Photography and Existentialism

M

Morca007

Matt
Local time
2:36 PM
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
889
I am currently writing my term paper in my Existentialism class on photography, so I figured I would post some of those ideas here.

-Photography is an art dependant upon "the other," in that all of the tools required to practice it are made by others. Even the film we use is produced by others, which determines the look of our output. Does this mean that photography cannot be considered authentic?

-In street, and portrait photography, where the photographer uses other people to create his message, or at least to portray the message, can it be considered only the product of the photographer?

-Indeed, in any photography save for studio work of still life, where the photographer is in control of everything, is the photographer ever truly responsible for the entirety of their output?

Just a few things to ponder... ;)
 
How is photography of an existing piece of art (say a painting) different from photography of natural artworks like a sunset, or a flower?
 
Interesting question Frank.
I suppose it really is a central question in photography; do we create art or merely record the art that is the world around us?
 
Any representational artform relies on subject matter that exists in the real world.

And all art is dependent on 'the other', anyway. Otherwise it would just be solipsistic, intellectual masturbation.

Clarence
 
I think that by framing it in a photograph, we can elevate any object or scene to art. Art is created by framing or isolating an object from it's surroundings?
 
Morca007 said:
-Photography is an art dependant upon "the other," in that all of the tools required to practice it are made by others. Even the film we use is produced by others, which determines the look of our output. Does this mean that photography cannot be considered authentic?
Click to expand...

I cant think of anything being without being dependant on something.
 
bessasebastian said:
I cant think of anything being without being dependant on something.
Click to expand...

We are / it is, all interconnected / interdependent.

That's the problem with existentialism, we may be born and die utterly alone and there may not be a god, but there are all these connections and interdependencies that do give order and meaning to life.
 
Last edited:
Your original thesis is interesting, Matt. I would counter that many art forms use materials and subject matter created by others. Consider musical comositions for the piano, for example. The piano has 88 keys, which circumscribe the range of tones which can be used in the composition. The piano has existed for centuries, in one form or another. Can piano compositions be considered authentic?

I'm not necessarily arguing against your thesis. Simply saying that all art forms have the same characteristics to some degree.
 
In the literature of existentialism concepts like life, truth, existence and others come as a result of an intense, visual experience that yields a sudden realization. In Sartre's La nausée, the main character becomes aware of his own situation by way of a contrast between a dark-chocolate color wall and the bar tender's blue shirt. There's another part in which his hand, laying upside down on a table, leads him to think of an upturned crab, which in turn suggests to him something akin to the fact that nobody has real power over life.

I'd be thinking along the lines of the power of images... if I were you. There are other lines of existentialism; Albert Camus comes to mind, or Kierkegaard, along with the famous German philosopher Heidegger. They all had a philosophy that integrated representation and life. Maybe you should look into that, or in the way in which photography can participate of the pattern of sudden revelations that appears frequently in what's considered existentialist philosophy.

One can tell I'm a professor... and my undergraduate major was philosophy and literature! :) Good luck!
 
Morca007 said:
I am currently writing my term paper in my Existentialism class on photography, so I figured I would post some of those ideas here.

-Photography is an art dependant upon "the other," in that all of the tools required to practice it are made by others. Even the film we use is produced by others, which determines the look of our output. Does this mean that photography cannot be considered authentic?
Click to expand...

As are all forms of art. Painters don't make their canvases, musicians don't make their instruments, actors seldom read their own lines. So, if you are saying photography is just like any art, then you would right.

-In street, and portrait photography, where the photographer uses other people to create his message, or at least to portray the message, can it be considered only the product of the photographer?
Click to expand...

Sure. No one else is creating the work. It would really depend on how much the photographer wants to control the result. Just because the object is already in existence does not mean the photographer has to follow. Representative art has always been in relation to the artist interpretation of the world. The photographer is alway making choices. If the person I photograph is not what I want, I can get another person.

-Indeed, in any photography save for studio work of still life, where the photographer is in control of everything, is the photographer ever truly responsible for the entirety of their output?

Just a few things to ponder... ;)
Click to expand...

You are contradicting yourself. If what you say is true, a studio still life would still be a product of what is represented as the photographer can not manufacture things like apples.

I think you are working backwards. You should start with the art and come up with the argument based on what you find. If you start with the argument and try to fit the art to that, you are going to be disappointed because it won't fit.
 
Francisco- That is very much what I am thinking about writing on. Particularly the connection between the literal, visual language of images in relation to Meursault in The Stranger. How we can be distracted by the details of concrete experience.

I am glad that so many people are getting at the aspect of interconnectedness that permeates all art forms. I agree that photography is only as beholden to the other as any other art. It is not the material that matters, but the choices we make in relation to them.

Sitemistic- Oy, Heidegger. :p
 
Morca007 said:
I am currently writing my term paper in my Existentialism class on photography, so I figured I would post some of those ideas here.

-Photography is an art dependant upon "the other," in that all of the tools required to practice it are made by others. Even the film we use is produced by others, which determines the look of our output. Does this mean that photography cannot be considered authentic?

-In street, and portrait photography, where the photographer uses other people to create his message, or at least to portray the message, can it be considered only the product of the photographer?

-Indeed, in any photography save for studio work of still life, where the photographer is in control of everything, is the photographer ever truly responsible for the entirety of their output?

Just a few things to ponder... ;)
Click to expand...


Hi Matt,
I don't catch why do you have to climb to Existesialism to find the simple fact that without a Photographer and a Subject, there is no picture. The photo is the end result of this relationship.

"The other" sounds to me just a play of words, quite void of real contents.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Finder- I'm not sure what you mean about my starting with an argument, I'm starting with only questions. People who start with answers are fools.

Ruben- "climb to Existentialism," eh? That would imply a hierarchy of thinking. It's merely a different lens with which to view things.

Bill- Frank's question is the determining factor. ;)
 
Ah, Mersault and the knife on whose blade the sun shines, blinds him and then kills a man, only to say in his trial that "the heat made me do it."

A looooooooong time ago, I took a course in existentialist philosophy with a professor whose life was, in turn, pretty bourgeois, but he saw himself as an existentialist. I learned a lot from him, though...

Now, do you have to address photography as a source of images? Prints? Or will you take a look at photographers and their work? Nothing shows the idea of images and their content/value better than HCB... and, of course, Brassai, in his Paris de nuit images.

Sounds like something interesting.... :)
 
Last edited:
Morca007 said:
..........Ruben- "climb to Existentialism," eh? That would imply a hierarchy of thinking. It's merely a different lens with which to view things...........
Click to expand...


Hi Matt,
Sorry if I sound harsh. In my opinion Phylosophy is relevant as an instrument of practical orientation. Where do you arrive in Photography, or Art, with your Existensialist analysis ? What's the practical conclusion.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Francisco- The paper is itself an object lesson in Existential authenticity- We have nothing but choices in what we do with it, we just have to accept responsibility for the consequences. Next to no guidelines. I plan to incorporate the work of other photographers, including HCB and Doisneau.

Ruben- No offense taken, I am of much the same mind. The practical upshot of these questions has to do with whether or not photography is worthwhile at all! To determine that from an existentialist standpoint, I need to look at the motivations behind my actions; am I photographing in a particular style because I genuinely like it, or because it is popular? Is using a camera with any auto function sacrificing choice? Of course, there's a limit to how deep (or shallow!) one might want to go, but I find it useful.
 
Last edited:
Morca007 said:
.............Ruben- No offense taken, I am of much the same mind. The practical upshot of these questions has to do with whether or not photography is worthwhile at all! To determine that from an existentialist standpoint, I need to look at the motivations behind my actions; am I photographing in a particular style because I genuinely like it, or because it is popular? ...........
Click to expand...


Now you are talking!

Cheers,
Ruben
 
My field of study was verbal expression rather than images, and photography has always been an interest rather than a serious pursuit. From my untrained point of view, photography is analogous to found poetry. Both art forms depend on found subjects, a possible image or writing. You have to look for either. If you’re a photographer, you find, or come across, a subject that says, means, or implies something to you, and use photographic tools to visually interpret it so that others will see what the subject said, meant, or implied to you. A poet will likely rearrange the found writing by breaking it up into lines in a way that it probably wasn’t originally written, but that conveys something new, from the poet’s imagination, using the original words. The analogy doesn’t entirely hold up as I’m comparing words to images, and the two are mostly dissimilar when they work meaning. The two do require seeing a subject through a distinct imagination; I thought one of Richard Brautigan’s more interesting found poems was one he discovered pinned up in a laundromat. He was no doubt one of the few to see the original.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom