Books on the Philosophy of Photography

[johnastovall]

A more current book on the subject is "Photography Theory" edited by James Elkins.

"What is a photograph? That simple question is far from settled, as this innovative book demonstrates. Photography Theory presents forty of the world's most active art historians and theorists-including Victor Burgin, Joel Snyder, Rosalind Krauss, Alan Trachtenberg, Geoffrey Batchen, Carol Squiers, Margaret Iversen, Abigail Solomon-Godeau-in animated debate on the nature of photography.
Photography has been around for nearly two centuries, but we are no closer to understanding what it is. For some people, a photograph is an optically accurate impression of the world. For others, it is mainly a way of remembering people and places. For still others, it is a sign of bourgeois life, a kind of addiction of the middle class. And for yet others, it is a troublesome interloper, which has confused people's ideas of reality and fine art to the point that they have difficulty even defining what a photograph is. And for some, the whole question of finding photography's nature is itself misguided from the beginning.
This provocative second volume in the new Routledge series "The Art Seminar" presents not one but many answers to the question what makes a photograph a photograph?"

 

[pmun]

painting and photography are made from different materials: shots need reality, paintings don't need it.

Yes - and this is the struggle that so many theorists have. Painting can exist of its self, separately, whereas photography is inevitably linked to the wider world through dependency. So aesthetic, political, cultural, ethical and sexual concerns are unavoidable for an extensive understanding of the medium. Even then the relationship between these issues and the flat surface, via the image, has to be accounted for. It is early days - the medium has established itself before we have had time to understand it.

www.urbanpaths.net

 

[thomasw_]

Good photography is like music to my eyes. Not sure that's insightful for others, but the analogy works in a few ways for me.

 

[pmun]

A non-photographer, lacking understanding of the practice of photography, familiar only with its superficies, cannot meaningfully say anything.

By implication then:

only architects can meaningfully say anything about buildings
only actors or directors can meaningfully say anything about films
only doctors and nurses can meaningfully say anything about medical provision
only painters can meaningfully say anything about painting
only poets can meaningfully say anything about poetry
only lawyers can meaningfully say anything about human rights

You've got the idea - you don't have to be a practitioner to have an interest in or an understanding of the practice.

www.urbanpaths.net

 

[mfunnell]

By implication then:

[etcetera...]

I think you'll find Roger was having a bit of reductio ad absurdum fun by running Sartre, one of the heros of the Theory crowd, right back up 'em.

Hence the:

(Sorrry; couldn't resist).

bit.

...Mike

 

[pmun]

I think you'll find Roger was having a bit of reductio ad absurdum fun by running Sartre, one of the heros of the Theory crowd, right back up 'em.

Hence the:bit.

...Mike

Yes I accept that. But there's something more here. From past discussions with Roger, he also feels that it is a weakness of theorists such as Sontag or Barthes that they are not serious photographers - and I set out to have a bit of 'reductio ad absurdum fun' of my own

www.urbanpaths.net

 

[mfunnell]

Yes I accept that. But there's something more here. From past discussions with Roger, he also feels that it is a weakness of theorists such as Sontag or Barthes that they are not serious photographers - and I set out to have a bit of 'reductio ad absurdum fun' of my own

www.urbanpaths.net

Perhaps so, and perhaps that's pushing things a bit far. But so is the appearance of the converse belief that ignorance is a positive advantage.

Not being a pratitioner or "insider" can provide a distance that allows the outsider to notice unstated and unreflective assumptions that may pass unexamined by those who are party to the activity being studied. This can lead to valuable insights - but only if the outsider engages with appropriate humility.

This would usually require a significant degree of study while trying to avoid bringing in pre-conceived ideas. It probably requires a default (but rebuttable) presumption that those engaged in the activity know what they're doing and have good reasons for their practices.

It probably doesn't benefit much from strongly-held views that the observer is ever-so-smarter than the observed. Nor from a belief that everything can always be explained by a universalising ideology (you know, one where if the facts don't fit the theory then so much the worse for the facts).

Unfortunately, to my eye most attempts to address photography via Theory look too much like the latter and not much like the former.

...Mike

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Some non photographers essays on photography, can be a lot more beautiful than some photographers shots and books on photography.

So who was the real photographer?

Time speaks. Loud.

 

[Chris101]

Barthes was not a photographer.

 

[pmun]

Not being a pratitioner or "insider" can provide a distance that allows the outsider to notice unstated and unreflective assumptions that may pass unexamined by those who are party to the activity being studied.

This is a fair point, but it assumes (as with Roger's position) that photography is a specialist subject. It is not. It is a general activity that significantly involves the vast majority of people. That may entail being photographed, looking at photographs, being influenced by photographs, learning from photographs...There is a specialist strand of serious practitioners, but that is one small aspect. Hence to find an outsider of photography is very difficult indeed (undiscovered tribes?).

Even then, how difficult is it to obtain an insight into specialist arenas of photography? Just look at websites such as this (and don't forget Sontag's relationship with leibovitz).

This can lead to valuable insights - but only if the outsider engages with appropriate humility.

This would usually require a significant degree of study while trying to avoid bringing in pre-conceived ideas. It probably requires a default (but rebuttable) presumption that those engaged in the activity know what they're doing and have good reasons for their practices.

It probably doesn't benefit much from strongly-held views that the observer is ever-so-smarter than the observed.

But for the reasons given above, the observer is also the observed.

Nor from a belief that everything can always be explained by a universalising ideology (you know, one where if the facts don't fit the theory then so much the worse for the facts).

Yes - theories can be too narrow, especially in such a wide subject as photography, and I agree this has been a difficulty.

www.urbanpaths.net

 

[Roger Hicks]

Perhaps so, and perhaps that's pushing things a bit far. But so is the appearance of the converse belief that ignorance is a positive advantage.

Not being a pratitioner or "insider" can provide a distance that allows the outsider to notice unstated and unreflective assumptions that may pass unexamined by those who are party to the activity being studied. This can lead to valuable insights - but only if the outsider engages with appropriate humility.

This would usually require a significant degree of study while trying to avoid bringing in pre-conceived ideas. It probably requires a default (but rebuttable) presumption that those engaged in the activity know what they're doing and have good reasons for their practices.

It probably doesn't benefit much from strongly-held views that the observer is ever-so-smarter than the observed. Nor from a belief that everything can always be explained by a universalising ideology (you know, one where if the facts don't fit the theory then so much the worse for the facts).

Unfortunately, to my eye most attempts to address photography via Theory look too much like the latter and not much like the former.

...Mike

Dear Mike,

This post, and your previous one about why I said "couldn't resist" chime with my views well.

I'd add that all critical theory is of its time and place. Marxist; existentialist; deconstructionist...In other words, you can read just ANY book on philosophy and apply it (or not) to photography, for amusement's sake. There is much to be said for starting out with Dr. Johnson's comment that "Why, sir, our tastes greatly alter. The lad does not care for the child's rattle, and the old man does not care for the young man's whore."

Cheers,

Roger

 

[johnastovall]

Barthes was not a photographer.

Einstein was not a physicist but he defined their world.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Einstein was not a physicist but he defined their world.

Yes, and he was a genius. Sontag and Barthes...?

Cheers,

R.

 

[rxmd]

Einstein was not a physicist but he defined their world.

Arguably he was a physicist; he graduated from the Polytechnical College in Zürich with a diploma in physics and mathematics, and most of his scientific publications were in and on physics. The fact that he had a solid mathemathical theory behind his work, that he worked as a patent examiner, and that he also wrote on pacifism and similar subjects doesn't change that.

I've read Sontag and I found her inspiring, but also tedious to read precisely because she subscribes to a post-structuralist theoretical model. People tend to either agree with this way of thought completely or reject it outright as sophistry, bullsh*t etc. Barthes is a semioticist in the French school who writes on all sorts of things, reactions to these authors are usually similar. Roger's reaction to the two authors is not surprising at all. As far as I'm concerned, it hasn't brought my photography forward, but it has given me a bit to think about in the use of photographs in the media and their perception by the general public. After all her book is not a photography textbook. It's also not about the philosophy of photography (the whole idea of a philosophy of photography seems quite absurd to me, unless you subscribe to the idea that everything has a philosophy that is at least or more worth thinking up and talking about than the thing in itself.) Technically it's not even all that much about photography, more about the terms in which people think about photography, the distinction between the two being a key part of poststructuralist thought. Whether I as a reader agree with it or not is a different question.

If you want a perspective on the social impact and uses of photography that comes from a slightly different direction, I recommend Pierre Bourdieu's Un art moyen. Essai sur les usages sociaux de la photographie (English title Photography: A Middle-Brow Art, German title Eine illegitime Kunst, the English edition is on Google Books). He's a hard-core theoretical sociologist and while being French he also has a rather dense and at times arcane style of writing, you may like it more than Sontag, or you may not.

 

[rxmd]

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.

I think you'll find Roger was having a bit of reductio ad absurdum fun by running Sartre, one of the heros of the Theory crowd, right back up 'em.

Well he does so in a fairly, let's say well-established way; every second discussion of critical theory takes the same turn sooner or later and you don't have to agree with critical theory to recognize the pattern. The canonical counterargument regarding Sontag, for example, is that Sontag's book is not so much about photographers but about tourists, media people, and private individuals, and that she most certainly was qualified to talk about all three of these At some point I wanted to write a little paper about this kind of discussion (I had lots of ideas for titles already, such as "Reading Walter Benjamin in the Age of His Technological Reproducibility") but then found that this kind of thing would have been not all that original either.

And Barthes just writes musings about everything. I had to dig through Mythologies for a semiotics class and hated it and went straight back to linguistics.

 

[Chris101]

Einstein was indeed a physicist. What he wasn't was an experimentalist. He never tested a single one of his hypotheses. Experimenting is an altogether different skill set than is theorizing.

And one could say that Schrodinger, Heisenberg, deBroglie and Bohr defined the world for physics to an even greater extent. Gravitiation, by 1926 was old hat.

 

[pmun]

After all her [Sontag] book is not a photography textbook. It's also not about the philosophy of photography (the whole idea of a philosophy of photography seems quite absurd to me, unless you subscribe to the idea that everything has a philosophy that is at least or more worth thinking up and talking about than the thing in itself.) Technically it's not even all that much about photography, more about the terms in which people think about photography, the distinction between the two being a key part of poststructuralist thought. Whether I as a reader agree with it or not is a different question.

rxmd, I enjoyed reading your posts on this - clear and thoughtful. I also agree on much of what you said, especially about Sontag. She addresses the implications of photography, what are we 'doing' to people when we take photographs of them, how the US is portrayed, what does it mean to tear up a photo of an ex-lover... Of course specialists may regard this as periphery, but it interests me and affects my practice in terms of how I or others might perceive it beyond the narrow subject of equipment and settings.

It's interesting that the idea of a philosophy of photography seems absurd to you (this was discussed on the 'philosophy of photography' thread). It might just be matter of saying 'theory' instead of 'philosophy'. I came to a conclusion on that thread - that philosophy is more of tool or a technique than a subject.

www.urbanpaths.net

 

[MichaelW]

Camera Lucida is a great book & a very easy read.
I've never picked up Sontag for some unknown reason.

'Burning With Desire' by Geoffrey Batchen is very good, it's a history of the history of photography, i.e. a critical look at various writings about the history of photography in terms of what was included and left out.

I've found some good writing in 'Classic Essays on Photography' edited by Alan Trachtenberg, there are pices by Niepce, Daguerre, Baudelaire, Stieglitz, Weston, Evans. I found the included 'The Ontology of the Photographic Image' by Andre Bazin to be quite interesting.

 

[Paco]

CAMARA LUCIDA great book 1,
SOBRE LA FOTOGRAFIA Susan Sontag OK
imprescindibles
ROSALIND KRAUSS - ok

 

[cz23]

I'm partial to a classic non-photography book -- Eugen Herrigel's Zen in the Art of Archery. I've read it many times over the years and always find it rewarding.

I just read a bio of HCB in which he said, when he first read the book, he found it perfectly articulated his own approach to photography.

But I'm a sucker for all that open, receptive, no-mind Zen stuff. For me it extends photography beyond photography. Photography as meditation. I love that notion.

John