Embalmed Time

The Post Photographic Era

Photography today, depending on, among other things, technological developments, has a different appearance than earlier. As a basis for these texts, I have browsed literature that in one way or another has expressed ideas about photography or other images that have been possible to transfer into photographs. The idea was that in these writings I would find arguments for when / how the photographic image begins to be viewed as possible to be regarded as an independent art form. During the reading, however, I have realized that most of the authors in the sample concentrate on what is the difference between everyday photography and art photography. Therefore, this presentation will also address this difference. At the same time, we must keep in mind that many of the disciplines of art crossfertilize each other, so that what emerges as themes in literature, film, photography, music, sculpture or painting does not stay within the narrow niche where they are first presented. New technology also arouses curiosity in people who want to express themselves, which is obvious in terms of the use of film, video, audio recording or the use of digital software. The photographic image is no exception here. The digital development has at least led to that the technology for taking photographs, making film and music recordings of acceptable technical quality has then become affordable for many more than before.

The subtitle "The Post Photographic Era" on this collection of texts indicates that we are living in a time after the photographic era. Since the 1990s there have been descriptions of "the post-photographic era", among others by William J. Mitchell (1992) and Göran Sonesson (1999) whose thoughts are sometimes used in these texts. What is meant by "the post-photographic era"? Is it all about the transition from analogue to digital technology? Is it about the "magic" in film / photo allegedly disappearing in digital photography? Is it about the phenomenological notion that film and paper copies are objects as opposed to the digital file? The digital file does not, in a way, become an object until printing. The digital file can live its entire existence in digital form. Is the digital format really less of an object than the analog image? Can we imagine digital objects? The digital file has scope and mass - albeit in digital form on a hard drive or USB stick. Is there the same relationship between digital text and analog text in, for example, book or magazine form? Isn't the digital text contained in an e-book, for example, until it is read or printed? Is it a change in a clear technological sense or is it even something much bigger? Despite the argument about the "post-photographic era", we must admit that digital photography is also still about "writing with light".

The Western world sets the agenda for what photography is and is considered as. The western world gave birth to photography, nurtured it and established it worldwide, notes Nikos Panayotopoulos (2002:2). In fact, the photographic history of the West was established as the history of photography. The West has written "grammar" / syntax for international photography, set the framework for photographic production and evaluation in all other countries. The flow of the world's images is essentially unidirectional and the western world stands at the core of image production and distribution, making the concept of "history" a synonym for a post-constructed genealogy of itself. The semantic framework of the photographic medium - that is, the sum of the principles, rules and traditions - that emerged and developed in the industrialized Western world illustrates the Eurocentric nature of photography. In the colonial world, most of it was euro-centric - the English brought cricket and football as part of teaching the indigenous people of the colonies to become "Englishmen". The photograph followed in the footsteps of the colonial ambitions of the Western world.

We, according to some thinkers, are now living in the post photographic era, a relative of the postmodernist era. It also means that we live in an era that is the result of a long development of visual art. First came drawings, paintings, then came what we today call photographs. During the almost 200 years that we have lived with images made according to photographic methods since 1839 when Daguerre exposed his first image, photography has found its role in almost all communicative expressions in our society. When modern times have been going on for a while, some thinkers think that in order to describe contemporary times more accurately, we must have a new expression and new categories. We can assume that after the photographic era, we will step into, if we have not already done so, the post-photographic era, pending the next attempt of categorization. Is the post-photographic era about digital technology, then? With digital technology, many expressions converge to be found on the same website where we find texts, videos and photographs and they are available through the same type of reader, computer, cell phone or tablet. In that world, the effect becomes isolating and the behavior can be regarded as evasive if you are off grid. The question is whether this applies especially to photography.

We may see something similar on the way to take place, but we probably don't know what implications this will have on the future of photography.Already there are camera systems that can "tank" images of an entire city in the form of technology that Google, for example, uses to build two-and three-dimensional maps with street views around the world. Here we sometimes see real street photos of people eating ice cream or hugging each other.

What all this means is of course difficult to overlook, it is at best a divination about how digital technology might affect the photographic future. Already the way in which the photographic image may today be produced with computer assistance means that the camera has become a new tool, which does not require much effort and years of training to create decent photographs. Instead, we can put our power into enhancing our memories, our ideas about the stories that we are capturing and expressing in our world, as if we are strengthening our own bodies and beginning to resemble a cyborg with the digital camera technology to extend our own knowledge and capabilities. However, we do not yet have a camera in our body, but with the miniaturization that is going on we are on the right track. We can have so-called action cameras strapped to our bodies (or our bodies) and our clothes. The technology is used by some police forces to create summaries of events during police interventions. With further miniaturization, it soon becomes difficult to detect if someone is carrying a camera on their body which will eventually mean that we can make high-resolution photographs or video footage continuously on a stroll. When we get home, the imagery is just about ready to be distributed online.

Hardly visible cameras as a fairly integral part of our bodies: what can actually be more post-photographic than that? We know that images today are made to an extent that far exceeds the volume of images made in the 1950s. Is post-photographic about no longer "writing with light"? Probably not, we still command our surroundings to give us their stories and the surroundings do so with the help of light. The importance of the past may have to do with the fact that we are now not paying special attention to cameras because we know that there is a camera in every corner of our existence. It has become difficult to determine if we are "in the picture" and if we will see some "good images" filled with stories during the post-photographic era. The continuous photo shoots of our lives tend to be a contrast to traditional photography which has always been a snippet of reality.

Maybe the market for photographs will be saturated? Possibly if we argue about the careers for professional photographers, who already have a hard time creating their way of life. Of course, it is not possible to imagine that images would not be produced in the future. Interestingly, however, the right to make photographs in public places is under attack in the form of an EU proposal to prohibit photography of architecture, statues and "landmarks" that have an identifiable author in the form of an architect, artist or the like. The proposal is currently on the agenda in Sweden. It's all about what's in the back-drop as we walk through a city. It is an ominous sign of the times that the flow of images is likely to be restricted. One consideration is about the costs involved in controlling compliance with such prohibitions.

There are proposals for restrictions on the right to photograph in our surroundings. One example is Hungary, which has decided on severe restrictions. If we all get to photograph what we want, we will create stories all over the world. If a ban on some photography is introduced in the world we take for granted, we will surely land in the post-photography era. No one dares to make pictures in public space anymore, as it has become a criminal offense. What remains are images from the private sphere, which may not be as interesting as the one photographed in public space.

The reality in digital form

Are images of reality becoming different when they appear in digital form? This collection of texts will touch on these issues quite often. Partly because we have now lived with video and photos in digital form for a quarter of a century, and partly...