Roger Hicks
Veteran
Yes, which is why I added the rider 'and be taken seriously'.
Actually, Val is a State Registered Nurse, State Registered Midwife and qualified masseuse, and they really are about massage, so it's not strictly a sex manual.
Cheers,
R.
pmun
Established
If you take Henri Cartier Bresson for example, his signature is essentially his subject matter - its irony. What makes an Ansel Adams photograph so distinctive? It's technical perfection, tonal range? Perhaps, partly, but much more so the drama of the North American landscape. This is the tendency; I accept it's not the whole story.
If Cartier-Bresson had taken his Leica to the Yosemite National Park (Adams territory), I accept his photographs may've looked very different from Adams', but would they look like Cartier-Bresson's?
www.urbanpaths.net
Last edited:
pmun
Established
Yes the sentence does seem a bit awkward.
I take it to mean that we tend to feel let down by death, hard done by, as though it shouldn't happen, when of course it should (if we accept the natural order of things). I find this interesting in itself.
www.urbanpaths.net
Last edited:
MartinL
MartinL
Sontag studied and taught philosophy. But "On Photography," as most of her work, is more in the tradition of critical studies than philosophy. I've long thought that this forum would be more correctly called "Photography Criticism," but of course that wouldn't work for most posters for whom "criticism" means pointing out that they like your bokeh, and "philosophy" is a kind of intellectual bokeh--soft and undisciplined wordplay.
I just returned from New Museum's (Bowery) show of David Goldblatt, South African photographer since the early sixties. It was a pleasure hearing and reading what he has to say about photography and his own work (you can listen on line.) He doesn't have much use for "art," prefers to caption and provide longer text for his photos, laments the inadequacy of photographs to capture the best of landscapes, thinks it's important to walk away from behind the camera when shooting portraits, ----much more. His opinions, philosophy, and critique all folded together. Like Sontag, an acutely disciplined intellectual. And like her, worth paying attention to.
I just returned from New Museum's (Bowery) show of David Goldblatt, South African photographer since the early sixties. It was a pleasure hearing and reading what he has to say about photography and his own work (you can listen on line.) He doesn't have much use for "art," prefers to caption and provide longer text for his photos, laments the inadequacy of photographs to capture the best of landscapes, thinks it's important to walk away from behind the camera when shooting portraits, ----much more. His opinions, philosophy, and critique all folded together. Like Sontag, an acutely disciplined intellectual. And like her, worth paying attention to.
Carlsen Highway
Well-known
Roger, youve replied to my post in a combatative manner, - I merely meant to say if your going to discuss something like this then its best to start with definitions - otherwise evryone ends up arguing becuase they are all talking about different things...if I didnt find it interesting I wouldnt have posted at all...perhaps I came across too smarty.
I still dont like the phrase "philosphy of photography" though. Perhaps should be renamed. The Meaning of Photography or something.
On Sontags paragrpah -
98% of all photographs in our western cultures are of daily events in life to be celebrated. Pictures by Don McCullen and James Nachtwey dont even register against the tide of happy afternoons and new baby shots that are treasured and kept in precious albums.
Again, a definition - are we talking about photography as a whole, or just photography as used in the media, or by artists/both?
I still dont like the phrase "philosphy of photography" though. Perhaps should be renamed. The Meaning of Photography or something.
On Sontags paragrpah -
98% of all photographs in our western cultures are of daily events in life to be celebrated. Pictures by Don McCullen and James Nachtwey dont even register against the tide of happy afternoons and new baby shots that are treasured and kept in precious albums.
Again, a definition - are we talking about photography as a whole, or just photography as used in the media, or by artists/both?
pmun
Established
Photography as a whole - any use, by anyone, anywhere. My opening post took the guide at the top of the forum for reference.
Why don't you like the term philosophy? Why do you not think it is suited to photography?
www.urbanpaths.net
Chris101
summicronia
I wouldn't say that. In your previous post, you seemed to say that a philosophy of still photography should follow that of cinema. Their philosophies are quite different (another thing I learned from Barthes.) The fact that the images changes in a fraction of a second precludes it being considered as a fixed image. In your latest post, you suggest that photography has two camps, war reportage and family snapshots.
Any philosophy (or as art philosophers prefer to call it, theory) of photography needs to apply across all genre of the medium. The subject is incidental to the process and reason for capturing a photograph when discussing the photographic theory.
PS, not this photographic theory.
Carlsen Highway
Well-known
Doesnt philosophy using photography as a tool to disover more about ourselves or how we percieve the world (or ourselevs) make more sense?
Maybe I am just floundering on my own here, and you guys are already up on dry land.
Im not saying its an unworthy discussion at all, just wanted soeone to nail down the parameters. Afterall, without rules, theres no game.
Chris - here this is what I am after, you say that the philosphies of cinema and still photograhy are quite different - can you define them?
Maybe I am just floundering on my own here, and you guys are already up on dry land.
Im not saying its an unworthy discussion at all, just wanted soeone to nail down the parameters. Afterall, without rules, theres no game.
Chris - here this is what I am after, you say that the philosphies of cinema and still photograhy are quite different - can you define them?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
pmun
Established
Can you explain roughly how photography can be used in this way because I can't quite see?
None of us are on dry land, we're all in the same boat, exploring the issues together.
One interesting thing here - a photograph tends to be much more memorable than a still from a film because you're not encouraged to look at stills for any period of time. They are immediately replaced by the next frame.
This has implications for how photographs are presented. Think of slide-shows compared to prints on the wall for example, or a book; then there's the internet. This is how philosophy/theory can affect practical decisions.
www.urbanpaths.net
Carlsen Highway
Well-known
Pmun,
I always remember the picture of the flag raising on Iwo Jima. The image is known by everyone. Even people who cant tell you what year the war started, are familiar with this image. The iconic meaning of it has become greater over the years as time passes, but it was recognised immediately by the editors when they first saw it in Joe Rosenthal's film. (So I read.)
The guy standing next to the photographer was a newsreel guy who filmed a shot of the men raising the pole on his movie camera. Its played sometimes as a historical curiosity. (Now, heres what the flag raising looked like on film...)
Its interesting to note that, one, the still image immediately became greater that the sum of all its parts,
and Two, that the film segment is considered to be more "real" - its played to show what the flag raising "really" looked like.
Both were created from teh same subject, virtually same viewpoint, and the same light, by Marines doing no more than their job.
In the film segment, the moment is stripped of its granduer, its pathos and its gravity. It becomes some men merely achieving a logistal effort. Even if the men were indeed feeling what the still photo gives to the viewers, the newreel cameraman was unable to impress that inbetween his frames or even hint at it.
Although both cinema and still photos are both created by and for directing a viewers attention a certain way (only show them what you want them to see) it seems to be implied that still photography achieves that more concisely, right down to which particular moment you want the viewer to regard.
Another one is HCB's shot of the woman sneering at the traitor being interviewed on the liberatiopn of Paris. The photo sums up the feeling of a nation towards some of its own at the end of a war, a moment and an interpretation that the movie segment is blind to.
And yet some of the most powerful moments in our culture have been depicted in the (fictional) cinema.
hang on , lunch is burning.
Okay, I ve lost my train of thought now...
But when you say at the end of your post that still photo's from a movie lack what still photographs have, could an explanation be that in a still from a movie, the viewer is aware that what he is looking at not the finished product - not the actual 'work' at all, and so the whole time they are aware that they are missing the full intent and impact.
So even though the subject is the same - the picture is the same - the veiwers knoweldge of the background of what they are looking at changes their perception of its value, lowering it. Whereas with a still photograph they are looking at the full completed 'work', so they dont regard it as shadow of something greater.
I always remember the picture of the flag raising on Iwo Jima. The image is known by everyone. Even people who cant tell you what year the war started, are familiar with this image. The iconic meaning of it has become greater over the years as time passes, but it was recognised immediately by the editors when they first saw it in Joe Rosenthal's film. (So I read.)
The guy standing next to the photographer was a newsreel guy who filmed a shot of the men raising the pole on his movie camera. Its played sometimes as a historical curiosity. (Now, heres what the flag raising looked like on film...)
Its interesting to note that, one, the still image immediately became greater that the sum of all its parts,
and Two, that the film segment is considered to be more "real" - its played to show what the flag raising "really" looked like.
Both were created from teh same subject, virtually same viewpoint, and the same light, by Marines doing no more than their job.
In the film segment, the moment is stripped of its granduer, its pathos and its gravity. It becomes some men merely achieving a logistal effort. Even if the men were indeed feeling what the still photo gives to the viewers, the newreel cameraman was unable to impress that inbetween his frames or even hint at it.
Although both cinema and still photos are both created by and for directing a viewers attention a certain way (only show them what you want them to see) it seems to be implied that still photography achieves that more concisely, right down to which particular moment you want the viewer to regard.
Another one is HCB's shot of the woman sneering at the traitor being interviewed on the liberatiopn of Paris. The photo sums up the feeling of a nation towards some of its own at the end of a war, a moment and an interpretation that the movie segment is blind to.
And yet some of the most powerful moments in our culture have been depicted in the (fictional) cinema.
hang on , lunch is burning.
Okay, I ve lost my train of thought now...
But when you say at the end of your post that still photo's from a movie lack what still photographs have, could an explanation be that in a still from a movie, the viewer is aware that what he is looking at not the finished product - not the actual 'work' at all, and so the whole time they are aware that they are missing the full intent and impact.
So even though the subject is the same - the picture is the same - the veiwers knoweldge of the background of what they are looking at changes their perception of its value, lowering it. Whereas with a still photograph they are looking at the full completed 'work', so they dont regard it as shadow of something greater.
Last edited:
pmun
Established
Indeed, that is interesting. Photographs tend to be more poignant (thus memorable) while the film is as you say more ''real''. In fact, so real that people tend to compare reality with films (rather than just films with reality, as you might expect). People caught up in 9/11, for example, were heard saying that 'it was just like a movie!'. Thus movies become the benchmark for reality!
In discussing the relative power of mediums in this way, I'd say that we are practicing philosophy (of photography) or if you prefer, theory.
Enjoy your lunch - I'm off to bed
www.urbanpaths.net
Last edited:
Carlsen Highway
Well-known
'night...
- 9/11 and people saying it was just like a movie, reminds me of my reaction when I saw - heard - about it first.
I was a port agent for a shipping company, whose duties included dealing with the captains on container ships. I was busy as hell that day, and had to see a number of ships with problems, my first in the morning was a ship with a Russian captain.
I met him in his cabin, and was annoyed becasue he wasnt ready to talk to me, he was watching the television, which was showing a movie about some planes crashing into some sky scrapers. His English wasnt great and he kept saying, "it's a tragedy, a tragedy".
I was very annoyed that he couldnt tear himself away from watching a video to attend to my business. It was several hours later that I understood.
- 9/11 and people saying it was just like a movie, reminds me of my reaction when I saw - heard - about it first.
I was a port agent for a shipping company, whose duties included dealing with the captains on container ships. I was busy as hell that day, and had to see a number of ships with problems, my first in the morning was a ship with a Russian captain.
I met him in his cabin, and was annoyed becasue he wasnt ready to talk to me, he was watching the television, which was showing a movie about some planes crashing into some sky scrapers. His English wasnt great and he kept saying, "it's a tragedy, a tragedy".
I was very annoyed that he couldnt tear himself away from watching a video to attend to my business. It was several hours later that I understood.
Chris101
summicronia
I suspect that you have just answered the question that you posed to me Carlsen, with an example. Had he been looking at a still photograph, would you have thought he was idly preoccupied, or would you have sooner grasped the gravity of the situation?
Cinema moves on through time. It doesn't present a moment as forever frozen. If there is something important in that moment that is there to be seen that is gone the next, you need to be very quick (what - about 1/24th of a second or shorter?) to catch it.
Still photographs take the dimension of time out of it. Of course they condense the time of the exposure into one moment, but it remains forever there. A philosophy? I'll leave expressing that to the guys with the vocabularies. For me, cinema is an approximation of life to a greater degree than is photography. Photography cuts more to the quick of the instant.
As an easier example than 911, let me consider an auto accident. Not a bad one, but lets say an expensive one. One second, everything is fine. Then some quick decisions are made, some activities happen out of our control, and BAM! Everything changes afterward. A movie of the accident can detail all of the activities that lead up to the accident - you will be able to see how the decisions contribute to the inevitable. Learning for the future will happen, The physics of the actual collision can be studied and the autos be made better in the future.
A still photograph will contain the emotional impact (so to speak ) of the collision. The anguish, the damage, the irreversibility will come through much more than it will in motion. The moment in time that changes the future will be exposed for us to examine at length. This difference points to the different theories behind cinema and still photography.
Cinema moves on through time. It doesn't present a moment as forever frozen. If there is something important in that moment that is there to be seen that is gone the next, you need to be very quick (what - about 1/24th of a second or shorter?) to catch it.
Still photographs take the dimension of time out of it. Of course they condense the time of the exposure into one moment, but it remains forever there. A philosophy? I'll leave expressing that to the guys with the vocabularies. For me, cinema is an approximation of life to a greater degree than is photography. Photography cuts more to the quick of the instant.
As an easier example than 911, let me consider an auto accident. Not a bad one, but lets say an expensive one. One second, everything is fine. Then some quick decisions are made, some activities happen out of our control, and BAM! Everything changes afterward. A movie of the accident can detail all of the activities that lead up to the accident - you will be able to see how the decisions contribute to the inevitable. Learning for the future will happen, The physics of the actual collision can be studied and the autos be made better in the future.
A still photograph will contain the emotional impact (so to speak
) of the collision. The anguish, the damage, the irreversibility will come through much more than it will in motion. The moment in time that changes the future will be exposed for us to examine at length. This difference points to the different theories behind cinema and still photography.pmun
Established
That suggests another point, that he would actually be much less preoccupied with the photograph, because a photograph allows you to return to it an any time (within reason) whereas a film requires your attention right then, because it will soon be finished. (of course there other factors to consider - but all being equal, this difference still applies)
www.urbanpaths.net
pmun
Established
As this thread progresses the more I feel that philosophy is actually a practical tool for investigating, revealing and challenging qualities, meanings, differences, consequences and implications. It's a bit like photography, you can dwell on the equipment or just go out and use it.
www.urbanpaths.net
www.urbanpaths.net
Sparrow
Veteran
A still photograph will contain the emotional impact (so to speak
Yes … but, the “language”, the vernacular “visual idiom” that humanity uses to decipher the meaning and experience that emotion has only existed since the 1930’s.
The likes Picture Post, Paris Match, Life, Sports illustrated and that German one with the snappy title popularised the work of Capa, HCB et al and created the idiom almost from scrathc in the 30’s and 40’s
Is the short timescale, and cultural parochialism of it such that philosophy is too grand a word?
pmun
Established
No it isn't. Philosophy can be applied to contemporary concerns as well as historical events, big or small. Again like photography itself, it can be used for practically anything.
www.urbanpaths.net
pmun
Established
Yes, I think so. And this demonstrates how people have preconceptions or expectations that they bring to a work. This in turn refutes any claim that a work 'speaks for itself' much of the 'speaking' has already taken place.
www.urbanpaths.net
Sparrow
Veteran
I’ll use hypothesis I think, do you have a view on the first two paragraphs?