Instagram, as we know it, is dead. But as Instagram head Adam Mosseri calls pro photographs “boring,” where is Instagram headed next?

For a long time, Instagram was known for its grid of square photos, but Instagram head Adam Mosseri says “that feed is dead” – and it has been for years. In a post at the start of 2026, Mosseri shared insight into how aesthetics are changing – and how that is both going to affect creators and the social media platform moving forward.

In the post, Mosseri shares a mix of thoughts, even going as far as calling out camera companies for “betting on the wrong aesthetic.” That, along with statements like “in a world where AI can generate flawless imagery, the professional look becomes the tell,” has created a comment section of angry photographers. But if there’s an overarching theme to the Instagram CEO’s ramblings, it’s authenticity – and that could be good news for artists.

Instagram’s square grid is “dead,” Mosseri says

“Unless you are under 25,” Mosseri writes, “you probably think of Instagram as feed of square photos: polished makeup, skin smoothing, and beautiful landscapes. That feed is dead. People stopped sharing personal moments to feed years ago.”

Mosseri says that era of Instagram has faded in favor of DMs and what he describes as a raw aesthetic: “blurry photos and shaky videos of daily experiences. Shoe shots and unflattering candids.”

The slow fade of Instagram’s emphasis on square photo grids won’t come as a surprise to photographers on the platform, who have long complained about seeing much less reach on photos as the algorithm shifts to favor vertical video.

But, while Instagram’s emphasis on photos is dead, where Instagram is headed next in 2026 may not be a death sentence for photography on the platform.

Instagram’s square grid is “dead,” Mosseri says

What’s replacing the perfect Instagram grid of tailored, perfected images is a less-perfected “raw aesthetic,” Mosseri says. But in the same post, the Instagram head says both that “authenticity is becoming infinitely reproducible” and “authenticity is becoming a scarce resource.”

The Instagram head notes that even AI will get better at mimicking the imperfect aesthetic that’s quickly becoming popular on the platform. As that happens, Mosseri indicated that “we’ll need to shift our focus to who says something instead of what is being said.”

Favoring authenticity will undoubtedly favor photographers with real cameras over AI, though many commenters argue that what Mosseri is saying doesn’t jive with the way that the platform has added AI over 2025.

Instagram’s square grid is “dead,” Mosseri says

The rise of authenticity may be a good sign for photography, but what Mosseri says about cameras has struck a nerve for many photographers, at least based on the post’s comments section.

“The camera companies are betting on the wrong aesthetic,” Mosseri writes. “They’re competing to make everyone look like a pro photographer from 2015. But in a world where AI can generate flawless imagery, the professional look becomes the tell. Flattering imagery is cheap to produce and boring to consume. People want content that feels real. Savvy creators are leaning into unproduced, unflattering images. In a world where everything can be perfected, imperfection becomes a signal.”

Oomph. Did Mosseri just tell professional photographers that amateur content will have an advantage because it’s less perfect? To me, this feels like how writers are being told to stop using em dashes because it’s becoming an AI tell. Why should I stop using my favorite punctuation mark because apparently, AI likes it too? (Yes – I’m fully aware that having a favorite punctuation mark makes me a nerd.)

Photographers in the comments are, understandably, upset that the head of a platform once known for photo sharing is tossing around phrases “like a pro photographer from 2015” as if it's an insult. AI copied professional photographers, so now professional photographers need to stop looking, well, so professional. That seems to be what Mosseri is saying.

I’m not going to stop trying to make my photos look professional. But, where I agree with Mosseri is that authenticity is key. I don’t think photographers have to embrace the blurry photo aesthetic to be authentic. After all, following a trend just to follow a trend is the exact opposite of authenticity.

But I think leaning into emotions, not trends, is key to authenticity. Photographs that embrace emotion over perfection will stand out in a world where computers can create images, because computers cannot feel emotions. And yes, emotions are often messy and imperfect.

I also don’t think camera companies are “betting on the wrong aesthetic,” because if I want to create a crappy image because crappy images are trendy, well, then I can just go buy an old DSLR off eBay. I don’t need the latest, greatest camera if I want to create an imperfect image.

And then, of course, we have camera companies creating experiments like the X Half, which isn’t about the image quality at all but the experience of taking photos. The experience a camera offers in an industry where it’s harder to find a terrible camera than it is to find a fantastic camera may prove essential moving forward.

While I may disagree with some of what Mosseri is saying, there’s one key that I 100 percent agree with: “The bar is shifting from ‘can you create?’ to ‘can you make something that only you could create?’” No matter what the trends are doing, leaning into your own personal emotions and experiences will always be key to making a great photograph.

One thing that I hope the trend towards authentic images leads to is to normalize images that are less Photoshopped, more in-camera. Can we please normalize the fact that real skin has pores? After all, those cameras that are “betting on the wrong aesthetic” are getting increasingly better at rendering details, skin imperfections, and all. If too-smooth skin is a telltale sign of AI, let’s normalize not Photoshopping out every single pore.

You may also like

Browse alternative social media networks for photographers.