While many lament the fact that everything has changed no one talks about the how and the why. You have done so here with astute observation. You also raise questions without actually asking them that might be fun to explore in future posts- for example how do we as photographers work (or not work) to reinstate meaning and power to imagery (beyond the obvious i.e photojournalism.)
Yes, that’s the real fissure, isn’t it? We talk about the collapse of meaning, but few trace its lineage. As for how photographers might reinstate power without falling back on the “obvious” — perhaps it begins with reimagining what an image does, not just what it shows.
The strongest work today might not illustrate but interrogate. Or as Berger once suggested, reclaim the photograph as a site of resistance, not a window onto reality. We’ve seen enough. Now the question is: how do we make people see again?
Your insight means a lot. And yes, the question of how to restore meaning and power to imagery, especially in commercial work, is the one we circle constantly — sometimes quietly, sometimes with frustration, but always with intention.
We’re working inside systems that prioritize speed, clarity, and visual legibility. Branding, platforms, algorithms — they all reward repetition and polish over depth. But that doesn’t mean the work doesn't carry weight. For us, the challenge — and the ambition — is to remain artists within that machinery. To create images that function commercially and hold something back. A sense of authorship. A visual decision that resists default. A tension, even if it’s subtle.
We’re not pretending to be outside the system. We’re inside it — but not swallowed by it. And maybe that’s where the real creative space is now: not in escaping the machine, but in hacking it from within.
While many lament the fact that everything has changed no one talks about the how and the why. You have done so here with astute observation. You also raise questions without actually asking them that might be fun to explore in future posts- for example how do we as photographers work (or not work) to reinstate meaning and power to imagery (beyond the obvious i.e photojournalism.)
Yes, that’s the real fissure, isn’t it? We talk about the collapse of meaning, but few trace its lineage. As for how photographers might reinstate power without falling back on the “obvious” — perhaps it begins with reimagining what an image does, not just what it shows.
The strongest work today might not illustrate but interrogate. Or as Berger once suggested, reclaim the photograph as a site of resistance, not a window onto reality. We’ve seen enough. Now the question is: how do we make people see again?
Your insight means a lot. And yes, the question of how to restore meaning and power to imagery, especially in commercial work, is the one we circle constantly — sometimes quietly, sometimes with frustration, but always with intention.
We’re working inside systems that prioritize speed, clarity, and visual legibility. Branding, platforms, algorithms — they all reward repetition and polish over depth. But that doesn’t mean the work doesn't carry weight. For us, the challenge — and the ambition — is to remain artists within that machinery. To create images that function commercially and hold something back. A sense of authorship. A visual decision that resists default. A tension, even if it’s subtle.
We’re not pretending to be outside the system. We’re inside it — but not swallowed by it. And maybe that’s where the real creative space is now: not in escaping the machine, but in hacking it from within.
How?