# Philosophical: Photography "too easy" ?



## Solarflare (Apr 9, 2019)

Has Photography Gotten Too Easy?

*By becoming thoughtless and easy, it also becomes trivial and devalued.*

Personally I never was interested in photography until it became digital. So to me its reverse, really. Handling all these chemicals, just eww. Too much of a hassle, wont do it.

I dont exactly produce a flood of images though. Finding an image thats actually worth taking will always stay a challenge with photography.

Its also very easy to write a text. Is it thus easy to write a good book worth reading ? Not at all.


*The Victorian age killed the art of letter writing by kindness: it was only too easy to catch the post. A lady sitting down at her desk a hundred years before had not only certain ideals of logic and restraint before her, but the knowledge that a letter which cost so much money to send and excited so much interest to receive was worth time and trouble.*

Poor example because letters never have been art.


*But her insight holds true—the easier it becomes to convey a message in a certain medium, the less selective we grow about what that message contains, and soon we are conveying the trifles and banalities of our day-to-day life, simply because it is effortless to fill the page (or feed, or screen, or whatever medium comes next).*

Regular conversation. Not art.

And I dont think the images of this posting help the argument either. The photograph of the mother of Virginia Woolf is much worse than the image of Virginia Woolf.


----------



## Jeff15 (Apr 9, 2019)

Digital cameras are the best invention since the wheel.......


----------



## Tropicalmemories (Apr 9, 2019)

Anyone who thinks photography is easy needs to post a photo on-line and request C&C


----------



## Original katomi (Apr 9, 2019)

Mixed feelings about photography becoming easier. One still has to see the image and compose. However compared to when I was using film digital cost me a lot less per shot which means I am able to do more and push my own boundaries.  So with out getting into a film v digital for me digital has made life easier, enabled me to be more creative, all on a limited budget. I notice that men cards are so massive in mem size and oh so much cheaper. Again mixed feelings. Do I use several 8 or 16 g cards and spread the risk or go for 1 200g card and have all mt images in one place..


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 9, 2019)

That depends on your definition. For the casual "snapshot" user heck yes. You can snap a picture of the kids, apply any number of effects, and share it all over the world in a matter of minutes from your cell phone. For the more advanced photographer the medium has changed, but all the things that elevate an image from snapshot to art remain.


----------



## Original katomi (Apr 9, 2019)

As we are talking about has digital made life easier are we allowed to do the film ver digital on this occasion I am a newbie here and think I saw that film v digital was frowned upon


----------



## Jeff15 (Apr 9, 2019)

Whats film........?............


----------



## Soocom1 (Apr 9, 2019)

This is a discussion I had (almost a knock down drag out BTW) about this very point. 

Photography has been heavily cheapend because of smartphones, period. 

The ability to have a "zombie pic" app tells volumes.  

But the "art" aspect is only gone if one wishes to believe so. 

The main points of the discussion/near argument was that the "millinials" ( I am between the Boomers and Gen Xers) don't have a clue. 
I think that is only true because of the fact that in education (especially in the US) the system is not teaching fundamentals of anything, much less the fundamentals of geometry, art, science, etc. that though is not a "trigger" or an absolute, non the less gives a substantial leg up to creativity. 

Understanding such things and rules of thirds, vanishing points, perspective, shade, tone et-al, gives the ability of the individual to enhance the creativity as a whole. 

However: The medium (media) is only secondary. Digital did for photography today what 110 instamatics did in the 1970's. suddenly everyone is an expert. 

The 110 is still film. Given the right camera you can be just as creative with it as would one with a Hasselblad. 

Ironically, Hasselblad gave rights to a Chinese firm to make a Moto-mod (to whit I have one) that is only as good as the photographer. 

the long and short is not that digital is cheapening, its the fact that our education system sucks and doesn't teach composure and form in schools.


----------



## Original katomi (Apr 9, 2019)

Ok at the risk of getting slapped by one of the modararaters  yes digital has made life easier for me
Here are just a few of my plus list
No more storing several rolls of different iso/asa film in the fridge
Ability carry More storage I used to use 5mtr of film in an evening now I take 600 to 1000 images 
Chem free darkroom/post production
Cost
The ability to push back the limits of my dreams


----------



## SquarePeg (Apr 9, 2019)

Good Photography hasn’t gotten easier.  Bad Photography however...


----------



## webestang64 (Apr 9, 2019)

I wonder how all those early  photographers reacted to the Kodak Brownie (photography made easy) when it came out in 1900.


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 9, 2019)

webestang64 said:


> I wonder how all those early  photographers reacted to the Kodak Brownie (photography made easy) when it came out in 1900.



 Yep.






Pressing the button is pretty bleepin' easy. "The only camera that anybody can use without instructions."

Joe


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 9, 2019)

@Original katomi since you seemed to take exception with my comment by marking it disagree, then maybe you could explain how or why you disagree with my comment, rather then marking and moving on. Do you also disagree with Squarepeg,  socoom1, or others who've said the same? Maybe you also disagree with some your own comments?


----------



## Tropicalmemories (Apr 9, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> This is a discussion I had (almost a knock down drag out BTW) about this very point.
> 
> Photography has been heavily cheapend because of smartphones, period.
> 
> ...



There's a Zombie Pic App? - I have to try that!


----------



## Tropicalmemories (Apr 9, 2019)

Tropicalmemories said:


> Soocom1 said:
> 
> 
> > This is a discussion I had (almost a knock down drag out BTW) about this very point.
> ...


----------



## Soocom1 (Apr 9, 2019)

Bingo!


----------



## Designer (Apr 9, 2019)

Carrying the hand-writing analogy into further detail; there was a time when school children were drilled in cursive writing to the point that it should have been considered an art form, but lately, digital "word processing" has largely displaced cursive writing.  What we now have is simply an easier way to put one's thoughts on record.  Back in the fountain pen days, I used to hate writing for fear of making a mistake, and therefore would have to start the whole page over.  My writing suffered for it.  These days, it is so easy to correct mistakes that the content could be considered as having received the most attention, not the mechanics.

Back to photography; when one was concerned with how many shots remained on the roll, and how much it cost to produce a viewable image, people were much more careful about shot selection and execution.  Now with digital, taking 3 or 4, or even 34 shots is not particularly taxing, so we see not as much care being put into shot selection and execution.  The "spray and pray" folks do sometimes get a good shot, but it's not because they put a lot of thought or effort into it.

My point is that the mechanics of photography have changed a lot, but the principles of composition have not.  Artistic expression can be accomplished using film, digital, pastels, water colors, charcoal, or whatever, so I think we need to look beyond the media and consider the content.  Unfortunately, typical comments in social media tend toward evaluating the subject, rather than the skill involved in making a photograph.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 9, 2019)

@Designer your comments on handwriting really hit home. I received a handwritten letter from a former high school teacher and friend of the family a couple weeks ago. She is 92, the letter was in cursive and done with the old fashion fountain pen she always used. The letter itself was art, perfectly formed lettering, crisp and clean, not a mistake anywhere, on fine stationary.  Nothing like the crude chicken scratches I do.

edit: But to go a step further, this lady mastered the "art" of penmanship eons ago, it means something to her, and the fact that she still does it well, is a testament to how well she learned the art. In today's instant gratification world, I fear that the ease of adding preset effects to any digital image turns many off from wanting to actually learn the art. Why put in the effort, click on a preset, share to social media, and listen to all the mindless likes by similar people who don't know or care about the difference.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 9, 2019)

Solarflare said:


> Has Photography Gotten Too Easy?



The COMMENTS to the above blog article are very good! Like this one, by 'Rob L.'

_"In a word, codswallop."

I"t's easier, yes to take pictures. Still just as hard to make art. Vivian Maier wouldn't have done much with a 4x5. There's so many people who have learned how to communicate visually with their smartphones, so many of whom would never have thought themselves to use a 'real' camera. So, yes, much of what's being created today is banal - that's a matter of scale, but it's a problem that existed in the heydays of camera clubs and endless slideshows set to Enya cd's, but the audience is bigger, and wider, and more varied now."

"Discovery is easier than it's ever been, and harder than its ever been, but put a random word into Flickr, or instagram, and(okay, yes, avoiding the porn, yes), look at all the amazing stuff!For every album of 'hey-i-have-an-infrared-camera-and-went-to-a-graveyard' there's a set of insane images from someone you've never heard of. A beautiful, poetic yin/yang shot of a some's kid and their cat, sleeping. Cotton Candy sunsets reflected in the sunglasses of a girl that it's obvious the photographer is deeply smitten by."

"Hell with art. A lot more emotions on display now than there ever were, and I find that far more satisfying."

Posted by: Rob L. | __Tuesday, 09 April 2019 at _12:08 AM


----------



## SquarePeg (Apr 9, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> @Original katomi since you seemed to take exception with my comment by marking it disagree, then maybe you could explain how or why you disagree with my comment, rather then marking and moving on. Do you also disagree with Squarepeg,  socoom1, or others who've said the same? Maybe you also disagree with some your own comments?



It's a disagree button, not an insult or an attack or a mark against you.  This is an overreaction.  Also, it's possible that it was marked Disagree in error.  I know when I'm on my phone I frequently hit the wrong tag.


----------



## wfooshee (Apr 9, 2019)

Taking pictures is way easier than it used to be.

Getting pictures out there for people to see is infinitely easier than it used to be!

Taking pictures people _want_ to see isn't any easier than it's ever been. Digital makes it easier to do a lot of the creative things that chemistry made difficult or messy, but it also introduces enough of its own difficulties (learning the software, storing, indexing, and tagging the files, etc.) that i wouldn't necessarily call production easier.


----------



## Original katomi (Apr 9, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> @Original katomi since you seemed to take exception with my comment by marking it disagree, then maybe you could explain how or why you disagree with my comment, rather then marking and moving on. Do you also disagree with Squarepeg,  socoom1, or others who've said the same? Maybe you also disagree with some your own comments?


Sorry I have done what?
Have I pressed something help here please


----------



## limr (Apr 9, 2019)

Solarflare said:


> Poor example because letters never have been art.



I completely disagree. Writing is an art, and letter-writing is included - or was included - in this; it was not just transactional.



> Regular conversation. Not art.



Kind of the point. Conveying messages became easier and cheaper - more conversational and transactional - and so they spent less time on the message, were not so invested in the medium. And so they lost the art of writing a well-crafted, artful, meaningful letter.

Edit for clarity: I'm not referring to penmanship.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 9, 2019)

Original katomi said:


> Sorry I have done what?
> Have I pressed something help here please



You checked the disagree button on my comment (post #5) on page one. If it was in error then you can scroll back to it and "undo" your rating. It's easy to hit the disagree button in error. No harm no foul. If it was not in error, then I asked why you had disagreed with my comment.


----------



## Soocom1 (Apr 9, 2019)

Read up on Liberal Arts education and go from there. 

The popular form of photography is always "good enough" for most. 
But a few want something higher end. To achieve that one needs a more complete education.


----------



## Original katomi (Apr 9, 2019)

Smoke, 665  Hi  er which one is the button as yes it was a mis press.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 9, 2019)

Original katomi said:


> Smoke, 665  Hi  er which one is the button as yes it was a mis press.



PM sent


----------



## Original katomi (Apr 9, 2019)

To smoke665 and to all others the disagree on #5 was an error I right hand thumb swipe and have hit the button in error.
Sorry all


----------



## limr (Apr 9, 2019)

Original katomi said:


> To smoke665 and to all others the disagree on #5 was an error I right hand thumb swipe and have hit the button in error.
> Sorry all



No need to apologize to everyone. The disagree button isn't a "punishment" button. It's simply a way to express disagreement. There is no obligation to explain further. And hitting it by mistake is also just a mistake - not some kind of forum faux pas


----------



## Original katomi (Apr 9, 2019)

Reading Designer’s post there some good points made.
As a child I had an illness that’s affects fine motor control so writing for me was hell still is lol 
The pc and word processing means that people can read what I write like digital photography it allows me to push back the limits on my dreams.. even though my wayward thumb gets me into trouble....I am now wondering how many others I have upset without knowing... is there a linch mob heading my way.. if so can somebody please photo it. Lol


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 9, 2019)

Solarflare said:


> Poor example because letters never have been art.



I have to also disagree with this. As in another comment I received a letter recently written in ink, that the penmanship bordered on art. Calligraphy is considered a visual art related to writing and the ability to concisely put to paper in indelible ink a coherent conversation without flaw, is in itself a skill that some would call art. I might even go so far as to call it a lost art in today's digital world of auto correct and delete buttons.


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 9, 2019)

limr said:


> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> > Poor example because letters never have been art.
> ...



"I have made this longer than usual because I have not had time to make it shorter." -- Pascal

Joe


----------



## JonFZ300 (Apr 9, 2019)

I'm glad it's "too easy." That means it's more accessible. Yeah there's lots of visual drivel out there, but you can still geek out as much as you want and the cream still rises. I agree with Rob L. quoted by Derrel above.


----------



## Original katomi (Apr 9, 2019)

digital has made life easier for me. But one thing is clear from the posts and seeing peeps at the camera club. Whatever camera,  be it film, digital, telepathic imprint...  is the person behind the lens  that makes the difference
I take photos as a hobby, so my work is not subjected to the same examinations as a pro. My style is very much out of the box and I have a lot of marmite pics ( love them/hate them). I worry that digital photos will not last the test of time and that in 100 years someone will look at digital storage and think the equivalent of what the bleep


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 9, 2019)

Original katomi said:


> I worry that digital photos will not last the test of time and that in 100 years



Valid point, this is a scan of a studio print, from early 1800's of my grandparents. It was stored in a box, in a shed for years, with no special care given and still it's pretty darn good. Can we really expect digital to last that long when the storage media of today won't.


----------



## Original katomi (Apr 9, 2019)

Smoke, I hope that I have got this right, it’s taken me three goes lol, I have tried to a use the thumb up button as you put in a nut shell my worries about the longevity of digital images.
You photo was stored in a box, I can just imagine the reaction if I handed the great grand kids a hard disk and said here is pics of family history.


----------



## Original katomi (Apr 9, 2019)

To all, yes I know I have started to go off topic here, but I plead my case that it’s relevent as a follow on.
Night all from me in the UK.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 9, 2019)

Original katomi said:


> SNIP>>>I worry that digital photos will not last the test of time and that in 100 years someone will look at digital storage and think the equivalent of what the bleep.



I expect pretty good longevity from CD's and DVD discs of JPG and raw files...but will "most people" have machines to translate the Xs and Os onto visible images or moving pictures? Probably not! I,personally, know of NOBODY who currently owns an 8mm,16mm,or 35mm movie projector. VHS tape player/VCR? More common, yes, but I have not OWNED a VHS player for 5+ years...yet still, I could have a VHS tape transferred to DVD if I payed for the service,and I expect that, in the future, there will be companies that specialize in transferring "obsolete" formats such as CD and DVD to whatever format is current at the time..


----------



## Soocom1 (Apr 9, 2019)

true, but there is another layer to that argument: 
When old tyme photos were taken, they were something special and were a keepsake. Precious and something to protect and display with pride. 
Vs. Fakebook.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 9, 2019)

Without a doubt, digital, better and easier-to-use cameras, and automation and computers have made it easier,and cheaper,to LEARn the basics of many types of photography. When I look back to the mid-to late-1970's, equipment and lenses are MUCH easier to use, and BETTER, than before.   
 One of the best comments  in response to the TOP blog entry:

"_*Dave Levingston*: "I’ve had a personal experience that exemplifies this. Back in college in the 1970s I started photographing dance at Ohio University (where the Clarence White School of Photography is located, by the way). I was pretty good at it and the dancers were very happy with my photos. Shooting dance performances back then was a technical challenge. The stage was dark, the film had to be push processed, and of course autofocus was decades away."

"After I retired I decided to return to OU and make more dance photos as a way to 'pay it forward' for the kindness and support I had received when I was a student. That was in the early days of digital and it was still a challenge shooting with my Nikon D100".

"I would edit my photos and put them on a site where the dancers could order prints. I put the prices at cost. A lot of dancers bought the prints. But over the years the orders declined. Eventually they stopped all together. I realized that dance performance photography was no longer difficult. The dancers had plenty of photos taken by their friends with their digital cameras and even with their phones. And they had no use for prints. They just wanted small digital files for the Internet."_


----------



## limr (Apr 9, 2019)

Derrel said:


> I,personally, know of NOBODY who currently owns an 8mm,16mm,or 35mm movie projector. VHS tape player/VCR?



*raises hand*

But I don't think I count - you know me virtually, not personally, and I'm a dinosaur anomaly


----------



## Derrel (Apr 9, 2019)

In this group...I should have known there would be SOMEBODY who owns a film projector...


----------



## webestang64 (Apr 9, 2019)

limr said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > I,personally, know of NOBODY who currently owns an 8mm,16mm,or 35mm movie projector. VHS tape player/VCR?
> ...



Do forget me Derrel, I own many of those things you list plus cassette decks, typewriters, turntables, heck I even have an 8 track player. And yes I use them.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 9, 2019)

Derrel said:


> but I have not OWNED a VHS player for 5+ years...



Call me, if you need to I have player, a recorder and tapes,  also have some 8 track tapes (probably a player around somewhere), a reel to reel (plus several boxes of tapes), several boxes of LP's and a turntable, and believe it or not a box of  paper reels for a player piano somewhere (the piano is long gone but the music lives on). My kids are gonna cuss me one day when they have to clean it all out. 

As to longevity  many of the current CD's only have a shelf life of 5 to 10 years not recorded, and anywhere from 10 to 100 after. The so called 1000 year CD came out around 2013, but with all of them, the lifespan is dependent on environmental storage conditions and handling. Throw a stack of them in a box and put it in a hot shed for a few years, shake the box every now and then, and see how long they last.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 9, 2019)

Derrel said:


> In this group...I should have known there would be SOMEBODY who owns a film projector.



Does a slide projector and a whole bunch of carousels count. LOL


----------



## limr (Apr 9, 2019)

I've also got a 1920's Victrola and Nat King Cole sounds awesome on those 78's.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 9, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > In this group...I should have known there would be SOMEBODY who owns a film projector.
> ...



NO!!!!



limr said:


> I've also got a 1920's Victrola and Nat King Cole sounds awesome on those 78's.


AHHH...you!


----------



## Derrel (Apr 9, 2019)

Player piano...when I was in HS 1979-1981, I had a friend whose parents had a player piano and a box or two of "paper rolls"...

Player piano | eBay

1920's Victrola | eBay


----------



## Designer (Apr 9, 2019)

Derrel said:


> Player piano...when I was in HS 1979-1981, I had a friend whose parents had a player piano and a box or two of "paper rolls"...


I think we bought his piano.  It was about that time when we bought one. The bellows were so leaky that we had to pump extra fast to keep proper time.  I thought about restoring it, but in the end did i not and gave it away.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 9, 2019)

My grandmother, had the player piano in her house, but a fire in her "parlor", destroyed it. Fortunately the damage was contained to one room. Why the reels were in another room or why they were saved no one knows anymore.


----------



## Solarflare (Apr 15, 2019)

Okay, okay, some people make an art out of letter writing.

Doesnt mean you can get into a museum and view them on display.

Its really artisany, not art just yet.

In this respect you can make pretty much any occupation an art, cooking, cleaning the house, ...





Jeff15 said:


> Whats film........?............



Oh ... um ... I dont remember anymore.




webestang64 said:


> I wonder how all those early  photographers reacted to the Kodak Brownie (photography made easy) when it came out in 1900.



Doesnt compare to digital, really.

With digital you can have 1:1 the same image quality as with film. If not better, since digital has higher efficiency.

Unless of course you refer to smartphones. Then yes, the smartphone is pretty much todays Brownie.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 15, 2019)

Solarflare said:


> Doesnt mean you can get into a museum and view them on display



I'd have to disagree with this. I have a copy of a letter from Abraham Lincoln to one of my great, great Uncle that is on display at the Smithsonian as are many more. Then there's this  https://www.fenimoreartmuseum.org/current-exhibitions/hamilton. Or this Museum of Letters. Or this The John Singer Sargent Archive: Letters. Could probably find some more.


----------



## Soocom1 (Apr 15, 2019)

Solarflare said:


> ...In this respect you can make pretty much any occupation an art, cooking, cleaning the house, ...



With respect (I am not slamming you here) but actually yes. 
The Chinese and Japanese have a very long history of turning event he most mundaine chores into an art. 
Celled _chanoyu_ (茶の湯) the Japanese Tea ceremony takes one of the UK's most daily routines (Tea time) and turns it (actually about 1000 years before) into literally an art. 



Solarflare said:


> Doesnt compare to digital, really.
> 
> With digital you can have 1:1 the same image quality as with film. If not better, since digital has higher efficiency.




i will disagree on the prose of the statement but not wholly disagree. 
Yes more efficient if your discussing chemical use and resources to achieve the film media. 
it is also more efficient with storage than film but there are some distinct disadvantages as well. 
Plus digital is still working off of light intensity rather than reaction.  
that tied in with format size and various discussions over DoF and the like the organic feel of film still in my opinion trumps digital.


----------



## limr (Apr 15, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> > Doesnt mean you can get into a museum and view them on display
> ...



Plus, it doesn't have to be displayed in a museum to be considered art. How many volumes of writers' letters have been published? Yes, sometimes it is intended for scholarly purposes, but they curate the letters carefully, not just for content but for form as well.

Yes, I do believe that activities that are generally considered mundane can be elevated to an art form. The Japanese tea ceremoney mentioned above. I've been to one - a former student of mine was trained in the tea ceremony and she invited me and some others to her home. It's beautiful.

Or how about Soviet propaganda posters? Beaux Arts advertising? Art Deco architecture and furniture design? Cake decorating?


----------



## Derrel (Apr 15, 2019)

I've seen some art photos posted on...on...on...wait for it...on *Instagram*.


----------



## RVT1K (Apr 17, 2019)

I see I'm pretty late to the party but I will always remember what I heard in my first digital photography class.

The teacher said "I can teach you how to use your camera but I can't teach you how to be a photographer". 

And how right he was!! 
Just because something is in focus doesn't a "good" photo make.


----------



## dennyr (Apr 17, 2019)

SquarePeg said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> > @Original katomi since you seemed to take exception with my comment by marking it disagree, then maybe you could explain how or why you disagree with my comment, rather then marking and moving on. Do you also disagree with Squarepeg,  socoom1, or others who've said the same? Maybe you also disagree with some your own comments?
> ...


Are people required to give an explanation when they DO agree.?


----------



## Original katomi (Apr 17, 2019)

Hi  all re the comment on disagree. Smoke and I have pm.d on this and if you read past posts you will see my comments on thumb swipe, too much time on Amazon lol,   This is not a get at or have a go at someone post just it’s ok all concerned have spoken and sorted it out.


----------



## Original katomi (Apr 17, 2019)

RVT1K said:


> I see I'm pretty late to the party but I will always remember what I heard in my first digital photography class.
> 
> The teacher said "I can teach you how to use your camera but I can't teach you how to be a photographer".
> 
> ...



How true, you can see this in all walks of life.


----------



## Solarflare (Apr 23, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> I'd have to disagree with this.



Invalid counterexample, since those letters are valued for their historical value or for their content, but not as a piece of art.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 23, 2019)

Solarflare said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> > I'd have to disagree with this.
> ...



Not to not pick, but I was disagreeing with your statement "D_oesnt mean you can get into a museum and view them on display_". I was pointing out examples of museums that did display letters. As to whether or not letters based on their content or calligraphy in general is an art form lies in the eye of the beholder. There's a ton of paintings, drawings, statues, photographs, etc, that I personally don't consider art even if it's displayed in a museum.


----------



## Dikkie (Apr 28, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> The popular form of photography is always "good enough" for most.


Indeed... When I make an average snapshot of my kids, my wife comes up with: "what a beautiful shot is this".
It's not about the composition, nor the light,  bokeh or whatever... it's just because the kids are pretty smiling. And any other person could have taken this picture. What made the picture great is the subject in this case, not how the photographer captured the subject.
It's something emotional too... if it were other kids on the picture instead of ours, would my wife give the same comment or not?


----------



## greybeard (Apr 28, 2019)

Digital makes capturing an image easy, creating a great picture is another thing all together.


----------



## Solarflare (Apr 29, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> Not to not pick, but I was disagreeing with your statement "D_oesnt mean you can get into a museum and view them on display_".


Yes you ignored the context of that statement.

I was talking about letters specifically as an artpiece, and to my best knowledge there arent any.


----------



## limr (Apr 29, 2019)

Just two results from the first page of a quick Google search.

The Smithsonian:
The Art of Cards and Letters
"_The Art of Cards and Letters_ spotlights the important, personal, role mail has held as a medium for personal communications. As Samuel Johnson once said, "in a man's letters his soul lies naked." The emotional outpouring of love letters, the topical debates between friends and family, the simple "I miss you" are letters we recognize, as sender or recepient. 

Although this exhibit is no longer on display in the Museum, selected portions of the exhibit are still available online. Click on the topic titles below to learn more about them."

Van Gogh Museum
Vincent van Gogh's letters on display in Amsterdam
"A new exhibition in Amsterdam presents a spellbinding selection of letters sent by and to Vincent van Gogh. The correspondence, which includes sketches of his own work, details the private life of the artist and reveals his thoughts on fellow painters. The letters have been published both in a six-volume book by Thames & Hudson and online. They are currently on display at theVan Gogh museum in Amsterdam and can be seen at theRoyal Academy of Arts in London from 23 January 2010"


----------



## Tim Tucker 2 (Apr 29, 2019)

I've read the Op and not much else, but have the distinct feeling that we've missed the point by a mile.

Trivial? A hand written note?

What is it, can't we see past the words and their literal meaning as though they were transcribed and printed on a lifeless and soulless laser printer?

When I receive a hand written note from my mum I see how the shake in her hand and a little arthritis has modified her script. I see how her turn of phrase modified from one of a son and a touch of hope to an adult with a sprinkling of respect. I hear her voice in the hand written word far more than in a text, shorthand because the sender hasn't the time to type a full word, comical and worthy of note because the sender can't even be bothered to check the predictive text...

Does something that has become *everyday* become devalued because of it? I don't think so, it becomes devalued because when something is everyday/yesterday we fail to look, we glance and don't see beyond.


----------

