Photography theory

Ranchu said:
You have to draw the line somewhere, at the end of the day I just don't care what people say about photography. There's a reason people take pictures, and it isn't to talk about them. Don't you agree?
Click to expand...
I chose this quote to illustrate how boring the anti-intellectual attitude of this and some other recent RFF threads are; but I could almost randomly have chosen quite a few others. Here is an article that, in my view, is highly relevant to the problem I'm pointing to. If you don't see the connection, please don't feel compelled to have to let me know with a one-liner. I'm worn out already as it ia, and ready to throw in the towel, cuz it ain't worth it.

The writer of the article, Michael Roth, is a brilliant lecturer, whom you can see in the Wesleayan MOOC, he Modern and the Postmodern.

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
 
malland said:
Stewart, it seems to me it's worthwhile to read the whole article by Suzie Linfied, for she comes out, basically, making the same point that you are about how critics deal with photography — and she argues how it should nbe done.

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
Click to expand...

... sorry, I did read it but understood it only in part, my criticism is not of its conclusions, but in the manner of reaching those conclusions.

I accept we are all diamonds cut by our own dust but reject the need to reflect our rhetorical brilliance in so many facets that their veracity is visible only to the haut monde :)
 
I accept we are all diamonds cut by our own dust but reject the need to reflect our rhetorical brilliance in so many facets that their veracity is visible only to the haut monde
Click to expand...

Be careful, Stewart. As parodies go, that's getting awfully close to infection. ;)
 
Sparrow said:
. . . it's this whole NY based pseudo-academic presumed artistic hegemony that I find objectionable ... bugger! that sounds as bad as their stuff. . .
Click to expand...
Yes. French structuralists and the like are bad enough. NY-based hangers-on are for the most part infinitely worse. Though not always, as Mitch's superb links illustrate.

For my part, I am profoundly grateful to Mitch. In order to provide these excellent links to (substantially) well-written, thoughtful articles, he must have waded through immense amounts of pure drivel.

Cheers,

R.
 
Why would someone seriously recommend Susan Sontag's book; "On Photography" for someone looking to delve further into photography? Are you trying to maim this person's psyche for life?

That book is not really about photography at all. Just some overly pompous woman's philosophical ravings accidentally written out on paper, and not terribly good ravings either.

There are probably thousands of books on photography; good, bad and indifferent, that are far better than that one. I hope you did not buy it. And if you did, sell it quick or try to get your money back.
 
Well....it is suggested at the top of this subforum...

"Philosophy of Photography - Taking pics is one thing, but understanding why we take them, what they mean, what they are best used for, how they effect our reality -- all of these and more are important issues of the Philosophy of Photography. One of the best authors on the subject is Susan Sontag in her book "On Photography.""

:)
 
Ranchu said:
Well....it is suggested at the top of this subforum...

"Philosophy of Photography - Taking pics is one thing, but understanding why we take them, what they mean, what they are best used for, how they effect our reality -- all of these and more are important issues of the Philosophy of Photography. One of the best authors on the subject is Susan Sontag in her book "On Photography.""

:)
Click to expand...

I have noticed that before...(shudder). I have in fact read her book...all the way through. How she helps us to philosophically understand why we photograph is far beyond me. If what she wrote defines her philosophy for taking photographs I can understand why she did not bother to illustrate her book!

All I can say is what my grandpa ued to say after reading certain books; "I hope nobody sharpens (his/her) pencil again!"
 
Does anyone else find it interesting how much pretense and artifice have been assumed by writers, photographers, and critics to try to explain why "I want someone else to see this as I want them to see it?"

I find most of it to be drivel, and quite tedious. <yawn>
 
hepcat said:
. . .I find most of it to be drivel, and quite tedious.
Click to expand...
Flattery will get you nowhere!

And yet, enough of it is NOT tedious drivel to make it worth reading. My own suspicion is that her drivel quotient is small enough to make it actually enjoyable to read. Unlike Sontag.

Cheers,

R.
 
the linfied article is nothing. if you want to complain about difficult writing, complain about benjamin buchloh or jean baudrillard! (yes, that was a humblebrag.)

writing about photos is not irrelevant, per se. it's just irrelevant when the writer doesn't write clearly, intentionally (baudrillard) or unintentionally (buchloh). it's not an excuse to write about something else, too. that's just a matter of taking a certain approach to the subject when you write something.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Flattery will get you nowhere!

And yet, enough of it is NOT tedious drivel to make it worth reading. My own suspicion is that her drivel quotient is small enough to make it actually enjoyable to read. Unlike Sontag.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
Without really knowing the field (professional photographic criticism), I thought she clearly made her point and demonstrated her own approach.

Many years ago I remember reading about the difference of hand-written vs typewritten vs word-processed manuscripts. Of these the writer thought that (for him) typewritten was the cleanest because of the penalty for making errors or alterations. Word processing tended to be less clarified and more wordy: the cost-per-word as a writer is lower.

I see the linked article as suffering from word-processor-induced-verbosity. She also uses complex words and sentence structures, but she is writing for a well-educated audience so this is reasonable.

Whether she is right or not, or even whether I agree with her, I can't say not knowing the writers she is critiquing.
 
Scrambler said:
Without really knowing the field (professional photographic criticism), I thought she clearly made her point and demonstrated her own approach...
Click to expand...
Suzie Linfield, a New York University professor of criticism, is making an interesting point that, while critics in other fields, such as theater and film, like their subject, modern photography critics, such as Sontag, dislike photography. She also speculates why that is so, and argues for a different approach. Most of the people above reacting to her article, simply ridicule the effort — for reasons that are best explained in Michael Roth's article that I linked in post #105. But this thread has become too ridiculous and boring, so I'm outta here.

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
 
malland said:
Suzie Linfield, a New York University professor of criticism, is making an interesting point that, while critics in other fields, such as theater and film, like their subject, modern photography critics, such as Sontag, dislike photography. She also speculates why that is so, and argues for a different approach. Most of the people above reacting to her article, simply ridicule the effort — for reasons that are best explained in Michael Roth's article that I linked in post #117. But this thread has become too ridiculous and boring, so I'm outta here.

MITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD
Click to expand...
Mitch - yeah, I got that from the article - as I said I think she made her points.

Thanks for the links.
 
Hi folks,

So there are people on this planet, perhaps, making money as critics of critics of critics of critics.

I may have hit the paste buttons once too many times there but you get the drift?

BTW, are any of the books books of photographs?

I still prefer "My Leica and I" which was published to let the photographers and their prints speak for themselves. It has a wonderful article in it by a freelance whose husband asked for a Leica as a birthday present and the effect it had on her work and the old guard at the camera club in London. His birthday was in 1930, btw. I think I found some of her work here:-

http://www.londonlibrary.co.uk/index.php?/historicimages.html

OK, that was for light relief; you can carry on fighting...

Regards, David
 
RichC said:
I blame the French and Germans. It's all their fault... [link]. And those lefties and in the 1960s! [another link]

Historically, art theory leans heavily towards the prose of Continental philosophy. Which is unfortunate because it doesn't sit well with Anglo-Saxon culture. I most definitely belong to the latter, and quite frankly the prose beloved of Derrida, Heidegger and their ilk makes me shudder. But I persevere in spite of their style of writing, not because of it -- there are pearls to be found, albeit sometimes disappointingly small considering the amount of verbiage within which they nestle.

Mentioning pearls brings to mind a rather apt Biblical quotation after reading some of the responses in this thread...
Click to expand...

I do like a well veiled insult :) and yes I'm very firmly in the analytical camp ... so I've concluded that science is the proper place to be certain of things, and philosophy is simply speculation however complicated its presentation.

I could find something pithy from Moore or Russell that challenges such pretentious certainly, but instead I'll just paraphrase Freud; sometimes a camera is just a camera :)
 
She also uses complex words and sentence structures, but she is writing for a well-educated audience so this is reasonable.
Click to expand...

You're quite right. The use of concise English would only allow the hoi polloi to evaluate her arguments and we can't be having any of that. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom