The wholesale poo-poo of travel photography for being "banal" or "vapid" or "shallow" or "pedestrian" is itself banally vapid and shallowly pedestrian.

Oh boo hoo, some people like to record permanent physical memories for themselves of the Very Interesting places they've been to. I like to stick them on Flickr along with tens of millions of others. Slides, photo albums, and shoe boxes were the Flickr of the 20th century.

I went to England last year briefly. I hadn't been since I was 5 years old and too young to even remember what Heathrow looked like during a layover. Bet your ass I took photos of the Eye and Ben and Parliament, and Flickered them, because I could, and because...

...wait for it...

IT'S FUN TO TAKE PHOTOS.

Nobody said banality was banal.

It sounds like the whole tone of the installation is down on the idea, no?

I think its possible to interpret the installation
as a celebration of tourist photography, and
the obsolescent technology which once its
dominant medium.

its the stranger, high brow; but i agree, the brow gets sore holding it high all the time...

its the stranger, high brow; but i agree, the brow gets sore holding it high all the time...

"The wholesale poo-poo of travel photography for being 'banal' or 'vapid' or 'shallow' or 'pedestrian' is itself banally vapid and shallowly pedestrian."

Are you telling me there isn't one iota of your snarky liberal heart that wouldn't be somewhat non-plussed by a dispassionate look at a passionate subject?

Yes, taking FOTOS is fun. But then shouldn't photography, as an artform, celebrate the beauty of truth in a way closer to what Susan Sontag had in mind, rather than analyze it only to remark on its banality?