pmun
Established
OK, I'll look at those:
Can you help me here. So are you are saying here that because we've only started comparitively recently seeing photographs of tragic events that we are not yet ready to use philosophy in regard to their meaning and consequences? And what do you mean by 'cultural parochialism' here?
www.urbanpaths.net
Last edited:
Chris101
summicronia
I suspect that our current value system has been in effect since then, but that it has borrowed heavily from visual representation forms that preceded modern photography. By this I mean drawing and painting. Their visual idiom used was different of course, but they trained us to look at a picture and create the mental dichotomy of a thing and its representation.
Magritte's pipe picture heralded modern era of representation, but it referred back all the way to the caves.
Carlsen Highway
Well-known
Its interesting to muse that a photograph may be defined by what it doesn't show you.
It doesn't give you time, it doesnt give you sound, it doesnt give you any more than 3 dimentions, it doesnt give you anything except the light that reflected off the subject in 250th's of a second, flattened. And it excludes all of the rest of the world.
For cinema, it contains vastly much more information. IE it is vastly more difficult to convincingly fake 50 feet of movie film.
Perhaps, into the gap we can insert the grandeur, the pathos, the poignancy, the gravity, that we lost earlier in teh Iwo Jima film.
The gap of information is there and it is filled by the viewer.
Like in a drawing, a quick sketch by REmbrant, one of the fleeting gesture drawings he he used for a concept, an idea, a moment of body language. Look at Daumier also, in a drawing less can be more becuase the difference is filled by the viewer imagination.
Perhaps this is where photography, and particularly I think black and white photography can be enduring, in that the viewers imagination provides what the photo indicates.
We know the greys are wrong, but it doesnt matter, they are indications and the imagination provides reality - and more, becasue we are human.
Film can provide less - because it gives us too much.
Perhaps this is an explanation for the the Iwo Jima Effect I described above.
(Note - dont get me wrong...I am the biggest cinema fan in the Southern Hemisphere.)
It doesn't give you time, it doesnt give you sound, it doesnt give you any more than 3 dimentions, it doesnt give you anything except the light that reflected off the subject in 250th's of a second, flattened. And it excludes all of the rest of the world.
For cinema, it contains vastly much more information. IE it is vastly more difficult to convincingly fake 50 feet of movie film.
Perhaps, into the gap we can insert the grandeur, the pathos, the poignancy, the gravity, that we lost earlier in teh Iwo Jima film.
The gap of information is there and it is filled by the viewer.
Like in a drawing, a quick sketch by REmbrant, one of the fleeting gesture drawings he he used for a concept, an idea, a moment of body language. Look at Daumier also, in a drawing less can be more becuase the difference is filled by the viewer imagination.
Perhaps this is where photography, and particularly I think black and white photography can be enduring, in that the viewers imagination provides what the photo indicates.
We know the greys are wrong, but it doesnt matter, they are indications and the imagination provides reality - and more, becasue we are human.
Film can provide less - because it gives us too much.
Perhaps this is an explanation for the the Iwo Jima Effect I described above.
(Note - dont get me wrong...I am the biggest cinema fan in the Southern Hemisphere.)
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
Yes I’m sure that is the case but it’s interesting to contrast photos from World War one with those of the second war, those stiffly posed shots in the trenches would have been considered “reality” at the time. Capa’s d-day stuff would have been meaningless if published in 1918 yet 20 years later editors were putting those almost abstract images on the front page confident the public had the tools to interpret them.
The same thing happened with pornography, at the start of the 20c it was based on Victorian classicism, so was almost free of the erotic by the 20's the photographers had learned how to portray, and we, both male and female, had learned how to interpret an erotic photo. Porn form the 20’s looks modern to our eyes in the same way photojournalism of the era doesn’t
So I suspect “just like a painting” is short of the reality.
Sparrow
Veteran
'cultural parochialism' … western, industrial, middle-class and modern in this context
pmun
Established
Indeed, it's considerably more sensitive to framing/cropping than painting or films.
With painting, there isn't necessarily anything there (in reality) to be included or excluded. In fact fragmentation is one of the aspects of photography that influenced painting.
As for films, there's much more likelihood that what lies just outside the frame will be included in one of the many frames to follow. With a photograph that is denied. (even a series is far more limiting than a moving image). This adds to the deliberation of the composition, and creates an impression than some photographs only hint at what they are all about.
www.urbanpaths.net
pmun
Established
Sparrow
Veteran
I’m saying one most first have a grasp on the origins of aesthetics before seeking it’s philosophy even in this narrow context.
Attempting to approach the subject solely philosophically one will simply learn more about philosophy aesthetics is, in part, an ever changing ideal, the history is important
pmun
Established
Yes, I accept, that historical knowldege is important when considering how aesthetics has changed over the years. I also think you raised a valid point about the change in perceptions and taste and how that has influenced publishing.
www.urbanpaths.net
Sparrow
Veteran
I think it’s much more than taste, in the 1920 all the gear was there to make very similar photos to those we take today, in effect we had the basic language, what we didn’t have was the photograph grammar the set of rules to make sense of the images.
Consider the dreaded bokeh, OOF areas, now are an accepted and universally understood as a way to represent depth in both still and moving images. OOF areas only really became a feature of photography in the 30’s and had never been a feature in realistic painting and drawing previous to that. How did we come to that understanding for OOF and the rest of the photographic idiom?
pmun
Established
Yes - which is why I said perceptions and taste. But I'll forgive your rather conspicuous straw man as you made a good point about out of focus areas
www.urbanpaths.net
Last edited:
Chris101
summicronia
I wonder how much lack of early bokey was due to slow lenses though.
kossi008
Photon Counter
It probably can't, I'll grant that. The other way around is easy for me right now (photography avoiding philosophy). I think we might be approaching te relation between the two from different sides...
Sparrow
Veteran
very little I suspect, National Geographic used large format until the 1930s but still published pics with a large DOF real f64 stuff
pmun
Established
I don't think Stewart doubted that. But I think the point is how perception generally has changed with the technology and yet bokeh itself looks natural, not something which is technologically driven. But then I suppose that applies to all aspects of the modern colour photograph.
www.urbanpaths.net
Sparrow
Veteran
the point I was making, is simply, that in western art recession isn't represented by blur from the renaissance up to the 1930s, but becomes ubiquitous after the f1.5 lenses come out.
that's from the Mona Lisa to Monet; art has unlimited DOF and then in 1935 we all change our aesthetic perception, i find that intriguing
BYW Ii do know the later work of J W M Turner, and I know whiy it was like that, nothing to do with this debate
mcgrattan
Well-known
It's curious to have a skim over this thread as I am, for what it's worth, a philosopher.*
I don't really have much to add, although I think Roger's right that it's hard to think of photography as requiring a distinctive aesthetic philosophy all of its own, although photography's ability to capture images quickly and in circumstances where that's not practical for other art forms might point to the need for a distinctive ethics of photography.
Flippantly, no-one ever invaded another person's privacy by surreptitiously knocking off a quick oil-painting, or a bit of voyeuristic sculpture.
* in the sense that I have at various times been paid to teach it and am academically qualified to do so, have published in the field, etc.
I don't really have much to add, although I think Roger's right that it's hard to think of photography as requiring a distinctive aesthetic philosophy all of its own, although photography's ability to capture images quickly and in circumstances where that's not practical for other art forms might point to the need for a distinctive ethics of photography.
Flippantly, no-one ever invaded another person's privacy by surreptitiously knocking off a quick oil-painting, or a bit of voyeuristic sculpture.
* in the sense that I have at various times been paid to teach it and am academically qualified to do so, have published in the field, etc.
pmun
Established
Indeed, Sontag was big on this - as you probably know.
Let's face it photograpy and philosophy are such huge subjects, when you put them together - where to begin?
Your post reminded me of the lofty connotations of being philosopher or an artist; people often feel the need to qualify the title. That's not so much the case with being a photographer or musician - everyone's one of those!
Anyway, as a philosopher, where have you been? Start applying that mind of yours to the philosophy forum (please)
www.urbanpaths.net
Last edited:
MartinL
MartinL
We can call ourselves anything we want, but self-identification does not make us philosophers, artists, photographers, musicians, cooks, etc. I'd reserve the professional designations for those who have some professional recognition within their own craft-, art-, scholarly-, and other communities.
They practice, publish, get paid, and are acknowledged by others who practice at generally higher levels than hobbyists and aficionados.--which is not to say that they always take better photos or cook better briskets.
Regarding a "Philosophy of Photography," (and participation on this forum,) I'd encourage the figurative and muted sports compliment, "He plays within himself." This would translate into asking and answering questions in the contexts of one's own experience, referencing when possible, one's own photos, and tethering the lofty to your RF.
Sparrow
Veteran
With respect, I hardly know where to start disagreeing with those points.
Firstly, surly it is for the individual to commit to the path of “photographer” or “artist” or whatever and to assume that honorific. Then it is for his peers and the public in general judge his success in that chosen field? Did Van Gough’s lack of recognition prevent him being an artist during his lifetime? was he ony "Artist" in death?
Secondly, I’m a designer by profession; the work I produce day to day is done efficiently to a commercial standard so I can make money. If I invested the same time and care into my day job that I do in my hobby we’d be out of business in a month.
Lastly, why on earth would someone restrict their thoughts to "the contexts of one's own experience." when attempting to be creative? What is the point of this board and forum if not to share ideas and learn from the experience of others? It seems bizarre to contemplate repeating the same experience without thinking at some point of an alternative