How Much Can We Really Look At?
Last Sunday I wrote about followers.
I follow hundreds of photographers online. A much smaller number are photographers whose work I still look for. Most of the others appear in my feed among everything else, even when I still value their work and remember what first drew me to it.
Really looking at a photograph takes time, and that time is divided between everything else we follow. Each new account adds more work to see, but not more time in which to see it.
This may explain part of the distance between the number of followers an account has and the much smaller number who regularly like or comment.
A thoughtful comment asks us to stay with an image, decide what we have noticed and find the words to say it, while the rest of the feed continues to move. Few of us can do that very often.
Silence does not necessarily mean indifference. Someone may have seen a photograph, paused over it, perhaps even remembered it later, without leaving any visible sign.
I know this because I behave in the same way.
There are photographers whose work I admire but rarely comment on. Sometimes I see their images at the wrong moment. Sometimes I am moving too quickly. None of this means that their work has stopped mattering to me.
Follower counts can hide this. They suggest a stable audience gathered around a person, while the reality changes from one publication to the next. Some followers remain attentive. Others return occasionally. Many see only a fraction of what is published.
The same is true from the other side. Following someone takes a second. Continuing to look closely over months or years asks for much more.
And the group never really settles. New photographers keep appearing, sometimes through a single image that makes me want to see more. Some become familiar, while others I once followed closely gradually move to the edge of my attention.
Perhaps this is another reason follower counts tell us so little. They record everyone we have chosen to follow at some point, but not the shifting, limited attention we are able to give them now.
A note on attention
In 1971, Herbert Simon observed that an abundance of information creates a scarcity of attention. More than fifty years later, the amount of information available to us has changed dramatically. The amount of attention we can give it has not.
The photographs are gathered here:
.jpg)
“In 1971, Herbert Simon observed that an abundance of information creates a scarcity of attention.”
ReplyDeleteHe is so right, and for more things in our digital life.
Nice blog Philippe, thank you!
Cécile Truijens
Thank you, Cécile. I’m very glad this resonated with you — and I agree, Simon’s observation feels even more relevant today.
DeleteI agree with you completely on the value of thoughtful comments. I cherish them. They mean so much more than a like or a quick "Great shot" comment. It shows that someone took the time to really look at the photo. I love it when they discuss what it was that caught their attention or what the especially liked. Even thoughtful critical comments are great because it shows the looked and though about my image and also gave me something to think about.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Mike. I completely agree. A thoughtful comment can become part of the experience of the photograph itself. I also appreciate the way you describe the other person’s perspective. That exchange can reveal something the photographer had not fully seen.
Delete