The Gimmick That Grew Up by Andre H
Sitting here I ponder the relatively new medium of photography, the mobile phone camera. I think of the reactions people have had to the Mobile Photo Awards that continuously shock the world with images that were to many, too good to have been created with smart phone cameras. My thoughts are left considering the impact of the TIME magazine editor’s decisions, and the five photojournalists changing the world by proving how important, how relevant these new forms of cameras are to the world, to storytellers, to us, to everyone, as they reported the effects of Super Storm Sandy in real-time. I think about the skeptics and why they still exist. Why is this tool, this new photographic medium, still scrutinized? Why is it still discredited?
I remember there was a time when the newness of carrying a camera in our pocket, apps that did wonderful things to help expand our creativity, an introduction of a brave new world of photo communities, was exhilarating. New titles and terms for what we were doing were created to help distinguish us further, “iPhoneography,” “mobilephoneography” “streetphoneography” and plethora of other derivatives emphasizing the uniqueness of the mobile movement. These terms meant something to us then. It even meant something to me. We needed them. We had to emphasize that this was photography created with an iPhone. I’m sure many of you, as was I, were faced with the naysayer traditionalists who warned you to put the toy down and shoot with a real camera. And, similarly, we all responded, a feeling in our guts, “no, there’s something to this, something special.” We kept shooting with the our pocket cameras. We felt different, we felt we were helping pave the way each time we proudly said I’m an “iPhoneographer,” or such.
I know many of you love the term iPhoneography, and hold it dearly close, along with all the many other derivatives that have popped up over the last few years to define the mobile movement. But what purpose do these terms serve now as mobile phone photography matures from the angsty teen trying to be different, bucking the system, into an experienced, respected adult? Are they doing more harm than good? Do we really even need them anymore? I say, “no.”
As I type this I consider the relevancy of these terms to our beloved medium. I think back to Cartier Bresson when he bought his first Leica in the late 1920’s. This new medium, the 35mm camera was small, different. It would soon prove to allow photographers to go places and see things never before imagined. Sounding familiar yet? It should. This is exactly what’s been said about smart phone cameras. Anyways, Bresson found no need to label this new medium “leicaography” “decisivemomentography” or even “bressonography.” It was simply just photography. It didn’t need a new term because what mattered was the subject, the moments that were being recorded on the film. The importance of this new medium was defined and quickly led the way to what we would soon come to know as the Golden Age of Photojournalism.
The gimmick that grew up
We’ve seen the proof that smart phones and the mobile photography movement had progressed beyond a fad or a gimmick. We have seen the proof hanging on gallery walls, on the covers of prominent weekly publications, acceptance in the news media, and used by major brands. There are still many skeptics, and naysayers who condemn the mobile movement to a fad that will pass. To a point I agree with their argument when I still see the term “iPhoneography” being used in serious photo circles. There is an honor and respect that must be given to Apple for giving us the iPhone. But in the end, it is only a camera with a phone attached. It did not change the way we think about photography. Apps did that.
Many of you, like myself, have spent a lot of time promoting the mobile phone movement as a serious professional form of photography. This is an interesting time. We are still struggling to elevate the medium to a higher ground, as it balances on the edge of adolescence and adulthood. Outside of the realm of apps, and filters and, “oh boy, everyone’s doing it, how do I stand out now,” we must ask, “what importance do these terms really hold for us now?” What good are they doing? Are we held back by the very idea that we need a term to stroke our own egos and reaffirm our own self-importance in an over-saturated world where everyone claims to be a photographer? Why can’t we just call ourselves photographers? As the mobile phone photo medium matures in the world, the use of kitschy terms such as these only reinforce the critics thorny opinions that mobile phone photography will never amount to anything, and will always be a gimmick.
Ironically, maybe now is the time that we lovingly lay the terms to rest, remove the mask that we’ve been wearing to gain attention, and leave it pressed in the pages of history. Lets look in the mirror to see ourselves for what we really are, storytellers. Photographers. We don’t have to let go of what iPhoneography meant, nor should we forget. But we should realize what we truly are, and what we continue to be. Let the world know that we are no longer that teen with something to prove. We’ve made our point and this new and exciting medium of photography isn’t going anywhere. It’s a force to be reckoned with, and will continue to develop with age. The longer we hold onto these gimmicky terms the longer we will postpone our place at the photographic table, with a voice. We’ll remain the pestering child who’s parent’s tell them to be quiet while the adults are speaking.
About Author
Latest stories
Andre HJuly 14, 2015Finding Your Lost Creativity
StoriesOctober 3, 2014Defining The Box Before Exiting
StoriesJuly 11, 2014Learning From The Masters (A Photography Challenge)- FEATUREFebruary 18, 2014Old School Portraits with a New School Camera
Good points thanks Andre. An image made with a stills camera is called a photograph. The medium/process/art form is called photography. The people who make photographs are called photographers. Our existing language and vocabulary already describes these ideas perfectly. So I’m right there with you on the issue of “It’s time to lay the most recent buzzwords to rest”.
Great post, Andre. Definitely with you on the term being outdated, but I also believe the term can sometimes be used as a crutch. ie “this photo is good because it was made on an iPhone”.
I do think there is still use for distinguishing these types of devices when we are talking about review sites or contests where people want to go for very specific types of information regarding their camera of choice, but on a larger sense I’d love to see more people referring to themselves proudly as photographers, not insertbrandnameheregraphers.
I don’t think it wil rest,the word “ mobilephotographer “ . I like that word,it defined,it make it clear.“I’m a mobile photographer“,it just break the pre-establish rules set by convention,and lets face it ,it’s always nice to break rules.I think artists agree,when it’s beautiful, name it what you want.Anyway i’m not to good in english. I did like your article Andre.
Andre, great take…another phase of the long running arguments over technology vs. craft that seem oddly inescapable between practitioners of this medium. The “tools” we use as photographers have always created this rift between those that root their practice in method, process, craft- and those that look to the “next tool”, the newest gear, the “better” option to make capture easier or more efficient.. But this goes beyond a motor-drive or AF systems.. there is something fundamentally different about what digital did to the medium as a whole..and further, as it applies to the “mobile” market.. the “micronization” of not just the physical equipment… but of the “shrinking” (so to speak) of the necessary training window – the time it takes to understand basic function and control… (this is at the root of the disdain – think of the old writers quip “…put a thousand monkeys in a room with a thousand typewriters…eventually you’ll get a masterpiece…”)…But this isn’t about monkeys.. or ignorance.. or some amateurish use of the medium. What we’ve seen in the past couple of years is remarkable.. we have quite literally done away with what was once (and still is, to some) considered a fundamental rite of passage for anyone that would call themselves “photographer”.. the long slog through physics and chemistry to arrive at a place where what we “see” can come to fruition and find an audience. While I realize it’s not quite so simple…What it is really about is the distillation of a process down to the most important and informed component.. the IMAGE itself – the context, composition, capture.. in the most basic form (for the story teller the quickest path to “the moment”). As an aside.. It should be noted that this argument appeals directly to those that want to simply capture the subject..the scene – not so much to those who create the subject- create the scene..(a whole other conversation- but it would not be a stretch to think that a conversation of the merits of the mobile camera phone market is not exactly a priority of the haute couture photographer..)
I think that this goes to something even more important.. the less concern there is for the preciousness of a single frame..the freedom one feels to simply capture- connects in a way that is more like the senses themselves..or rather THE sense – sight.. Since it’s inception..the consideration of a photograph was an eerily uncanny experience..because the process reflects so closely the very sense of sight..Our reference to what is “real” was suddenly presented to us…BUT the process by which to get there functioned NOTHING like the instantness of a blink- the flip of a switch- the continuous, retinal recording of light.. you must close your eyes, be unconscious, or be in the absence of light to stop it.. Now we have devices that can function with nearly no thought as to how the image created will come to be.. ( computers and software take care of that for us- for the most part).. One can be free to focus all concern on all that really matters – why, what, who is being photographed – how to frame, adjust position for the light.. be aware of quality of light.. be IN THE MOMENT.. the mobile phone camera isn’t a fad or gimmick.. it’s not only a legitimate way of making images… It’s a new way of SEEING.
Will iPhonogrpahy or “mobile photography” exist as a “thing” even five years from now? Almost certainly not. Eventually all digital cameras, from compacts to DSLRs, to large format will have integrated computers with OSs with “apps”, touch screens and constant mobile connectivity. The fact that apps and constant internet connectivity first appeared with phones, which happened to have cameras, will eventually be forgotten. The iPhones of today will eventually be for sale at flea markets for a dollar, much like Polaroid cameras once were.
Very well written post Andre-thoughtful, sensitive and diplomatic. Well done indeed.Thanks for sharing your thoughts with the rest of us.
I can tell you, from having been a professional photographer for three decades now, that is plenty of historical precedence for movements, small or big, good or bad, that were solely built around an authoring device-think polaroid, holga, diana, lomo, microscopy, disposable, 4×5, the list goes on
Make no mistake, i proudly wear the moniker of “photographer”and celebrate with those who do likewise.
But i also honor, extol and immensely enjoy, as do millions of others, my additional role as an “Iphoneographer”.
Personally, i think it’s a handle that is not going anywhere. And it seems to be a natural rallying cry for those of us, across the globe shoot, beautify and share with our beloved devices.For many, that pledge allegiance to mobile photography, it has become a revolution mantra of sorts!
In my 30 year career, i have never been in love with any piece of hardware.(and believe me when i say i have used it all!!) Until the iPhone. This device is special, unique and changed everything for me.
I salute your opinion and i celebrate, with you, your love of image taking and image making. But prefer, if you don’t mind, heartwarmingly wearing the cherished handle of “iPhoneographer”?
Thanks again for this lovely piece!
Excellent article Andre! There was a great flow to it – usually I get bored halfway through an article (sorry, but it’s true) But yours held my attention. Maybe because I’m passionate about the subject! I agree that no matter the device it is photography, but like my friend Patrick St-Hilaire, I am proud to be a mobile photographer and the reason I categorize myself as that is because unlike a lot of people who shoot with their phones, I am not a traditional photographer. Sure, I own a 35mm camera and I used to shoot with film back in the 70’s but I never really learned that much about the technical part. I am more interested in the “after the shot” creative process with apps (having a painting and drawing background). I could not carry on an intelligent conversation with a traditional photographer, but get me in a room with a group of mobile photographers and I could discuss process and apps all day. I’m excited to see what the future holds. What’s in a name anyway? “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet!”
Thanks for directing me to the article Andre.
Personally, I believe the cultural and community value of a name will outweighs the detrimental effect it may have on the expectations of the devices. Certainly a photographic evolution is required, but I think that such a process is better sought in the personal development of your own work, rather than a re-categorisation of photographs.
After seeing many arguments that strongly hold to terms such as “iphoneography” or contrary arguments that such terms “mobile photography” should be killed, I’m no longer interested in either extreme.
I naturally find myself exploring photographs and then judging a photographer by their dedication, creativity and photographic journey – most of which I experience due to use of a mobile connected camera.
I can also judge a photographer by a perceived failure to explore or refine, their repetition of cliché and lack of vision or purpose. I also experience this via a mobile connected camera.
If the device is not the reason for success nor failure of an photo, then the name is also not the reason for success nor failure of a photograph.
As always, it’s simply personal in the end.
A great article and a very well constructed ‘arguement’. I have to say I think I am in agreement that iPhoneography/er, Androidography/er etc will and should soon be out-dated unused terms. I think it does the image and the photographer a dis-service to be classified as such. To me, a good/great photograph is good whether it is taken with a 5mp mobile or a 20mp DSLR (ok so the actual quality will probably be better from the dslr) but the type of camera used for the shot does not have any bearing on a photographers ability to see and compose it.