Is photographing someone a hostile act, a "subliminal murder?"

Is photographing someone a hostile act, a "subliminal murder?"

  • I agree with Sontag's outlook regarding photography. It is inherently hostile toward the subject

    Votes: 13 11.1%
  • I disagree - to call photography a "subliminal murder" is hogwash!

    Votes: 104 88.9%

  • Total voters
    117
  • Poll closed .
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!
 
[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.
 
... mostly tosh I'd say

academic blah-blah to me.

Academic hogwash...

way too heavy & intellectually shallow

... nonsense. It is simply people who never were taught to think who think this was a reasonable position.


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 ...
 
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.

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... :rolleyes:
 
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 ...

Wow, if You view 'my words' as words of Contempt
you are rather Extreme in your terminology or rather extreme for Argument sake

nor does my way of Thinking subscribe to hard cold facts aka gradgrind.... Sorry to see You saddened but its just a Conversation with no Daggers...:)
 
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.

Im sorry that my dismissal of this "difficult", idea saddens you.. Not my intention to make anyone sad. really.. :p
 
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.
 
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 ...

Well get your camera out and murder them then. ;)
 
you are rather Extreme in your terminology or rather extreme for Argument sake

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.
 
This a multi-part one:

“To photograph people is to violate them

From Merriam Webster:

To violate:

1: break, disregard <violate the law>
2: to do harm to the person or especially the chastity of; specifically : rape 2
3: to fail to show proper respect for : profane <violate a shrine>
4: interrupt, disturb <violate the peace of a spring evening — Nancy Larter>

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.

seeing them as they never see themselves, by having knowledge of them that they can never have;"

This point is coherent, though it would be unreasonable to expect that someone can see themselves as someone else would.

it turns people into objects that can be symbolically possessed.

This is the sunday afternoon talk one.

Just as a camera is a sublimation of the gun, to photograph someone is a subliminal murder - a soft murder, appropriate to a sad, frightened time.

Perhaps murder is not the appropriate word. Seems like a pseudo-academic attempt to define something from a metaphysical realm in one sentence.
 
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.
 
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 ...

... I did think, I thought that day in Normandy, June 6th 1944, how many of the dead were down to Capa? then I added "mostly" to "tosh I'd say" just in case there is anything in her convoluted pseudo-psychological babble ... and yes I did try to read it
 
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.
 
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 ...
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom