Thanks for saving me the trouble of writing this myself. I’ve been trying to get a better handle on why I’ve become increasingly disillusioned with photo feeds on social media, and you’ve nailed much of my discontent. There was a time before the algos when it was easy to discover photographers with interesting viewpoints doing interesting work. Now it’s photographers making photographs like the photos that are getting attention. And that’s when you can see photographs and not reels, because IG ‘s algorithms favor reels. I signed on to Foto.co in early Beta, but haven’t been on it much at all. When I signed on, the images were more interesting than those on IG, but for some reason the platform never moved me much. If you’re a photographer looking to sell prints, or market your services, I don’t think any of the social sites are likely to be helpful. (I was the photo editor of a local food mag for four years, and never went to any of the social sites to look for photographers to assign, although I did check the social feeds of photographers who had been otherwise suggested or recommended.) I’d be interested to know if any photo editors or art buyers are searching for talent on social sites. My IG followers, few though they are, are largely other photographers. It’s all very frustrating. Thanks, by the way, for recommending Chayka’s Filterworld. Just ordered it.
Thanks for the note. This seems like a small issue, but it’s really having an effect on many people who are getting glued to the screen, expecting something, and getting nothing.
I think one of the saddest effects of the algo on beginning photographers is that they are encouraged to make photos that resemble the ones that get the most attention rather than making images to develop a vision of their own. When I started out, lo these many years ago, I looked at the work of other photographers, either as prints or in publications, and tried to see what it was that caught their attention, why it caught their attention, and how they chose to make the photos they did. The thought that I should try to duplicate what they were doing, either as subject matter or visually never crossed my mind. Nor did the thought that I should try to make images that would be somehow popular.
FWIW - I’m offering a somewhat dated perspective as I’ve sort of moved on in what I’m doing - but yes IG did drive a lot of work, in early days even facebook would - I would guess IG still may. I deleted all those accounts some time ago. But when I was doing magazine work in Chicago my IG was the crux of some of the most sustainable gigs I’d gotten. Paradoxically, I don’t think my work was ever appreciated or understood as well by the jobs I got that way compared to working with real photo editors/art buyers - while the jobs paid well I also felt much more like I was being hired to fill a content sized hole as opposed to someone who wanted my particular take on something.
Your photographs often evoke for me the beloved masters of the form, Duane Michaels, Elliott Porter (the compost photos—so quietly spectacular!), Minor White and so many others. I love the subtlety and a quality I read as reverence in your work.
Elliot Porter, when I was in high school, there was a store in every mall that sold these wonderful posters of his work. Wall-sized. He was important to the ecology movement back then - ah yes, the store was called Spencer’s. College dorms were full of these posters. I then discovered his brother Fairfield Porter, the painter. While I became an abstract expressionist, I still thought Fairfield was by far the best painter I could imagine. His landscape paintings are always in my mind.
Yes, I love Fairfield Porter as well. Are you familiar with Bernard Plossu? A strong influence on me. He was a neighbor and I took his “one camera, one lens, one film” esthetic to heart.
I read your previous article about your compost pile project. Count me one of the almost all who thought that was a weird idea. But then I looked at the photos. In fact, the one in this article with the several leaves of radicchio I find to be immensely pleasing and would love to see printed.
These are printed fairly large, 30×60. And usually taken using stacked images. The slugs, bugs, and grubs are right there, the droplets of water. Corner to corner. People walk right up to them and spend a lot of time engaged. Showing them to the gardeners is a favourite thing. They think I’m nutty… and then they see the details. They are overwhelmed by what is right at their feet, and they have ignored.
Let me be the contrarian voice here. Yes, the endless scrolling and the algorithm feeds are designed to suck us in. However, I was able to curate and manage a thoughtful Instagram feed by following people whose work I greatly appreciate and feel inspired by. As a result, a lot of the content (sure, not all) suggested to me by Instagram is relevant to me: Other photographers, interesting galleries or photo festivals that are worthy of my time.
Throughout my time on Instagram I made a point to reach out to people with comments on their work, simple appreciation of what they do or ask genuine questions about their process. As a result of that simple act of connecting, I've made new friends, some that I foster connections with in real life, heard about new places, applied and got into various artist residencies and even got hired on fairly large photoshoots.
So yes, there is a lot of uninteresting content and it could be a waste of time but like anything else in life, I believe that if one actually uses Instagram with sincerity and proper energy, the connections can be real and interesting content is very much there. And I am referring in this specifically to Instagram because I don't see the quality and breath of work on other platforms, yet.
Taking effort….a good idea. I wish more people would do that. When I see work I like I write to people, make a comment, and sometimes get a conversation going. So, for you and me it’s OK. But the vast majority of people just accept the feed, and end up with a closing horizon of interests and possibilities rather than an opening one.
Hi Jim. I agree that feeds make it harder to look at photos in a thoughtful way and I also wish Vancouver had better options for looking at photo books. I wonder if you have ever had any contact with the Blue Sky Gallery in Portland? What Chris Raushenburg has done and continues to do with that gallery is really remarkable....50 years of quality photography shows....and the flat file drawers which can be a really good opportunity to get work in front of people- anyone in the northwest can apply for free and there's no framing involved. Because it's a non-profit, they are able to show documentary. Their website is full of links -its a real archive - and their Youtube channel has 100's of artist talks. Lately I've been listening to the Decade conversations and hearing all these people talk about their practices makes me feel hopeful that there is a community that values all of this. The drawers call for entry is in December- maybe the compost images would be a good fit.
I just call it the toilet roll. But you have been far, far more eloquent, Jim. Thank you. Many things I've thought myself, and you have given those thoughts substance. However, I think that putting a series of your images from your projects, here on an essay page like this one - is one possible answer, to showing one's work and showing the images, the pictures with context. It's one of the reasons I joined substack. I mean, why not here? At least we can arrange them down the page if not left to right across it!
Reading your post inspired me to run a small experiment. I asked a good AI to analyze a selection of 27 photographs I had chosen from my visits to Arles this week (my imaginary ideal exhibition, I am posting about it later this week). I wanted to see if it could detect patterns, a kind of “algorithm for what Sylvie likes.”
It did find some. Black and white, figures small in the landscape, dramatic light, tension between object and context. It even deduced criteria of exclusion from absences in my selection: no saturated color, no frontal studio portraits.
But then I pointed out that those absences might simply mean I hadn’t seen any good ones to select. The algorithm can’t distinguish “I don’t like it” from “I didn’t encounter it.” It reads clicks, not hesitation.
And then I remembered Ugo Schuller, the young photographer I stopped for in the street, showing his exhibition “Entre Chien et Loup,” on the sidewalk. Beautiful portraits. We talked for a long time, he showed me his next project, we exchanged cards. No digital trace of that encounter existed until I decided to create one.
Your conclusion holds. The algorithm is the tool of intellectual and emotional laziness. Which is fine, sometimes. We’re all allowed to be lazy. But this is how we miss what is our next curation discovery.
Many thanks for writing this, Jim. It confirms a few things for me which have been dormant in me.
Having been a trustee of a photography gallery I can relate to your comment about ‘conceptual art’. Here in the uk galleries that are funded by public money show work that accords with their funding criteria, so you get a preponderance of work about gender, class, environment and so on. A lot of interesting work just never sees the light of day. But that’s not something new.
I have posted my images to social media feeds but I often question whether this not only is a waste of time but also whether it harms my work.
In the nicest way, I have a feeling there is no possible feed out there - either curated or not curated - that would satisfy you as much as your own personal curation. Which is probably true of all of us, but who has time for that? The trade off is convenience and time which is not an insignificant thing as we get older. But I also enjoy the serendipity of the algorithm sometimes - even if it's just a "lucky" mobile photo.
I signed onto Foto when it came out of Beta. Having closed all Meta accounts, I felt a need for something to replace. Knowing that photography feeds are roadmaps to doomscrolling.
Howard's Foto app, I hoped would offer different possibilities than IG and the like. On their recent rollout of their desktop app, I felt progress in viewing the feed on a larger screen supporting native aspect ratios.
With the feeds I follow, one glaring issue arose that I cannot get past. Those feeds that flood their feeds with multiple photographs (as much as five or more) at a time. Flooding my feed with photographs that add to the relentless onslaught. Causing me loads of disinterest in the overall feed of the app.
Such an enlightening article. I applaud your actions in minimizing photo feed’s feedback loop on your psyche.My takeaway, maybe I'll not look at the feeds--but look for the links photographers provide, visit them instead of doomscrolling
This works for me so I’m sharing. Soloist.ai from Mozilla is a free website builder and host. It’s limited in terms of the number of posted images but you can make it a unique space to experiment. Link it to your Substack page and you have a place to write linked to an algorithm free place to set out your project work. Let me know if you want more information and thank you for the essay.
It’s a nice note reflecting my own personal experience - though my career was different and probably shorter (I made a living doing editorial and commercial and my art was ancillary, though it is now a primary concern).
Anyways, I’ve avoided all the feeds for a few years now for reasons you note. The images devoid of context have essentially nothing for me, unfortunately. I mulled over the various platforms when I left IG, but they all just seemed like wallpaper - even the really good photographers on those platforms, the work they did somehow vanished behind the screen, amongst everything else. Nothing about it implies that these posts are worth sustained attention.
So I go back to books, almost always, and websites, when needed. I’ve not found much in current art periodicals, even.
It’s honestly been some time since I found inspiration from most other photography too - with a few peer exceptions and of course returning to classic works. It is sort of an awkward fit in the realm of “art” - even at it’s high point it was never equal and even though I love it and have given my professional life to it, I can understand why.
As for the scene in BC - that is not the only region like that. I would actually argue most cities are like that to some extent. If you’re not coming from SAIC in Chicago, or one of a few places in NYC - it’s a different thing, and it’s largely just because the cultural network doesn’t know you. One needs to make themselves known, and that is varying degrees of plausible in different environments.
Forget feeds and platforms. Forget “sharing” and scrolling through millions of mediocre pop shots, and AI slop. You have surpassed all that at this stage. If you want to talk, and get some advice, let me know. I think I can definitely give you some direction.
Thanks. I think I have a good idea where I am going here. In NY I made enough money over a bit more than a decade to pay for my house, car, retirement, and expenses. I am aware of my liabilities - first, that I stopped painting and started making photos. A financial disaster for most people. Galleries are uninterested in photography because there is no way for them to make real money at it. Few and far between make the gallery what a painter can make. And the second issue is age. It's not ageism; it's simple economics. I won't earn enough, long enough, to pay for the investment a new gallery has to make. I finally live in an unusual place, Vancouver, BC, which has an art culture that rejects anything that doesn't come from the local art school, the University, and has the approval of the conceptual art crowd that controls every exhibit space here. My own efforts are in starting a collective and using that as a basis for moving forward.
Thanks for saving me the trouble of writing this myself. I’ve been trying to get a better handle on why I’ve become increasingly disillusioned with photo feeds on social media, and you’ve nailed much of my discontent. There was a time before the algos when it was easy to discover photographers with interesting viewpoints doing interesting work. Now it’s photographers making photographs like the photos that are getting attention. And that’s when you can see photographs and not reels, because IG ‘s algorithms favor reels. I signed on to Foto.co in early Beta, but haven’t been on it much at all. When I signed on, the images were more interesting than those on IG, but for some reason the platform never moved me much. If you’re a photographer looking to sell prints, or market your services, I don’t think any of the social sites are likely to be helpful. (I was the photo editor of a local food mag for four years, and never went to any of the social sites to look for photographers to assign, although I did check the social feeds of photographers who had been otherwise suggested or recommended.) I’d be interested to know if any photo editors or art buyers are searching for talent on social sites. My IG followers, few though they are, are largely other photographers. It’s all very frustrating. Thanks, by the way, for recommending Chayka’s Filterworld. Just ordered it.
Thanks for the note. This seems like a small issue, but it’s really having an effect on many people who are getting glued to the screen, expecting something, and getting nothing.
I think one of the saddest effects of the algo on beginning photographers is that they are encouraged to make photos that resemble the ones that get the most attention rather than making images to develop a vision of their own. When I started out, lo these many years ago, I looked at the work of other photographers, either as prints or in publications, and tried to see what it was that caught their attention, why it caught their attention, and how they chose to make the photos they did. The thought that I should try to duplicate what they were doing, either as subject matter or visually never crossed my mind. Nor did the thought that I should try to make images that would be somehow popular.
Thanks for the note. I now do all my searching after reading journals, magazines and talking with friends. I’m back to visiting websites.
FWIW - I’m offering a somewhat dated perspective as I’ve sort of moved on in what I’m doing - but yes IG did drive a lot of work, in early days even facebook would - I would guess IG still may. I deleted all those accounts some time ago. But when I was doing magazine work in Chicago my IG was the crux of some of the most sustainable gigs I’d gotten. Paradoxically, I don’t think my work was ever appreciated or understood as well by the jobs I got that way compared to working with real photo editors/art buyers - while the jobs paid well I also felt much more like I was being hired to fill a content sized hole as opposed to someone who wanted my particular take on something.
Your photographs often evoke for me the beloved masters of the form, Duane Michaels, Elliott Porter (the compost photos—so quietly spectacular!), Minor White and so many others. I love the subtlety and a quality I read as reverence in your work.
Elliot Porter, when I was in high school, there was a store in every mall that sold these wonderful posters of his work. Wall-sized. He was important to the ecology movement back then - ah yes, the store was called Spencer’s. College dorms were full of these posters. I then discovered his brother Fairfield Porter, the painter. While I became an abstract expressionist, I still thought Fairfield was by far the best painter I could imagine. His landscape paintings are always in my mind.
Thanks for those very warm words.
Yes, I love Fairfield Porter as well. Are you familiar with Bernard Plossu? A strong influence on me. He was a neighbor and I took his “one camera, one lens, one film” esthetic to heart.
I have read or heard the name. I will look it up.
I read your previous article about your compost pile project. Count me one of the almost all who thought that was a weird idea. But then I looked at the photos. In fact, the one in this article with the several leaves of radicchio I find to be immensely pleasing and would love to see printed.
These are printed fairly large, 30×60. And usually taken using stacked images. The slugs, bugs, and grubs are right there, the droplets of water. Corner to corner. People walk right up to them and spend a lot of time engaged. Showing them to the gardeners is a favourite thing. They think I’m nutty… and then they see the details. They are overwhelmed by what is right at their feet, and they have ignored.
Let me be the contrarian voice here. Yes, the endless scrolling and the algorithm feeds are designed to suck us in. However, I was able to curate and manage a thoughtful Instagram feed by following people whose work I greatly appreciate and feel inspired by. As a result, a lot of the content (sure, not all) suggested to me by Instagram is relevant to me: Other photographers, interesting galleries or photo festivals that are worthy of my time.
Throughout my time on Instagram I made a point to reach out to people with comments on their work, simple appreciation of what they do or ask genuine questions about their process. As a result of that simple act of connecting, I've made new friends, some that I foster connections with in real life, heard about new places, applied and got into various artist residencies and even got hired on fairly large photoshoots.
So yes, there is a lot of uninteresting content and it could be a waste of time but like anything else in life, I believe that if one actually uses Instagram with sincerity and proper energy, the connections can be real and interesting content is very much there. And I am referring in this specifically to Instagram because I don't see the quality and breath of work on other platforms, yet.
Taking effort….a good idea. I wish more people would do that. When I see work I like I write to people, make a comment, and sometimes get a conversation going. So, for you and me it’s OK. But the vast majority of people just accept the feed, and end up with a closing horizon of interests and possibilities rather than an opening one.
Hi Jim. I agree that feeds make it harder to look at photos in a thoughtful way and I also wish Vancouver had better options for looking at photo books. I wonder if you have ever had any contact with the Blue Sky Gallery in Portland? What Chris Raushenburg has done and continues to do with that gallery is really remarkable....50 years of quality photography shows....and the flat file drawers which can be a really good opportunity to get work in front of people- anyone in the northwest can apply for free and there's no framing involved. Because it's a non-profit, they are able to show documentary. Their website is full of links -its a real archive - and their Youtube channel has 100's of artist talks. Lately I've been listening to the Decade conversations and hearing all these people talk about their practices makes me feel hopeful that there is a community that values all of this. The drawers call for entry is in December- maybe the compost images would be a good fit.
I just call it the toilet roll. But you have been far, far more eloquent, Jim. Thank you. Many things I've thought myself, and you have given those thoughts substance. However, I think that putting a series of your images from your projects, here on an essay page like this one - is one possible answer, to showing one's work and showing the images, the pictures with context. It's one of the reasons I joined substack. I mean, why not here? At least we can arrange them down the page if not left to right across it!
Reading your post inspired me to run a small experiment. I asked a good AI to analyze a selection of 27 photographs I had chosen from my visits to Arles this week (my imaginary ideal exhibition, I am posting about it later this week). I wanted to see if it could detect patterns, a kind of “algorithm for what Sylvie likes.”
It did find some. Black and white, figures small in the landscape, dramatic light, tension between object and context. It even deduced criteria of exclusion from absences in my selection: no saturated color, no frontal studio portraits.
But then I pointed out that those absences might simply mean I hadn’t seen any good ones to select. The algorithm can’t distinguish “I don’t like it” from “I didn’t encounter it.” It reads clicks, not hesitation.
And then I remembered Ugo Schuller, the young photographer I stopped for in the street, showing his exhibition “Entre Chien et Loup,” on the sidewalk. Beautiful portraits. We talked for a long time, he showed me his next project, we exchanged cards. No digital trace of that encounter existed until I decided to create one.
Your conclusion holds. The algorithm is the tool of intellectual and emotional laziness. Which is fine, sometimes. We’re all allowed to be lazy. But this is how we miss what is our next curation discovery.
Many thanks for writing this, Jim. It confirms a few things for me which have been dormant in me.
Having been a trustee of a photography gallery I can relate to your comment about ‘conceptual art’. Here in the uk galleries that are funded by public money show work that accords with their funding criteria, so you get a preponderance of work about gender, class, environment and so on. A lot of interesting work just never sees the light of day. But that’s not something new.
I have posted my images to social media feeds but I often question whether this not only is a waste of time but also whether it harms my work.
In the nicest way, I have a feeling there is no possible feed out there - either curated or not curated - that would satisfy you as much as your own personal curation. Which is probably true of all of us, but who has time for that? The trade off is convenience and time which is not an insignificant thing as we get older. But I also enjoy the serendipity of the algorithm sometimes - even if it's just a "lucky" mobile photo.
I signed onto Foto when it came out of Beta. Having closed all Meta accounts, I felt a need for something to replace. Knowing that photography feeds are roadmaps to doomscrolling.
Howard's Foto app, I hoped would offer different possibilities than IG and the like. On their recent rollout of their desktop app, I felt progress in viewing the feed on a larger screen supporting native aspect ratios.
With the feeds I follow, one glaring issue arose that I cannot get past. Those feeds that flood their feeds with multiple photographs (as much as five or more) at a time. Flooding my feed with photographs that add to the relentless onslaught. Causing me loads of disinterest in the overall feed of the app.
Such an enlightening article. I applaud your actions in minimizing photo feed’s feedback loop on your psyche.My takeaway, maybe I'll not look at the feeds--but look for the links photographers provide, visit them instead of doomscrolling
This works for me so I’m sharing. Soloist.ai from Mozilla is a free website builder and host. It’s limited in terms of the number of posted images but you can make it a unique space to experiment. Link it to your Substack page and you have a place to write linked to an algorithm free place to set out your project work. Let me know if you want more information and thank you for the essay.
Responding to this but also the comment below.
It’s a nice note reflecting my own personal experience - though my career was different and probably shorter (I made a living doing editorial and commercial and my art was ancillary, though it is now a primary concern).
Anyways, I’ve avoided all the feeds for a few years now for reasons you note. The images devoid of context have essentially nothing for me, unfortunately. I mulled over the various platforms when I left IG, but they all just seemed like wallpaper - even the really good photographers on those platforms, the work they did somehow vanished behind the screen, amongst everything else. Nothing about it implies that these posts are worth sustained attention.
So I go back to books, almost always, and websites, when needed. I’ve not found much in current art periodicals, even.
It’s honestly been some time since I found inspiration from most other photography too - with a few peer exceptions and of course returning to classic works. It is sort of an awkward fit in the realm of “art” - even at it’s high point it was never equal and even though I love it and have given my professional life to it, I can understand why.
As for the scene in BC - that is not the only region like that. I would actually argue most cities are like that to some extent. If you’re not coming from SAIC in Chicago, or one of a few places in NYC - it’s a different thing, and it’s largely just because the cultural network doesn’t know you. One needs to make themselves known, and that is varying degrees of plausible in different environments.
Those compost pictures were a pleasure. Thanks
Forget feeds and platforms. Forget “sharing” and scrolling through millions of mediocre pop shots, and AI slop. You have surpassed all that at this stage. If you want to talk, and get some advice, let me know. I think I can definitely give you some direction.
Thanks. I think I have a good idea where I am going here. In NY I made enough money over a bit more than a decade to pay for my house, car, retirement, and expenses. I am aware of my liabilities - first, that I stopped painting and started making photos. A financial disaster for most people. Galleries are uninterested in photography because there is no way for them to make real money at it. Few and far between make the gallery what a painter can make. And the second issue is age. It's not ageism; it's simple economics. I won't earn enough, long enough, to pay for the investment a new gallery has to make. I finally live in an unusual place, Vancouver, BC, which has an art culture that rejects anything that doesn't come from the local art school, the University, and has the approval of the conceptual art crowd that controls every exhibit space here. My own efforts are in starting a collective and using that as a basis for moving forward.