"Nice!", "SO COOL!!!","PURR", "Where is this take?", "Holy COWZIERS!", "neat stuff", "What kind of equiptment do you use?"

This new forum of photographic placement in the web is not different from that of the argument of analog vs digital. The role of the photographer has always shifted with the introduction of media since the start of photography till now in a virtual world. Evans depicts this transition of the new photographic forum in blogs as means to expand on what photography can be. These blogs, personal websites, and photo-sharing sites allow everyone the possibility to post and comment on billions of peoples work, camouflaging the difference from the amateur and professional in work content. These sites now allow for the production of art to be broadened and unbendable. We are given countless sources to experience work that possibly would never have been viewed without these services. There is a new public voice, that though was prominent since the 18^th century, is now considered sociably acceptable as truth. This voice is more prominent in the consumer content of companies that want to be perceived as “owner enforced” in the manner that those who are potential owners have insight and influence on the product. 

TheDailyNice image for November 1st, 2010

I do not believe that through these web sites the true essence of art in a professional manner will change entirely, but as to referencing art and people it is a new type of forum that can reexamine the role of art in society. Now that people are able to put their work for anyone to see the professionals need to prove their ability more so because there is more competition. This competition is not just between few people but everyone, and in this manner is always shifting. One person’s images are compared to another’s. The competition has also shifted from bodies of work to individual images. These forums allow for people to get feedback from consumers and not just historians.

These sites have also created a shift in the imagery from images of the vernacular to vernacular images; now images are produced so rapidly that they are in a way second nature to our lives. This vernacular image is so prominent in our lives now that even well contrived images from professionals get entwined in them as to mask their uniqueness. Susan Murray discussed how the manipulation created through digital photography is now irrelevant. Now with these unprofessional databases of blogs and sharing sites the old conception that digital photography being negative by not showing the real is irrelevant since people aren’t thinking about the images as much as they are just wanted to see images. Murray discussed the new vocabulary associated with this new forum of sharing sites, but there is really no difference from that of traditional vocabulary besides in the terminology. Her example of ephemera, to me, is indifferent from what is considered minimalist photography. Murray, in a way, hints on the analog vs. digital debate in stating that these sites, uninterested in whether the photographer considers him/herself to be amateur or professional also are uninterested in the format of film vs. digital. The only thing that matters in these forums is the image, not the person not the media and not the context. There is an unlimited amount of work that coincides to each type of image, far to great to see everything, that the image itself is the sole importance and that the image must reassure the prominence of the work. With these forums the concept and writings on projects now become unimportant.

“The two sides of the same coin” which Evans distinguishes as analog vs. digital is in reference to both being the same thing just in different ways. This also is a good analogy in reference to the web vs. traditional outputs in the art world. Both allow others to see work and to be involved in it, but they are different in reference to acceptability of professional and amateur. This is to say that neither is totally good or bad, but it is necessary to consider those pros and cons in the context of whether it is on the web or in lets say a gallery. One cannot compare these sides in reference to both at the same time. Like a coin you can only look at one side at a time.

These sites also create a communal effect among photographers. There is a constant collaboration that exists when posting on Flickr. One can search for images through very specific terms such as cups to vague terms, like thoughts. All these images rely on the specificity that the postee has given to their images through titling and tagging. There is in a way no more general theme to images like landscape, portrait, and fine art, but now a broad ubiquitous themeing like Richard, thought, lines, imaginary, and so on. When looking up the term “star” in Flickr one can see images of stars in outer space as well as movie stars and anything one considers to be a star for them. All these images are a part of a collaboration of images within the same theme, and therefore all those people are in a similar category even if they want to or not.

Flickr search for "star"

Flickr search for "star"

Flickr search for "star"