Philosophy of Photography

[pmun]

There are some good discussions on here, but surprisingly few about the philosophy of photography! Many are more about gear and photographic style, technique and approach rather than on understanding why we take photographs, what they mean, what they are best used for or how they affect our reality.

Why is this?

www.urbanpaths.net

 

[back alley]

..rather than on understanding why we take photographs, what they mean, what they are best used for or how they affect our reality. ..

is that what the philosophy of photography is?

 

[pmun]

..rather than on understanding why we take photographs, what they mean, what they are best used for or how they affect our reality. ..

is that what the philosophy of photography is?

according to the header of this forum - yes.

www.urbanpaths.net

 

[Sam N]

Philosophy is best discussed over wine or coffee (or expensive Scotch?).

Seriously, most attempts at it on an Internet forum get off-topic so fast it'd make your head spin.

 

[Al Kaplan]

My head spins anyway.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com

 

[Trius]

Can someone please pass the Edradour, Balvenie or Laphroaig?

 

[bmattock]

Can someone please pass the Edradour, Balvenie or Laphroaig?

Pfft. Jack Daniels. Although I can't have that anymore, either. No more booze for Billy. Sad is the world. Kevorkian lives near here, though.

As to the philosophy of photography, I'm not that interested. I like reading about the history of photography and the sociology of photography, the ethnography of photography, and even the semiotics of photography. The philosophy, not so much.

 

[back alley]

Pfft. Jack Daniels. Although I can't have that anymore, either. No more booze for Billy. Sad is the world. Kevorkian lives near here, though.

As to the philosophy of photography, I'm not that interested. I like reading about the history of photography and the sociology of photography, the ethnography of photography, and even the semiotics of photography. The philosophy, not so much.

but didn't you write her on rff that you shoot for the future? so folks might have a look at the everyday?

wasn't that sorta philosophical?

 

[bmattock]

but didn't you write her on rff that you shoot for the future? so folks might have a look at the everyday?

wasn't that sorta philosophical?

History and sociology. My gift to the future. That's not a philosophy of photography, although it might be a personal philosophy. I give what I think needs giving, to whom I think can make use of it. Nobody else is doing it, so I elected myself. Maybe they'll build a statue to me one day. I hope it's one where I'm scowling and smacking some chucklehead right upside his noggin.

 

[Rayt]

I have been to a few performances by "artists" which incorporate fisting into their work. The act itself might ignite some philosophical discussions amongst the audience but for the artists themselves having done that many times the discussions would probably be in the line of "my ass hurts like hell dude".

 

[bmattock]

I have been to a few performances by "artists" which incorporate fisting into their work. The act itself might ignite some philosophical discussions amongst the audience but for the artists themselves having done that many times the discussions would probably be in the line of "my ass hurts like hell dude".

If there are gerbils involved, it's not art, and I don't care what they call it in San Francisco.

 

[thomasw_]

If there are gerbils involved, it's not art, and I don't care what they call it in San Francisco.

Yikes!...Holy socks....yikes! whoa...harsh image. So, Bill, sorry but I got to know whether it is Art if there's a fist up an anal sphincter?
sorry man, I couldn't resist being cheeky. 🙂

 

[amateriat]

History and sociology. My gift to the future. That's not a philosophy of photography, although it might be a personal philosophy. I give what I think needs giving, to whom I think can make use of it. Nobody else is doing it, so I elected myself. Maybe they'll build a statue to me one day. I hope it's one where I'm scowling and smacking some chucklehead right upside his noggin.

If there's an endowment for construction of this, I'm in. 🙂

As far as Sontag is concerned, I got a bit into On Photography before realizing that the main thrust of her work was just too wigged-out, and that was before I met her and was thereafter introduced by her to Annie Leibowitz (LONG story there, and probably not worth repeating here), which made her writings on photography even stranger to my mind. Ah, but I was so much younger then...


- Barrett

 

[Tango]

There are some good discussions on here, but surprisingly few about the philosophy of photography!...

...Why is this?

Read the posts you got as replies. Q.E.D.

 

[Chris101]

... Why is this? ...

I was kinda thinking the same thing until I read further in this thread.

 

[pmun]

I was kinda thinking the same thing until I read further in this thread.

Read the posts you got as replies. Q.E.D.

Indeed - it more or less confirmed what I suspected.

It's notable that even those who are not interested in or reject the subject must have enough interest to click on 'Philosophy of Photography' in the Philopsphy of Photography forum.

Is it an anti-intellectual thing?

www.urbanpaths.net

 

[pmun]

Philosophy is for books, what I have is a passion

I disagree, philosophy is in books, but it really comes alive when people use it in discussion. Besides, taking part in philosophical debate does not preclude passion.

www.urbanpaths.net

 

[pmun]

As to the philosophy of photography, I'm not that interested. I like reading about the .... semiotics of photography. The philosophy, not so much.

This is the most interesting comment so far. Surely the two are inseparable?

www.urbanpaths.net

 

[Roger Hicks]

Increasingly, before I post, I try to ask myself a simple question:

Would a reply help anyone (including me) to become a better or happier photographer or human being?

Unless the answer is 'yes', I try not to answer. Notice 'try' in both cases; I don't always succeed.

But when it comes to Sontag's unbelievably awful book, I am reminded of the famous Dorothy Parker observation that: 'this is not a book to be put down lightly but to be hurled with some force into the corner of the room'.

I'm not sure there is a philosophy of photography as an applied art. It is a means of communication, in which case semiotics are appropriate, but the communication in question is not always what it appears on the surface: I am as convinced of the existence of phatic photography as I am of the existence of phatic speech.

As a fine art, the same philosophy applies to photography as to any other fine art. We do not have a philosophy of chisels and marble, for example.

I've never clicked on the philosophy forum. I normally look only at "today's posts" or (more rarely, in case I may have missed something on "today's posts") at my own sub-forum.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[mfunnell]

But when it comes to Sontag's unbelievably awful book, I am reminded of the famous Dorothy Parker observation that: 'this is not a book to be put down lightly but to be hurled with some force into the corner of the room'.

I'll admit I found much that was difficult to like, and to engage with, in On Photography: especially as Sontag seemed, to me, to avoid much discussion of actual photographs (to the extent I wondered whether she ever looked at any). Nonetheless, I persisted and think I may have gained something from the exercise - if only a better understanding of some arguments I disagree with.

I re-read it recently, after reading her Regarding the Pain of Others, which illustrated (I think) how some of her thoughts had changed and (perhaps) cast new light on some things in the earlier work (if only in my own mind).

But I can understand why On Photography isn't everybody's cup of tea. Not even mine, overall.

...Mike