While looking for articles in the Arts section of the New York Times, I came across “When the Camera Takes Over for the Eye,” and it hit too close to home. I immediately knew this was the article I wanted to blog about because I am the type of person the article mentions. The article is about the New York Times photographer, Ruth Fremson, who came back from the Venice Biennale with pictures of people photographing the art as opposed to just looking at the art. Unfortunately if I had been at the Venice Biennale, I would have been photographed photographing the art. The article made me laugh at myself, and vow that next time I venture to an art exhibit, I will leave my camera behind.
To read the article, click here
I saw this article and thought it was very interesting for the way in which it reflects the infiltration (intrusion?) of technology on our lives at every turn. There once was a time when (in certain smaller cities) the only way to hear a symphony orchestra was to wait until a visiting orchestra came through and performed, or by trekking to the big city to hear the symphony when they were in season. The ubiquity of technology to share information (visual, musical, published and private) is rather extraordinary. I find myself at museums taking a picture of the artwork, and also of the little cards next to the art, so that I can read the details later.
I think that our generation’s obsession with technology causes us to miss out on experiences. For example, I was once on a hike through a stunning mountain range, and my friend spent the entire time with her eyes glued to her camera. How can you experience the raw beauty, the deep emotions, of such a big world through such a small window? It’s hard to get a good look at the world when you’re looking at it through a camera lens (or even a camera screen, with modern digital cameras). When you really want to experience something, when you want to really BE there, mentally and emotionally as well as physically, handheld media only limits you.
I agree with Ilana. I spent all of last year abroad with many of my friends, and while most of them found themselves attached to their cameras from fear of (gasp!) missing out on a Kodak moment, I, in a rare act of “rebellion,” decidedly chose to leave my camera behind. Mental pictures leave a more profound impression, and they are considerably less static than their digital/paper counterparts, if I do say so myself. I know they say “a picture is worth a thousand words,” but I think having a vivid and authentic recollection of something is worth missing the photo-op.
I think this is a question of balance. I’m glad to have some pictures of places I have been, but they are worthless if they don’t conjure up the actual feeling of being in the place. For that reason, I’m sure I “see” my pictures in a very different way than anyone who was not there with me.
Reading your article only solidifies the fact that technology has almost set society backwards in terms of appreciating the arts. In theory, the ability to capture a moment or a monument or natural landscape or even an art piece is invaluable, but we have become so obsessed with taking the picture instead of appreciating the beauty that is in front of us. People speed through museums, snapping pictures, trying to see and capture as much as they can. They figure they can appreciate the artwork later because they have a picture of it, but it’s obviously far more rewarding to appreciate what’s in front of you with your own eyes instead of viewing everything through the lens.
Please look at this picture that I’ve attached. I think it puts a comical spin on society’s obsession with the capturing of the picture instead of appreciating the subject.
http://all-that-is-interesting.com/post/697430512/the-same-photograph-at-the-leaning-tower-of-pisa
Hilarious. I have a picture of my children doing the same thing, but there was not such a crowd imitating one another at that time.