 |
| @JohnRowa via Mashable, Instagram |
Hating Instagram Is So 2010
In the past two years, the advent of Instagram has made photography
undergo some radical changes. In only two years, Instagram has made photography
go mobile and online. These sudden changes have left many wondering about
Instagram’s impacts on photography. Some feel that it has debased photography
as an art form, while others believe Instagram is helping photography adapt to
the Internet age. Personally, my opinions on Instagram are conflicted, but I
hope to reconcile some of my opposing beliefs through this essay.
To start, Instagram is a photo-sharing platform that allows
users to edit their photos with an array of vintage-styled filters that play
with saturation, contrast and exposure and then upload these photos to the web.
These photos form the basis of an online social network where users can choose to
like, comment on or follow other users’ photo streams. What makes Instagram
unique is that unlike other photo-sharing platforms, Instagram has harnessed
the networking power of the Internet. In the words of Instagrams founders
Systrom and Krieger, “We made it super-simple to share photos, not only with
your followers in the Instagram community, but with Facebook, Twitter, Flickr
and Tumblr, all with a tap of the switch." They made sure "uploading,
sharing and viewing experiences" would be "as smooth and speedy as
possible”. As a result, since its inception in 2010, Instagram has seen unparalleled
growth. Facebook recently acquired it for roughly a billion dollars and Instagram’suser base has just crossed the 100 million-user mark.
Furthermore, Instagram’s
success starkly contrasts the current state of alternative platforms such as
Flickr which are struggling to keep up.
However, while Instagram seems harmless photo-sharing
device, many people, especially those involved in the photography world, feel
that Instagram is hurting photography. They claim:
1)
Instagram cheapens photography as an art form.
2)
Instagram’s filter set breeds sameness.
3) Dirty hipsters only use Instagram.
 |
| @mcvilches via Mashable, Instagram |
To be honest, when I first found out about Instagram I had
many of the same thoughts. My first serious experience with photography was the
summer after I had turned fourteen. A Pentax K1000 with shutter-slap like a
gunshot and a darkroom with a chronically asthmatic ventilation system served
as the gatekeepers to my infatuation photography. All summer, I shot film,
printed countless contact sheets, adjusted finicky enlargers, blindly fumbled
with film spools in the dark and practically dyed my fingers a permanent shade
of yellow after spilling fixer all over my hands. It was an excessive and
obsessive labor of love, but it made me learn to appreciate the subtleties of
photography as an art form.
These experiences biased my initial thoughts about
Instagram. It seemed strange to me that anyone could upload photos and almost
instantly rise to a type of online fame. Also, it bothered me that so many
people paid more attention to over-saturated pictures of cheeseburgers than
famous photographers who’ve spent years perfecting their craft.
 |
| Ed Kashi, VII, Instagram |
Looking back now, I realize that I was approaching the
situation like many other art-snobs.
Of course, everyone should be able to post photos and network with other
people! I realized that it was ridiculous to think that experience with analog
photography was the only way to “certify” someone as a photography lover. Yet,
some of the criticisms mentioned above still had some merit. So, I decided to
do some research into each claim’s validity.
1) Instagram cheapens photography as an art form.
Instagram’s relationship with Internet technology has not
fundamentally changed the purpose of photography: storytelling. Raw photographic
quality aside, people have basically uploaded their lives on to these profiles
and then been compelled to interact with other users and learn about their life
stories. In this way, Instagram has been much more successful at keeping
photography and photojournalism alive in the public sphere than many
traditional photography agencies.
Additionally, this argument is often conflated with the
current economic viability of being a professional photographer.
Photojournalist and Instagram user, Teru Kuwayama sums this point up nicely,
“Obviously, it sucks to be a
professional photographer, and it's personally inconvenient to lose your
pedestal and your livelihood to a $2 app, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing
for photography.”
 |
| Teru Kuwayama |
2) Instagram’s filter set breeds sameness.
This argument is inherently logically flawed. There have
always been bland photos, and there always will be bland photos. Furthermore, this
argument implies that a photograph’s originality can be judged by its basic
visual aesthetics. This would suggest that all of black and white photography
is a bunch of unoriginal garbage - a conclusion that is absolutely untrue.
3) Instagram is only used by dirty hipsters.
 |
| Matt Eich via BJP, Instagram |
 |
| Matt Eich via BJP, Instagram |
This too is plainly false. Many independent professional
photographers and members of prestigious photo, news and humanitarian
organizations like VII, The New Yorker,
Doctors Without Borders and NationalGeographic have joined the ranks of
Instagram. In an article by the British Journal of Photography, the author
recounted, “Speaking with these photographers [who have joined Instagram], it
quickly becomes apparent that Instagram, more than any other social network in
past years, has allowed them to form a deeper connection with the general
public.”
In the end, it is clear that Instagram is not the definitive
death knoll for photography. Instead, there is significant evidence to support
the idea that Instagram has facilitated aspects of photography’s continued
existence in the online, public sphere. It has done for photography what
automatic film cameras and digital cameras have done in the past: make photography
more accessible as a form of story telling and communication.
Yet, there is an interesting counter argument that deserves
mentioning. Nathan Jurgenson,
a writer on the website The Society Pages, makes the assertion that the rise of
faux-vintage photography is linked to a desire for authenticity. In an age
where the pace of life is so fast, faux-vintage photos “highlight the larger
trend of our viewing the present as increasingly a potentially documented past”.
He asserts that Instagram’s faux-vintage filters are used to create photographs
with a sort of synthetic artistic and emotional appeal – a ”nostalgia for the
present”. As a result, it could be argued that this simulated significance is indicative
of Instagram’s reductive impact on photography. Instead of sharing because we
like to, we share compulsively because we are addicted to filling a void of
authenticity.
 |
| John Vink via BJP, Instagram |
Although the sensationalism present on Instagram’s networks may
appear to threaten the core substance of photography, we must remember that we
are living on a tech-bubble. We exist in an environment where every
technological change is labeled as a “revolution”. In the case of Instagram,
that label is certainly debatable, but its success no doubt signals
photography’s continued evolution. With that in mind, this photography lover
has made peace with his inner art-snob and Instagram.
When discussing the seemingly “dying” field of art, I always ask myself, “What is art?” In my perspective, art is not necessarily the capturing of a picture, but rather it is the picture itself, whether it be an ocean view, a posed family, or, yes, even a cheeseburger. Art is a diverse range of human activities and the products of those activities. In which case, art seems to be far too broad of a subject to ever describe as ruining. Of course, a photographer spends time highlighting a moment’s key beautiful features by adjusting contrast, saturation, etc., but the beautiful aspects of a picture come from the beautiful aspects of the moment it was taken. In which case, the art will always remain.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, the field of art seems to be growing, prospering and transitioning to new areas and new people. How many 7 year olds ever cared to visit an art museum? Better yet, how many 17 year olds enjoy doing that? Sites like Instagram and Pinterest found a way for those who may not have previously enjoyed art to finally appreciate it. Furthermore, it allowed more people to experience a very small portion of photography, by capturing pictures and editing them using an option of 10 or so effects. As you have mentioned, artists are being rather snobby when complaining that “dirty hipsters use Instagram”, and it is understandable for them to react that way seen as consumers are spending less and less money on their work now-a-days. However, people began losing interest in costly paintings before Instagram existed. Other sources of entertainment, not including those that allow users to “become artists”, replaced art museums and photo galleries.
I really like the quote you mentioned by Teru Kuwayama. It’s obvious that photographers and painters are complaining about this seen as they are losing money/fame, but that does not mean photography is worsening as a whole.
Really good post. I like your opinion on the topic.
The arguments that you forward on both sides are predicated on the notion that "Instagram has made photography go mobile and online," and I don't see any defense of that claim in your post. My guess would be that Kodak made photography mobile and that Flickr made photography go online (though, of course, Flickr would later be replaced by Facebook as the dominant site for online photo sharing). Has Instagram really caused much of a change to photography, positive or negative?
ReplyDeleteWith regards to instagram, I agree with many of your assertions and enjoyed the way you referenced your opinion. I am, however, slightly confused by the foundation of your blog post. Instagram may have certainly expedited photo sharing to a greater extent than before, however it is certainly not responsible for the online and mobile photo 'revolution.' While Instagram may indeed be a subjectively speaking, 'better,' platform for photo sharing than say Flickr or Twitter or Facebook - being specifically tailored to share across multiple networks and without jeopardizing its own social network, I would not consider it revolutionary in changing how we view photographs as an art medium. I certainly believe that the greater prevalence of mobile technologies and especially integration with the internet has catalyzed our ability to share photographs with ease. This may have given us a slightly lax viewpoint regarding art - since if everyone can make art from their cell phone, then what constitutes art? However, perhaps this conversely allows us to appreciate art from all 'walks of life.' If mobile technology and online sharing has perpetuated an increase in amateur photography, we soon become more efficient at finding the beautiful in the seemingly inane. I believe that this is infact a success in terms of spreading the power of art - where the viewer is taught to appreciate great art in nature and everyday life rather than becoming accustomed to only seeing 'art' in a gallery.
ReplyDelete