Philosophy of Photography
- Thread starter pmun
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 99
- Views 7K
pmun
Established
I now see how I was wrong on my post where I suggested they were inseparable.
Completely agree - well put.
pmun
Established
That's the thing though Roger - Sontag didn't write a manual, she was using her literary and research skills to write about photography - not how to do it.
I'm sure you or I could do the same on sex if we wanted - we don't have to be experts to have clear ideas about it that we can back up with evidence (and quotes from the experts) and then present. None of that involves giving advice on various positions or health issues though. The Prime Minister or President can get away with basic knowledge of world affairs if they surround themselves with experts.
Good question - I'm not a very good reader anyway - a bit slow. I sometimes wonder if Sontag could've used simpler words - but that might be down to my lack of vocabulary - I don't know.
I do however know that there is a lot to be said - photographs have massive implications about the way we live and have lived; they influence the course and perception of history. It's far greater than a hobby. They affect the course of wars (Vietnam), incriminate people, entertain and educate us, excite us sexually, act as a token for a lost relative or friend, symbolise life changing events, help us cross international borders, influence our consumer decisions, help us to network (facebook), help save our lives (x-rays, endiscopy) ... and yet all they really are is paper and ink or pixels on a screen - wonderful - there is so much, so very much to say and understand.
www.urbanpaths.net
Last edited:
kossi008
Photon Counter
Hmmm... maybe I'm turning into an anti-intellectual. Surely I've always been a stout ignorant when it comes to art, meaning I judge pictures solely by whether I like them or not, thanks for the theoretical framework, but no, thanks.
So, when it comes to photography, my standpoint is:
Technique? Yes. Emotions? Certainly. But Philosophy? Nah. I don't think so.
Just my 2 Euro-Cent.
So, when it comes to photography, my standpoint is:
Technique? Yes. Emotions? Certainly. But Philosophy? Nah. I don't think so.
Just my 2 Euro-Cent.
MartinL
MartinL
First, to the OP, good post. To others, don't get hung up on Sontag. She's a smart writer, worth reading, but not the last word. I'm also mystified about how many people log onto this philosophy forum just to say that philosophy is crap--or that other posters are full of it.
There are a lot of unanswered--but more important, unanswerable--questions about photography. These are still worth writing and asking about.
Interesting how some people with posts numbering in the many hundreds advise others to quit thinking so much about their passion and go out and take more photos.
There are a lot of unanswered--but more important, unanswerable--questions about photography. These are still worth writing and asking about.
Interesting how some people with posts numbering in the many hundreds advise others to quit thinking so much about their passion and go out and take more photos.
pmun
Established
Fair enough Kossi008. Just out of interest, considering philosophy isn't your thing, what prompted you to click on this thread (genuine question, not a point)?
www.urbanpaths.net
peterm1
Veteran
By nature and instinct I am what I suppose would call an "Art Photographer" and what I set out to do is to produce images that make an impact on the viewer and are attractive at the same time. I am not into social commentary nor shocking viewers, but neither do I wish just to make conventional "pretty pictures." I prefer to develop my own style that when people examine can immeidately say...."That looks like one of your photos." I almost never take a (small R) raw image and publish it - all need some editing to take the harsh edge off reality.
Apart from this I do not have much of a philosophy. I am driven by the same urge to create that drives every amateur dabbler and every great master. Whether I am good at it or not is another matter.
These are some of my photos here - make of them what you will! Although of course I hope you nejoy them.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/80702381@N00/
Apart from this I do not have much of a philosophy. I am driven by the same urge to create that drives every amateur dabbler and every great master. Whether I am good at it or not is another matter.
These are some of my photos here - make of them what you will! Although of course I hope you nejoy them.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/80702381@N00/
MartinL
MartinL
I suppose that's a philosophy of sorts. But a discussion forum exists, I suppose, for people to, well, discuss.
I looked at a dozen or more of your photos. (Would have browsed through many more if your Flickr didn't require so much clicking to get to a large-enough image.) Very nice, and I do see a "style": Of those I saw, wide-open, subject-centered, people-with-a-purpose. Lots of respect for those subjects--very little in the gotcha way of catching people's blunders, foibles, pathos. Straight ahead. Unlike my own drift toward documenting; or, when I'm being "artful," irony and tension.
Not every artist wants to probe their motives, sensibilities, and ways of understanding their own and others' photos. Those who do should engage in this forum.
Chris101
summicronia
And it's such a skinny little book, with a third of it being an ode to his mother!
kossi008
Photon Counter
No offense taken, but there's a mis-understanding here, surely my fault, as I may have gone overboard just a little bit... so let me make it clear:
It's NOT that philosophy isn't my thing. In fact, it's what's brought me into physics as a career.
I just don't see how it relates to photography. But I'm always curious. Which also answers the why: The thread popped up in the "active threads" list...
pmun
Established
Thanks for explaining. Photography is one of the, if not the, most dominant and influential mediums in human history - if philosophy doesn't relate to it, what does philosophy relate to? I mean, photography is everywhere - how can philosophy avoid it?
www.urbanpaths.net
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I don't have any other mode...
Cheers,
R.
pmun
Established
😀 I get that impression of you Roger - you're definitely a thinker
(when are we going to write that book, re post 46? 😉)
www.urbanpaths.net
Last edited:
pmun
Established
Distinctive and personal style in photography is an interesting issue. It's difficult for any photographer to have their own style because the subject matter tends to determine style as opposed to the photographer.
Sontag is good on this: ''knowing the whole body of work, one can see how the same composer could have written le Scre du printemps, the Dumbarton Oaks Concerto, and the late neo-Schoenbergian works; one recognizes Stravinsky's hand in all these compositions. But there is no internal evidence for identifying as the work of a single photographer...'' [p.134]
''In photography the subject matter always pushes through, with different subjects creating unbridgeable gaps between one period and another of a large body of work, confounding signature.'' [p.135] Susan Sontag, On Photography, Penguin Classics reprinted 2008
Additionally, because photography is so mechanical/automated (post processing etc) - it's not difficult for others to adopt the same style as you. Having said all that, your work does look very distinctive both in terms of composition and colour. There's a sense of quiet stillness in your photos which may be down to the muted colours and your ability to isolate subjects.
www.urbanpaths.net
Last edited:
Carlsen Highway
Well-known
Ummm, this may be a dumb thing to say, but can someone define the philosophy of photographs so I can get a handle on it?
Because it seems to me, and Im not just trying to be clever - it worries me that I am missing something - that photography is a process for making pictures.
How can you have a philosophy of photography? It doesnt really make sense.
Perhaps, in order to make some headway in a thread that at the moment seems to be like a bunch of guys talking about somebody in the next room they havn't met, and all with the sneaking suspicion that maybe he's not there anyway; we could perhaps define the philosophy of motion pictures. (And then look at photography.)
No, Im not being sarcastic...😱
Because it seems to me, and Im not just trying to be clever - it worries me that I am missing something - that photography is a process for making pictures.
How can you have a philosophy of photography? It doesnt really make sense.
Perhaps, in order to make some headway in a thread that at the moment seems to be like a bunch of guys talking about somebody in the next room they havn't met, and all with the sneaking suspicion that maybe he's not there anyway; we could perhaps define the philosophy of motion pictures. (And then look at photography.)
No, Im not being sarcastic...😱
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I think pmun may have put his finger on it with the observation that people just click on whatever threads are active (as I do) rather than clicking deliberately onto the philosophy forum.
If it doesn't interest you, ignore it and go away (and I'm not being sarcastic, either). If it does interest you -- and presumably it does, or you'd not have posted a reply -- then think about WHY it interests you.
You may well come to the conclusion (as I sometimes do) that it interests you because you want to help others stop wasting their time on pointless discussions. Are you aware of the atheists' definition of the difference between philosophy and theology? Philosophers are looking for a black cat in a coal cellar at midnight, with no light. So are theologians, except that there's no cat.
It is without doubt possible to over-analyze and over-intellectualize any art or craft. In fact it's probably possible to over-analyze and over-intellectualize philosophy (thank you, Jean-Paul Sartre). But this does not mean that all analysis and intellectualization are worthless -- though probably debating the value of Ms. Sontag's contributions, without trying to think clearly for ourselves, is worthless.
Cheers,
R.
MartinL
MartinL
One might just as well claim that subject matter follows style. It feels more correct to say that the photographer (rather than photograph) has or possesses a style, unless you are speaking so broadly as to say that "landscape" or "BW" is the style.
IMO, there are a three thresholds to overcome if one wants recognition as a photographer of high merit.
1. A style or signature that bridges the photographer's personality, vision, and character to the images he or she presents.
2. A style that adds value to the photos--rather than being neutral or subtractive. A photographer's style may be plenty distinctive, but just as we don't appreciate all personalities, a displeasing style intrudes on the images.
3. Technical competence, deep understanding, and hard work that allow the photographer to realize him- or herself in the final picture.
pmun
Established
Yes of course it is that, but it's far more besides. Photographs have massive implications about the way we live and have lived; they influence the course and perception of history and yet all they really are is paper, ink, pixels. The moment you start trying to make sense of that is the moment you use philosophy. I find this interesting from a philosophical stand-point:
''A society which makes it normative to aspire never to experience privation, failure, misery, pain, dread, disease, and in which death itself is regarded not as natural and inevitable but as a cruel, unmerited disaster, creates a tremedous curiosity about these events - a curiosity that is partly satisified through picture-taking'' Susan Sontag
Others are more interested in the Leica M9, or what lens to buy next, or what people think about their photographs - all of which have the potential to be equally interesting.
www.urbanpaths.net
bmattock
Veteran
It is no coincidence that the rise of the middle class coincided with the rise of photography in all its forms - moving pictures, still photography, and later, television. As people began to see, in a more literal sense, what the rest of the world was like and how others lived, more people began to get a sense of wanting to 'keep up with the Jones family' and longing for more in a substantive sense.
Photography did not just describe our world, it informed our sense of it and where we thought we belonged within it. People sitting home reading a newspaper account of pyramids explored in Egypt were entertained; people seeing photographs of the Jones family lounging by their backyard pool in suburbia were desirous.
Photography did not just describe our world, it informed our sense of it and where we thought we belonged within it. People sitting home reading a newspaper account of pyramids explored in Egypt were entertained; people seeing photographs of the Jones family lounging by their backyard pool in suburbia were desirous.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
You've just given a wonderful example of why I found Sontag so awful.
All sentient beings try to avoid suffering and the causes of suffering, such as privation, failure, etc., so there's no need to write about 'A society which'... as though it were something novel. There is still less need for the appalling circumlocution 'makes it normative to aspire never to').
As for 'death . . . is regarded . . . as a cruel, unmerited disaster', either she is saying, "the lumpenproletariat assumes this, but we are all cleverer than that," or she is saying "you are so stupid you think this." I find either interpretation deeply unsavoury.
Cheers,
R.
