Photography theory

Jamie123 said:
Just ignore all the anti-intellectual advice here that will tell you to avoid certain texts. Acquiring knowledge and being exposed to different points of view never hurt anyone. Just realize that most theoretical texts about photography will not teach you how to take better pictures just like most books on ornithology will not teach you how to fly and lay eggs.
Click to expand...
No, there's a difference between anti-intellectualism, and pointing out that the emperor is not in fact wearing any clothes. Few who know me would call me anti-intellectual: rather, the opposite. Which was the reason for my advice. Look at pictures and THINK: put not thy faith in pseudo-intellectuals, especially academics who have too much invested in their own image of themselves as intellectuals, and little or no experience of the subjects on which they pontificate. By all means read Sontag and Barthes: just do not assume that they always have much of an idea of what they are talking about.

The parallel between ornithology and photography is feeble beyond belief: I will never fly or lay eggs, nor can I really begin to imagine what either would really feel like. But I can take pictures, and look at them. Again I repeat the word: THINK. Take nothing as gospel.

Cheers,

R.
 
I disagree with Roger Hicks' advice to ignore critical theory and philosophy relating to art and photography - a philistine attitude!

I do agree with him, though, that you need to "THINK" - Barthes, Sontag et al. all had/have interesting things to say about photography, but it's up to you to decide how relevant their ideas are not only to photography in general but to you in particular.

I came to art theory (I have an MA Photography degree) via a science/medical background (I also have BSc Chemistry degree), so I gave my tutors hell on my photography course, taking a very empirical - or at least ontological - approach. For example, I refused point blank to explain anything in terms of Freudian psychoanalysis (he was brilliant in many ways - but most of his theories are bizarre and fail to hold up to modern science). None the less, to have ignored Freud because I disagree with his theories would have been foolish and naive: I read Freud's work when required, and if I disagreed I provided a rigorous counter-argument (which was not "the emperor is not in fact wearing any clothes"!).

Despite my scepticism and careful scrutiny of the theories I encountered during my MA, I found art/critical theory extremely useful in understanding how photographs and art function within our culture - which, ultimately, not only allowed me to appreciate photographs more completely but also improved my ability to take better photographs.

My favourite quote by Susan Sontag - and the reason why I'm an art photographer and not a painter:

"A photograph is not only an image (as a painting is an image), an interpretation of the real; it is also a trace, something directly stencilled off the real, like a footprint or a death mask. "​

There are a lot of titles in this thread - and a lot of them are heavy going! Especially the Continental authors: a peculiarity of their brand of writing is extreme circumlocution, unlike Anglo-Saxon philosophy (Bertrand Russell is far more down to earth!). Unfortunately, the Continental theorists wrote many influential works so there is a lot of obtuse language to wade through to extract what are often straightforward - albeit important - concepts...

As an introduction, I'd recommend this book - a standard introductory textbook on many British BA Photography degrees. It is accessible, well written and cheap, and will give the reader a good basic understanding of art theory as applied to photography.

Ignore Roger's prejudices - but do be appropriately critical when reading critical theory! <grin>

51bN-IMBreL._.jpg
 
RichC said:
I disagree with Roger Hicks' advice to ignore critical theory and philosophy relating to art and photography - a philistine attitude!
Click to expand...
Perhaps you did not read what I wrote in an earlier post:

"By all means read Sontag and Barthes: just do not assume that they always have much of an idea of what they are talking about."

Though you did notice where I advised people to think.

I've just given up reading Stephen J. Gould's book on the millennium -- a classic piece of pseudo-intellectual claptrap, by a man whose self-image as an "intellectual" has led him into a field he cannot really say much about.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
No, there's a difference between anti-intellectualism, and pointing out that the emperor is not in fact wearing any clothes. Few who know me would call me anti-intellectual: rather, the opposite. Which was the reason for my advice. Look at pictures and THINK: put not thy faith in pseudo-intellectuals, especially academics who have too much invested in their own image of themselves as intellectuals, and little or no experience of the subjects on which they pontificate. By all means read Sontag and Barthes: just do not assume that they always have much of an idea of what they are talking about.

The parallel between ornithology and photography is feeble beyond belief: I will never fly or lay eggs, nor can I really begin to imagine what either would really feel like. But I can take pictures, and look at them. Again I repeat the word: THINK. Take nothing as gospel.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

The analogy was actually one between birds and photography, not ornithology and photography but nevermind. It was a tongue-in-cheek way of saying that a text about something need not necessarily be an instruction on how to do that thing.

Obviously one shouldn't take anything as gospel (not even, or especially not gospel) but that is not the same thing as avoiding something. And do not assume that photographers have any kind of authority on the subject of photography. Photographs are part of almost everybody's world, not just that of photographers. I'd have to travel far in order to find someone who has little or no experience of photographs.
Barthes' Camera Lucida is, arguably first and foremost, a meditation on a photograph of his mother as a child. From that he draws his own conclusions on the subject of photography. I do not have to share his point of view in order to appreciate it. And the fact that I have more experience with taking pictures does not mean that my way of looking at photographs is necessarily more valid than his. The same goes for a lot of other seminal works on the subject.

Your instruction to "look at pictures and think" sounds good but means very little. We do neither look, nor think in a vacuum. In my experience being exposed to other points of view never hurts my thinking. In fact, it seems to me that one of the best ways to form ones own opinions is to find out what one does not agree with.
 
"If you want more interesting pictures, stand in front of more interesting stuff." -read secondhand on the internet, source unknown

I would skip the Sontag especially, but theories are more of a hindrance to photography than anything else. Taking pictures is a lot better than thinking about theories. They're like that bloody plastic wrap you pull off the steaks. Ick.
 
I can see the attractions of all this intellectual stuff, with the bits of paper proclaiming your cleverness and the silly hats and the associated robes. I can also see the pitfalls into which it leads, chief among which is the idea that the bits of paper and the rest of the paraphernalia mean something of importance in a conversation of this nature.

Art is entirely personal and cannot be measured in any meaningful manner. Any given observer either likes it or does not and no appeal to education, nor to authority, can possibly change the observer's true opinion.

I can only repeat what others have said, so very often before: look at and make pictures until you find what achieves your intentions and don't waste your time reading pretentious twaddle. At the very least, you'll have a lot more fun.
 
Jamie123 said:
The analogy was actually one between birds and photography, not ornithology and photography but nevermind. It was a tongue-in-cheek way of saying that a text about something need not necessarily be an instruction on how to do that thing.

Obviously one shouldn't take anything as gospel (not even, or especially not gospel) but that is not the same thing as avoiding something. And do not assume that photographers have any kind of authority on the subject of photography. Photographs are part of almost everybody's world, not just that of photographers. I'd have to travel far in order to find someone who has little or no experience of photographs.
Barthes' Camera Lucida is, arguably first and foremost, a meditation on a photograph of his mother as a child. From that he draws his own conclusions on the subject of photography. I do not have to share his point of view in order to appreciate it. And the fact that I have more experience with taking pictures does not mean that my way of looking at photographs is necessarily more valid than his. The same goes for a lot of other seminal works on the subject.

Your instruction to "look at pictures and think" sounds good but means very little. We do neither look, nor think in a vacuum. In my experience being exposed to other points of view never hurts my thinking. In fact, it seems to me that one of the best ways to form ones own opinions is to find out what one does not agree with.
Click to expand...
Highlights 1 + 4: fair comment.

Highlight 2: It probably does, actually. By the same token, I am always suspicious when men tell women how they should behave, and vice versa. There is no substitute for experience.

Highlight 3: If my advice means very little, then your advice means next to nothing. Of course we don't think in a vacuum. Well, it sometimes looks as though Barthes and Sontag might have been doing so, but surely that's the point. Sontag brought her own experience and intellect to bear on the question, without the hindrance, inconvenience and tedium of having read Sontag beforehand. Why deny others the same advantage?

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Highlights 1 + 4: fair comment.

Highlight 2: It probably does, actually. By the same token, I am always suspicious when men tell women how they should behave, and vice versa. There is no substitute for experience.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Photographers for the most part don't have any more experience in looking at pictures than non-photographers. People browse the web, watch tv, read magazines, newspapers, look at photo albums, etc. etc.. I know a lot more about certain kinds of photography than most of my friends but that doesn't make my way of looking more valid than theirs.

Highlight 3: If my advice means very little, then your advice means next to nothing. Of course we don't think in a vacuum. Well, it sometimes looks as though Barthes and Sontag might have been doing so, but surely that's the point. Sontag brought her own experience and intellect to bear on the question, without the hindrance, inconvenience and tedium of having read Sontag beforehand. Why deny others the same advantage?
Click to expand...

If my advice means nothing, that's because I wasn't giving any. I'm certainly not suggesting that there is any theoretical text that is required reading for photographers. You don't have to read anything if you're not interested but the OP has explicitly stated his interest. I honestly don't know why you think those writings are a hindrance or inconvenience. I'm not particularly fond of Sontag's essays on photography but I can say that it has never affected my photography in any kind of way. If anything has been a hindrance in that regard, it's looking at too much photographs.
 
Jamie123 said:
You're missing the point. Photographers for the most part don't have any more experience in looking at pictures than non-photographers.
Click to expand...

This is a problem with theories about photography, they lead to making preposterous statements like this one. Doesn't make any sense now that you look at it, does it?
 
Roger is not saying don't think. One can read all the theories one wants to. In the end you'll digest what is important to you, what makes sense to you, then, forget it all. All one has to do is look, listen, and feel. Living one's life, making the imagery you want, practice your craft, in the end, after many years, you'll have your own theories as to what you're doing and what it's all about.

Saul Leiter, "I don’t have a philosophy. I have a camera."
 
Why is it that when someone asks a valid question on something on this forum, there tends to be not only people who know nothing of the question being asked replying, but also insist on throwing sand at the thread itself?

Regardless, some good suggestions have been made here. I say this as someone who has far too many silly pieces of paper. I don't think I can add to anything that RichC and Jamie123 have already said in defence of reading a critical thinking against the I-don't-know-art-but-I-know-what-I-like crew.
 
People who are comfortable throwing sand are comfortable because they know some theories and know what a crock they are, not because they know nothing about them. I'm sorry I wasted the time reading someone's ill informed bleating (Sontag) or their marketing to civilians (et al), or academic nest padding, when I could have been taking pictures and looking at them, and I try to forget every theory I ever saw. I'd like to save someone the BS, or at least temper the authority of these things.
 
This is the sort of thread that makes one's eyes glaze over. I get the feeling that some of the people who are attacking Susan Sontag haven't read her, although I'll hasten to say that, while I have read her, I don't remember a thing; but that does not mean that her views or of no value.

The OP was interested in books and articles on "photography theory, art theory, and the history of photography." Those who have attacked an analytical or philosophical approach as nonsense give no reason for their view expect to suggest that all is nonsense except to take pictures and see what you like and what you want to express.

There are a lot of ways of looking at pictures and the work of photographers. For those interested, here's a critique of Salgado by Ingrid Sischy written in 1991 and published in the New Yorker. While I think that most people who like Salgado won't like it, my feeling is that this article should be interesting for any evaluation of Salgado, whether you like his work or not: if you hate the article you should be able to think why you dislike it and if you like the article you could think about whether Sischy's evaluation is valid for Salgado's work after 1991. I found the link to the article on this photography course web page, which raises the issues concerning Slagado, for and against, and which would not be a bad place for the OP to start, if he is interested in how one can look a photography.

MITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD
Download links for book project pdf files
Chiang Tung Days
Tristes Tropiques
Bangkok Hysteria
Paris au rythme de Basquiat and Other Poems
 
You complain I give you no reason for my view, and go on to present a critique that I should read and "should be able to think why dislike it". Simply because it exists? Why am I expected to pay attention and respond to anyone who harks up a strawman? I appreciate you posting it, because I appreciate you taking the time, but also because I think it makes my case.
 
Theory is simple:
- decide from whom you take pictures, for yourself or for others too
- find your themes and subjects
- move to location or studio and take pictures telling the story
- prepare as files or prints and publish them
- get ready for recognition, interviews and awards. If this doesn't happen some or all previous steps have failed.
 
Ranchu said:
I would skip the Sontag especially, but theories are more of a hindrance to photography than anything else. Taking pictures is a lot better than thinking about theories. They're like that bloody plastic wrap you pull off the steaks. Ick.
Click to expand...


Yes and yes ...
 
Ranchu said:
This is a problem with theories about photography, they lead to making preposterous statements like this one. Doesn't make any sense now that you look at it, does it?
Click to expand...

What's your point? Referring to my statement as 'preposterous' doesn't make it so. It makes very much sense. You've provided no arguments against what I was saying.
 
Really, you're standing by your claim that photographers have no more experience looking at pictures than non-photographers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom