Since I was a bit pinched for time in during my
lecture, I
didn’t go into quite as much detail as I would have liked in certain areas. We
also didn’t have time for a formal Q and A session, but I did have many
interesting conversations afterwards, during the reception, most of which
revolved around these two topics:
1. Extolling the
virtues of Instagram
During my lecture, I spent a good bit of time discussing
Instagram as a wonderful vehicle for capturing and disseminating images. If you
are concerned about the Instagram / Facebook terms of service then there are
other options, such as Twitter or Flickr Mobile. (In fact, I really like Flickr
Mobile, but my network is on Instagram.) Personally, I have never put too much
importance on the “ownership” of my images online. I realize this puts me in
the minority, but I view the networking capabilities provided by the Internet
as a whole to be a fair trade, and acceptable risk, for the possible “theft” of
my work. If you are worried about your work being “stolen” from the Internet,
then don’t put it there – theft is but a screen-grab away.
What is important to recognize, which I did not have a
chance to discuss in my lecture, is that Insatgram is not solely an
image-making practice. Rather, it is, like Twitter, Flickr, or Facebook, its
own communication platform and network. It allows photographers to communicate
in a native, image-based language. And it also incorporates social media
language conventions – abbreviated messages, hashtags, and even
Emojis. Hashtags
function as both a means of tagging, or connecting, images but also as a form
of commentary. This element of commentary particularly applies to the use of
ironic hashtags – those hashtags that are too long or too specific or are,
generally, never going to be typed into a search field:
#OMGicantbelievethisguyisseriousaboutteachingInstagram
I also mentioned reading Ron Cowie’s interview on the
Photo-Eye blog on my phone and described how that re-presentation of his
photographs, on a mobile-specific platform, is much different than merely
presenting physical work as a digital projection (and in the case of Ron’s
work, viewing postage stamp sized versions of beautiful platinum palladium
prints on my phone is certainly a new contextualization of very traditional
photographic information).
Overall, my discussion of Instagram and mobile-specific
photographic practice was meant to provide an example of how digital
photography has fundamentally changed the nature of photographic information –
and how it has changed the way we consume that information – and that we need
to consider these changes in our teaching.
2. Teaching
photography in the post-print era
In the past, the medium of photography sold itself. The very
hands-on nature of teaching students how to handle film and manual cameras, how
to load film onto reels in the dark, how to handle paper in the darkroom – all
of this “process” - allowed students to take ownership of the things they
created. Once this foundation was established, we, as educators, could direct
students down any number of avenues to further their photographic educations.
However, with teaching digital photography, if we limit our
curriculum to a digital version of analog photography, then we risk having our
courses look like a series of digital imaging tutorials – and who wants to pay
for that? Or, how many students will sign up for (and pay for) a
second photo course. In other words, if
we don’t explore, engage in, and provide critical foundations for the unique
and (relatively) new nature of digital imagery, then why would we expect
students to pursue an extended and in-depth study of photography? Which begs the question posed in the last link I presented:
Do I Need a Photo Degree?
And to extend this out a bit – I had a few conversations
about enrollment and curricular issues in photo courses – if enrollment numbers
for photo classes drop and budgets get tightened (as seems to be happening
everywhere – and which always seems to affect the arts first and/or most
profoundly) – as course loads for faculty are cut, as positions are downgraded
or eliminated, as course offerings are cut – new voices and new ideas will be
marginalized. If we can’t offer a new product to prospective students then why
should we expect enrollment numbers to do anything but drop?
-Edward
