__--
Well-known
Exactly!1/10 for effort.
Anyway, I've told you what it means - there's no need for you "to have a go"! It's meaning is quite clear if you navigate through her prose with a modicum of intelligence.
Although I "unsubscribed" from this thread in disgust with the anti-intellectualists poseurs, I was glad that I came back to look at it again this morning, after reading your thoughtful and helpful post #178. Thanks for taking the time and effort, as thankless as that task may be. The tenor of a an internet forum takes it's character from the frequent posters and, if the tenor of this thread is typical of RFF in this respect, there's not much hope for interesting discussion.
Reactions of some of the posters here represent the problem highlighted by Michael Roth in his New York Times that I linked earlier, from which here is a quote:
Once outside the university, these students may try to score points by displaying the critical prowess for which they were rewarded in school, but those points often come at their own expense. As debunkers, they contribute to a cultural climate that has little tolerance for finding or making meaning — a culture whose intellectuals and cultural commentators get “liked” by showing that somebody else just can’t be believed. But this cynicism is no achievement...Liberal education in America has long been characterized by the intertwining of two traditions: of critical inquiry in pursuit of truth and exuberant performance in pursuit of excellence. In the last half-century, though, emphasis on inquiry has become dominant, and it has often been reduced to the ability to expose error and undermine belief. The inquirer has taken the guise of the sophisticated (often ironic) spectator, rather than the messy participant in continuing experiments or even the reverent beholder of great cultural achievements.
The article by Michael Roth is worth reading in the context of this thread.
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
aizan
Veteran
i would say only the third quote is cause for confusion. the rest is pretty straightforward. sontag is obnoxious once in a while, but not all that hard to read.
pete hogan
Well-known
Reading, I watch for what we in engineering call "thermal runaway".
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
Oh well, I clearly lack that modicum of intelligence. I'll go back to growling a lot, along with the rest of the "anti-intellectualists poseurs".
After all, what can you expect from a "debunker", who "contributes to a cultural climate that has little tolerance for finding or making meaning".
Hey and I didn't even go to university in order to learn how to "try to score points by displaying the critical prowess for which they were rewarded in school".
I guess I'm just part of the pond scum who have "taken the guise of the sophisticated (often ironic) spectator, rather than the messy participant in continuing experiments or even the reverent beholder of great cultural achievements".
So why would you waste your great and important thinking time on me? I'm puzzled.
By the way, do you like my selfie...
Sparrow
Veteran
... us plebeians eh? what are we like ... to think we could divine the meaning of a text for ourselves
Oh, ... or lack thereof ...
Oh, ... or lack thereof ...
Ranchu
Veteran
I'd like to make a distinction between non intellectual and anti intellectual, I'm reminded of how the religious act as if they're being martyred if you choose not to partake.
Also, The problem I have with sontag's book is that, like the above quote, it's just a bunch of unsupported slander. Words suck as a model of reality and lie all the time. Reality and photographs are more than words and cannot be reduced to them, and she don't like it because words are all she's got.
So we get this book, On Photography, it's stupid garbage and sweaty with desperation.
Also, The problem I have with sontag's book is that, like the above quote, it's just a bunch of unsupported slander. Words suck as a model of reality and lie all the time. Reality and photographs are more than words and cannot be reduced to them, and she don't like it because words are all she's got.
So we get this book, On Photography, it's stupid garbage and sweaty with desperation.
aizan
Veteran
if you read "on photography" and say "**** it, books about photography suck," you're going to miss out on a lot of other stuff. don't get so caught up on one book or author.
Ranchu
Veteran
But you might be better off missing out on a lot of other stuff.
aizan
Veteran
there are a lot of things that one should avoid in life...books on photography rank very low on that list...
Ranchu
Veteran
I'm just saying.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
Agreed. There are many books about photography that are of use to many people.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Yes, but pseudo-intellectuals who have to reply upon on their reading instead of their capacity for critical thought are terrified of any discussion of intellectualism. I had thought too much about the little I had read (which was rubbish) but I had not read enough. As I said in a much earlier post, my eyes were opened by some of the stuff Mitch linked. And, as a result, my opinion of Sontag is even lower.
Cheers,
R.
hepcat
Former PH, USN
First, Rich, thank you for your analysis of that paragraph of Sontag's I posted. I appreciate the time you took to do that.
I understood and can interpret the passage; my point was that the writing is largely unintelligible, is open to interpretation, and needs interpretation to be intelligible.
My question is: why should the reader have to interpret it? I'm an English-thinker; I have to translate German, French, or Spanish in my head to get the gist. I get that. I don't particularly enjoy having to translate stilted modern English into something conversationally recognizable. I seem to recall in Lit 101, Comp 101 and every subsequent class that involved writing that, to be well written and read-able, prose should written conversationally. I never met Sontag, but I suspect that she probably didn't chat with her peers in stilted nonsense like what she wrote. If that's the case, it seems to me then that she's putting on airs... and that's pseudo-intellectualism. If you're truly an intellectual, there's absolutely no reason that your thoughts can't be forwarded directly, intelligently, and understandably.
I'm not sure who her target audience was... certainly not other photographers.
I understood and can interpret the passage; my point was that the writing is largely unintelligible, is open to interpretation, and needs interpretation to be intelligible.
My question is: why should the reader have to interpret it? I'm an English-thinker; I have to translate German, French, or Spanish in my head to get the gist. I get that. I don't particularly enjoy having to translate stilted modern English into something conversationally recognizable. I seem to recall in Lit 101, Comp 101 and every subsequent class that involved writing that, to be well written and read-able, prose should written conversationally. I never met Sontag, but I suspect that she probably didn't chat with her peers in stilted nonsense like what she wrote. If that's the case, it seems to me then that she's putting on airs... and that's pseudo-intellectualism. If you're truly an intellectual, there's absolutely no reason that your thoughts can't be forwarded directly, intelligently, and understandably.
I'm not sure who her target audience was... certainly not other photographers.
RichC
Well-known
You'll have to ask a French or German writer... Critical theory and contemporary philosophy are strongly influenced by Continental philosophy, and a dominant style involves a poetic literary way of writing. I've been told by a French friend that, in France, you're considered a "light weight" and not taken seriously if you write straightforwardly in the humanities.
As I said, I don't like this way of writing at all, and it annoys me, but then I'm not French or German. Many of these authors have worthwhile things to say, so I read them in spite of not because of their language.
And for the record (this not aimed at you hepcat), I don't think Sontag's book is "the best" (quoting from this forum's header), since there appears to be an implication that if you're not with us, you're agin us. Far from it: I dislike how she writes, and the book has serious flaws. But nonetheless it discusses aspects of photography that are as important and relevant today as they were in the 1970s when the book was written - and thus Sontag deserves my attention.
The attacks on Sontag here have been feeble and lack-witted. Not a single person has bothered to explain why they find her notions so wrong, and some - amusingly - seem to be threatened by them, using words like "rape-y", "slander", "stupid garbage" and "sweaty desperation"! I can certainly understand why people can't abide her writing style, but to dismiss her ideas because of that is foolish - and to take her writing as a personal attack is perplexing!
So come on then, precisely which notions of hers are pseudo-intellectual garbage or "slander" and - more importantly - why?
I'm not here to defend Sontag - I'm not bothered in the slightest whether people like her or even art theory - but I am curious to hear specific reasons why some people are so offended by her. You accuse her of being pseudo-intellectual, yet your responses so far, well...
aizan
Veteran
the education system barely does anything to teach students how to write well. on the other hand, some people don't care. after all, you can get an advanced degree even if you aren't a good writer.
if it's any comfort, "regarding the pain of others" is better written.
if it's any comfort, "regarding the pain of others" is better written.
Ranchu
Veteran
Well, reading it I would have been embarrassed for her but she seemed content as a pig in slop. I've no doubt she was embarrassed by "On Photography" though. So public.
It should be obvious by now I have no need for the type of discourse you're asking for, RichC.
Soooouuueee.
Pioneer
Veteran
For starters, thank you for your nice interpretation of Susan's unnecessarily obtuse prose. You did a decent job though perhaps it wasn't as necessary as you believed.
Second, I am not an intellectual nor have I ever been. I am not necessarily anti-intellectual though I have observed that many of them are a bit elitist and seem to feel that us plebeians need rescuing from ourselves.
Finally, I want to address the thought that some of us have attacked Ms Sontag without justification; and have failed to describe why.
In the excerpt I picked out from RichC's post, I highlight a statement made as an interpretation of what he felt Ms Sontag was trying to say, and I do agree with him. I do apologize for taking his statement out of context but this was only an attempt to shorten a post that will almost certainly end up too long as it is. Please read the entire post for yourself. As RichC stated she has made this point as well as many others, albeit with some of the most obtuse writing I have had to wade through. We are led to believe this is a European affectation considered necessary by those in the Humanities group. I am not sure I totally agree but I'll address that later.
My problem with Ms Sontag actually has nothing to do with her writing, bad as it is. She is simply wrong. Yet everyone is so ready to accept this, and many other, points she has made without questioning them at all. To attempt to blame photographs for desensitizing people to violence is absolute silliness and I have difficulty believing that anyone can actually believe it.
Photography does not desensitize anyone to violence. If that was in fact true, then every single documentary photographer throughout recent history has been completely and totally misled. If true, then all attempts to reveal the atrocities being perpetrated around the world today through the use of photography are totally and completely worthless. ChrisC even agreed with this. He stated unequivocally that Ms Sontag has been proven correct. Yet again we are left hanging. Why should we believe this? Because RichC says it, or Ms Sontag tried to make the point several years ago? What proofs are provided to support this drastic premise. Actually, if we would just give this a little bit of thought we would realize that her conclusion cannot be correct.
To my own personal shame our own US Government has done everything they can to sanitize the images coming out of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, in a desperate attempt to maintain public support among our public. If RichC and Susan Sontag are correct, why would they bother? They have largely been successful but, once in awhile. something leaks through, such as the images from Abu Graib. If what Ms Sontag claims has actually come true, then the public would just turn away. But that did not happen; people were suddenly horrified and there was an outcry around the civilized world to cease and desist. I personally doubt that a desensitized public would feel that way.
Every Government in the world, and a lot of other public agencies, are scared to death of what will happen if some of the things they do are photographed. Sophisticated Governments attempt to rigidly control this. Less sophisticated governments just shoot the photographer, as evidenced by the recent death of Camille Lepage. In similar fashion police around the world attempt to block the photographing of their actions, for fear of what might be revealed. If our public were truly desensitized this type of reaction would be completely unnecessary.
In my opinion most of Susan Sontag's thoughts about photography are largely wrong. I personally believe that On Photography is a very misleading book, and when allowed to go unquestioned it perpetuates myths about photography that could discourage others from actually attempting to use our medium for those things it does best.
Of course, photography is really only a representation of reality and certainly can be manipulated just as Ms Sontag writes. But rather than being some big secret that the unwashed public is too dumb to understand, it is a well understood fact by anyone who has tried to photograph Aunt Emma, only to be told that we aren't getting her "best side". But the intellectuals believe that we aren't intelligent enough so we need protecting from ourselves.
This is only one of many reasons why I do not like Ms Sontag's book. There are many others. The real reason that the Sontag s of the world feel the need to write so obtusely has nothing to do with European custom, like some believe. Rather they are afraid that if they wrote plainly their ideas would be more easily read and revealed as drivel, to quote another member of this forum.
Last edited:
aizan
Veteran
is that really what you think is the cause of poor writing? that they're doing it on purpose, as if they spent years developing good writing skills but chose not to in order to hide deficiencies in their critical thinking skills? that doesn't ring true at all.
Pioneer
Veteran
Probably not, but it is certainly hard to understand why that writing style is necessary, unless you really are only writing for a very select group. RichC does a nice job of explaining a brief paragraph of hers, and one that is a clearer than a lot of others. Unfortunately there is a whole lot more of that writing that is worse.
