Diversionary

Photo: S. Banos

After a while there are some things in life (ie- photography) that you slowly come to realize there's just no explaining- even when it comes to the most basic of things, like what's new and what's old.

I shoot B&W film- I'm old times two. Granted. But... color photography is like the super baggy, sagging pants trend- still popular and current as all hell, particularly with those who don't know how old the shit actually is, ie- those who weren't born when it was, in fact- new! But new it's nowhere near- it's every bit as played and funky as anything else in the known universe. Both color and "sagging" have entered the staid and hallowed halls of "tradition," their time as rebels long since over... but neither can come to grips (because they can't come up with whatever the next real new will be).

So they keep retouching, punching holes in, and drawing shit on photographs just like they've been doing since day one- and what's really old is having people "discover" these things every decade and then treat them as "new." And this is no way any knock against truly original stuff like Doug Rickard's A New American Picture. 

The thing is, like it or not, photography begins in camera- it's Achilles heel (far as "newness" is concerned). And that's where photography's "artistic" insecurity lies; unlike so many other arts- photography, is unavoidably beholden to that machine, and some will always tend to overcompensate for that. Like it or not- photographers will always have to do a good portion of their thinking within the box (no matter the technology of how that box records). I'm all for new visions and new approaches, and look forward to them as much as anyone- but it also doesn't mean we need belittle or apologize for what cameras can and always have done, and what photography will always do best...