At one time in my geriatric past, I saw myself as a sociologist. I acquired degrees, academic acumen, colleagues, and an analytical lens to see the world through. My cohorts were academics & social policy leaders, and my social identity was established and reinforced by the greater cultural perception and response to my imbued status.
This was also true when I was a roofer. Or a TV repairman. Or as a minister. Or as an administrator in social services. It has always bothered me how humans--especially men--identify themselves. What do you do? Do I embrace competition based on my attraction to sports? Once, an integral part of who I was at that juncture of life. The descriptive always beats out the ascriptive.
I could not with any wide degree of confidence enumerate how much I spent on gear I did not need, to promote and reaffirm in society my status as a photographer. Elite gear must necessarily translate to elite skills and status, right? The show must go on, and there is that whole invidious comparison-pecuniary emulation thing we must do as products of any society of size. Queue up Malthus and Sausser.
Once upon a time, there were distinctions in the visual arts that established one's 'social' role in presenting an image. Illustrator, photographer, painter, et cetera. And to be certain well-recognized and important subgenres were and still are claimed. But the digital age has stood much of this on its head. Unless your intent is to simply satisfy yourself and perhaps be yet another undiscovered Virginia Maier, the language and associated signs and semiotics has been continually changing. It is now at this 'creator' juncture.
In any fairly homogenous social grouping, the descriptive will always outweigh the ascriptive. Not so much between divergent groupings. As George Carlin put before us, words matter.
Now in today's parlance, I would have been a social scientist. Or a roofing systems specialist. Or an AV technician. Or as a Worship Leader. Or as a systems change activist. As the meaning changes, so do social connotations and the perceived valuation of my avocation.
I do create. I record slices of reality extracted from greater context and display them. I change the blurring between illustrator and photographer in some of my images. But I find in order to be recognized, approbated, and rewarded, I must become the new definition of Creator. I must vlog, write, and present in a multimedia format structured to a limited cognitive and structured format that algorithms that decide what to present users with determine.
Be sure and like this post.
At the end of it all, I still find myself a photographer who produces images for an audience of one. It was not always that way--approbation was part and parcel of the reward for my activities.
The real challenge is maintaining relevance through the sui generis product of photography--someone who captures an image of social reality and fabric--and interprets it in a way that somehow remains attached to its source.
The Kodak moment is still supreme--as are the ways of manipulating and delivering the message. Guess that I am just a senior citizen living in the Old Skool...
