The main comment I wanted to make was a quote by the late Galen Rowell, which I suspect Matt has already read in the book, Mountain Light: "Photographs are like gems: the real and the synthetic are often physically indistinguishable, but there is no question as to the ultimate value. A photograph that depicts a moment of real life, whether that of a human activity or of the natural world, is of a higher order than the most perfect replication created by or for the camera with luck removed from the formula." Keep in mind that he wrote this quote in the 80s or 90s, when it was just darkroom manipulation of film photography. It still rings true. Anwyays, Alex, you used EXACTLY the line of thinking that I've held for over a decade now: If you call yourself a photographer, then you should be presenting photographs. Because if you're clinging to the title of "photographer", then we all know that you're relying on an inherent assumption viewers make: "that really happened!" These *artists* try to downplay it by saying they're artists and they never misled viewers, they never said anything about the truth of the imagery, etc... ....but they're still livid if you tell them, "well then that's not a photograph anymore, that's actually digital art." Today, with AI, I think we can at least be thankfull that "digital artists" are finally getting it. Their imagery isn't even remotely photography, sometimes, and because of the popularity of AI, they know they'll be utterly bombarded by THAT question if they don't provide the info up front. All in all, I think AI might be good for traditional landscape photography, because so many artists will be distracted by the fact that they can achieve synthetic perfection without ever leaving their couch. Hopefully, that will leave us a bit more peace and quiet (and add scarcity) to the "plain" photography work we do...
I listened to this episode in chunks over a period of three days, and I loved the honesty and directness of the conversation. Alex, thanks for your openness about how your life experiences have informed your choices and creativity. It's so easy to romanticize the artist's life and traveling and working for yourself... you walked the line of being real while also sharing with us how it's a gift. There was so much packed into this episode, I know I'll be revisiting it when I'm listening and not walking the dog at the same time :-). And yes to doing an episode about UA-cam, and maybe by extension going deeper into the tension between creating art and content for yourself/your core "fans" and creating it for the algorithm so that your reach grows. Thanks again, Matt and Alex, for giving us all a lot to think about!
I think that another thing to remember is, influencers have influence even if people are visiting SIMILAR locations to where you went. Viewers never notice the subtle details, unless you point them out. Maybe you hopped a fence onto some nice bare, dry, grippy rock, but someone else is "inspired" to hopa a fence onto a mossy, wet, slippery rock at a different spot. That's why I usually get all bent out of shape when influencers go romping through a grassy meadow, or even a field of wildflowers. It might have not been "against the rules" where you were, but if your content is viewed by 1M people, I can guarantee you that it's affecting the actions of literally thousands of other people, at dozens or hundreds of OTHER locations. Thankfully, the solution in most cases is very simple: I just cram as many little details as I can into the content. "I'm not going anywhere near the edge of that cliff, because I just hiked 15 miles and my legs are wobbly as heck." ...or, "I'm going over here, and I'm trying to keep an eye out for little flora/fauna that I don't want to stomp on..." And, of course in this scenario, "in most areas, XYZ is frowned upon, but I'm actually allowed to do it safely in this loaction, and here's the reasons why." Campfired in the wilderness is a good example of something I see other Backpacking UA-camrs getting "attacked" for doing, even though they're usually doing it in a perfectly legal spot... I believe that it's easier than we think, to add in the "boring, un-sexy" details about safety and other bits of wisdom, even in the modern environment of social media where the only thing that gets tons of likes is, let's be honest, eye candy, and/or any form of hypers*xualization. Just start peppering in all the little details that you can, while also being mindful of other types of gaps that viewers might be filling about what is acceptable anywhere/everywhere.
The main comment I wanted to make was a quote by the late Galen Rowell, which I suspect Matt has already read in the book, Mountain Light:
"Photographs are like gems: the real and the synthetic are often physically indistinguishable, but there is no question as to the ultimate value. A photograph that depicts a moment of real life, whether that of a human activity or of the natural world, is of a higher order than the most perfect replication created by or for the camera with luck removed from the formula."
Keep in mind that he wrote this quote in the 80s or 90s, when it was just darkroom manipulation of film photography.
It still rings true.
Anwyays, Alex, you used EXACTLY the line of thinking that I've held for over a decade now: If you call yourself a photographer, then you should be presenting photographs. Because if you're clinging to the title of "photographer", then we all know that you're relying on an inherent assumption viewers make: "that really happened!" These *artists* try to downplay it by saying they're artists and they never misled viewers, they never said anything about the truth of the imagery, etc... ....but they're still livid if you tell them, "well then that's not a photograph anymore, that's actually digital art."
Today, with AI, I think we can at least be thankfull that "digital artists" are finally getting it. Their imagery isn't even remotely photography, sometimes, and because of the popularity of AI, they know they'll be utterly bombarded by THAT question if they don't provide the info up front.
All in all, I think AI might be good for traditional landscape photography, because so many artists will be distracted by the fact that they can achieve synthetic perfection without ever leaving their couch. Hopefully, that will leave us a bit more peace and quiet (and add scarcity) to the "plain" photography work we do...
I listened to this episode in chunks over a period of three days, and I loved the honesty and directness of the conversation.
Alex, thanks for your openness about how your life experiences have informed your choices and creativity. It's so easy to romanticize the artist's life and traveling and working for yourself... you walked the line of being real while also sharing with us how it's a gift. There was so much packed into this episode, I know I'll be revisiting it when I'm listening and not walking the dog at the same time :-).
And yes to doing an episode about UA-cam, and maybe by extension going deeper into the tension between creating art and content for yourself/your core "fans" and creating it for the algorithm so that your reach grows.
Thanks again, Matt and Alex, for giving us all a lot to think about!
Yeah I think doing a deep dive with @alexarmitage on videos would be a great time! =) I'm glad you guys were able to connect also!
Great session, highly enjoyed it guys.
Much appreciated!
I think that another thing to remember is, influencers have influence even if people are visiting SIMILAR locations to where you went. Viewers never notice the subtle details, unless you point them out. Maybe you hopped a fence onto some nice bare, dry, grippy rock, but someone else is "inspired" to hopa a fence onto a mossy, wet, slippery rock at a different spot.
That's why I usually get all bent out of shape when influencers go romping through a grassy meadow, or even a field of wildflowers. It might have not been "against the rules" where you were, but if your content is viewed by 1M people, I can guarantee you that it's affecting the actions of literally thousands of other people, at dozens or hundreds of OTHER locations.
Thankfully, the solution in most cases is very simple: I just cram as many little details as I can into the content. "I'm not going anywhere near the edge of that cliff, because I just hiked 15 miles and my legs are wobbly as heck." ...or, "I'm going over here, and I'm trying to keep an eye out for little flora/fauna that I don't want to stomp on..." And, of course in this scenario, "in most areas, XYZ is frowned upon, but I'm actually allowed to do it safely in this loaction, and here's the reasons why." Campfired in the wilderness is a good example of something I see other Backpacking UA-camrs getting "attacked" for doing, even though they're usually doing it in a perfectly legal spot...
I believe that it's easier than we think, to add in the "boring, un-sexy" details about safety and other bits of wisdom, even in the modern environment of social media where the only thing that gets tons of likes is, let's be honest, eye candy, and/or any form of hypers*xualization. Just start peppering in all the little details that you can, while also being mindful of other types of gaps that viewers might be filling about what is acceptable anywhere/everywhere.
Good thoughts, Matthew. I think a little thought goes a long way!