Philosophy of Photography

[Sparrow]

I’m a skeptic too, it’s hard enough to understand the idiom and ethics without delving into even more subjective waters

 

[pmun]

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'.

What's wrong with it?

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.

You're not sure that there is a philosophy of photography as an applied art and then go on to describe photography in philosophical terms: 'appears on the surface' and 'phatic photography'. These are intriguing issues that remain unexplored as long as people don't explore them.

www.urbanpaths.net

 

[Roger Hicks]

On Photography: Mike Mike sums it up well for me. You get the feeling that she was writing in a vacuum, with no reference to actual pictures. I can't re-read it as I gave away my copy some years ago (I think -- I can't find it, anyway) and I'm not about to buy another.

Like Bill, I'm inclined to separate philosophy in its broader sense, and semiotics. I will however cheerfully concede that this is a viewpoint which requires more defence than I am willing to attempt to muster. It may even be wrong.

Cheers,

R.

 

[pmun]

I’m a skeptic too, it’s hard enough to understand the idiom and ethics without delving into even more subjective waters

I think here lies one of the problems. Many approach philosophy from a subjective point of view, as though it is a matter of giving and defending personal opinions. We then doggedly hold on to those opinions as valuable possessions.

But isn't it more a matter of defending positions (and not necessarily ours) and questioning them using logic objectively - to explore rather than compete; to learn rather than satisfy our egos?

www.urbanpaths.net

 

[pmun]

On Photography: Mike Mike sums it up well for me. You get the feeling that she was writing in a vacuum, with no reference to actual pictures.

Yes, she uses broad brush strokes to discuss the idea of photography and its meanings rather than particular photographs. I wouldn't say that's a vacuum because photography isn't just about individual photographs, there are much wider issues at stake that encompass the medium generally.

Like Bill, I'm inclined to separate philosophy in its broader sense, and semiotics. I will however cheerfully concede that this is a viewpoint which requires more defence than I am willing to attempt to muster. It may even be wrong.

nicely put

www.urbanpaths.net

 

[Sparrow]

I think here lies one of the problems. Many approach philosophy from a subjective point of view, as though it is a matter of giving and defending personal opinions. We then doggedly hold on to those opinions as valuable possessions.

But isn't it more a matter of defending positions (and not necessarily ours) and questioning them using logic objectively - to explore rather than compete; to learn rather than satisfy our egos?

www.urbanpaths.net

The more I learn the more subjective the world becomes, where do you find firm ground on which to build a logical objective philosophy? With the graphic arts all I see is a vague consensus of individual subjective opinions, simply the current idiom.

 

[pmun]

The more I learn the more subjective the world becomes, where do you find firm ground on which to build a logical objective philosophy?

Philosophy isn't about finding firm ground, it's about understanding a range of viewpoints. Besides, every subject has an object - there is always something fundamental (you are subjected to something by an object). What is the object, in what way are you subjected..? Then it becomes interesting. Staying with the subject won't get us far.

With the graphic arts all I see is a vague consensus of individual subjective opinions, simply the current idiom.

That's art criticism, not philosophy - that's perhaps why some people are not happy with Sontag - because they are expecting photography criticism.

www.urbanpaths.net

 

[bmattock]

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

I find semiotics, particularly where it intersects photography, to be more closely involved with psychology, anthropology, even linguistics, than philosophy. Consider this PDF file (especially the last several pages):

http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/cyber/soneout.pdf

The class notes and lectures, etc, are available online as well:

http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/cyber/cyber.html

My involvement with semiotics began with Barthes and proceeded from there. I also found my relationship to semiotics as pertaining to other aspects of the world to be influenced by the peculiar fact that I am also color-blind. I am forever marked as an outsider in certain aspects of photography, and it as such I have struggled at times to understand what is being signaled by some aspects of photography. I am glad for the alien insight.

 

[Sparrow]

Philosophy isn't about finding firm ground, it's about understanding a range of viewpoints. Besides, every subject has an object - there is always something fundamental (you are subjected to something by an object). What is the object, in what way are you subjected..? Then it becomes interesting. Staying with the subject won't get us far.

That's art criticism, not philosophy - that's perhaps why some people are not happy with Sontag - because they are expecting photography criticism.

www.urbanpaths.net

As I said I’m a skeptic, I could expound the contradiction of that statement with equal justification.

I take the world as I find it, with a nod to Gestalt philosophy simply because it confirms my subjective perception

 

[pmun]

I find semiotics, particularly where it intersects photography, to be more closely involved with psychology, anthropology, even linguistics, than philosophy. Consider this PDF file (especially the last several pages)

Thanks bmattock, I now see more clearly what you mean. But don't you think that philosophy is more a method of enquiry or a tool than a subject (as a subject - it's more likely to become history)? As such it is used to explore the areas that you mention. I had a quick look at that PDF file and it looked well written and clear - I shall return to it as it's a subject I'm particularly interested in.


www.urbanpaths.net

 

[mfunnell]

...don't you think that philosophy is more a method of enquiry or a tool than a subject (as a subject - it's more likely to become history)?

Actually, no I don't - and I think that is so constrained a view of philosophy as to be almost unrecognisable, at least as regards some of the strains of philosophical thought I'm used to. Epistemology, for example, is just one branch of philosophy which attempts to determine whether or not "..a method of enquiry or tool.." is, even within it's own terms (more or less), capable of generating or determining knowledge about those entities it presumes to enquire about. Ontology (kind of, sort of) quite separately attempts to determine whether said "entities" are even valid things to be reasoned about.

And herein, I think, lies one of the problems with attempting to engage in an expansive notion of "philosophy of photography" discussion within the context of RFF. Nailing down philosophical concepts and approaches, let alone disagreements within and between approaches, and contending schools of thought within each approach, will likely veer far, far away from anything that looks (to the casual observer) to have even a tenuous connection to photography. And given the heated disagreements contending philosophies usually lead to, such discussions are likely to get all concerned thoroughly banned from these forums.

For example:

That's art criticism, not philosophy - that's perhaps why some people are not happy with Sontag - because they are expecting photography criticism.

made me immediately think of the heated disputes arising from "sociology of science" and "history of science" discussions, known with good reason as "the science wars".

Analogy is a notoriously slippery (but necessary) thing. But an approach to philosophising about photography which deliberately excludes, well, photographs seems quite similar to philosophising about science while excluding (by fiat) all discussion of scientific content. This is bound to lead to disputes between "theorists" and "practitioners", as well as competing schools of "theory".

I think the latter is inevitable, as any old cr*p can be formed into a theory if it is allowed to float entirely free of content. And if no regard is paid to content then there is no way of deciding between contending theories - except to note they're all equally cr*p because they're content-free.

From that last paragraph, you can pretty much figure out where I stand in the whole "science wars" thing, as well as what kind of epistemic thought I'm attracted to - and why I find a good deal of Sontag's thought on photography less than compelling.

If you supersize the kind of drivel I've outlined above, radically amplify all levels of agression and ignorance then imagine it ten times worse - well, that's what I think a "proper" philosophy of photography forum might look like.

And that makes what we have here, insipid though you think it may be, look rather more attractive.

...Mike

 

[Roger Hicks]

Yes, she uses broad brush strokes to discuss the idea of photography and its meanings rather than particular photographs. I wouldn't say that's a vacuum because photography isn't just about individual photographs, there are much wider issues at stake that encompass the medium generally.

www.urbanpaths.net

It's not so much the absence of relationship to particular photographs, as the absence of relationship to any photographs or indeed even much in the way of photography as a medium, at least as far as I recall. Much of the book could, from memory, as well have been about graffiti or possibly even watermelons.

EDIT: I can't even remember now why I disliked it so much. Perhaps because it was so appallingly and tendentiously written. It's not the concept of analyzing that which is hard to analyze which exercises me -- I'm a Fellow of the RSA, in the journal of which there are many attempts to screw the inscrutable -- but rather that she seemed to me to be so bad at it.

Cheers,

R.

 

[bmattock]

Thanks bmattock, I now see more clearly what you mean. But don't you think that philosophy is more a method of enquiry or a tool than a subject (as a subject - it's more likely to become history)? As such it is used to explore the areas that you mention. I had a quick look at that PDF file and it looked well written and clear - I shall return to it as it's a subject I'm particularly interested in.

Well, no, not really. Philosophy as applied to photography would naturally fall into the study of aesthetics, which asks questions about the nature of beauty and what is and is not 'art' and of course, criticism. These questions are interesting, I suppose, but not particularly so to me.

I am more interested in the symbols, signs, and signals we send as photographers. I am interested in what communication is taking place than I am in why.

Some have said that photography is a language - if so, then that would fall into the semiotic study of syntactics, which governs how words are formed and put together in sentences. However, I find semantics and pragmatics more interesting yet, as these are somewhat less abstract and I feel there is value there for me to find.

Let me give you an example that is cogent to current discussions (moaning and whining, I like to call it) about traditional film photography processes in decline:

Handbook of Semiotics By Winfried Nöth

Note 'Topics and Approaches' and you will see that for some, photography is not about the photograph, but rather about the process of photography, which is why such people complain endlessly about digital phtography, which strips the process from the making of photographs. For these people, digital photography is not photography at all - regardless of the resulting image or quality of said image - because they find 'photography' in a chemically-based processing and darkroom enlarging system and not in a print hanging on a wall, other than as final proof of the quality of their labors.

Barthes touches on this in his seminal book when he makes distinction between the art of the photograph, the art of the photographer, and the art of the craftsman (the processor/printer). These are almost mutually exclusive - if you make photographs in a darkroom, you really could care less what the photograph itself is of - it is almost an afterthought.

Philosophy? I would not call this study that. I'm comfortable with the catch-all term 'semiotics'.

 

[pmun]

It's not so much the absence of relationship to particular photographs, as the absence of relationship to any photographs or indeed even much in the way of photography as a medium, at least as far as I recall. Much of the book could, from memory, as well have been about graffiti or possibly even watermelons.

That's way off the mark Roger, a cursory glance reveals:

''He [Walker Evans] was the last great photographer to work seriously and assuredly in a mood deriving from Whitman's euphoric humanism, summing up what had gone before (for instance, Lewis Hine's stunning photographs of immigrants and workers), anticipating a much cooler, ruder, bleaker photography that has been done since - as in the prescient series of 'secret' photographs of anonymous New York subway riders...'' [p.29]

''The quality of feeling, including moral outrage, that people can muster in response to photographs of the oppressed, the exploited, the starving, and the massacred also depends on the degree of their familiarity with these images. Don McCullin's photographs of emaciated Biafrans in the early 1970s had less impact than for some people than Werner Bischof's photographs of Indian famine victims in the early 1950s because those images had become banal....'' [p.19]

''The technical perfection of Weston's photographs, the calculated beauties of White and Siskind, the poetic constructions of Fredrick Sommer, the self-assured ironies of Cartier-Bresson - all of these have been challenged by photography that is, at least programmatically, more naive, more direct; that is hesitant, even awkward.'' [p.142]

I could carry on - the book has countless references to photographers and is very much about photography.

Susan Sontag, On Photography, Penguin Classics

I can't even remember now why I disliked it so much. Perhaps because it was so appallingly and tendentiously written.

Admittedly she doesn't always support her position with arguments and she often uses (perhaps overly) complicated sentence structures and words. That's perhaps because she was a literary theorist rather than a philosopher.

www.urbanpaths.net

 

[pmun]

I am more interested in the symbols, signs, and signals we send as photographers. I am interested in what communication is taking place than I am in why.

I've studied semiotics from both the perspective of linguistics and aesthetics, and I must admit it was clearer to me in terms of linguistics. But I don't draw any firm conclusions from that, I think both approaches are equally valid.

Some have said that photography is a language - if so, then that would fall into the semiotic study of syntactics, which governs how words are formed and put together in sentences.

Yes, but that doesn't preclude it from falling into aesthetics/philosophy.

Anyway, wasn't it Barthes who described the photograph as a transparent envelope that we see through? That problematizes the whole thing - especially considering that he was trying to reveal some sort of code. You might be able to shine some light on this from a linguistic perspective

www.urbanpaths.net

 

[Roger Hicks]

That's way off the mark Roger, a cursory glance reveals: . . .
Susan Sontag, On Photography, Penguin Classics
Admittedly she doesn't always support her position with arguments and she often uses (perhaps overly) complicated sentence structures and words. That's perhaps because she was a literary theorist rather than a philosopher.

www.urbanpaths.net

Fair enough. That's why I added the edit, that I couldn't remember at this remove why I disliked the book so much. I'm not keen on literary theory by people who can't write, and I'm not keen on books of photographic theory by non-photographers. The fact that I remember it the way I do may well point either to my failing memory or lack of intelligence -- or to her near-total inability to engage any reader not suffering from recto-cranial inversion (head up bum).

You don't need to be a great photographer or great writer to begin to write about the craft or philosophy of either -- I'm no Roger Fenton or Terry Pratchett -- but there is some advantage in having a reasonable knowledge of the practice of the craft that you purport to write about.

Anyone who believes that craft can be separated from theory, in the fine or applied arts, so that a theoretician needs no knowledge of the craft, is not merely a fool: he (or on this case, she) is a dangerous, arrogant fool.

I may have to hold my nose and re-read the beastly tome. A friend has said he'll see if he still has a copy.

Cheers,

R.

 

[pmun]

Anyone who believes that craft can be separated from theory, in the fine or applied arts, so that a theoretician needs no knowledge of the craft, is not merely a fool: he (or on this case, she) is a dangerous, arrogant fool.

That's the good thing about writing on photography, who doesn't have at least some knowledge of the craft, I mean who hasn't looked at or taken photographs?

I may have to hold my nose and re-read the beastly tome. A friend has said he'll see if he still has a copy.

Go on, It's not an easy read - but worth it; I think she has a very good grasp of the subject and those quotes above are evidence of this. If you read it again, we can discuss it here

www.urbanpaths.net

 

[Roger Hicks]

That's the good thing about writing on photography, who doesn't have at least some knowledge of the craft, I mean who hasn't looked at or taken photographs?


www.urbanpaths.net

Well, yes; but would you presume to write a sex manual? Or at least, to be taken seriously if you did?

(Apologies if in fact you have. Substitute 'cookbook' or 'bicycling manual' or 'Ph. D. in mathematics' or anything else that most of us have tried but not actually studied in depth. Merely 'looking at and taking photographs' is about as good preparation for On Photography as adding up a grocery bill is for a treatise on number theory. For that matter, why isn't On Photography an easy read? Mere difficulty of subject matter will not suffice as an excuse: perhaps there is little to be said, and she said more than there was to be said. Sheer incompetence at making one's thoughts clear helps.)

Cheers,

R.

 

[bmattock]

I've studied semiotics from both the perspective of linguistics and aesthetics, and I must admit it was clearer to me in terms of linguistics. But I don't draw any firm conclusions from that, I think both approaches are equally valid.

Well, I think they are equally valid and [importantly] distinct from one another.

Yes, but that doesn't preclude it from falling into aesthetics/philosophy.

OK, fair enough. Suffice to say that where the boundaries of 'philosophy' and 'semiotics' overlap, I prefer to call it 'semiotics' then.

Anyway, wasn't it Barthes who described the photograph as a transparent envelope that we see through? That problematizes the whole thing - especially considering that he was trying to reveal some sort of code. You might be able to shine some light on this from a linguistic perspective

I believe Barthes was reaching for a doorway that he never quite got to, but he was groping in the right direction. I am reasonably at ease with some of what he wrote, enough to quote at times, but I don't think he quite grasped the entire thing. Not that he should have - it's an enormous undertaking.

 

[pmun]

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.

This has been a revelation to me. I've always gone in through the philosophy forum expecting everyone there to be in philosophy mode - but that's obviously not the case if people are just clicking on the latest thread from any forum.

I started a thread with a simple philosophical question a while back, most people spent the time discussing and criticising my photos while completely ignoring the question (one or two became quite abusive). This partly explains why they were not approaching it from a philosophical perspective!

www.urbanpaths.net