NYT: Sontag Squared

GSNfan said:
Take the time to offer some concrete reasons as to why people should read Sontag and where she makes sense if at all... I always find it disappointing that most discussion on the forums either become an exercise in trying to be cute and witty and on the flip side complaints and handringing. I really like to learn because then I don't feel guilty about my time spent on the forum - and I have learned a lot by forum discussions.
Click to expand...

Did I mention Sontag in my post? People can read whatever they want. My point was that photography is a big and interesting place. There is lots of room for people to theorize about it or not theorize about it. Some of that theory is very interesting and some isn't. That is for you to decide. There is no need for people to denigrate others that do it. Simple as that.
 
benlees said:
Did I mention Sontag in my post? People can read whatever they want. My point was that photography is a big and interesting place. There is lots of room for people to theorize about it or not theorize about it. Some of that theory is very interesting and some isn't. That is for you to decide. There is no need for people to denigrate others that do it. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

I would beg to differ on that point. We are trying to encourage youngsters to enter into using film and learning (all ages actually but you understand me). As a generalisation, new to film/photography people want to get on quickly and get 'in' - I can think of no bigger turn off than some of the things that Susan writes and comes out with in general and yet she is put forward as someone who 'you should read' - What! Why?
 
I tried to read the book several times. Best cure for insomnia ever invented - I could never read more than a page without falling asleep.
 
benlees said:
I should be used to this by now but I am always amazed at the vitriol towards the theoretical end of art and photography. A lot of people write about this stuff because there are a lot of ideas about it. Photography is not as clear cut as it seems- this should be obvious.
Click to expand...

I agree and that`s the reason that I bought the book ,to learn about some of those ideas.
She failed in that regard as far as I was concerned because of an inability to express herself clearly.
I fail to understand why the book is held in such high regard.
It seems designed to discourage rather than encourage further exploration.
 
Sparrow said:
possibly; but that's not an answer to the question I asked, is it?
Click to expand...
You asked if I had taken Eggleston's shot, if it would still be considered "art." I responded, but apparently you didn't like my snotty answer.

Honestly, it's such a silly question that I generously assumed it was rhetorical, but if you really want me to answer it directly, here goes:

Setting aside the fact that Eggleston's shot was made over 40 years ago in a climate hostile to color photography (and thus much different than today), and setting aside the fact that no one in the art world would deny any photograph's claim to being "art," the answer to your question is "yes."

Would it be interesting art if it had been made in 2011 instead of 1971? Probably not, but what would the context be? If it was a 2011 photo of an abandoned subdivision, now it's about the housing crisis. Oh wait, I forgot—we're not allowed to "read into things." We can only evaluate photos on a purely formal level.

"Hey Eggleston, great capture. You nailed the focus. What lens did you use?"
 
I haven't read Sontag's On photography, but I did read her book Regarding the pain of others and found it to be very rewarding. There is perhaps a lot of words that needn't, or shouldn't be there, but for me, that wealth of words did not detract from the information and the ideas she were putting forth in her text.
 
bensyverson said:
Would it be interesting art if it had been made in 2011 instead of 1971? Probably not, but what would the context be? If it was a 2011 photo of an abandoned subdivision, now it's about the housing crisis. Oh wait, I forgot—we're not allowed to "read into things." We can only evaluate photos on a purely formal level.

"Hey Eggleston, great capture. You nailed the focus. What lens did you use?"
Click to expand...

LOL, you gunned that argument down! Nicely done.

And with critique as opposed to the criticism of an image its all about context. Sontag used the words and phrases of her day, those used in all intellectual debate. They wouldn't be written today because language has changed, gone is the burgeoning new theory of images, its all old hat now. But you either put yourself into a time warp to understand it, or you don't understand it.

I recently re-bought 'On Photography', a book I devoured in the 1970's. I couldn't finish it today, it really is used jambed into a gap to stop a radiator pipe resonating in the night. Art/photography is nothing without context, but the excitment of the historical moment shouldn't be equated with the yawns of today. Sontag wasn't bad or off track, she was of her day.

Steve
 
bensyverson said:
You asked if I had taken Eggleston's shot, if it would still be considered "art." I responded, but apparently you didn't like my snotty answer.

Honestly, it's such a silly question that I generously assumed it was rhetorical, but if you really want me to answer it directly, here goes:

Setting aside the fact that Eggleston's shot was made over 40 years ago in a climate hostile to color photography (and thus much different than today), and setting aside the fact that no one in the art world would deny any photograph's claim to being "art," the answer to your question is "yes."

Would it be interesting art if it had been made in 2011 instead of 1971? Probably not, but what would the context be? If it was a 2011 photo of an abandoned subdivision, now it's about the housing crisis. Oh wait, I forgot—we're not allowed to "read into things." We can only evaluate photos on a purely formal level.

"Hey Eggleston, great capture. You nailed the focus. What lens did you use?"
Click to expand...

well, I was a student at the time, forty years ago! I was struggling my way through Maxwell and Munsell's theory so I'm not sure the climate was that hostile to colour ...

... however, I agree with your assessment of the relative value of Eggleston's shot, despite Eggleston's reduced importance this side of the pond, I just wish Sontag possessed your precision and clarity of argument in her work

P. S. I don't recall any prohibition on "reading into things.", well apart from twaddle, that is
 
Last edited:
Fair enough! Although in the world of criticism, Sontag is considered very accessible. If you want to read something that will really scramble your brains, check out some Spivak! 🙂
 
The funny part of this argument is that some people have already made up their mind to what an 'intellectual' is as if its like being a carpenter or dentist or something...

How do you define an intellectual or intellectually significant writing - to those who are 'pro-intellectuals'?
 
I'm not interested in defining intellectualism, but I'm pretty sure "don't read into images" falls into my personal definition of "anti-intellectual."
 
Michael Markey said:
Excellent ,a robust discussion resolved to every ones mutual benefit.
I might even take my copy down from the shelf again.
Click to expand...

Ahem! Where did you get that notion from? If I can quote you please Michael, "...Good grief I thought it was just me that found her pompous and pretentious..."

Are you now saying that those two findings of yours have been overturned based on this thread thus far? Interesting...

A vox populi definition of intellect & intellectualism "...refers to the ability of the mind to come to correct conclusions about what is true or real, and about how to solve problems..." Credits: Wikipedia

The fact that intellectualism has been used in this thread regarding a book of Susan Sontag's astonishes me! This is not about correct conclusions if we are all allowed to have an opinion and 'see things our way' It is not about problem solving, quite the opposite. Yes she used language 'of her time' but the concerning thing is that many still use that language when they pontificate about this picture and that picture today.
 
susan: +1, again

anyone who hasn't read (and that obviously includes a o scott, not only those who begin their post with "i haven't read"): epic fail

now go say something deep. or shallow. or whatever. and delude yourself it matters when you "haven't read"

🙄
 
bensyverson said:
I'm not interested in defining intellectualism, but I'm pretty sure "don't read into images" falls into my personal definition of "anti-intellectual."
Click to expand...

I think the proper word is interpreting images rather than 'reading into them'... Literal speech is not the best help when people start getting 'intellectual'.
 
Alistair
I was partially persuaded by the argument that the language used was "of her time".
I thought I was maybe being too harsh.
It was the language that troubled me.
I`m not convinced by this argument that its somehow intellectual and therefore excusable not to be able to explain yourself.
Indeed she reminds me a lot of that British comedian Stanley Unwin.
Billed as Professor Stanly Unwin to emphasise the point of his humour.
The only point being that what he said sounded important but was in fact nonsense .
But you have brought out my harsh side again 🙂 just when I was being conciliatory.
Lets just say then that I don`t consider her one of natures natural communicators.

Michael
 
'Anti-intellectualism' and 'anti pretentious twaddle from the partially informed' should not be conflated. Umberto Eco's Travels in Hyperreality says more about photography than Sontag could ever do -- and that wasn't even the subject he was writing about. Anyone want to decry Eco as a pompous, self-serving buffoon? Big, chewy ideas, yes; but brilliantly presented, with stunning clarity, even in translation. I don't read Italian welll enough to know if he's even better in his native language, but my feeble attempts at reading Il Nomme de la Rosa make me suspect that he is. Sontag, on the other hand, reminds me off that wonderful comment about John Prescott: "You have to remember that his native language is not, in fact, language."

At least 'Professor' Stanley Unwin sounded like he was making sense. Just read some Sontag out loud to see the contrast. Alas I no longer have a copy of 'On Photography', or if I have, I can't find it. Was it Dorothy Parker who said something to the effect that, "This is not a book to be put aside lightly. It is a book to be hurled across the room with as much force as you can muster." Much like Dava Sobel's books, written for the hard of thinking who wish to think of themselves as intellectuals, when they are being led by the nose.

Cheers,

R
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom