How is it!
Photography, today?
H.A.Anil Kumar

As the general belief goes, the alleged claim that negativebased
photography is losing its charm and classicism could
also be similar to the older generation being dissatisfied
with their 3Gs (third generations). Photography, in the
digital age, has not been accepted on its ‘own’ premise, yet.
This is analogous to the way Mannerism of Renaissance
and Postmodern of Modern were treated. Like digital
photography, they were meant to be subversive versions of
their immediate predecessors. What I mean is that just like
digital photographs are always gauged in comparison with
negative-based photographs, the classic quality of the latter
is gauged only by pitching it against the chronologically
latter digital ones. And currently, photography, by and large,
is extremely conscious about this great divide between the
analogue and the digital.
If this attitude towards photography could be translated
into a sociological language, feudalistic attitude towards
a democratic demand will always be feudalistic, while a
democratic demand to do away with feudalistic representation
ends up as a populist culture! This has been the story of the
journey of photography from the negative-age to the digitalage.
In other words, photography today is clearly bifurcated
between those that appear today as ‘resurrected photographs’
and those that are originally digital. The grandfather
resurrected to his youth whilst standing next to his young
grandson, who has absorbed the years of the former into
himself, represents the overall outline of photography, today
– a genealogical essence of the Yayaathi myth