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

[airfrogusmc]

I'm not saying everything she says is wrong - I think she has an overly pessimistic view of photography, and is intentionally selecting her examples to make her point, even when it may be inaccurate and an over-generalization. Of course photographers reflect negative ideas as well as positive ideas. Birth of A Nation exists, as does Django Unchained, as does Schindlers List as does Triumph of the Will, Jude Suss and Protocols of the Elders of Zion. For every Cruising, there's a Paris is Burning. But we can't condemn cinema or photography as a morally flawed medium, just because some humans some times misue the medium.

But when you assert that Photography, proper, the sum total of all types of photographic reproduction, is a form of subliminal murder, you'd better be able to back it up. Granted Susan Sontag is now dead and we can't debate her assertion with her, but I would really like to hear her explain how a family snapshot at the backyard barbecue is murder.

The assertion that the photograph is murder is dependent upon the assumption that the photographer is somehow discreet from the subject of the photograph. What then of self-portraiture? is that suicide? And what about the family barbecue again, where someone sets the self-timer and gets in the group? or even if they are operating the camera, they nonetheless are part of the group and not an external third party?

For Sontag's assertion to work, there needs to be an external other, which is not universally true. Photography as practiced by its billions of practitioners daily, questions notions of identity and relationships. At what point does the photographer become a part of the photograph, a part of the group or community being photographed, and at what point do they separate and become the photographer? If we exclude vernacular photography from the equation (photographs by indigenous populations for indigenous consumption), then Sontag's argument begins to carry more water, because you can posit an external photographer alien to the subject, and you can posit an involuntary relationship between the photographer and subject.

I think her words were to be read metaphorically and some of what she has said about photography as come true. Camera club and calendar art is kings and being created by the masses with no concern for deeper meaning in their work or a concern for history. Very little serious discussions about content of work. You can see this in all parts of the media. News is now just another show being driven by ratings thus shocking images, sex and violence because it sells. She brought up that very subject in the book.

Some of what she writes about 30+ years ago has come to be. Some hasn't. Even with all the calendar art photography is still alive and well though many portions of the professional world will never be the same.

The question is where is it all headed.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Another side expression not touched on is the gear fetishization that often accompanies camera club photography. In that sense, she is absolutely right - the creation of the image is not performed in the service of the image, but in the service of the use of the equipment purely for the pleasure of the photographer. So in that sense, a camera club sunset is every bit as pornographic as a 'beaver shot'. When the photograph becomes an objective token of proof, not of the existence of the subject(s) but instead of the dominance and mastery of the photographer over the subject, the subject itself becomes irrelevant, the act of photographing IS trophy hunting, and the photograph the taxidermied head on the wall. When the commentary about the image is not why the photographer wanted to create THAT specific image, but rather "I shot that with a 200mm f2 lens, ISO 400 film, hand-held at 1/15th of a second", it is sublimated murder. But in the entire spectrum of photographs taken on any given day, those photos are still a minority.

 

[kbg32]

As a writer and the life partner of photographer Annie Leibovitz, Susan Sontag had a unique position from which to observe and write about the photographic process.

In her book, On Photography, Sontag makes the following assertion:
I read her words and was smitten by the undercurrent of apprehensiveness, negativity and torment it revealed in her view of photography (and most probably of life in general). It is sad to see that her words reveal a worldview that was laced with such fear and anguish.

Today, many people - mainly in the U.S., from what I have read - have an outlook of distrust, suspicion and hostility toward photographers in general and street photographers in particular. It seems as if they have taken up where Madame Sontag left off in her jaundiced view of photography and run amok with that spirit of unpropitious hostility toward people who honestly mean them no harm or ill will.

Given that sad state of affairs, I have to ask the following question: 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?”

Whether you agree or disagree with her outlook, please elaborate for our benefit.

Ms. Sontag and Ms. Leibovitz did not meet until the very late '80s, long after Sontag's "On Photography", 1977, was published. It is quite well known that Ms. Sontag did not like herself to be photographed. Hence, she was probably writing from that part of her own personal experience.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

So in that sense, a camera club sunset is every bit as pornographic as a 'beaver shot'.

I'm trying really hard not to make a sarcastic comment on that statement. It strikes me that making a statement of that nature is a fairly typical example of the dominance tricks so often exercised by "intellectuals" and really has no place in a sensible discussion on any subject.

I apologise for this response but frankly, it's a pretty offensive comment to make about your fellows.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Ms. Sontag and Ms. Leibovitz did not meet until the very late '80s, long after Sontag's "On Photography", 1977, was published. It is quite well known that Ms. Sontag did not like herself to be photographed. Hence, she was probably writing from that part of her own personal experience.

But then she let Annie document her struggle with cancer. Leibovitz strongest work in my opinion.

Yes and I did address the fact they weren't together when the series of essays that make up "On Photography" were written in post #131

 

[airfrogusmc]

I'm trying really hard not to make a sarcastic comment on that statement. It strikes me that making a statement of that nature is a fairly typical example of the dominance tricks so often exercised by "intellectuals" and really has no place in a sensible discussion on any subject.

I apologise for this response but frankly, it's a pretty offensive comment to make about your fellows.

Its kinda one of the points Sontag was making. That there's images that are no more than a form of visual masturbation created only as a technical exercise for love of camera and trophy taking. What wrong with that statement? It happens to be true for a lot of images that are created. And we now live in a society where intelligence and knowledge are elitist and ignorance rules the day.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

And we now live in a society where intelligence and knowledge are elitist and ignorance rules the day.

In my opinion, elitism is nothing to do with either intelligence or knowledge. It's simply one more power game. Ignorance is simply a state of knowledge like all others. Equating a human endeavour to masturbation is, again in my opinion, more revealing of the person drawing the parallel than of the people being insulted.

 

[airfrogusmc]

In my opinion, elitism is nothing to do with either intelligence or knowledge. It's simply one more power game. Ignorance is simply a state of knowledge like all others. Equating a human endeavour to masturbation is, again in my opinion, more revealing of the person drawing the parallel than of the people being insulted.

So telling someone this "It strikes me that making a statement of that nature is a fairly typical example of the dominance tricks so often exercised by "intellectuals" and really has no place in a sensible discussion on any subject." isn't a power game when that statement is addressing some of the points Sontag made in her book?

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

So telling someone this "It strikes me that making a statement of that nature is a fairly typical example of the dominance tricks so often exercised by "intellectuals" and really has no place in a sensible discussion on any subject." isn't a power game when that statement is addressing some of the points Sontag made in her book?

What can I say? I have my opinion and you have yours. I suggest we agree to disagree on this matter.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'm trying really hard not to make a sarcastic comment on that statement. It strikes me that making a statement of that nature is a fairly typical example of the dominance tricks so often exercised by "intellectuals" and really has no place in a sensible discussion on any subject.

I apologise for this response but frankly, it's a pretty offensive comment to make about your fellows.

I'm using the term "camera club sunset" as a very, perhaps overly, broad stand-in for 'trophy' photos. They don't have to be taken for camera club competitions to qualify as trophy photos. I worked for five years at a camera store and would see and hear people coming in to the store to talk about their photos with me and the other salesmen, and they were more obsessed with the HOW they made their shot than they were concerned about the who/what/why of the photo. I'm far more interested in hearing WHY you photographed THIS sunset the way you photographed it, than I am in knowing you used a Nikon 300mm f2.8 lens at f11 1/2. If the fact that a photo was taken with a Nikon is more important than the photo itself, then that is fetishization, and the photo is the taxidermied head on the wall. There really is little difference between that and the big game hunter standing next to his trophy, leaning on the rifle he use to kill it, and regaling the story of the kill.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I'm using the term "camera club sunset" as a very, perhaps overly, broad stand-in for 'trophy' photos. They don't have to be taken for camera club competitions to qualify as trophy photos. I worked for five years at a camera store and would see and hear people coming in to the store to talk about their photos with me and the other salesmen, and they were more obsessed with the HOW they made their shot than they were concerned about the who/what/why of the photo. I'm far more interested in hearing WHY you photographed THIS sunset the way you photographed it, than I am in knowing you used a Nikon 300mm f2.8 lens at f11 1/2. If the fact that a photo was taken with a Nikon is more important than the photo itself, then that is fetishization, and the photo is the taxidermied head on the wall. There really is little difference between that and the big game hunter standing next to his trophy, leaning on the rifle he use to kill it, and regaling the story of the kill.

Its those kind of questions the WHY that rarely get discussed but should and which is also part of what she was talking about in the book. To little conversation about the content and the photographers intent and a whole lot of talk about the mechanics which are kinda irrelevant. I mean you can have the exact same equipment, be in the same place at the same time and have all the exposure info and still not see the photograph. How many hundreds of thousands made the trip to Hernandez NM and the is still only one Moonrise.

 

[Ranchu]

A photographer doesn't have to behave as a sociopath. They could just as readily think of a camera as a tool that allows them to sublimate their vision, to photograph someone as an act of subliminal creation - a soft creation, an appreciation of respect appropriate to the sacredness of other people's lives and perceptions.

There's no need for a photographer to shoot to kill, or possess, or control.
That is the behavior of a psychopath. A subliminal path to separation from humanity.

No need for it but history has shown it happens and sometimes by even those that do not realize that they're doing it. And there is no argument from me that it can also be an instrument for good.

History has not shown that it happens, all we know is that in your opinion it has. Or at least that you think it must have. Link to examples, particularly by ostensibly non sociopathic photographers. Hmm.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

There really is little difference between that and the big game hunter standing next to his trophy, leaning on the rifle he use to kill it, and regaling the story of the kill.

I refer you to the reply I made previous to your post.

 

[airfrogusmc]

History has not shown that it happens, all we know is that in your opinion it has. Or at least that you think it must have. Link to examples, particularly by ostensibly non sociopathic photographers. Hmm.

From post #139
"When this kind of harm thing creeps into society as a whole it can become subconscious and sometimes photographers just reenforce negative things that can hurt without intent or conscious knowledge of the harm being done. The images of blacks in all kinds of things like movies, DW Griffith's The Birth of a Nation, is one that comes to mind. These negative stereo types were also in a lot of other images in photography and other mediums and were totally acceptable at the time and were very harmful though at the time many photographers and others were creating those images and some were just working on a subconscious level without any harm (murder) intended."
So you say this didn't happened?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I think pointing to DW Griffith's Birth of a Nation is not the best example. He was virulently racist, even on the edge for his time period, and the reason we remember the film today was the virtuosic cinematic technique - he may have been a horrid bigot, but the film pioneered things like tracking shots that were otherwise unheard of in cinema of the time, so to say that no harm was intended by his work would be inaccurate - he very definitely intended his movie to inspire people to maintain racist ideology toward black people. It's actually one of a very few films I have not finished watching, it made me so sick to the stomach.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I refer you to the reply I made previous to your post.

Your original response, and the response above, are not an engagement with what I said but rather a defensive reaction. If you disagree with my assessment of trophy photography, please debate it and defend your stance that either trophy photography doesn't exist or that it doesn't meet Sontag's criteria for 'subliminal murder'.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I think pointing to DW Griffith's Birth of a Nation is not the best example. He was virulently racist, even on the edge for his time period, and the reason we remember the film today was the virtuosic cinematic technique - he may have been a horrid bigot, but the film pioneered things like tracking shots that were otherwise unheard of in cinema of the time, so to say that no harm was intended by his work would be inaccurate - he very definitely intended his movie to inspire people to maintain racist ideology toward black people. It's actually one of a very few films I have not finished watching, it made me so sick to the stomach.

He was but I think my point was, even as extreme as his views and the movie were, it was still acceptable to the majority. There were those that were more subtle like many photographers, painters, film makers, etc from the period that were making images, paintings and other work that was in many ways more harmful. Those creating some of that work, because of something like Griffiths film, which was blatant, didn't see the harm in what they were doing. It may have been more subtle and maybe completely unintended and/or subliminal but in some ways, more harmful.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

He was but I think my point was, even as extreme as his views and the movie were, it was still acceptable to the majority. There were those that were more subtle like many photographers, painters, film makers, etc from the period that were making images, paintings and other work that was in many ways more harmful. Those creating some of that work, because of something like Griffiths film, which was blatant, didn't see the harm in what they were doing. It may have been more subtle and maybe completely unintended and/or subliminal but in some ways, more harmful.

Point taken. Especially if you include works of art that are more subjective in their interpretation. Griffith is relatively easy to filter out because he for all intents and purposes runs around screaming the N-word for three hours. You know exactly where he comes from and what he means. I'm at a loss for an example of a photographer who had subtly racist work, though. Perhaps the best example of all time of a piece of art that is self-contradictory on race is Shakespeare. Two examples, actually, come to mind: Othello, and Merchant of Venice. On a certain level they are both pleas for tolerance, but at the same time, they exploit racial stereotypes to ultimately condemn their 'heroes'. Shylock does what he does because he is a Jew - he ultimately has no mercy because of his 'otherness', and reaps the reward of his mercilessness, but we are shown the reason for his lack of mercy in his famous speech, "If you prick us, do we not bleed?". The same goes for Othello. He is unable to relent because he is black, according to the story, yet he is forced to be unrelenting by people who are jealous and hateful of him simply because he is black where black people are not supposed to be.

 

[kbg32]

But then she let Annie document her struggle with cancer. Leibovitz strongest work in my opinion.

Yes and I did address the fact they weren't together when the series of essays that make up "On Photography" were written in post #131

...when Ms. Sontag became ill for the final time, Ms. Leibovitz stopped shooting. “I didn’t want to be there as a photographer,” she said. “I just wanted to be there. Then, at the very end, I forced myself to take those few pictures. I knew she was probably dying.”

When one is ill and dying, one can only fight so much.

Ms. Leibovitz said: “If she was alive, of course this work wouldn’t be published. It’s such a totally different story that she is dead. I mean, she would champion this work.”

 

[tunalegs]

Its kinda one of the points Sontag was making. That there's images that are no more than a form of visual masturbation created only as a technical exercise for love of camera and trophy taking. What wrong with that statement? It happens to be true for a lot of images that are created. And we now live in a society where intelligence and knowledge are elitist and ignorance rules the day.

1: why would any reasonable person have a problem with somebody engaging in an activity for their own enjoyment?

2: Saying we now live in a society where ignorance rules the day seems to suggest that hasn't been the case before. Which is plainly wrong.

3: none of this has anything to do with using the camera as a socially acceptable gun substitute and taking pictures as a socially acceptable substitute for murder. Photography at large is not a hateful pursuit, I don't think anybody can reasonably argue it to be.