The Ever-Present Digital Camera

So it has been bothering me that I haven't posted in forever on here and so I thought I'd try and come up with something.

Not really library related per se but something I've been thinking about is: digital photography. It is actually something I've been doing as well as thinking about. In fact, I rarely go outside any more without my trusty camera. Now I know you might think I'm a bit of a loser for mediating my experience of life through my lens and not just, you know, living. I would like to think it is a bit more than that, that I'm being artistic or something. But anyway, what I really wanted to talk about was the amount of digital cameras (or camera phones) I see EVERYWHERE.

It is hard to go out and not see people taking pictures. Walking down the street, at bars, at dance clubs, etc. People are always recording images of each other and other things. And this is pretty new. I mean you never really saw all that many people taking pictures with film cameras in dance clubs or places like that. And it isn't just digital cameras, but it is widespread distribution potential. I think without things like Flickr or Facebook, digital cameras would not be as prevalent. It is the easy access to a place to display and share our pictures, combined with digital cameras that has created the 'ever-present camera'. Okay so that's a no-brainer, obviously easier access to (cheap or free) technology allows something to be more popular. So I'm wondering how this will change somethings. The challenge this presents for those who want to preserve records of our past is quite obvious. Archivists have to think about what to preserve and what to ignore.

But I'm also interested in how this changes photography and changes people. In a film class I TA'd for we focused one week on the naturalist documentarian Frederick Wiseman. Wiseman's schtick was that he went into the setting of his documentary (for example, a high school in "High School", a mental hospital/prison in "Titcut Follies") and walked around with his camera for weeks before he actually started shooting. His idea was to get his subjects accustomed to the camera so they would behave naturally in front of it. Thus, he hoped to create an accurate representation of how people acted in these settings. So it makes me think, if we are so accustomed to seeing cameras all the time, and we get used to them.

So does this, first of all, change photography? Does this mean shots will reflect who the person actually is (if we are to believe Wiseman's logic). Does photography become less posed even while people are posing? Or does the opposite happen? Does the ever-present digital camera make people even more guarded? Does it make all photography (even candid shots) look fake? Is it harder to reveal people's true inner personality through film (this is assuming that such a thing can even be represented any way what is a 'true' inner personality?). But also, does it make us think more visually? I find when I come back from a trip where I've taken loads of pictures I find it hard to turn off the shot composer in my head. Does this happen to everyone?

Also, as mentioned, does it change the way we act? Are we always thinking in the back of our heads that someone might take a picture? Do we change our behaviour? Or do we become accustomed and just ignore all the cameras? I talked to a friend last night who complained about the fact that every time she went out to a social event she had to worry about what she was wearing and if she looked okay because there would no doubt be cameras there and the pictures will no doubt appear on Facebook.

I really hate to be one of those people who talks about how much things have changed. I really am one of those believers of that old adage about things staying the same the more they change. But it does seem to me that digital technology has really changed social life. (note, obviously I didn't take the picture, it is by Jennifer Lockie).