Unfinished

Does community customization mean that consumers are creating their own products? Even professionals have begun to mimic the processes used by “amateurs” and by social media constructs. Here Ron Howard is part of Canon’s Project Imagin8ion. Which is using user generated content from social media sites as the basis of inspiration for a short film. What is interesting is that Canon, an electronics company, is supporting itself by subtly urging uses to use its products to create and share their content, which then supports social media sites such as Flickr and Youtube (where the content would be uploaded to) Canon creates products > Users purchase product, create and upload to social media sites > Canon uses that content which inspires more production of that content > inspires new users to purchase products, or current users to upload more > Canon makes money. Canon is selling users their own content. This is the case with all social media. Though it is interesting to see a company that creates physical objects using this tactic to inspire the purchasing of it’s own products. This is an ad for the video game Gears of War 3 which allowed users to decide what happened in part of the story of the video game. Again, an instance in which the consumers choices are being sold back to the consumers, although not on the scale or to the degree of social media sites. Manovich writes, “Game producers, musicians, and film companies try to react to what fans say about their products, implement fans’ wishes, and even shape story lines in response to conversations among cultural consumers.” (P. 329) “To oppose the mainstream, you now have plenty of lifestyles—accompanied by every subcultural aspect, from music and visual styles to clothes and slang—available for purchase.” Manovic (P. 324)

Liquid Intelligence

To Jeff Wall, liquid intelligence is photography's connection to its own history. A connection that is quickly fading due to the advent of the digital age, which negates the need for the usage of water in making a picture.

The death of water in the photographic process also represents the death of the unknown In photography. Analog photography is subject to the chaos theory, which states that minuscule differences in conditions can yield widely diverging outcomes. The tactility of analog picture making allows this theory to present itself within photography. The chaos theory is common throughout nature. Digital photography puts an end to the chaos theory in picture making, and severs photography's connection to nature.

If the natural and the chaos are some of the ontological qualities of photography, then is "digital photography" really photography at all? Does the fact that a digital image is static, and is captured using a similar mechanical means provide enough of a link to the history of photography for digital photography to be considered in the same realm as analog photography? Or does the absence of chaos mean that digital picture making is not photography, but rather something other?

Perhaps the chaos theory is not completely absent from digital photography.

In analog photography, the "wet" existed in the film and the printing process. Film is created and processed using various liquid chemicals. The same process applied to printing. Although present in film, many photographers are never confronted with it's true physicality. Although some photographers process their own film, raising their awareness to the wet-ness of the process, many do not. So, unless a photographer is creating and processing his or her own film, they may lack awareness of the "wet" in this aspect of photography. This also applies to the process of printing. When printing b/w photographers take the paper through a series of chemical baths. Here liquid is clearly present. Creating a clear instance where the wet cannot be denied. Though, when printing colour, many prints are processed using a processor which takes the prints through the chemical baths for you. In this case the chemicals are neither seen nor touched.

Knowing this, there is potential for an analog photograph to be made without requiring the creator to ever be confronted with the wetness of the process. Printing with a colour processor isn't entirely different from printing an inkjet print. During both processes a machine that houses liquid is used to create an image. Despite inkjet printing being a digital process, it still uses paper that is coated with liquid chemicals, and uses ink, another liquid, to lay down dots and create an image. While different than traditional practices, wetness still exists within inkjet printing.

The wetness of photography has been removed for quite some time. I feel the real issues to be considered in digital photography are those concerning the instant gratification of digital photography.