Photography and Existentialism

clarence said:
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.
Click to expand...

Second that.

sitemistic said:
In fact, it sometimes seems RFFers who defend the use of all mechanical cameras share the later Heidegger's fear that technology is turning the whole of photographers into an undifferentiated mass of squandered energy (with apologies to both the early and later Heideggers).
Click to expand...

Very funny 😀

Matt, I can't help you right now; it's late here and I give a lecture on Mill's harm principle tomorrow morming, 8 am at the Sorbonne ... besides I'm fed up with existentialism (I mean I've been literally fed to nausea in my philosophical studies).
But please be careful when you talk about existentialism because in your first there's nothing related to philosophical or literary existentialism.
If I were you, I would rather explore the potentiality of photography to arouse existential feelings as despair, anxiety, boredom etc (see Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Sartre). Then you should analyse relevant photographical works (sorry to say that HCB's work is totally irrelevant for the purpose; try Francesca Woodman, her work is very very interesting; or Bernard Guillot). You could also address the issue of how framing can generate the fragmentation of the world into pieces that seem unrelated to anything familiar, which leads us to face our own inanity, intern emptiness, and arouse anxiety as in La nausée (what Franscico said is interesting... not sure about L'étranger by Camus though).
If you prefer to address the question of tools/technology, I beg you to do it in a philosophical way - analyse what Heidegger said about technology and tehcnical implementation and "Zeughaftigkeit" (toolness? how do you translate this in English?). I wouldn't do that; but see Sitemistic's joke which is in fact very profound.
Anyway, that's just confused thoughts. Good luck.
Best,
Marc
 
I only understood....

I only understood....

I read all the posts with great focus and interest. but I came away realizing that the only part I really understood was the part about Mental Masturbation,.....
And, I'm actually a little fuzzy on the mental part.

Is all this actually going to lead to gainful employment?
 
kuzano said:
I read all the posts with great focus and interest. but I came away realizing that the only part I really understood was the part about Mental Masturbation,.....
And, I'm actually a little fuzzy on the mental part.

Is all this actually going to lead to gainful employment?
Click to expand...

OMG ! you'll need your eyesight for photography . 😉
 
Morca007 said:
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.
Click to expand...

What I mean is you seem to be starting with Existentialism is valid and can describe art. I would start with the art and then explore. But I am more in Ruben's camp that I am not really convinced philosophy can say anything worthwhile about art - sorry Ruben if I misunderstood you. For example, you and others have used the tern "language" with photography without really finding out if photography is a language - it has little if anything in common with languages, BTW. It seems most of what philosophy does is simply linguistic contortions without any real investigation into the subject it professes to describe, at least in terms of art. (Marc A, sorry!)

But I am happy you are asking questions.
 
Morca007 said:
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?
Click to expand...


We create art by choosing what to show or eliminate from the world around us.

That extends to not only field of view, focus and timing, but also to choices about color vs. b&w, grain, tonality, size/scale of presentation.
 
-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?

Probably not! Special reference here to Henri Cartier Bresson and his concept of the "decisive moment." The photographer is using his skill to capture a moment that is already "out there" in space and time. In which case the act of photographing is kinda like a transaction between the artist and the universe. (Whew) I have often though that if I ever started a photography web site I would call it something like "slivers of time" or similar. Which name, for me, indicates the idea that the photographer is capturing a moment in time and freezing it. More than that he is "representing" it and what he is representing it as may be nothing to do with "truth." (Truth, what is truth? - dont get me started on that one!) After all how often do "simple" images take on a life of thier own and become soemthing symbolic that perhaps never was intended by the photographer - think of that famous picture of Che Guevara taken by the Cuban photogrpaher that ended up as a kind of symbol of youthful rebellion for an entire generation .

Some photgraphers consciously use their art to create something that does not exist in life except perhaps as a concept. As it happended, last night I was watching a program on TV about a famous Australian photographer and cinematographer, Frank Hurley. Hurley was famous as a cine cameraman who accompanied Ernest Shackleton on his epic trip to Antartica and recorded it for posterity. He also served as an official photographer in WW1 on the western front and elsewhere. He got into big trouble with the authorities because he would often use his skills in the dark room to combine images, say of biplanes flying over, men rising from the trenches as they go into battle and explosions going off in no mans land. He never captured that image as a single image although he did capture all of them at different times. As he said he could not control events so as to be pointing the camera in the right place at the right time. But he argued that in a very real sense what he was depicting was the reality of life and death on the western front. I have some sympathy with that view. He was in short, using his camera to tell a story and from his perspective none of the images were re-enactments for the camera, they were all real, and somewhere on the battlefield, images such as these were being played out every day.

So perhaps here we see two ends of the spectrum. Henri Cartier Bresson and Frank Hurley.

My own view is that the entire process of photographing and producing it as an image is part of a process of creating art, no matter whether you are a Hurley or a Bresson. Imagine that you take a picture of a flower - say a lily. Is this just a representation of reality? What if I convert it to black and white then crop it hard so that all you can see are the sinuous curves that look like the curves of a females body. What about then? To me they are both art and both legitimate.

BTW you may from my rambling discussion realise that I have no bloody idea what existentialism means, but it was a good chance to wax lyrical. I also had no idea what I was going to say until I typed it. Not sure what philosophy would have to say about that - or psychiatry :^)

As a comical aside here, neither do I know what either would say about Mapplethorpe's body of work as a photographer . I once heard it said that his most infamous photograph (the one involving a fist and the very private and personal part of someone's anatomy) was intended as a metaphor for "struggle." I am pretty sure the person was joking although I recall he was using the joke to make a serious point about censorship.
 
Last edited:
oh.. there is no meaning to life , so by embracing existence, I will find meaning. so I will interpet the everyday mundane little things as meaningful to my life, so now I have a purpose.
sounds like a con job to me.
 
xayraa33 said:
oh.. there is no meaning to life , so by embracing existence, I will find meaning. so I will interpet the everyday mundane little things as meaningful to my life, so now I have a purpose.
sounds like a con job to me.
Click to expand...

So, how do you feel about religion? 🙂
 
FrankS said:
So, how do you feel about religion? 🙂
Click to expand...
it is the same Frank, just add social order to it so it is actually just a little more usefull.
these are methods to make us go on in life on without considering suicide.
or the path of the Buddha, one of the more intellegent doctors of human life.
you have to find what works for you.
Everything is an idea even a good photograph.
 
Where is truth and meaning in art? In the artwork or in the viewer?

Good question. Thats my point that art often takes on an unintended meaning becuse it is used for a purpose never intended by the artist or because it is being viewed through the lens of a different society or time.
 
xayraa33 said:
it is the same Frank, just add social order to it so it is actually just a little more usefull.
these are methods to make us go on in life on without considering suicide.
or the path of the Buddha, one of the more intellegent doctors of human life.
you have to find what works for you.
Everything is an idea even a good photograph.
Click to expand...

Agreed .
 
Philosophy contributes worthwhile explorations of everything, first of all. That is it's function and purpose. Art has meaning to the artist, and to the viewer, and the various meanings may have very little to do with each other. Once created, it has a life of its own. Does Photography correspond to other arts, as far as employing a language, or means of expression? Yes. However different it is than a poem, or novel or play, it's still communication.

Peterm1 had an interesting story about the manipulation of photography. On one level, photography seems objective-- not subject to manipulation. It is what it is. How can it lie? But the more we learn about it (and we've been learning about it for "only" about 150 years), the more we see that all photographs can be questioned. We could even say they all lie. What they appear to represent may not exist in reality. Many factors can lead to this, all the way from darkroom (or photoshop) manipulation, to choice of perspective, DOF, compression of time (or lack thereof), etc. All photographs represent "facts," at least on some level, but none of them are necessarily the "truth."
 
Last edited:
Sitemistic I am never going to be able to look at your avatar with equanimity again! I thought you were thinking deep thoughts. All you were doing were contemplating a burp! Mind you I cannot complain. Look at my avatar! - Me taking a photo of me in a mirror. How sad, lonely and pathetic does that make me look? Not even a friend to take my picture.

BTW were you at a blackpowder shoot by any chance? Your clothing makes you look as if you may have been at a rendezvous meet. No offence intended by the way. But many years ago I used to enjoy blackpowder target shooting before I discovered photography. And it involved dressing up in gear much like you are wearing in this photo.

It was my way of staving off existentialistic gloom and doom.
 
Last edited:
sitemistic said:
peterm, the Avatar is not of me. I've posted that fact before in the forum but guess you missed it. I would kill for that beard, though.

The man in the photo is a civil war reenacter.

I do, in fact, though, enjoy shooting black powder rifles and do so fairly regularly.
Click to expand...

Sorry I had obviously missed those posts about your avatar. Yes its a pretty impressive beard. I figured he must have been a re-enactor of some sort given his clothing. I have not shot blackpowder for a while (In Australia in general you need to be an actively participating member of a gun club to keep a gun licence easily and I was just not active enough to bother keeping mine.) But I still enjoy the weaponry and occasionally get my kicks vicariously by looking at black powder firearms on websites. I must admit there is a certain similarity between using outdated firearms and using outdated cameras (If I can call them that.) I guess its an affinity for self reliance and not letting technology do it all for you.
 
sitemistic said:
Anyone know how to clean coffee off an LCD monitor? This thread is too good.
Click to expand...
Is there value in cleaning off the monitor? Or can you simply accept reality as it is, without needing to impose your will upon it? :angel:

Finder said:
What I mean is you seem to be starting with Existentialism is valid and can describe art. I would start with the art and then explore. But I am more in Ruben's camp that I am not really convinced philosophy can say anything worthwhile about art - sorry Ruben if I misunderstood you. For example, you and others have used the tern "language" with photography without really finding out if photography is a language - it has little if anything in common with languages, BTW. It seems most of what philosophy does is simply linguistic contortions without any real investigation into the subject it professes to describe, at least in terms of art. (Marc A, sorry!)

But I am happy you are asking questions.
Click to expand...
Ah, I see what you mean. Well, yes, I suppose you are correct then in saying that I am starting with a point in mind. For the purposes of the paper, I need to assume that Existentialism is valid, and examine the implications.
But outside of that, in terms of the thread, it's all fair game!

As to the use of 'language' to describe photography...
I'm not sure whether it is an accurate descriptor. First. we need a working definition of 'language.'
Photography is certainly not a systemic mode of communication, we have no standards. One can communicate feelings, but we have no alphabet, no syntax.
So while it is a mode of communication, you are correct, it is not a language.

Also, sitemistic- My impression of you just took a huge turn! Dang, I kind of liked to think of you as that guy. 😛
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom