A work of art is the unique result of a unique temperament. —Oscar Wilde
Adding filters to photographs may provide an interesting effect, but don’t mistake the results for art
The photographs above are not art. The photographs below are not art. We’ve covered this topic before and those who are long-time readers know exactly where I’m going. Adding a bunch of filters to a photograph to make it “look cool” is not art; it has never been, it never will be. All we have here are heavily and spontaneously manipulated photographs. The whole batch took no more than an hour to process from RAW files. I spend more time processing a single portrait.
So, what has set off this latest artistic angst that has me gnashing my teeth? The use of online filters by people who I expect to know better. When the average pedestrian Instagram user applies some stupid filter to their picture, I typically roll my eyes and chalk it up to a certain level of ignorance; they don’t know better. I don’t say anything about horrendously filtered online photographs for the same reason I don’t correct everyone’s grammar: it’s socially rude, even though both are likely to have me banging my head on my desk.
Yet, what I’ve noticed over the past week or so it the frequent use of a new online filter that gives images a sort of stained glass effect. The filter divides the image into a vertical mosaic, blurring out details but keeping just enough information so that one can infer the basic contents of the photograph. Some impressive math work is behind the filter, to be sure, but it still does not make a photograph a work of art.
You Should Know Better
Here’s what has me irked: the filter is being used by professionals who should know better. I’ve seen the filter applied by photographers whose portfolios are impressive. I’ve seen the filter used by designers whose normal work is quite amazing. I’ve even seen one graphic artist who applied the filter to one of his works and then tried to sell it as unique.
Why would a professional engage in such cheap and lazy effects when their other work is of such high quality? How does a professional, especially those whose artistic opinions I normally trust, find such corner-cutting applications acceptable? Is this a sign that we are losing our footing in understanding the difference between art and digital doodling?
Artistic integrity has always been a bit of an oxymoron, but when I see professionals resorting to a free online filter and then presenting the resulting image as though it has any artistic merit is extremely disappointing. I expect, fans and patrons of one’s work expect, an artist to present original work, not something that is duplicated at the touch of a single button. I fully expect artistic professionals to have better judgement.
Filters As Entertainment
Mind you, in the right hands and administered correctly, there can be an appropriate use of filters. Graphic and digital professionals understand how to manipulate filters in conjunction with other processing and artistic techniques. Filters are generally applied only to a specific portion of an image to generate a specific effect. Dozens of layers and masks blend a touch of one filter here with another effect somewhere else until the whole work comes together as a single piece. I have absolutely no problem with carefully considered and detailed use of filters in this way.
Art, however, is not a global application of a single effect. Art is something conceptualized by its creator, even when it doesn’t turn out exactly as one envisioned. There is purpose, there is intent, and there is reasoning behind every brush stroke, every method, and every experiment. The value of art is in the individuality of the work, even if there are others created in similar fashion. That each piece was given its own concept, was separately planned and carefully created is what separates art from cheap wallpaper,
Globally applied filters  are fun at a pedestrian level, perhaps, but they serve no purpose other than as entertainment. A dog’s snout placed over the image of a toddler might be amusing. Rainbow-colored vomit coming from your mother-in-law’s mouth might generate a chuckle or two. Everyone likes to be entertained, but no one in their right mind would confuse such mindless pastimes with art.
Let Me Entertain You
To illustrate my point, I took a collection of images from the archives that share some commonality. They were all shot in the same place, under the same conditions, with the same concept and intent. The models were even posed similarly. When we processed the images for their original intent, I painstakingly worked with each one to achieve a careful nuance and style consistent with the project. What we did here, though, was exactly the opposite. There was no plan. There was no conceptualizing. There certainly wasn’t any over-arching purpose. Instead, I took the approach of, “Hey, what happens when we apply this filter?”
Each image has at least five global filters applied. We partially masked some of the filters so as to make comparison and contrast between them a bit more evident and also to keep the images from becoming boring, which was a real and present danger. We didn’t worry about details, we didn’t correct any problems the filters might have caused. We just pushed buttons and giggled. Well, okay, not really giggled all that much. Actually, we just rolled out eyes and drank more coffee.
The results are, perhaps, mildly entertaining. Sure, the images are different and some people might even find them rather cool because they’re not the normal photograph. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I’m not going to bother defending them if you don’t like them. I’ve nothing invested more than a  few minutes of time.
Playing with filters is just that: playing. These are not works of art. You can do this at home. You certainly won’t find these in my portfolio. I expect to not see anything like them in others’ portfolios, either.
The News In 140 Characters
It’s amazing that the amount of news that happens in the world every day always just exactly fits the newspaper. —Jerry Seinfeld
Does anyone read the news anymore or do they just look at the tweets and the headlines?
I saw an interesting editorial cartoon yesterday, which, of course, I didn’t have the foresight to actually save so that I could accurately reference this morning. The cartoon lamented the fact that when historians look back at the exchanges of this presidential election, it will be candidates 140-character tweets they’ll examine rather than anything like the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
The comparison is stark. How news and information is delivered has changed not only in terms of media, but the brevity with which news is delivered. Sure, there will be debates during this campaign cycle, Â but even those will ultimately be reduced to sound bites of 140 characters or less.The Twitter limit applies not only to the application, but to the reduced size of our attention spans.
Once upon a time, the details of the news and the excellence of reporting and writing were honored. Winning a Pulitzer prize was an exception because of talent and skill. Now, winning a Pulitzer is an exception because someone actually put in more than 300 words worth of effort. Long-form reporting still happens at places such as the New York Times and Washington Post, but then the media departments of both newspapers instantly find ways to reduce thousands of words to a 140-character tease.
Even here, I create a 140-character excerpt that appears in social media links to the article. Hundreds of people view that excerpt, but only a fraction of those read the article. We frequently use nude imagery not because it has anything to do with the article, but because it is a quick way to get attention.
Tweeting The News
Almost every newspaper of any size now has a media department. That staff is responsible for not only creating 140 character descriptions of articles, but managing and measuring the responses they get to those descriptions. Read through the comments on almost any provocatively written tweet or  Facebook post and it becomes evident that many of the most volatile remarks are made by people who never actually read the article; they’re just responding to their interpretation of what the article might say based on the structure of that tweet.
Great tweet writing is a skill and in today’s media it is just as important as headline writing and copy editing. A well-constructed tweet can bring thousands of eyes to a topic, or can leave one totally ignored. Knowing which hashtag to include, the precise verbiage that is easily understood, is not something that was traditionally taught in journalism schools. Rarely does anyone notice when a tweet is done well. Let a newspaper or politician miscommunicate online, though, usually through a poor choice of words, and watch the shit hit the fan.
To illustrate my point, let me share some of the most recent news tweets across a variety of topics. There’s more information behind each tweet, but how many people will actually bother to click through and read the articles? I’m betting not many. Fewer than 10 percent of readers ever click a link, here or anyplace else on the Internet. Let’s see how you do.
Politics
Information
Society
Putting Things In Perspective
How many of those articles did you click through to investigate? Any? Consider that a few short years ago those nine stories would have been enough to fill a 30-minute television newscast (sports and weather aside). In print, they would have dominated the A section of any newspaper. Yet, here you have it all in 140 characters and some well edited GIFs.
I’m old, so it is difficult for me to see this shift as anything other than a loss of information and understanding. Reading through a flurry of tweets, we might come away feeling more intelligent and informed, but we don’t actually know enough about any of those stories to speak knowledgeably and authoritatively. Not that such a lack of information ever stops us. We’re quite willing to go ahead and open our mouths anyway, facts be damned.
What probably bothers me most about this change in how we receive information is that without all the details we are more likely to react harshly, sarcastically, and with suspicion. We don’t trust the tweet because we don’t allow ourselves to gain enough information to understand the full story. We lack compassion. We lose the opportunity to learn. We fail to consider different perspectives. We wander around so ignorant that we don’t recognize ignorance.
If you’ve made it this far into today’s article, you likely already understand. Of the few people who started the article, less than five percent finish. Again,that’s not just true here, but for most any online reading.
Perhaps one day the pendulum will swing back the other direction and we’ll appreciate well-written and ardently-reported stories again. This 140-character world doesn’t work for me. We need more information, not less. I suppose that’s every individual’s choice, though, isn’t it?
Sigh. At least there’s a nude picture at the top.
Share this:
Like this: