On photogrpahy--a book full of non-sense??

[Gabriel M.A.]

Yes, absolutely. I certainly agree with you. But isn't history for instance, someone's opinion?

Careful. Aren't cats mammals? Aren't humans mammals? You can't say that humans are cats. There are some historical accounts which are someone else's opinion, but then there are historical facts which are what they are. History deals with (and not exclusively) with both.

 

[aizan]

rml, you're basically on the same page as sontag.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

She uses deliberately loaded words because she has a polemical bent, but the words are not necessarily inaccurate. So, I have no doubt at all that taking someone's photograph is an appropriation - i.e., a violation - of their personal space and sense of self, especially if they have not given their consent or don't like the way the result shows them, but it's also clear that such pictures can often reveal something profound about their subject. In other words, the violation is part of the reason for making the photograph in the first place, and calling it a violation is not an argument for not doing it.

I think you have your finger on the pulse. Usually, high-sounding words tend to either stir thought or completely shut it down due to its perceived pretentiousness.

Beethoven had the same strategy, but instead of words, he took simple chords and hyper-magnified and glorified them to stir his public. He was condescendingly amused.

 

[RML]

rml, you're basically on the same page as sontag.

Damn! Why couldn't she write more transparent then? I've read extensively, and even though English isn't my mother tongue I can't follow scientific treatises and such. But when it comes to philosophy (or sociology) they loose me. Perhaps because I'm not well-versed in the jargon or (and this is my opinion) because they don't understand much of their jargon themselves. It's no use IMO to use common words and then use them with an entirely different bend to it.

Still, Sontag's book rubs me the wrong way.

 

[rxmd]

The title, I felt, was profoundly misleading. Better titles would have been 'On Susan Sontag's Agenda' and 'On Pseudo-Analysis'. I don't mind 'difficult' books; hell, I'm still trying to read Keynes's General Theory. But it seems to me that hers was an extraordinarily one-dimensional analysis of a very complex subject, written from a position of profound ignorance and bias.

I think you are not doing Susan Sontag justice here. Firstly, you are talking about two rather different kinds of work. Keynes is difficult because he is theoretic and talks about a very abstract economic subject (money and interest) in a scientific language. Sontag is difficult because she is polemic and writes a piece on the deconstruction of the usage of a medium such as photography in the language of literary criticism. She writes in the intellectual context of poststructuralism and postmodernism where the subject of investigation is the way arguments and ideas work, and where the language of investigation is usually that of an engaged critic. Among my students I have met many who regard poststructural works as unscientific because of this, but they were really debunking them on the basis of an outer, formal criterion. Many of these authors actually have something to say, and in order to get to the point where we understand them we one simply has to live with the way they write. Reading this kind of literature takes some getting used to, just like reading economic literature requires you not to be deterred by the occasional use of mathematics. I've actually had to learn to read both (my degree is in two humanities and one engineering subjects) and I think I can say that they require rather different conceptual approaches, while neither is much easier to learn or much less theoretic than the other.

Secondly, exactly because she writes primarily as a literary and media critic, I wonder why many of us seem to assume that we should expect a non-biased position from her. It's meant as a polarising book that is supposed to make you think, not one that is meant to make you agree with it. The fact that many of her points seem unoriginal to us might be due to the fact that it was written more than forty years ago. Much of what she wrote was a lot newer and more original at the time she wrote it than if she had written it in 2007. When I read a work of this age I don't expect fundamentally new insights; I expect two things, namely (1) intellectual stimulation for myself and (2) better understanding of other works in the same intellectual context. I don't agree with Sontag on many points, I think she is very schematic and normative in her approach, but it definitely was a highly stimulating read.

Philipp

 

[John Camp]

The fact that many of her points seem unoriginal to us might be due to the fact that it was written more than forty years ago. Much of what she wrote was a lot newer and more original at the time she wrote it than if she had written it in 2007. When I read a work of this age I don't expect fundamentally new insights; I expect two things, namely (1) intellectual stimulation for myself and (2) better understanding of other works in the same intellectual context. I don't agree with Sontag on many points, I think she is very schematic and normative in her approach, but it definitely was a highly stimulating read.

Philipp

It was published 30 years ago; she herself later admitted to doubts about it. It wasn't original at the time -- because she was such a popular (or maybe just pop) figure, nobody spent a lot of time pointing out that most everything she wrote was taken from French intellectual argument, a few years late and poorly warmed over.

There have been and are a number of original and interesting women thinkers who publish on cultural matters; but I honest-to-god think that much of Sontag's impact came from the publicity photos taken at the time -- sulky, sexy, pouty shots. Coupled with these avant-garde essays, her publicity shots made her every intellectual's dream girl. If you lived through that period, you didn't have to be a wizard to notice that the "intellectual leaders" that got most of the media attention were good-looking (Gloria Steinem, Sontag, even Jane Fonda) while it was the less good-looking who did most of the heavy-lifting.

For Woody Allen's take on this, and a short-story that should be read by everyone interested in these matters, read the classic, "The Whore of Mensa," here:

http://members.tripod.com/waitalia/short-uk.html

JC

 

[dazedgonebye]

I have no original thoughts of my own, so I'll offer a quote from Dwight D. Eisenhower. Others can decide if it fits.

"An intellectual is a man who takes more words than necessary to tell more than he knows."

I think Sontag was a great intellectual.

 

[Jamie123]

I'm actually reading it right now for a literature class. I've just read about 50 pages so far and I don't think it's all that complicated (I'm reading it in its german translation, though).

Last week we read Walter Benjamin's "Short history of photography" and "The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction". I'm suprised that no one has mentioned those essays or the author yet since Susan Sontag refers to him.

 

[Jamie123]

There are some historical accounts which are someone else's opinion, but then there are historical facts which are what they are. History deals with (and not exclusively) with both.

Careful.



-

 

[George Bonanno]

Just Another Copycat...

Just Another Copycat...

I've read the book numerous times and the bottom line is that Susan's words are for the moment the thoughts pass through the reader's mind. Shortly afterwards they dissipate.

Best,
George



Photography for me is a fantasy as the images I record never replicate the actual reality.

 

[IGMeanwell]

I have no specific problem with the book other than its a little long-winded for my taste

still have to get through the few last pages