Photography : a political act ?

[Marc-A.]

Ooh too many insightful answers!! Thanks for sharing your thought; it’s a difficult issue and your contribution is very helpful (at least for me).

3. The aesthetic (and quasi-normative) judgements do not contradict in any way the descriptive ones. How could they? A flat contradiction could only arise by the use of the same domain of objects relative to which the names and predicates of the two distinct vocabularies (the 'aesthetic' and the 'descriptive/journalistic') are interpreted. This is not the case and so a photo may be said to have both descriptive and aesthetic qualities.

Alkis,
I see the general purpose of your argument, but I’m a bit lost by your demonstration. I see exactly the philosophical/logical grounds of your argument: no Humian (or Sidgwickian) division between fact and value, but rather compatibility between fact and value as in Putnam’s work; right? But you can see both art and social photography as subjects for normative judgments. In fact, I clearly assume that social photography is a normative activity and not a descriptive one: the photograph chooses what he wants to show, the way he wants it to be shown …etc. Therefore, a photograph can be seen as a moral/social/political judgment, with its own aesthetic language. So the problem is more about the compatibility between to types of normative judgment, the aesthetic one and the moral one; would you agree with that? How would you clarify the logic analyse of aesthetic/political judgment?

That being said, it’s difficult to settle that question. Finder puts the question in another way, raising Joyce’s opposition between proper and improper art.

I think Joyce's definition of art in his novel "A Portrait of an Artist as a young man." may be relavant to your post. Joyce basically says their are two forms of art - proper and improper art. Improper art is art in sevice of something else. This art is moves the view either to posses the object (called pornography (all advertising art is pornographic because it makes you want the object illustrated)) or be replelled by the object (didactic art (journalism is didactic)). Proper art is static in that it holds you in aesthetic arrest. Joseph Campbell who talked of Joyce's ideas a great deal basically said this is echoed in Buddhism. Improper art is moving you by fear or desire. Proper art holds you in the still point (enlightenment). So when you view a photo by Salgado, you are not replused by the horror of the situation, but rather you are captured by the beauty. You recognize a perfection within life regardless of any moral judgement which by its nature is a motion of approval or disapproval (fear/desire).

Finder,
I appreciate this reference to Joyce; The Portrait is one of my favourite novels. I do agree with Joyce’s definition of proper art, which can be translated by the expression ‘l’art pour l’art’ (I’ve already mentioned that in another thread, as Finder can remember), even if Joyce would certainly not subscribe to the ideology of pure disinterested art. Nevertheless, I had a different idea in mind: remember Joyce’s epiphany theory. Well, I see it as a photographical theory (I mean it): to make a photograph is to catch with concrete light an epiphany, a “decisive moment”. HCB surely had this in mind too. A good photograph shows the reality hic et nunc but also, say, the eternal reality of human condition; more precisely it shows the eternal reality of human condition through the reality hic et nunc. And this is beyond political judgment, beyond good and evil (I’m very interested by the Buddhist reference, but I know too little about Buddhism … too bad). Finder, would you agree with that?

That’s a difficult matter, my friends. We have to dig a little more 🙂

Best,

Marc

PS: sorry if this thread is not about the better and more expensive RF gear or about the size of the lens … and I know that size matters. 🙄

 

[Marc-A.]

Easy enough to answer: taking these pictures is working for a charity. I don't take them for my personal enjoyment. I cooperate with NGO's who use photos like these to raise funds. I write articles to accompagny the photos, these get published in various magazines and small papers, and I'm also planning to do presentations with photo-slideshows at schools, rotary-clubs, etc. I may not be changing the world but I know that my photos and texts will at least contribute to money-raising that will help the NGO get one, two, three, four or even more of these kids off the street... I want to believe that photographing them may not help them directly but it does help them eventually. I try my very hardest and I would (and will) give up everything I have so I can do this work the rest of my life.

I am young and I don't know what the future will bring but I know one thing... I would give up my life just to do this work, to help. It is the one and only goal I have in life.

Jonas, I respect that. Moreover, I envy you, as I told you. Stick to your dreams. Judging by your work, I'm sure you'll be a great photographer. Hope there was no offense in what I've written :angel:

 

[jlw]

Sure, most photography is a "political act." Is there any act involving more than one person that is NOT?

I got interested in this question when I was in college (as to how long this was ago, well, let's just say I think Socrates was a senior when I was a freshman) and undertook an independent study project with a political science professor aimed at answering the question, "What is the smallest 'molecule' of society that contains a recognizable political system?"

As is often the case with college students, I thought this was a fairly penetrating and clever question, but I quickly discovered that there's already been a lot of thought devoted to this. One of the books to which the professor directed me was the now-classic Exchange and Power in Social Life, by Peter Blau; a super-short summary of its relevant points is that power comes from fulfilling needs, and that if one person has something that will fulfill another person's need, a political process ensues to allocate it. So, politics begins as soon as you have a system containing two people, one of whom controls something the other one wants.

Looking at it this way, you can see that it's almost unavoidable for photography to be "political." What I tend to find more interesting are photographs that are not political. Just as it was impossible to understand the atmosphere until someone invented a machine for removing it (the vacuum pump) it's not possible to fully understand our political life unless we can look occasionally into realms where politics do not hold sway.

 

[ghost]

how can a photo not be looked at in a political way?

 

[ghost]

My recent work on social issues is photojournalistic and committed - I hate when it is labelled "art". There is nothing fancy about it. When I see a Romanian kid dieing of sniffing glue I don't think "Hey, how could I make this shot more artsy?" and when I see a woman with five children living in a one-room apartment in oh-so-civilised Belgium I don't wonder if the pictures would be better if I took them with a Leica.

At least, that's one side of the issue. It is true that snapshots wouldn't cut it - the images need an appeal that is also aesthetic to be viewed by a larger audience, which is of course necessary for social photography to function and trigger change. As Nachkebia says below it's about communication, not about art.

It's a thin line to balance - content, aesthetics, objectivity.

But it's not art - it's journalism.

Good journalists use style to emphatise without overly dramatising the content of their articles, it does not make their texts (or photos) art, it makes their texts good and powerfull journalism.

it's also interesting that some of the most powerful and interesting photojournalism blurs the line between it and art.

 

[Finder]

Finder,
I appreciate this reference to Joyce; The Portrait is one of my favourite novels. I do agree with Joyce’s definition of proper art, which can be translated by the expression ‘l’art pour l’art’ (I’ve already mentioned that in another thread, as Finder can remember), even if Joyce would certainly not subscribe to the ideology of pure disinterested art. Nevertheless, I had a different idea in mind: remember Joyce’s epiphany theory. Well, I see it as a photographical theory (I mean it): to make a photograph is to catch with concrete light an epiphany, a “decisive moment”. HCB surely had this in mind too. A good photograph shows the reality hic et nunc but also, say, the eternal reality of human condition; more precisely it shows the eternal reality of human condition through the reality hic et nunc. And this is beyond political judgment, beyond good and evil (I’m very interested by the Buddhist reference, but I know too little about Buddhism … too bad). Finder, would you agree with that?

Yes. Another why to look at Joyce is to think of improper art within the field of duality - good/evil, fear/desire, pornography/didatic. Proper art transends that. Politics is definately in a dualist field - there are always two sides. Good and evil are concepts imposed by our morality. The are relative. Proper art should not be based on human morality or concepts, but rather simply what you called an "eternal reality." This is also know as enlightenment in Buddhism where the world can be experienced without the filter of dualism. But this idea is not unique to Buddhism, it is also recognized in many religions.

I am not sure a religious model or concepts are easy to apply because there are a lot of associated ideas that religions carry with them. But you could say religion present one set of vocabulary to discuss this problem. One thing to be careful of is that religios art in the most part is not proper art. It is a religious device. It is used to instruct or to elicit a certain response. Religion itself is a similar thing in that it helps a follower to obtain a certain spirtual state. Some religions recognize this and some do not.

Natually, when we approach this area, we have some difficult issues to deal with. You use "eternal reality." While I can be open enough to understand what you are trying to say, it is a very unclear term. We are getting into metaphysics. But I think if there is going to be an aesthetic theory, it must encompass what we know now. Joyce and Buddhism while important are speaking from an old world view. Let me see if I can crack this shell a bit.

Beauty is probably the only tool photograpgers have in the creation of art. Not a postcard beauty, but a recognition of a harmony or perfection in the work; a epiphany if you like. But where does it come from? In biology there is an idea of superstimulous. An experiment with butterflies showed that models of butterflies that had been created with a more saturated blue than could occure in nature had attracted more mates than the real competitors. So within the genes of the butterflies there is some recognition of perfection beyond experience. In this case, this led to a stronger mating drive - improper art causing desire? Could there be an ability to recognize perfection in form that has no physical benefit; either causing us to desire something (food or sex) or to be replused by it (danger or illness). Could we have something built in that gives the viewer a sense of harmony in the world regardless of moral judgements? This quality could be the source of art and religion which seems to have similar goals of bring a person into harmony with the world around them. (Would this harmony of form be called beauty?) This line of enquiry has not been pursued as far as I know (the closest is maybe Susanne Langer with her work Philosophy in a New Key where she explores the source of language, but it is old work).

The problem with photography (unlike music which can be purely abstract) is that is uses definate subjects that can elicit judgements. If I don't like pink clothing and the person is wearing a old pink sweater, is that influencing my impression? What if I have a strong reaction to a particular group or sex? So a picture can elicit certain response simply because of personal or cultural biases. That works against any universal appeal.

What about the photographer's biases? Why do you hardly ever see photo of a poor person smiling? Robert Coles wrote a book, Doing Docummentary Work, in which he had a comment by a poor family in the mountains of Virgina who complained that the student photographers visiting them always portrayed them as sad. He said he was poor, but he as his family had joy in their lives - they were happy people. Could it be that members of an affluent society believe you can't be happy without material wealth? Are sad poor people a reality or a cultural bias? (Naturally, these folks were not suffering from a disaster. There is suffering in the world.)

Personally, I don't believe art can or needs to be defined. I think any definition will be too limited and will impact creativity - a religous or philosophic approach can be a barrier to the artist. The artist is on a journey and should be allowed to follow his inspiration. Whether the art is effective or not does not matter - unless you are building a career on it.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

A local conservation society announced a photography competition with a theme of 'The Old City' and arranged for the mayor to attend and award prizes. The photographs were all of decaying buildings and suchlike and the chairman of the organizers obviously relished standing up in front of the mayor to denounce the city council for not conserving our heritage. The mayor looked embarrassed big time.

That was very political in a small town sort of way.

One of my entries won and the mayor asked me quietly later where the building was located. I was pleased to see that it was repaired soon after.

 

[telenous]

Marc,

I really appreciate very much your replies. As you said, this is a difficult topic and I for one, do not hope to make any progress in one direction or the other (especially in the absence of a clearly spelled out account of art). But it is also a very important topic so please bear me with me as I add a few more thoughts:


First, you are right, the view I presented earlier is considered anti-Humian, at least in spirit, if not in letter too. It wasn't clear to me that what you were saying wasn't also anti-Humian. In particular your

The difference between mere photojournalism and photography as an artistic expression lies in the fact that photojournalism is only about what happens hic et nunc, here and now. Photography shows us the reality of the human condition. That's why we can still be touched by the "Migrant Mother" by Dorothea Lange.

seemed to agree with my saying that photojournalism/social photography are primarily representational (or descriptive) in character. But then you say,

But you can see both art and social photography as subjects for normative judgments. In fact, I clearly assume that social photography is a normative activity and not a descriptive one: the photograph chooses what he wants to show, the way he wants it to be shown …etc.

That last is how you denied my second point (I think it still holds but never mind that). So, it's now clear to me that you see photojournalism and social photography as two different activities. I will admit that the distinction is not impossible to make but it is a very fine one (and I am not sure I would subscribe to it anyway). But I agree with as much with you, if you adhere to a view of social photography as moral enabler then there may be (I am inclined to thing there is) a problem of 'co-habitation' with the artistic pretensions of a photo. But there is no such problem if you only see photography as a descriptive activity which elicits response independently of the wishes of the photographer (something with which I would be intuitively inclined to agree). Notice what Gabrielma says earlier:

Photography is not a political act. It's photography.

Its use can be political; can be artistic.

Take a can of soup, for example. Or a woman sitting in front of a bus. Or a boy enjoying a pair of shoes.

Defining photography by how it's used is twisting it. Photography is photography: "written" light.

This view is the most innocent photographically speaking - a purist's view if you will. Photography is 'painting with light' (a descriptive activity) but you can turn it around into other things (political acts etc.). So, on a basic level the photographer is not confronted with moral dilemas, political imperatives and so on. A photographer is just a photographer - not even art matters when it comes down to that!

Is this to deny the moral, political, artistic responsibility of the photographer? I don't think we can debate this on a philosophical level: it's been denied everyday, in practice. Whether this ought to be so is the difficult part of the question - that one bit which remains elusive.

Best,