is about (among other things) the pervasive projection of consumer ephemera onto our real, and mental, landscapes, and how this affects our mentality and behaviors.

The difference from previous snapshot phenomena is that trillions of these images are available to everyone, all the time.

But who is even looking, and what do they hope to find?

[RobA_Oz]

"The passing of the considered photograph"? There are hundreds, probably thousands, of bricks and mortar galleries and online websites that are displaying thousands, possibly millions of "considered photographs" every year. The fact that people are filling cyber-space with images of little appeal and even less global meaning is really beside the point. Something is either gone or it isn't - there's no halfway house, because even decline does not mandate eventual extinction, and there's no decline going on in making of "considered photographs". Art schools and photographic courses of all types are flourishing. I don't think Wenders really understands much outside his own field, if that's what he thinks.

[Lord Lucan]

To save reading the article, this is what it says :

Tired old man notices that most people are not interested in pictorialism

[dsmithhfx]

To save reading the article, this is what it says :

Tired old man notices that most people are not interested in pictorialism

Fule.

[dsmithhfx]

You know, I don't expect you to do your homework. Not anymore. But even so, here is something you might want to read before you spout off again: The Lost Worlds of Wim Wenders?s Polaroids | The New Yorker

So you see, Wim Wenders is not the inconsequential "old man" you want him to be, because he disturbed your tedious and outdated conception of "photography". Far from it!

I wish you luck in your researches, but please, try harder.

[Digitalis]

Someone who shot Polaroids in the 70's is judging contemporary photography to be dead? how original.

"Today, making a Polaroid is just a process."

Dye transfer printing is a process, Cibachrome,Tintype,Platinotype,Intaglio,Woodcut are all processes used for image making..they still have adherents that use them for their unique properties, not just for the process.

[leekil]

Originally posted by leekil
You are talking about something different than he is. Given that his tool was a Polaroid, he wasn't even talking about processing -- and many people who take photos with their cellphones don't do a ton of processing either. It isn't just the writer who has changed, but the way photos are taken and used.
Why?

Why what?

---------- Post added 10-13-17 at 09:44 PM ----------

To me this is a piece designed to generate interest in a an exhibition.

I don't think Wim Wenders is saying what he is saying just to generate interest in an exhibition, any more than you are saying what you are saying to generate interest in PentaxForums.

[normhead]

Why what?

Why do you think that? Using a DSLR is exactly the same as using an SLR. MY buddy's D4 even shot 6 frames per second in burst mode and could be used for shooting movies.

I don't think Wim Wenders is saying what he is saying just to generate interest in an exhibition, any more than you are saying what you are saying to generate interest in PentaxForums.

And why do you think that.... you assume it's a coincidence he comes out with this outrageous statement just before his exhibition is to open.... but, why would you do that?

[HippyHippo]

Photography has always changed perceptions about how we see. Neipce, Fox Talbot and Daguerre opened the door for people to see themselves perhaps for the first time unadulterated by a painter’s vision. Sontag argued in the 70’s that Photography was undermining our sense of empathy through constantly seeing war images, for example. That argument still runs.

It evolves.

The ‘selfie generation’ is driving one such paradigm shift in seeing right now. I believe that to be Wenders’ key point when he talks about ‘Now it’s about showing, telling and maybe remembering’.

Pictorialism, abstract and other movements may come and go as Wenders laments, but the fundamentals of photography are unchanged as it evolves as an art form. i.e. it is for the photographer to derive meaning from what he sees before him and communicate that meaning through an image. I do agree that an intended meaning of “Look! Me at the Eiffel Tower doing a duck face” on a selfie isn’t very stimulating to most folks...!

[Rondec]

I guess the thing to me is two-fold. First of all, the past isn't as "pure" as folks try to make it. Most people weren't serious photographers composing deep or whimsical images that capture the spirit of the twentieth century. Yes there was some good photography, but there was also a bunch of mediocre and poor photography as well. Second, the fact that some people shoot snap shots with their phones and seem to be focused on posting selfies doesn't change the fact that there are people doing serious work with thought going into each image. The nice thing about the internet is that they probably can find like-minded folks to share their love of photography with more easily now than twenty years ago.

I like to take pictures, but on no account do I consider myself an artist and certainly there are a lot of folks like me. But there are also plenty of artistic photographers out there who are doing plenty of experimenting.

The transition from film to digital has changed less than most people admit.

[leekil]

Why do you think that? Using a DSLR is exactly the same as using an SLR. MY buddy's D4 even shot 6 frames per second in burst mode and could be used for shooting movies.

Like I said, you are talking about something different than he is; it's not about the physical mechanism of taking a photo. He talks in the article about how people behave differently with photos, they are much more public, and people put them out there for different reasons. "Taking photos" is the same, in that you still push a button, but the difference is in why they are taken and what is done with them afterward.

And why do you think that.... you assume it's a coincidence he comes out with this outrageous statement just before his exhibition is to open.... but, why would you do that?

I am non-cynically assuming that he would say something he believes, rather than make something up just to cause controversy for publicity. He may be doing the interview for publicity, but I would not assume that he would be saying stuff he doesn't believe to attract attention. His movies don't seem to be compatible with that type of behavior, nor do the things he is discussing in the article.

[gofour3]

My wife and I went to the International Center of Photography last May while in NYC. After looking around for a few minutes you quickly realize "still" photography is in the minority, various sized screens line the walls showing video clips ranging in duration from seconds to hours. Printed photos on some form of paper seem to be a thing of the past and this remember is a Center of Photography.

The place was full of high school students on field trips while we were there. The few colour/b&w photos that were on display were quickly passed over by the students and they just stared at the screens watching the numerous video clips.

Photography has changed and will change even more in the next decade. Wim is not an old fart who is living in the past and has no clue what's going on. Just remember there are lots of younger folks today who think we who use dedicated cameras and take still pictures, are a bunch of old dinosaurs stuck in the past!

Phil.