💻 The Internet has weaponized fear to keep you doomscrolling. Michael Lopp reminds us that fear is a liar but, more importantly, fear is a teacher if we are deliberate about its lessons. Read Fear is a Liar
💻 Reflecting on the death of author John LeCarré this week, Om Malik posits that our sadness over the loss of an author, artist, or performer we enjoy is selfish because we care more about the loss of the person’s ongoing work than about the loss of the person. I agree with his assessment of the nature of the loss, but disagree that it’s selfish. Read Our sadness is really selfishness
📷 Your photographs are meaningless, which is liberating. Olli Thomson explains. Read Meaningless pictures
📷 This little German camera makes 72 images on every 36-exposure roll of 35mm film. Theo Panagopoulos reviews the Agfa Optima-Parat and gets some wonderful results, especially on color film. Read Agfa Optima-Parat — Half Frame Jewel
Sign up for my monthly email to get an insider view of what I’m working on! Sign up here.
Very interesting essay on “meaningless pictures”. This entry comes on the heels of a buddy of mine, who is a documentary film guy (and a still photographer artist), sending me a publishers web-site full of very expensive photography books with a lot of very, very “meh” work. This has started us on a conversation of how younger people look at photography.
We were in college 45 years ago, and many of our photography classes were not only technical, but reviewing and discussing themes and theories of the subjects and picture essays. Almost no one is getting this type of focus on any of the arts in college any more. In our era, you couldn’t even get into college without a few years in high school taking a foreign language, and you couldn’t get out of college without some sort of “arts” classes. College used to be considered the set-up to teach you how to learn for life (I distinctly remember my parents telling me this, and I also remember reading it many times 50 years ago). Now college is where you go to get the minimum requirements you need to get employed, and to prove you are “hire-able”…
So are people so inundated with images that they have a lowered ability to judge quality and meaning? Do they even have the aesthetics to judge quality and meaning? Do people think poor quality commercial illustration has the same quality and weight as Picasso’s Guernica? From a sociological stand-point, is the “participation trophy” generation taught that everyone’s work has value just because they did it?
This little essay is just the tip of the iceberg for this subject!
I think you took Olli’s essay to places beyond his intent and scope, but you do ask a couple questions worth considering. Before your era, college was for the elite, and it was a classical education (except I’m sure for medical and engineering schools). It wasn’t until the baby boom generation that college was seen as “for all.” Now to the extent it is seen as job prep school, it’s because it’s so frigging expensive that if it doesn’t lead to a good job you can’t afford the loans.
Also, photography is much more accessible now and the majority of people viewing it never took an art class after 7th grade.
I personally think Om Malik should stick to angel investing. His writing is past its prime.