This is a question I sometimes struggle with. Is photography boring?

Why, you may wonder, do I think of such things when photography is the air I breathe?

I ask myself that too.

But since I spend a lot of time thinking about photography in general, perhaps it is no wonder I end up with this question too.

Do I have an answer?

No. Not really. I have more questions, though.

Consider this;

Most people would agree that photography records reality more naturally than any other art form. By nature (!), photography is a very technical procedure. A machine (the camera) records what’s in front of the lens, analogue photography requires chemicals to be developed, digital photography requires a computer to finish the production of a photograph.

Still, it does record reality.

Compare that to any other artist, be it a painter, a sculptor, a writer, an architect or basically any other creative person - their creations are based on an idea which is brought to life through handicraft. The skills of the creator determine quality, whatever that means in their specific art form.

And again; photography is based on reality.

How do we place these two ideas side by side, and how do we claim photography to be art? What does it mean to be a skilled photographer, if the only thing we do is direct the camera at something and push a button?

I must admit I find these questions quite provocative, regardless of the fact I am the one asking them (I do realize I cannot be the only one).

Especially since I consider myself to be a fairly skilled photographer. I pride myself on my perception, on how and why I see what [ Eye C ]. These things are the base of everything I do in my photographic practice.

And yet.

Is photography boring?

Where do you stand in these questions?

Feel free to respond, I am curious to hear your thoughts on these matters.

Curious regards,
Malinka Persson