Books on the Philosophy of Photography

[pmun]

What books have you read on the Philosophy of Photography (if any)? I've listed just two of the classics here. If you've read any of them, please say what you think. If not, why not?

 

[mfunnell]

I've read On Photography though I'm not sure its so much "philosophy of photography" as much as it is approaching photography from the standpoint of "Critical Theory". As such, it tends to certain philosophical positions you're expected to take as a priori "truths" (to the extent Theory allows the concept) rather than as standpoints that, in themselves, need justification and argument. Because of this it tends to the whole "post structuralist, post-modernist, post-colonialist (where they can sneak that in), post-rationalist, post-any-form-of-intelligence" cluster of beliefs - all of which must be taken on faith and considered unarguable. (Note, however, it was written long-enough ago that the truly stupid end of that stream wasn't really established and that Ms Sontag herself was always bright enough to avoid it.)

As I noted on that other thread, it is interesting to re-read On Photography interspersed with her much later work Regarding the Pain of Others (Abu Ghraib photos etc.) to get a sense of how her views may have evolved. (And, IMO, demonstrates that Sontag mostly avoided the "brains fall out" problems of some who adhere to "Theory".)

I've read bits of Barthes found in anthologies but have never stumbled on the work itself. I probably will read it if I ever run across a copy.

...Mike

P.S. I can recommend the Postmodernism Generator for examples of the idiot end of "Theory", derived from “On the Simulation of Postmodernism and Mental Debility Using Recursive Transition Networks”

P.P.S. I thought this essay an appropriately relevant press of the generator link.

 

[Morca007]

On Photography made me want to throw my cameras away.

 

[Chris101]

I've read Camera Lucida and found it interesting up until the last couple of chapters. I have the feeling that his editors took a good essay of Barthes' and told him to stretch it to book length. I have "read in" On Photography but was unable to 'get in to it'.

 

[Disaster_Area]

The Tau of Photography:
http://www.amazon.com/Tao-Photography-Seeing-Beyond/dp/1580081940

Great book! Really helps me get out of photo-ruts

 

[Nando]

I have "Basic Critical Theory for Photographers" by Ashley la Grange and highly recommend it as a first philosophy of photography book. la Grange summarizes many books and essays about photography like John Berger's "Ways of Seeing", Susan Sontag's "On Photography", Martha Rosler’s, "In, Around and Afterthoughts", Roland Barthes' "Camera Lucida" and many others. They are presented in a way to encourage debate and reflection. I don't think that the summaries in the book can substitute an entire work but for me it served as good introductions. I decided to read John Swarovski "The Photographer's Eye" , for example, after reading excerpts from it in La Grange's book. The book somewhat like a school text book with questions and projects at the end of each chapter.

When it came to actual shooting photographs (as opposed to looking at them), no book has helped me more than "On Being a Photography" by David Hurn and the late Bill Jay.

If your a big HC-B fan like I am, I recommend Jean-Pierre Montier's "Henri Cartier-Bresson and the Artless Art". This was Montier's doctorial thesis. It's a beautiful book providing a critical explanation of HC-B's life-work - his photography along with his paintings and drawings too.

 

[petronius]

I´ve read both and still enjoy taking photos!
Serious, looking at photos gave me always more.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Sontag's On Photography is a deep book... I've read it several times in the last 10 years, with the admiration the author deserves, and every time I've found new things to enjoy in that splendid group of essays...

Barthes is interesting, if not as moving as her...

I strongly recommend "Photography and Painting: two different media?" by Laura Gonzalez, 2005. I don't know if it's available in english... It's a very complete text, considering the two centuries development of photography... She even talks about Baudelaire's contradictory position and opinions on photography, and remembers how Walter Benjamin predicted a new era in art, when it became possible to reproduce an original art work... The book states that both media are practically the same: there are differences of course, but finally, it's all about visual telling, and when an image reaches us, It is not very important if it's a painting or a photograph...

 

[mfunnell]

The book states that both media are practically the same: there are differences of course, but finally, it's all about visual telling, and when an image reaches us, It is not very important if it's a painting or a photograph...

Ah, but are they philosophically the same? Since at least Plato's Dialogues philosophy has concerned itself with the relationships between art and reality. The apparenty mechanical nature of photographic processes (which is substantive enough to matter, but somewhat problematic) messes with this in ways that painting doesn't.

...Mike

 

[bmattock]

For those interested in the philosophy of photography, may I recommend that you NOT read "Towards a Philosophy of Photography," by Villem Flusser. It stinks on ice.

It is literally the only book - the only one - that I have ever thrown in the garbage, so that I would not responsible for anyone else getting a copy of this horrible thing. He actually thought photography was a tool of capitalist oppression and proposed also that photography would replace written language as a means of communication.

You can read an excerpt of it here:

The Education of a Photographer, Volume 10, by Traub and Bell.

Andreas Feininger wrote an essay called "Philosophy of Photography" that appears as a chapter in his book, "That's Photography" which may interest some.

Bill Jay wrote "Negative/positive: a philosophy of photography," but I have not read it.

Most of the books on my shelf are about the history of photography, which fascinates me far more than any so-called 'philosophy' of photography. Nevertheless, two volumes which may be of interest to philosophers of photography might be these:

"Photography is a Language," by John R. Whiting, and "Photography: a Cultural History," by Mary Warner Marien.

 

[benlees]

John Tagg, Victor Burgin, and Allan Sekula are always interesting. All are influenced by Barthes and Benjamin- among others, with a little bit Marx thrown in!

 

[palec]

During my trip in Romania I had discussion about theory of photography with a university professor Fransisc Mraz who had told me that there's no theory written about photography (because photography is very young in compare to painting, sculpture or music). Everything that has been done so far were just opinions – I've also asked about the two books mentioned in topic – and he was more inclined to Barthes' one as more interesting, but still just opinion).

 

[kuvvy]

The book 'On Photography' was one I couldn't get into and sold it on. Just didn't get it at all. However, like Nando, I have "On Being a Photographer" by David Hurn and Bill Jay and I'm in the middle of reading it yet again in the hope it can give me some shooting ideas.

 

[bmattock]

One of the problems with such lists is self-evident in this very thread. We don't discuss; we hurl statements at each other. We're so self-involved that we post questions so that we can give our opinions to ourselves. There's a philosophy for ya.

 

[Chris101]

For those interested in the philosophy of photography, may I recommend that you NOT read "Towards a Philosophy of Photography," by Villem Flusser. It stinks on ice.

It is literally the only book - the only one - that I have ever thrown in the garbage, so that I would not responsible for anyone else getting a copy of this horrible thing. He actually thought photography was a tool of capitalist oppression and proposed also that photography would replace written language as a means of communication.

You can read an excerpt of it here:

The Education of a Photographer, Volume 10, by Traub and Bell.

...

The whole Marxist interpretation of photography was very popular in the 1980s when photography was thought of as a commodity of social interaction. In fact it heralded the current thinking that photography is a soporific for the masses, something that the rise of easy photography supports, eh?

ps. "Stinks on ice" is one of my favorite movie lines of all times. So much so, that the remake of that movie (Fun with Dick and Jane) does nothing for me.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Ah, but are they philosophically the same? Since at least Plato's Dialogues philosophy has concerned itself with the relationships between art and reality. The apparenty mechanical nature of photographic processes (which is substantive enough to matter, but somewhat problematic) messes with this in ways that painting doesn't.

...Mike

If the only answers are yes or no, I would pick yes.

Portraits as what they are in the modern world started with ancient Rome, where a face was painted as photographically as possible, just to remember who was inside the grave... Since then, painting has always respected that ability, even after movements hungry for abstract views...

Photography had the same evolution. After photography, painting got rid of the need for realism (19th century and impressionism). And then more than labours (uffizi), painting became art, and imitation of reality was not mandatory. Then, after video, photography became more artistic after not being THE way to reflect reality...

In the end, what humans feel when seeing a small flat abstraction of reality, is relatively the same coming from negative or canvas... Both disciplines (what a horrible word) have obvious differences, but just as people, a lot more important than differences, is what there's in common.

Almost everything in common.

Cheers

 

[Vince Lupo]

I've always been a fan of 'Occam's Razor' by Bill Jay. I read it in grad school and it really me think about what I photograph and why I do it. It has tongue-in-cheek elements about it (a la Bill Bryson), but the author sure makes a lot of valid points and provides good 'food for thought'.

 

[fbf]

I wrote a paper on Susan Sontag's on photography in college . My professor gave me an A+ because he had no clue what I was talking about.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Ah, but are they philosophically the same? Since at least Plato's Dialogues philosophy has concerned itself with the relationships between art and reality. The apparenty mechanical nature of photographic processes (which is substantive enough to matter, but somewhat problematic) messes with this in ways that painting doesn't.



Mike,

Your point is a clever one... There's a difference... Even though both painting and photography can decide if making an effort or not in order to reflect reality visually, and even though both of them can make an effort or not in order to reflect reality conceptually, painting and photography are made from different materials: shots need reality, paintings don't need it. No matter if it's a real reality or a prepared or fake one, shots need to be born from real things reflecting light. A photographer can't live alone for years in an empty black room making shots to express beliefs and feelings. A painter can do it.


You're so very right when you say that some of the material facts about photography can sometimes stand between the photographer and his/her work, in ways painters may not even imagine...

 

[Roger Hicks]

How about Sartre? Existence precedes essence. We can each choose our own essence -- if, unlike Sontag or Barthes, we are photographers to begin with. A non-photographer, lacking understanding of the practice of photography, familiar only with its superficies, cannot meaningfully say anything.

(Sorrry; couldn't resist).

Cheers,

R.