This reminds me so much of present-day generative AI criticisms.

> “These innovations were sometimes misguided, occasionally obsessive, periodically dangerous, and perpetually fascinating,” [Burgess writes]

> Susan Sontag once called [them] “the clever, the wealthy, and the obsessed.”

> “were exposed to toxic mercury and iodine vapors every time they made an image,” Burgess writes

> flash powder advertised as “the most powerful light under the sun” was the cause of multiple fatal explosions in Philadelphia

Expensive, wasteful, "tech bros".

Yet we wouldn't do without photos, would we?

The technology turned out to be more good than bad:

> As photographs became more accessible — and more commercialized — they introduced “notions about celebrity culture, self-imaging, authenticity, ownership, and representation that are deeply resonant today.”

> Charles Dickens that described the appeal of the fad in surprisingly recognizable terms, marveling at the excitement of “distributing yourself among your friends, and letting them see you in your favorite attitude, and with your favorite expression. And then you get into those wonderful books which everybody possesses, and strangers see you there in good society, and ask who that very striking-looking person is?”

▲

codingdave a day ago | parent | next [-]

I'd say the good from photography, aside from more options for creativity, is documentation. Journalism without photography would be of lower value. Photos are highly impactful in education, both formal and informal, to get visuals of the world beyond your immediate reach. Documentation of history, in particular local and family history, is far more powerful since photography came along.

I'd say the commercialization of it and the follow-on effects you mentioned are the bad, not the good.

	▲	JKCalhoun a day ago \| parent [-]
		I'm thinking of women's fashions in the U.S. — perhaps spurred on by depictions of the latest Parisian-wear from Godey's Lady's Book up to the 1890's. Then the starlets of a young Hollywood I suppose kicked off the flapper craze of the 1920's in the U.S.? An illustration of a fashionable Parisian though was probably adequate — a photograph not required. Photography perhaps made the latest fashion trends ubiquitous? That aside, I treasure photography for giving me a glimpse into the ordinary lives of my ordinary family going back three and four generations. Having captured the arc of an entire life from childhood, to graduation from "Normal" school, marriage, motherhood… And finally the sadder photos where they are old, comforted now by their adult daughter until the last photo in the series: their headstone. I am thankful for all of that. I have found having the full span of a life captured in photographs to be sublime … sobering, grounding.

▲

contagiousflow a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't follow the analogy? Are you just comparing two technologies that have had criticisms at their infancy?

▲

bgwalter a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> This reminds me so much of present-day generative AI criticisms.

I don't think that is a coincidence, it is precisely what the article wants you to think:

In “Flashes of Brilliance,” Anika Burgess takes us back to the 19th century to showcase the artists and innovators who developed the revolutionary technology.

By tying the invention to "artists", the whole piece is framed as having the endorsement of artists. The whole article is there to frame criticism of new technology as misguided, while cleverly not mentioning "AI".

Normally I wouldn't be that suspicious, but the book and the article came out in 2025.

Now, how about an article on the miracles of DDT technology, which was the best insecticide in the world?