Why the internet is devaluing art and how it's YOUR fault
Monday, December 19, 2011 at 2:45PM 
I just read an article from the LA Times website where Robert Levine talks about how the internet devalues creative work and it got me thinking about how this applies to photography. I have to conclude that I agree with Robert on that hypothesis but not on much else of what he says.
It's simple supply and demand really. There's much more great work being produced for much less money now. In short, you people are getting too good at taking petter pictures and processing them to a professional shine. This is as a result of the rapid educational possibilities of the internet and technology advances that have put in the hands of the masses the same creative tools that were formerly available only to a few. And, shock horror, it turns out that there were loads more talented people out there who previously wouldn't have had the education and tools needed to produce competitive quality work.
Ironically Photoshop is a great example of one such tool. Look at the amazing wealth of superb quality photography on Google+. Even 5 years ago the typical standard of photography I saw online was markedly lower than it is today. And tools like Photoshop are partly responsible. People have always had talent but, today, more than ever in the past they also have the knowledge and tools they need to produce the images they envisioned.
My worry, though, is that Photoshop is returning to being a tool only for the 'elite'. I got a lot of feedback for my article Wave bye bye to Photoshop. Most of that feedback was agreement but of the few that disagreed the majority were basically saying,
"Photoshop *should* be expensive because it's a professional tool and there are lesser tools for the plebs who can't afford the good version".
In essence they were saying that because they could afford it they quite liked the idea of locking everyone else out - everyone else can use the less good tools that produce less good results. This is plain and simple elitism of the most unattractive kind.
The joke is on Adobe and the big media content producers, though, because this problem is going to solve itself. If Adobe don't sell a product that people can afford then smaller, hungrier companies like MacPhun, Coppertino, Realmac Software, Pixelmator and many others will just steal their lunch. The same is already true for the creative work producers. Big stock agencies are already feeling the pinch from micro stock sites like iStockPhoto. And in the music world too with millions of independent producers making and selling music direct to their fans without ever signing a record deal. Google Music is all set to capitalise on that gold rush.
The message for Adobe, Hollywood and the big content producers is simple. Make your product available to people where they want to buy it (online) and make it affordable. Cause one thing is for sure - we masses aren't going to go back to making crappy quality work. The competition is here to stay.
Reader Comments (3)
John,
Since I was one of the two persons disagreeing with you in your previous article about Photoshop, I suppose you speak about my opinion in this analysis. I would like to defend myself, because what you say here does not reflect my thoughts, nor what I think I said. It may also be related to my English skills which are far from perfect I'm afraid.
Anyway, I am not wishing for Photoshop to be a tool reserved to some elite, as you say. You were talking about it being overpriced, and my opinion is simply that I don't actually think it is overpriced. In fact, in my view, its price is logical, and the product is worth it. Now of course, if Adobe decided to cut the price in half, I would also be happy, but again, in my opinion, they have no reason to do that since the current pricing seems adequate as it is (to me). That is all I was trying to say, and I never thought about "locking everyone else out" or anything like that.
I hope I made my point a bit clearer.
Thanks,
Christophe
Hey Christophe. I think you and I are seeing this from different viewpoints, both valid. You use Photoshop in a very sophisticated way and you make some truly *amazing* images with it - stuff that you just can't do in other, cheaper applications. There's no doubt that for your kind of usage Photoshop is not only good value but also the only game in town.
My viewpoint (for the purposes of this article) is for photographers that use Photoshop for day to day image editing and occasionally for more sophisticated purposes but not on the level of what you do. For those guys I regret that Photoshop is considered the defacto standard and really that's what I'm railing against. In light of Adobe's predatory pricing policy I really want people to see that there are more affordable options for everyday uses.
My sincere apologies if you personally felt offended by what I wrote - I admit to being deliberately combative when I write these editorial pieces. I do that to spark discussion. I do understand the various viewpoints but I'm trying to write from the point of view of the majority of users rather than very talented specialists like yourself. And honestly I don't think it does *you* any good for Photoshop to become prohibitively expensive either. If Adobe price themselves out of the market they'll inevitably stop developing Photoshop so hard and you'll lose out too. What's best for Adobe is what's best for us all - make Photoshop more affordable and available to the greatest possible audience. That way they'll have plenty of money to invest in further development.
Most of what I am doing to images now that I used to do in photoshop I am doing in Aperture, with some plugins so I can only agree with you John. A lot of us use Photoshop for image creation using parts of other images, such as creating web banners etc. and we use Photoshop because we have it to hand so there is no need for other software. Looking at the very cheap aps coming out for the iPad though this will change rapidly - those apps will start appearing on the Macs and PCs in no time and Photoshop will have priced itself out of existence for image creation. For photo retouching / enhancement you don't need it anymore already.
I started my digital photo retouching with Digital Darkroom back in 1989 - Photoshop pretty much copied that and did it a bit better but I don't see it being the defacto standard in the future now that Adobe have taken this course.