This is a post about the importance of definitions.
They particularly matter when it comes to defining the movable feast that is photography.
Photography has never been easy to define or catalogue. Science or art? Its confusing.
We have now entered the world of the visual social web. Where photos are both language and currency. With our experiences being increasingly shared through lenses, filters and photos that both capture and dominate our social experience.
When the history of mobile photography is written three dates will appear significant in the chapter on post digital: June 11th 1997 when the first image was taken by a cameraphone, the launch of the iphone and the launch of Instagram.
Mobile Photography has changed everything.
Other wise known as: iphoneography, mobile street photography or smartphone photography this relatively new form of photography has firmly established itself as the visual vanguard of the 21st century.
As a totem, citizen weapon and an artists tool, the mobile photography is pissing off traditional photographers everywhere and creating new stars along the way.
Some bloggers have said that Instagram has ruined mobile photography.
I disagree. I think it has transformed it into one of the most exciting and inventive forms of photography since the birth of digital cameras.
What is Mobile Photography?
Mobile photography is the art of photography using a smartphone or mobile device.
Defined using the philosophy of 'the best camera is the one that's always with you', mobile photography is the future of the art form. Discreet, intimate and always accessible to capture a moment.
Mobile photography is so influential now that camera manufacturers are bringing phones to cameras rather than cameras to phones.
As a term, mobile photography is wide category in need of some specific definitions.
So, what are the characteristics of mobile photography?
- it is inherently mobile i.e. there is no studio or staged shots
- it is photography made exclusively by a smartphone or mobile device
- it is non exclusive in its choice of subject matter
- camera apps dominate the mobile photography experience
- fast editing on the fly is commonplace, no deliberation here
- editing apps, usually used together, combine to produce and showcase 'keepers'
- genres can cover: documentary, portraiture, street, citizen journalism, fashion and reportage
- images tend to be instantly shared to a variety of social networks after editing
- or images are shared in specialist photo sharing platforms like Instagram or TaDaa
- mobile photography makes photographic projects and essays easier to produce
- mobile art convergence i.e. when does a photo cease being a photo but a new image in of itself?
- images can be captioned, framed and storyifd
- it encourages a democratic and amateur enthusiasm (which pissed of pros!)
- it has a strong and growing global footprint of users, experts and evangelists
- micro genres are formed frequently e.g #nofilter
So, do definitions matter?
Not really. I prefer the term mobile photography, but as an iphone user I do identify with the community spirit of iphoneography and how the movement has grown. But ultimately it is a limiting and parochial descriptor. And is defined by the genesis of the iphone and less about photography itself.
Perhaps mobile photography is now so intertwined with the social aspects of shooting, editing and publishing photos that it should be called social mobile photography perhaps? But would that mean every photo you take you need to share? This would be a bad idea.
You could also argue the word mobile will soon be dropped as mobile devices become the new normal and there is no distinguishing between the two modes of travel.
Whatever definition you use make sure you keep taking and sharing photos!
(Photo credit: me)
Comments