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 .
pdh said:
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 ...
Click to expand...

Well, I did study philosophy at University and I really strongly belief people like Sartre and Heidegger are toying with words and ideas without adding real substance. I used to joke that Heidegger reminded me of Wittgenstein, asked why, I used to proclaim: "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen." ("Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.")

You may have guessed I'm into Wittgenstein :angel:

I never read her book, but the quote by Susan Sontag that was cited here, to me sounds like playing with words for the sake of coming across like your saying something profound, but without adding real thought. I really don't think she is expressing difficult ideas, just simple ideas with difficult words. Hence, my response.

But, to be honest, I'm on the other side of the philosophical debate, so, maybe, I should refrain from commenting :eek:
 
Photographing people certainly *can* be a hostile act, in fact in today's paranoid world, many people will see it as a hostile act most of the time. If someone does not want to be photographed, and you photograph them, then it is at least a little bit hostile towards them.

However, that implies that photographing someone without them knowing will always show them in a negative way, rather than in a way they'd be pleased with.

'Subliminal murder' is a bit extreme, and I think there is a fair bit of BS available on this subject if you want it.

It can be hostile, or it can not be, it just depends.
 
I'm not particularly fond of Susan Sontag's writing but come on, people, how about not acting intentionally dense? Obviously she's not using 'murder' in a literal meaning but as a figure of speech. Anyone who wants to say what she says is hogwash should at least first try to figure out what she's trying to say.
Personally I can't be bothered at the moment as I'm just not that curious to find out what she means. But I've learned long ago not to dismiss anything at bs until I understand it.
 
Jamie123 said:
I'm not particularly fond of Susan Sontag's writing but come on, people, how about not acting intentionally dense? Obviously she's not using 'murder' in a literal meaning but as a figure of speech. Anyone who wants to say what she says is hogwash should at least first try to figure out what she's trying to say.
Personally I can't be bothered at the moment as I'm just not that curious to find out what she means. But I've learned long ago not to dismiss anything at bs until I understand it.
Click to expand...

Actually she was using murder literally, just not practically.

I think it is also pretty obvious when one writes something just because they want attention. Sontag was very good at saying nothing in a way that got people talking. See? Her trick still works decades later.

To photograph people is not to violate them. That's an opinion stated as fact. The truth is to photograph people is to expose them.
 
Jamie123 said:
I'm not particularly fond of Susan Sontag's writing but come on, people, how about not acting intentionally dense? Obviously she's not using 'murder' in a literal meaning but as a figure of speech. Anyone who wants to say what she says is hogwash should at least first try to figure out what she's trying to say.
Personally I can't be bothered at the moment as I'm just not that curious to find out what she means. But I've learned long ago not to dismiss anything at bs until I understand it.
Click to expand...

Well of course. I think only a child would fail to get that. Give some credit for intellect.

"Simple ideas expressed with difficult words" - I like that!
 
Reading Susan Sontag's dribble is a waste of time so I do not agree with her assessment..
 
Is photographing someone a violation of them, a "subliminal murder?"

Is photographing someone a violation of them, a "subliminal murder?"

Is photographing someone a violation of them, a "subliminal murder?":

No.
 
Still, Peter_wrote has a good observation:
Peter_wrote: said:
yes, a bit. somehow you make someone to an object. an representation of him, on which he looses control.

there must be a reason, why most people don't like to be photographed (even most photo hobbyists don't like to be photographed)...
Click to expand...

What is your immediate gut feeling when you turn around and see someone, a stranger, taking a picture of you, and clearly meaning it to be of you? Pleasure, or something rather less positive?
 
Can anything useful can be made from debating one sentence from a philosophical book on photography.
I'm not sure I would have the intellect to fully understand the issues that the book grapples with, but how can you be so dismissive of one line from a book if you don't know it's context?

I know it's not the point she's making, but I do think our instinct is to find anything pointed at us as a potential threat, therefore a hostile act, especially when it's being aimed.
 
bobbyrab said:
Can anything useful can be made from debating one sentence from a philosophical book on photography.
I'm not sure I would have the intellect to fully understand the issues that the book grapples with, but how can you be so dismissive of one line from a book if you don't know it's context?

I'll make this brief as my computer gremlins keep logging me out as I write.

What's useful is simply the exchange of ideas that are brought forth by her critique of photography.
Click to expand...
 
Suppose everyone is entiltled to their opinion. It's not the most 'far out' idea I've ever read. It dosen't affect how I think about photography.
 
I once had a copy of Sontags book. Never read it. Looked like a bunch of naval gazing. And for a book on photography it was remarkably devoid of actual photographs.

As for the assertion - this says more about Sontag than it says about photography. Perhaps she was having an "off" day or was pee'd off at her partner Leibovitz and wanted to hit back at her.

Or does she really think like this? Does she really believe we are a bunch of savages from some benighted medieval village who are being asked to believe that to make a photo is to steal someone's soul. (This is what her statement amounts too it seems to me).

It is times like this that I feel I want to (in the words of comic Dara O'Brian) "Put people like Sontag who purvey such silliness " in a sack and hit them with sticks". I get a bit fed up with so called intellectuals like Sontag who constantly insult our intelligence with politically correct nonsense.

God spare me from the friggin "intellectual" left. Nothing but latte sipping lame brains.
 
Personally, I maintain a strict policy of implacable hostility to anyone calling me a murderer. So, yes, although I read her two little books, I completely dismiss her claims without bothering to give them the dignity of a response.

Now, on the other hand, if someone tells me they don't want their picture taken, I think their concerns should be addressed.

My personal feelings are that photography has done a shipload more good than harm, however.
 
A writing is often a mirror to the author's personality shaped by their perspective on life.
Reading that book brings to me an image of a frightened little girl inside an intelligent person who sees the world with more suspicion than freedom.

I often thought: How you see photography is linked closely with how you see the world. Looks like I'm not that far off the mark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom