Addy101
Well-known
Typical of the age. Ever read Sartre? Same nonsense. It is simply people who never were taught to think who think this was a reasonable position. Thank heavens, philosophy moved on!
Is photographing someone a hostile act, a "subliminal murder?"
- Thread starter noisycheese
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 188
- Views 3K
JChrome
Street Worker
[QUOTE="Do you agree with Mme. Sontag's assertions that “To photograph people is to violate them," "a camera is a sublimation of the gun" and that "to photograph someone is a subliminal murder - a soft murder, appropriate to a sad, frightened time?”[/QUOTE]
I do agree. But all of the above could also be said of simply viewing another person (no mention of photography needed). When we view another, the other is murdered, in a metaphorical way, to make room for our subjective concept of them.
I don't know why she is isolating this to photography and don't see how perception is any different.
I do agree. But all of the above could also be said of simply viewing another person (no mention of photography needed). When we view another, the other is murdered, in a metaphorical way, to make room for our subjective concept of them.
I don't know why she is isolating this to photography and don't see how perception is any different.
pdh
Established
It always saddens and dispirits me to find how often anyone expressing difficult ideas, thinking speculatively or trying to see what might be beyond the superficially "obvious" is dismissed with such contempt.
Gradgrind, it seems, is alive and thriving ...
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
Then I suppose the only course of action that is truly considerate of others and decent is for all of us to follow in the footsteps of King Oedipus and gouge out our eyes... 🙄
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
FrankS
Registered User
finguanzo
Well-known
daveleo
what?
Back in my college days, we'd sit around and ponder stuff like this.
Wine helped the process.
A wonderful exchange of "higher" thoughts.
Any topic (in this case taking someone's picture) could occupy most of an Sunday afternoon.
Wine helped the process.
A wonderful exchange of "higher" thoughts.
Any topic (in this case taking someone's picture) could occupy most of an Sunday afternoon.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
pdh
Established
helen, I never post on forums "for argument's sake" (to be more succinct, I'm not a "troll").
But of course you may not see or hear contempt where I do; that will not make either of our experiences necessarily wrong, but it would make them different. In this case I don't feel my terminology is extreme in any way ... but you do. It's not my place to tell you your feelings are wrong.
pdh
Established
hehehe , now that's a good joke 🙂
(it would be murder too ... if you saw my photographs of people you'd see why I take a lot of pictures of trees)
bonatto
looking out
This a multi-part one:
From Merriam Webster:
I guess maybe to disturb, or potentially fail to show proper respect for, but then it depends entirely on the photographer's approach. You can harm, yes, with a photograph, and much more, but to assert that ALL photography violates is a bit long winded.
This point is coherent, though it would be unreasonable to expect that someone can see themselves as someone else would.
This is the sunday afternoon talk one.
Perhaps murder is not the appropriate word. Seems like a pseudo-academic attempt to define something from a metaphysical realm in one sentence.
From Merriam Webster:
I guess maybe to disturb, or potentially fail to show proper respect for, but then it depends entirely on the photographer's approach. You can harm, yes, with a photograph, and much more, but to assert that ALL photography violates is a bit long winded.
This point is coherent, though it would be unreasonable to expect that someone can see themselves as someone else would.
This is the sunday afternoon talk one.
Perhaps murder is not the appropriate word. Seems like a pseudo-academic attempt to define something from a metaphysical realm in one sentence.
N.delaRua
Well-known
Does this mean her partner is a serial killer?
I don't agree with that statement whatsoever. In fact, if I was part of the discussion in person I would disagree passionately and argue that that is a ridiculous opinion. Is painting someone subliminally murdering them?
Furthermore, a camera is not a "sublimation of a gun;" it fires no projectile, causes no physical harm, and as opposed to ejecting anything is absorbs photons reflected from its subject. The photographer can never know more about the subject than the subject know about them self, but can easily project their interpretation of the individual as stated.
Since she mostly worked with celebrities, I am willing to bet those individuals contributed to creating their narrative through her work just as much as her ability to identify interesting juxtaposition in one's own environment.
This statement reminds me of the artist statement generator that everyone was having fun with on RFF not too long ago.
I don't agree with that statement whatsoever. In fact, if I was part of the discussion in person I would disagree passionately and argue that that is a ridiculous opinion. Is painting someone subliminally murdering them?
Furthermore, a camera is not a "sublimation of a gun;" it fires no projectile, causes no physical harm, and as opposed to ejecting anything is absorbs photons reflected from its subject. The photographer can never know more about the subject than the subject know about them self, but can easily project their interpretation of the individual as stated.
Since she mostly worked with celebrities, I am willing to bet those individuals contributed to creating their narrative through her work just as much as her ability to identify interesting juxtaposition in one's own environment.
This statement reminds me of the artist statement generator that everyone was having fun with on RFF not too long ago.
Sparrow
Veteran
muser53
MUSER53
Sontag asserts that "To photograph people is to violate them...". If one uses the reasoning she gives for coming to this hypothesis then I would submit that any form of expression (writing,drawing,even music) that attempts to portray someone would be a similar form of violation.
To my way of thinking, if any violation (and I'm not sure violation is the proper term to apply here) occurs it happens when or if a viewer/reader/listener confuses the symbol presented for the actual person and by doing so may limit the way they experience that person.
Being that I am at work I'll sign out for now but am interested to see how others weigh in on this and what you all have to say.
To my way of thinking, if any violation (and I'm not sure violation is the proper term to apply here) occurs it happens when or if a viewer/reader/listener confuses the symbol presented for the actual person and by doing so may limit the way they experience that person.
Being that I am at work I'll sign out for now but am interested to see how others weigh in on this and what you all have to say.
DougFord
on the good foot
Susan Sontag and Frank Booth, opposite ends of the same neurotic shtick. 🙄
"Don't you look at me!"
"Don't you look at me!"
jky
Well-known
...what about "subliminal thievery".... since we're *taking* their photo 😉
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
"selfie"=suicide?
An entire demographic is, it seems, trying to wipe itself out.
...Mike
An entire demographic is, it seems, trying to wipe itself out.
...Mike
paulfish4570
Veteran
a bunch of hooey.
how about painting? rembrandy van rjin a soft murderer? da vinci?
pencil drawing? escher a murderer?
charcoal?
all forms of murder?
please.
i might go with theft, in some circumstances ...
how about painting? rembrandy van rjin a soft murderer? da vinci?
pencil drawing? escher a murderer?
charcoal?
all forms of murder?
please.
i might go with theft, in some circumstances ...
Chris101
summicronia
I can see agreeing with this if only within the context of 70's postmodern feminist theory. Under that umbrella, murder has a male identity, and so fits within the psycho-sexual scheme of the Sontag/Leibovitz dyad.
In plain English though, nah. You are dead after being murdered. If you just got your picture taken, you (usually) get over it.
In plain English though, nah. You are dead after being murdered. If you just got your picture taken, you (usually) get over it.
Similar threads
