The Marks of Man

I don’t believe technology has really changed photography; other then to open it up creatively even further. It has shown us we have to be ambivalent about how and why an image has been created. This ambivalence and discarding helps us question some of the myths that we surround ourself concerning photography, the myth of the blur, the myth of time, the myth of capture area, the myth of the document the myth of the photographic rather then human perception. Rather the capture of time through representation and memory by the vehicle of a camera has been strengthened, because we have so many ways of capturing images and holding them with out relying on human memory. When I use the camera I am looking for so many things beyond what my eyes or camera tell me is there. The ghosts of people on a footpath, the change of the vegetation of hundreds of years, the memories of human loss and gain. I try to see the conflicts on the land both human and natural, the difficulty is expressing this all ...

If there is one thing that digital technology has affected it is the family photograph, arguably the most important form of photography, digital technology has enabled the average person more freedom in making the pictures and this is a good thing. This current era of photography has been the most important form of photography since its invention, it records our human frailty and mortality, our loves and our losses beyond the few years that we live. Eventually to fade itself once all who remember us have died or the memory has gone.