![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldThe author of The Economist's Prospero blog notes that Anton Corbijn has apparently decided to abandon the practice of photography as an art form. Why? Technology.
This took me aback, not least since I liked his work. His collaborations with Depeche Mode, for instance, have been uniformly enjoyable, particularly his direction of the video for their "Enjoy the Silence".
I really do not see his point in abstaining from his production of images for an audience. That there is so much photography online does not mean that his will be less wanted--my Instagram feed, I do not flatter myself, is not a direct competitor with his. Not many are: He has a particular name and reputation that can consistently draw him attention. Digital photography, darkroom photography--different people can develop different voices. Commercial sustainability, I grant, is an altogether different issue.
What do you all think of this?
Photography as a slow, analogue art-form is dead. Over 200,000 photos are uploaded to Facebook per minute—that’s six billion each month—and there are over 16 billion photos on Instagram. Thanks to digital products anyone can be a Photoshop hack, selfie whore or filter junkie. We see with our smartphones, not our eyes. What need do we have for old-fashioned specialists using toxic chemicals to make a physical print that can be neither insta-shared nor “liked”?
A case is point in Anton Corbijn, the Dutch artist who in a 40-year career has shot thousands of celebrities, everyone from the Rolling Stones to Björk, and whose iconic album-cover shots include U2’s “Joshua Tree” and Morrissey’s “Viva Hate”. A retrospective of his work at the C/O Berlin gallery feels like a fond farewell to his big-buck career: from now on photography will only be Mr Corbijn's hobby.
The two-floor exhibition features 600 prints from 1972 to 2012, including his famed music photography from the 1990s. A travelling show from The Hague Museum of Photography, Mr Corbijn’s work represents a bygone era of analogue masterworks. Each of the prints on the wall was first seen by Mr Corbijn only as he dipped them into chemical baths in a dark room—as different as possible from the modern digital shoot, where hundreds of shots can be compared and even retouched on the spot with the band and creative director peering over the photographer's shoulder.
Known for melancholic, black-and-white photos with a raw, anti-glamour aesthetic, Mr Corbijn’s work feels timeless. Some images intentionally include motion-blur, like his portrait (above) of Luciano Pavarotti, growling like a death metal star in Turin back in 1996. Even though Mr Corbijn has steady hands, something he credits to his non-coffee, non-smoking lifestyle, he believes sharpness is overrated. It remains the photographer’s technical preference to shoot slow shutter speeds, which allows movement in the frame.
This took me aback, not least since I liked his work. His collaborations with Depeche Mode, for instance, have been uniformly enjoyable, particularly his direction of the video for their "Enjoy the Silence".
I really do not see his point in abstaining from his production of images for an audience. That there is so much photography online does not mean that his will be less wanted--my Instagram feed, I do not flatter myself, is not a direct competitor with his. Not many are: He has a particular name and reputation that can consistently draw him attention. Digital photography, darkroom photography--different people can develop different voices. Commercial sustainability, I grant, is an altogether different issue.
What do you all think of this?
