Is the Art of Photography Dying, or Simply Becoming More Rare in Our Digital, Mass-Produced World?
In a recent video, Edward Martin argues that the art of photography is dying—not because of digitalization itself, but due to a lack of authenticity, intention, and clear artistic vision. He explores how the democratization of photography has magnified a deeper, ongoing issue: the absence of genuine metaphysical value judgments that elevate photography to true art.
In this article, I share Edward’s key points, provide my own perspective, and respond to his thought-provoking analysis.
Table of Contents
Are You Investing in Your Creative Growth? Photographers often invest heavily in gear, equipment, and supplies—but how often do we invest in ourselves? For just $10 a month, the Darkroom Diary Premium Membership offers you the chance to join a vibrant community dedicated to growth, learning, and sharing creative journeys.
This is more than a membership—it’s a space to connect, evolve your vision, and draw inspiration from fellow analog photography enthusiasts. If you’re ready to take the next step in your creative journey, we’d be honored to have you join us in building this unique community.
Is the Art of Photography Dying?
Summary of Edward’s Key Points
Here’s a quick summary of Edward Martin’s key points from his video.
Main Argument: The Art of Photography is Dying
- Photography as Art is declining, despite the prevalence of digital photography. The decline is measured by diminishing camera sales and a lack of meaningful artistic expression.
- Digital Photography vs. True Art: While everyone is taking pictures with phones, Edward argues that the true art of photography is separate from casual digital snapshots.
- Blaming Technology Isn’t Enough: Attempts to blame the decline on digitalization or lack of film usage are only anecdotal. The real problem lies deeper.
Two Core Issues Edward Identifies:
- Lack of Honesty and Integrity: Authenticity and personal vision are lacking in most contemporary photography. Photographers are often chasing trends rather than developing their own metaphysical value judgments.
- Absence of Metaphysical Value Judgments: Following Ayn Rand’s definition of art—“Art is a selective recreation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value judgments.” Edward argues that successful art requires a clear, authentic expression of the artist’s deepest beliefs and values.
Examples of Artists with Clear Vision:
- Ansel Adams: His photography was rooted in his metaphysical value judgments about God and nature. His work resonates because it reflects his inner beliefs and emotional connection to his subjects.
- Michael Kenna: He photographs the unseen and conveys feelings of reverence, sacredness, and calmness—values rooted in his personal beliefs and life experiences.
Digital Era Problem:
- Many photographers today produce “sharp images of fuzzy concepts.” The ease of creating technically perfect images with digital technology has diluted the deeper artistic meaning and intention behind photographs.
His Work:
- Edward connects his own photography to his metaphysical value judgments inspired by J.R.R. Tolkien’s Middle-earth—a world of magic, mysticism, and timelessness. His goal is to convey those personal values and emotions through his images.
Challenge to Viewers:
- Edward invites viewers to consider whether the photographers they follow are truly conveying their own metaphysical values or simply producing aesthetically pleasing images without deeper meaning.
My Reply to Edward
Edward, I appreciate your deep exploration of metaphysical value judgments in art and how they relate to the authenticity of a photographer’s vision. Your reflections on Ansel Adams, Michael Kenna, and your own work resonate with me. As someone who is fully dedicated to a 100% analog workflow, I often grapple with similar ideas—especially around the authenticity of intention and how my own metaphysical values shape the work I create
I believe the art of photography is rare and has always been rare, even during the time of Stieglitz, Strand, and the other pioneers who fought tirelessly to establish photography as a legitimate art form. Their battle for recognition highlights a fundamental truth: Art is defined by its intention, authenticity, and vision—qualities that remain elusive to the majority. The mass digitalization of photography has only magnified an issue that has always existed.
Leo Tolstoy’s well-known definition of art states: “Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously, by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through, and that others are infected by these feelings and also experience them.”
When applied to photography, this definition underscores the importance of conveying genuine emotion, intention, and vision—qualities that are increasingly rare in a world driven by convenience and automation.
The question of why photography feels like it’s “dying” is complex, but I agree that a lack of clear, authentic vision is a significant part of it. In the rush to produce content, many photographers lose sight of their own artistic values, chasing metrics instead of meaning.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and challenging us all to reflect more deeply on what we’re truly trying to express. It’s a much-needed conversation.
You can look at my Creative Framework, which drives my overall work, at timlaytonfineart.com/framework/, and see an example of how this comes to life in my Solitary Witnesses project at timlaytonfineart.com/solitary/.
Edward’s Reply
I share a screenshot of Edward’s gracious reply below.
Additional Resources & References
- Why Analog Photography is Essential to Fine Art Creation [link]
- Tim Layton’s Creative Framework [link]
- Aura – What is it and Why Does it Matter? [link]
- Darmawan, Y. S., Piliang, Y. A., Saidi, A. I., & Mutiaz, I. R. (2023). Analog photography in the digital age: Examining transformation, alienation and authenticity in modern photographic practice. Indonesian Journal of Art and Design Studies, 2(3), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.55927/ijads.v2i3.11019
- Benjamin, W. (1935/1969). The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. In H. Arendt (Ed.), Illuminations (H. Zohn, Trans.). Schocken Books. [link]
What Do You Think?
Edward Martin’s video raises important questions about the authenticity and vision behind contemporary photography. I’ve shared my perspective, but now I’d love to hear yours.
Do you believe the art of photography is dying, or has it always been rare?
What do you think defines true photographic art? Are there photographers today who you feel embody the authenticity and vision Edward describes? Share your thoughts and provide examples where relevant—I’m genuinely interested in your perspective.
Feel free to leave a comment or reach out to me directly. Let’s keep this conversation going.
I plant to discuss this topic in the next Darkroom Diary Premium Membership group video meeting.
Are You Investing in Your Creative Growth? Photographers often invest heavily in gear, equipment, and supplies—but how often do we invest in ourselves? For just $10 a month, the Darkroom Diary Premium Membership offers you the chance to join a vibrant community dedicated to growth, learning, and sharing creative journeys.
This is more than a membership—it’s a space to connect, evolve your vision, and draw inspiration from fellow analog photography enthusiasts. If you’re ready to take the next step in your creative journey, we’d be honored to have you join us in building this unique community.
Let me play devil’s advocate – but without in any way wishing to devalue your own craft and art, Tim. It seems to me there are two essential components to making an image – whether that image is artistic or not.
The first is the framing of the image (the composition, choice of focal length and settings, choice of punctum, decisive moment, visualisation of final result, etc). The framing can be done with more or less care and patience but in the end we click the shutter. The artist will (mostly) take more care and have more intention – but not all images taken with care will be artistic, that will depend on the degree of intention and skill of the photographer.
The second is the production of the image – from Instagram to a digital print to salt/silver/platinum/cyanotype etc print. That can also be done with more or less care. The artist will take more care and have more intention – but again not all prints made with care will be artistic, that will depend on the degree of intention and skill of the printer (who is not always the photographer of course – some of the best did not print their own work or, like Edward Weston, did so with only very primitive means).
So I would suggest that the critical issue here is not necessarily only process but rather the ability to visualising an artistic outcome – I have seen wonderful prints made from digital cameras and digital printers and rather poor images made using both sophisticated digital and analogue processes. Once there is intention to produce a ”fine art” image (see, for example, https://fstoppers.com/fine-art/5-lessons-i-learned-shooting-fine-art-photography-first-time-696140 !!), is it not just that there are good artists and poor artists (as well as the majority of images makers now who do not worry about art at all). And at that point it is actually the viewer and buyer who decides what is good art for them. Everything else is just post-hoc justification (dare I suggest aura and a lot of other art-speak?).
But then, I am just someone who produces boring postcards (https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2024/11/boring-postcards/ – but that is just the first volume, there are two more since)
Keith
Hi Keith,
I appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective and play devil’s advocate—engaging with different viewpoints is always valuable.
You make a fair point about the two essential components of making an image: framing and production. Intention, care, and skill are indeed critical factors in producing meaningful work. However, I believe the deeper issue Edward and I are addressing transcends mere technique or process. It’s about the artist’s inner vision and the ability to convey metaphysical value judgments through their work—something that goes beyond technical proficiency or aesthetic appeal.
While it’s true that powerful images can be created through digital or analog processes, the distinction I’m making has more to do with authenticity and depth of artistic vision rather than the tools themselves. The process matters only insofar as it serves the artist’s intention and helps them communicate something meaningful that reflects their inner values and beliefs.
Your mention of intention is key, but I would argue that the intention we’re talking about is not simply the desire to create a “fine art” image, but rather a conscious and deliberate effort to express something fundamental and personal. This is why I emphasized metaphysical value judgments—art is about conveying something deeper, something that the viewer can feel and connect with on a more profound level.
I agree that viewers and buyers ultimately decide what resonates with them. However, just because something is well-received doesn’t necessarily mean it is deeply meaningful or rooted in a clear, authentic vision. Popularity and quality are not synonymous, particularly in an era when social media algorithms reward instant gratification over substance.
Ultimately, the point I’m making is not that digital photography is inherently lesser, but that the democratization of the medium has made it easier for works without true intention or vision to dominate the conversation. I’m pushing for a dialogue that focuses on depth, authenticity, and what makes art art—rather than simply well-crafted images.
By the way, I appreciate your links and the work you’re doing. Your approach to creating “boring postcards” is a fascinating concept, and I’d be interested to hear more about what drives you to create them and what meaning you find in the process. Whether intentional or not, all creative work reflects something of the creator’s inner vision.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. I enjoy these kinds of discussions—whether we agree or not, it’s all part of the larger conversation about art and its purpose.
Best,
Tim
Well I do not disagree with you, Tim, but I think I was including authenticity and feeling as part of the intentionality of the artist. Clearly that can be quite independent of the assessment of good or bad by any viewer or critic – it has much more to do with personal satisfaction, although even with some very well known and expensive artists is is sometimes difficult to believe that they were working with deep meaning or even personal satisfaction in mind.
I was certainly not the first to explore the idea of boring postcards, of course, as explained in the article. It could be thought of perhaps as the photographic analogy of the (famous and clearly deeply meaningful) Deschamp’s “Fountain”. In this case, can photos of the local and mundane be given more meaning by being presented as a series so that each one might be viewed more carefully as a result (and some do contain some fascinating details) and, for those who know the Sarine, that they might look more carefully while out in the landscape. Does that count as “essence of place” or are they still just boring postcards?
Hi Keith,
Thanks for your thoughtful response and for clarifying your perspective. I see now that you are indeed including authenticity and feeling within the broader concept of intentionality. And I agree—personal satisfaction and genuine intention often transcend external validation or critique. It’s that internal dialogue and drive to express something meaningful that truly matters.
Your analogy to Duchamp’s Fountain is an interesting one, and it raises another important point about context and presentation. What you’re doing with the “boring postcards” seems like a clever play on perception and expectation—turning the mundane into something worth pausing for and considering. The idea of a series encouraging viewers to look more closely is powerful. By assembling them as a collection, you may indeed be capturing something of the essence of place, not through grand gestures but through subtle, almost incidental details that might otherwise go unnoticed.
And maybe that’s what makes your work resonate with some viewers—there’s an authenticity in your approach that goes beyond the surface, inviting others to engage more deeply. It’s fascinating how different creative paths can reflect the same underlying desire to reveal meaning or evoke connection.
In the end, whether they are “boring postcards” or not almost becomes irrelevant—it’s about the invitation you extend to the viewer to look closer and find something they might not have seen otherwise. That’s art, too.
Thanks again for sharing your insights and for sparking such a stimulating conversation. I always enjoy hearing about other artists’ approaches and motivations. It all adds to the rich tapestry of what it means to create with intention.
Best wishes,
Tim
Me too. Thanks, Tim