Godzik 1

Kevin Godzik
Robin Kramer
RCL I Section I
2 November 2015
Your New Eyes
People are now more inclined to record a concert than see it with their own eyes. They
stop to take a picture before digging in to a scrumptious meal when on the verge of starvation.
Some even visit a museum for the sole purpose of taking photographs of each and every piece of
art there. The photographing populouspreviously wielding only film cameras or large,
complex cameras geared toward professionalsenjoyed the ability to capture moments before
the turn of the century, but never abused the power. Then came the 2000s: hiring skilled
photographers for special occasions or relying on lengthy film processing times were now things
of the past. The introduction and mass consumption of high-quality smartphones (and their
cameras) rapidly altered how the public thought of these moments and themselves. Precious film
was used previously to simply emphasize important occasions in decades past, while modern
smartphones enable the average consumer to take thousands of photospotentially of entire
events or mealsinstead of living in the moment. The consumers of today may see recording
the event, such as a concert, as a way to recall fond memories, but more and more frequently use
these photos solely to boast to their friends and family about the great time they had there.
Recording these instances, rather than taking an event in for all it is worth, has not only led to the

Godzik 2
depreciation of what surrounds users, but also to the rise in digital narcissism and self-promotion.
Most notably, the invasion of cellphone cameras into our pockets coincided with an increase in
narcissism levels to propagate devaluing memories after the turn of the century, when cellphones
became more portable and powerful than ever.
Folk in the 1980s had no idea of what their first truly portable cellular phone would
ultimately evolve into and what ripple effects would occur. Decades ago, phones and cameras
remained two very distinct entities. Calling a friend from a camera or snapping a photo with a
28-ounce Motorola DynaTAC 8000X proved unrealistic. However, the 1980s house a few
crucial advances in both photographic and cellular phone technology. With advancements in
megapixel sensors from Kodak, the worlds first consumer-friendly digital camera was on the
brink of release. In the meantime, point and shoot cameras that could automatically calculate
shutter speed, focus, exposure, and apertureso anyone could simply push the shutter to take a
semi-decent photoexpanded the photo-taking population. Similarly, cellular network
improvements increased both the viability of the portable phone (most drew power from cars and
were directly connected to the vehicle) and the appeal to a wider audience that would find the
product useful.
Though casual photography was gaining traction in the 70s and 80s, (think instant film,) a
large portion of cameras and camera-related goods still aimed toward specialized professionals.
These professionals, who used photography as a medium for art, would never find themselves
wasting film to take pictures of the delicious 60-dollar steak on which they splurged. Nor would
they have the audacity to take a one-handed photograph of themselves and their friends at an
Aerosmith concert to prove their attendance. Film was simply too expensive to spend on

Godzik 3
seemingly trivial occurrences with little artistic value. Even if a photographer invested in
photographs of delectable food, they would not cohere with the culture of photography in the
1980s. Photography, like much of the art in the 1980s, assumed the form of public address
(The 1980s). Photography concerning leisurely activity would not give a call-to-action nor
would it represent the 80s in an artistic fashion. No one would be interested. Photographers of
the era were thought-provoking and vocal with the images they produced. They sought for the
improvement of hard times and focused less on taking photographs of relatively trivial matters.
The time and care put into developing high-quality images with film cameras in the 1980s
fostered a disposition within photographers very different from the ones in the decades to follow.
The 1990s serve as a middle ground between the professionalism of photography in and
before the 80s and the mass consumption of photography in modern times. Cell phones
improved vastly, ushering in a new era of communication. Quicker networks with better quality
and fewer dropped calls and a decrease in phone size and weight are just a few factors that
sparked the popularity of handheld portable cell phones. Despite advances and popularity,
phones of the time in no way resembled an iPhone. In a similar jump to cellular network
technology, Kodak released the first professional digital camera system in 1991 specifically
targeted at photojournalists (Bellis 2015). The professional sphere of photographers could shoot
photos with more freedom, not confined by the limiting resources of physical film. From 1994
to 1996, multiple cameras geared toward the consumer hit the market. Companies like Microsoft
and Hewlett-Packard collaborated heavily with Kodak to promote this new technology. Software
designed for digital image making and editing and the first color inkjet printer compatible with
these new digital cameras allowed the technology to flourish. Leaps and bounds in technology
like these heavily influenced the art style of the 90s.

Godzik 4
Art in the 1990s punched. Much of it was digitally altered and emphasized the adoption
of new technologies in the era. Best said, much of the art in the 90s theatricalize[ed] the
universal experience of technological and information overload (1990sPresent). Oddly
enough, photographers were reluctant to change their ways. The adoption of digital cameras
which, in their infancy, produced inferior picture qualityproved tedious and unnecessary for
many professionals. Film would do, but not for long. Unfortunately for these photographers, as
customer needs evolved with the world around them, so did their cameras. By the turn of the
century, the majority of both consumers and professionals began to take advantage of digital
photography. They could shoot countless more photos without the hassle of developing film and
could even delete photos before discovering flaws within an image. With limitations in storage
and processing speeds, however, documenting every second of an event was something yet to be
seen.
By the mid-2000s, that changed. Cameras were soon a staple in any decent cell phone.
Though the cameras themselves were initially not that powerfulApples original iPhone
carried a two-megapixel sensor compared to the iPhone 6s twelve-megapixel sensor of today
their abundance encouraged every owner to become a photographer. Consumers and
professionals alike found themselves with a small, but powerful tool to record images and video.
However, camera phones lacked the quality to stack up against standalone digital cameras, and
average consumers were less likely to bother taking pictures of art and took pictures of trivial,
daily happenings. Possessing a camera at all times and the initial quality-drop in photos inclined
camera phone users to take photos of the quotidian more frequently.

Godzik 5
Camera quality rapidly increased over the decade, and soon, phones with both front and
back-facing cameras set the standard for smartphones everywhere. Front-facing cameras ushered
in the age of the selfie, which was only recently made possible with these camera phones.
Consumers felt more and more comfortable with taking pictures of the world around them
including themselves. This, compounded with the nearly endless storage capabilities of today,
(think the cloud and large SD memory cards,) not only allowed consumers to take vast
amounts of photos of a single event, but also encouraged it.
Photography as an art form still exists, of course. Some still continue to use film cameras
and professionals amaze using the latest technologies. However, the camera phone has changed
the world of photography forever. It seems anyone can become a photographer with an iPhone.
Consumers are not limited in what, when, or how often they can shoot with modern camera
phones. Since photography is so accessible and phones make sharing images so quick and
simple, no longer are photos of what one ate for brunch culturally unacceptable. Everyone wants
to share what he or she is doing with others, subliminally self-promoting and conjuring jealousy
from those that cannot do what they have (just look at Snapchat stories). Photography came a
long way from existing solely as an art form and continues to change how society sees the world
and themselves.
Camera phones in particular galvanized the rise of narcissism and self-promotion. They
allowed instantaneous picture taking while also advocating to share them on applications such as
Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Though some use Instagram as a way to connect with their
artsy side, the vast majority of people uses it as an outlet to show where they have been, what
they have eaten, and what exciting activities they have had the pleasure to partake in. In effort to

Godzik 6
show others how great their life is, many become self-centered and narcissisticunsurprising
considering camera phones are such integral parts of everyones lives. Various datasets point to
these rising levels of narcissism in younger generations in particular (Twenge 2013). This rise in
narcissism shifts the focus from the users surroundings to the user himself, effectively
depreciating performances or meals. It is almost as if folk nowadays go to events to snap a
picture and nothing elseto prove they went somewhere neat, rather than to enjoy the event
itself. The now-quotidian phrase, pics or it didnt happen, seems particularly fitting.
Taking so many digital photos in place of more directly interacting with the environment
proves to make the memory less permanent in camera phone users minds, leading to further
depreciation of social occasions. Psychologist Linda Henkel from Fairfield University in
Connecticut argues that, counting on the camera to record the event and thus not needing to
attend to it fully themselvesit can have a negative impact on how well they remember their
experiences, calling it the photo taking impairment effect (Jeffries 2013). Lacking the ability
to recall, while relying on photographs to do so, can truly be detrimental for memory formation,
storage, and appreciation. Further impairing our ability to recollect and appreciate social events
is the format in which the photographs are stored. Digital photos come with a variety of apparent
advantages, but the quantity of photos stored in devices acts as a double-edged sword. Unlike
many physical photographs, few frequently browse through vast digital collections. The poor
organization of digital photograph archives discourages people from wandering down memory
lane; [i]n order to remember, we have to access and interact with the photos, rather than just
amass them (Vincent 2013). Tangible interaction and relatively low quantities of photographs
in past decades allowed society to reminisce and long for old memories. The development of
digital albums does not serve as a solution. Incomparable is the time dedicated to reviewing a

Godzik 7
digital album full of hundreds of photos on Facebook to the time spent carefully contemplating
photos in that thick leather-bound photo album sitting on the table. Undeniably, sheer quantity
compounded with the loss of physical interaction of digital photographs contributes to the
devaluation of memories.
All in all, the inward change in attitude of society correlated with the introduction of the
portable camera phone. Though the device brought about countless new opportunities for
professionals and casuals alike, it fostered self-centered thinking and ultimately led to the
devaluing of social interactions. This shift has not gone unnoticed in society. Backlashes
concerning this depreciation of memories sprung up in myriad ways. Photographers as of late,
professional or otherwise, restocked film photography back in their arsenal. Film, as a more
personable and physical extension of what has become a digitally dominated field, began to
reemerge. Cell phone cameras still dominatethe top five most frequently used cameras on
Flickr all are of the cell phone camera variety (Camera Finder). However, analog cameras
continue to infiltrate a niche market. Fujifilm Instax cameras gained ground in stores like Best
Buy and Urban Outfitters and higher end 35mm film cameras readily catch the eye of
professionals to this day. These mediums for artistic impression discourage the spamming of the
shutter button and convince users to narrow their choices in what to shoot. With such an
egotistic mindset ingrained in the minds of younger generations, these film cameras may not
offer enough to change their ways completely. Moreover, it is still difficult to say whether this
comeback will truly counteract societys rising levels of narcissism, but the shift back toward
older methods of photography increases the appreciation for the photos that they do take and in
turn accentuate the appreciation of social events.

Godzik 8

Works Cited
Bellis, Mary. "History of the Digital Camera." About.com Inventors. About.com, 17 June 2015.
Web. 26 Oct. 2015.

"Camera Finder." Flickr. Yahoo!, Oct. 2015. Web. 26 Oct. 2015.

Eklund, Douglas. "Art and Photography: 1990sPresent". In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History.
New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000. October 2004. Web. 26 Oct. 2015.
<http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/ap90/hd_ap90.htm>

Eklund, Douglas. "Art and Photography: The 1980s". In Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New
York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2000. October 2004. Web. 26 Oct. 2015.
<http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/ap80/hd_ap80.htm>

Jeffries, Stuart. "The Death of Photography: Are Camera Phones Destroying an Artform?" The
Guardian. The Guardian, 13 Dec. 2013. Web. 26 Oct. 2015.

Twenge, Jean M., Ph.D. "How Dare You Say Narcissism Is Increasing?" Psychology Today.
Psychology Today, 12 Aug. 2013. Web. 26 Oct. 2015.

Vincent, James. "Is Facebook Making Us Forget? Study Shows That Taking Pictures Ruin
Memories." The Independent. Independent Digital News and Media, 10 Dec. 2013. Web.
01 Nov. 2015.