Conscientious

I think the problem is the stuff that makes it into "flickr Explore," which is allegedly the best that flickr has. It's a lot of pictures that are trying to be artistic, with sunsets, puppydogs, flowers, etc.

In fact, if you don't already have a flickr account, the only way to browse flickr is by looking at Explore.

http://flickr.com/explore/

What I'm after has little to do with Flickr itself, though...

I'm not sure the complaints are about the poor quality, per se, even if they're phrased that way. I think they're about attitude.

I see a lot of people on flickr referring to themselves as "photographer", or better yet, "[your name] Photography" whose portfolios, such as they are, don't really warrant such lofty titles. People who would like to think of themselves as excellent fine art photographers, but haven't invested the effort in actually taking pictures, editing their output, or thinking about why and what they're shooting.

Flickr gives these people a home - an ideal place for them to do exactly what it is they want to do. I expect that art people who have made the investment and are producing the quality of output that warrants the "fine art" label are unhappy to see so many people claiming to be a part of that community and receiving recognition (in the form of comments, favorites, views, etc) whose work is not there, or close. People, of course, who would not receive recognition from the traditional fine art gallery/museum/collector market (however that market works - I really don't know, but I bet they're not buying a lot of oversaturated handheld HDR sunsets - you know, the ones with the registration error halos around all of the highlights).

The idea of vernacular photography, on the other hand, is that it's shot by the unaware - people who don't claim to be photographers at all, much less "artists" or "professionals". It's real pictures from real lives, taken by un-self-aware real people. There is plenty of that on flickr, and I have read praise of it (though it may get lost in the sea of grumbling).

Anyway, there's a lot of attitude on both sides, as there is on most sides of most arguments. I don't come from either side - I'm working to improve, but most of my "serious" pictures don't hold up well enough to be worth publishing for the world, so my flickr page is mostly full of family snapshots and vacation photos. I'm sure no one in the fine art community would be enraged by what I have up, although they wouldn't be interested either - I'm too self-aware to be vernacular, of course.

In a way flickr, especially when you make it past explore, is antithetical to the traditional art work with its positions of authority prescribing what is good or bad art... Instead consumption on flickr is a very personally guided process of subscribing to other people's streams that one finds interesting, joining groups, favouriting photos etc.

Nonetheless the "flickr aesthetic" is making general inroads in society... Not necessarily just through flickr directly but just by a general increase of interest in amateur photography. The extreme popularity of Terry Richardson-style photography in fashion magazines at the moment is somewhat puzzling though.

What I think I'm getting at is that "fine art photography" has a tendency to reflect overall trends in society, both graphical and social. The rise of "user-generated content" with it's perceived honesty and playfulness seems to have struck a note, it appears.

If you want the unfiltered flickr, look at "recently uploaded photos:"
http://www.flickr.com/photos/

Thousands of pics are uploaded every minute!

I think what people have been fixating on is the wrong end of the stick with Flickr. I think that it is the audience of passionate and interested people in photography that is a cause to celebrate.

Certainly people may be aspiriing to a place they can never get to but they are in egaged in their own and others work in meaningful way. The audience may grow in photography buyers and collectors someday.

I can only repeat what I said earlier, namely that I am not that much interested in discussing what Flickr does and what not. What I'm interested in is why for many people the kind of photography that is very common on Flickr is interesting (as "vernacular photography") when it comes out of old photo albums or collections, but why when those photos on Flickr, the same criteria don't appear to apply.

And I could extend this question and ask how likely it is that we will see today's "not-so-interesting", yet very popular photos of flowers and puppies as tomorrow's photo book sensation (think "Boring Photographs" or the various similar books that are sold at "Urban Outfitters", say)?

I think I failed to properly express my sentiments in my earlier post; I was trying to respond directly to your question.

I was trying to describe two separate streams of photography that I see on flickr, the vernacular and the pseudo-art. I don't think the vernacular photography is the problem, I think it's the pseudo-art. I don't think there will be books celebrating the flickr pseudo-art 40 years from now.

I may be wrong - it may all be viewed as vernacular in the future. If so, I expect it's just a case of needing to be viewed from a chronological distance, for whatever reason.

If all of this stuff is incredible vernacular art, and the fine art world can't recognize it now, but does recognize it later, then they're making a mistake that they'll rectify in a few years. That's perfectly understandable - the fine art world is made up of humans.

It's surely easy to appreciate an old photo album as vernacular, but it may be harder to appreciate something that you think is bad, but which competes with your "fine art portfolio" for mouse clicks and page views...and wins.

To answer part of your question, maybe the "time capsule" effect of old photos makes them inherently more interesting.

it's the old story of the avantgarde always trying frantically to overtake the masses...flickr is mythology in/formation

The extreme proliferation of images today (and beyond) makes it inherently difficult to draw distinctions. I think what's happening on sites like flickr is a cataloging of imagery that can be gained access to in a convenient way. Some, I think, will be worthy of viewing in the future as vernacular photography - some might be and are viewed as artistic.

The issue of what's art or not within this realm, also difficult. With all due respect to photographers who have "invested" in artistic photography... there are certainly some duds there as well... and repetitive investigation. I don't mean to say that their activity isn't valid, just that photography can be utilized successfully and have resonance for the educated, as well as the casual user. Some of these users may perhaps become "serious" with more usage.

I think that the time capsule element is also a factor. Not necessarily from a nostalgic viewpoint, but just that casual snapshot, unschooled and "anonymous" vernacular photography from the past often LOOKS great.
That is my attraction anyway. I love the way an individual vernacular image looks, when I find one that I love - and I love a site full of them when they're collected with a discerning eye. It has little to do with nostalgia, but much to do with the appreciation of an image on whatever level I might be appreciating it on. I think I tend to look at schooled or seriously invested photography from a similar viewpoint, only I get to be a little more critical. I probably listen to music that way as well.

We're clearly in a new arena, with new challenges and questions. And a helluva lot of exposure... thanks for the platform.

I think it is nostalgia in part to be sure. Many people are bound to have some (maybe unconscious) emotional response to older shots. Some of that is in reference to their own family photos, some is plain voyeurism, and some might be a longing for some missing life experience or familial bond.

That said, I think that there is also a difference in today's vernacular and that of even as recently as the 1980's. People in the developed world are far more immersed in media, popular culture, and the reproduced image than ever before. Not that most are really more visually literate, and certainly not more critical, but simply that the templates for personal and public photography are far more ingrained.

I can't say that I spend any amount of time looking at images on flickr, but I am one of those folks who is obsessed with old black and white snapshots.

Having said that, I also think that the current popularity of vernacular photography has a lot to do with nostalgia. You can't help but be intrigued by the clothes and the cars and the way mundane, everyday life looked 50 years ago. Yes, there is often an innocent or unaware decisive moment captured in these old snapshots, but I think nostalgia for the time and process fuels the interest more than anything else.

Time and perspective has changed the way many of us read and value these old snapshots. Will it also change the way we read and value the thousands of color images that were uploaded on flickr today?

From A Talk with Geoffrey Batchen. http://tinyurl.com/2cem6m

You teach a seminar on "vernacular photography"? Could you define the term?

The term 'vernacular' literally means the ordinary and ubiquitous but it also refers to qualities specific to particular regions or cultures. Its attachment to the word 'photography' allows historians like myself to argue for the need to devise a way of representing photography's history that can incorporate all its many manifestations and functions. A vernacular history of photography will have to be able to deal with the kind of hybrid objects I describe above, but also with, for example, photographies from outside Europe and the U.S. It may mean having to adopt non-traditional voices and narrative structures. It will certainly mean abandoning art history's evaluation system (based on masterpieces and masters, originality and innovation, and so on). In short, the term 'vernacular photography' is intended as a provocation and a challenge.

some favorites of great photos...

Hello. I was wondering if the perceived difference has simply to do with anonymity. The majority of flickr account holders, even when they use pseudonyms, are the identifiable, existant authors of the photographs they post. Whereas, on the whole, the kind of images the fine art community call vernacular are by authors unknown. A lot of what's so attractive about them is that they are enigmatic - not knowing who the photographers were, who or what the pictures are of exactly, when or where they were taken and why - one or any combination of these leaves room for all kinds of speculation. Also, if images don't specifically belong to anybody, it's much easier to appropriate them.

Oh, and the less information we have about images and their authors, they more guileless we can believe both to be?

A couple of thoughts:

One, I think Stephen Shore got at the point of this with his semi-recent commentary on Flickr that made a big stink on Alec Soth's blog a few weeks back. The artsy stuff on Flickr is made specifically to be artful, adhering to conventional concepts of artistic beauty. Vernacular photography is purposeful, meaning it was made to serve a purpose other than to be artistic, ie record a moment, document an object, etc. I suspect 100 years from now there will be collections of Flickr party photos taken with cellphones and people will think they are quaint and artistic in a naive sort of way. (Someone somewhere is probably putting together a show like this right now and we won't even have to wait 100 years!)

I see a lot of people on flickr referring to themselves as "photographer", or better yet, "[your name] Photography" whose portfolios, such as they are, don't really warrant such lofty titles.

Since when did "photographer" become such a lofty title? Is there some committee who takes submissions from those of us who wish to be photographers? I had thought is was merely descriptive, one who photographs. Personally, I have a hard time applying that descriptor to myself when I look at my own output. Perhaps there are many who substitute the label for the work, but I admire those who put in the effort long term that gives them the chutzpah to label themselves "photographer."

Perhaps there are many who substitute the label for the work, but I admire those who put in the effort long term that gives them the chutzpah to label themselves "photographer."

Yes, it's those I was referring to. Sorry for being unclear. I wasn't judging anyone's artistic vision, but specifically referring to people who adopt these titles without putting in any work, or, as you suggest, who substitute the label for the work.

"Photographer" isn't a label I'm ready to give myself, and it may never be. But if I ever do consider it warranted, there will be a great deal of work behind it (talent? vision? who knows, but work, yes).