Roger Hicks
Veteran
There's a big difference between "threatened" and "annoyed"; if you like, substitute "deeply irritated" for "annoyed". For me, Sontag is about on a par with "celebrity culture" or football. I can see that some people like them: I just can't see why.
If anyone is "threatened" by all this, it strikes me as her defenders. They have so much invested in their self-image that they get over-excited when others deplore her. The only rational approach is Mitch's: prove that other writers have provided clearer, better analyses.
Cheers,
R.
If anyone is "threatened" by all this, it strikes me as her defenders. They have so much invested in their self-image that they get over-excited when others deplore her. The only rational approach is Mitch's: prove that other writers have provided clearer, better analyses.
Cheers,
R.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
This one statement, in my opinion, gets to the heart of the problem. There's a view among some "academics" that those without letters after their names are ignorant, stupid or, quite likely both.
Having only the letters N.L.A.M.N. to fall back on, I am too biased to hold a valid opinion and so will leave the drawing of opinions to those who wish to fill their time doing so.
By the way, to go with my selfie, above, here's my pet "Butch". I tried getting him to read Miss Sunday's golden words and he quite liked them. So much so, in fact, that he got a little over excited. Unfortunately, three copies of the book on, he's only up to page seventeen and the Fire Brigade have sent me a letter, saying that they'll charge for future callouts...
Sparrow
Veteran
Well ... yes, this type of text does conceal its exact meaning. I clearly cannot know the motivation for this, but I do know it doesn't need to be like that. Look at Mary Beards writing, erudite but completely unambiguous or Will Self metaphoric, complex and sesquipedalian (in parts) but crystal clear in meaning.
It seems relevant to ask why she writes in this way don't you think.
P. S. What did you think about the rest of Pioneer's analysis?
Mary Beard LINK
Will Self LINK
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Heres the big problem. The OP should read it and decide for himself not let the good folks on RRF or anywhere else for that matter, decide for him what is or isn't good for him to read. Whats next a Ray Bradbury scenario? Maybe you all should decide for everyone what art or photography should be looked at and we can all have a degenerative art show of the undesirable work then ban anything not approved by you guys after that. Oh that's right it's already been done.
To the OP. Read it and decide for yourself. Must be sump'm to it because several decades after it was written it is still stirring heated conversation. That doesn't happen with many things. Maybe these kinds of discussions are exactly what the author had in mind. But nobody should be trying to tell the OP he shouldn't read something and let him decide for himself.
To the OP. Read it and decide for yourself. Must be sump'm to it because several decades after it was written it is still stirring heated conversation. That doesn't happen with many things. Maybe these kinds of discussions are exactly what the author had in mind. But nobody should be trying to tell the OP he shouldn't read something and let him decide for himself.
aizan
Veteran
so you think she's doing it on purpose, but have no support for it backing up your position? i'm going to stick with the idea that she just wasn't a particularly good writer.
i agree that photos of violence don't desensitize people. sontag basically agrees, too, in "regarding...."
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sure. I completely agree. I regret my initial over-reaction. But the OP should also be prepared to entertain the possibility that if he decides Sontag (in particular) is writing pretentious drivel then (a) he is not alone (b) he is not necessarily stupid and (c) disliking pretentious drivel does not make you anti-intellectual.
Cheers.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
Agreed. My belief is that's what most people started out to say, before we allowed ourselves to be sidetracked.
bojanfurst
Well-known
Aperture also recently published a good book of Berger's essays on photography "Understanding a Photograph. the book itself is a bit uneven, but otherwise excellent and certainly thought-provoking.
Sparrow
Veteran
"so you think she's doing it on purpose?" ... as I said I don't know her motivation, but I do find the text needlessly difficult. Much like the London/NYC gallery-speak one finds in catalogue and artist-statments that emanates from that period, and persists to the present so perhaps that is the reason.
"i agree that photos of violence don't desensitize people. sontag basically agrees, too, in "regarding...." Regarding the Suffering of Others? ... I've not read it, sorry. Does she address the writing style in any subsequent work too?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
An "Artist's Statement" from this year, trying not to be pretentious:
ARTIST'S STATEMENT: We don't notice the streets we live in; or rather, we notice them far too little. These pictures capture the things we don't notice: the things we come across by chance, the things we don't have the time to think about, the things that are leftovers from a past that we may never have seen, never have considered. They are the things in your streets and my streets and everyone's streets, and once you have looked at the pictures, if I've done it right, the exhibition will continue in your head for the rest of your life, in all the streets you walk.
From http://www.rogerandfrances.com/bodyofwork.html
Cheers,
R.
ARTIST'S STATEMENT: We don't notice the streets we live in; or rather, we notice them far too little. These pictures capture the things we don't notice: the things we come across by chance, the things we don't have the time to think about, the things that are leftovers from a past that we may never have seen, never have considered. They are the things in your streets and my streets and everyone's streets, and once you have looked at the pictures, if I've done it right, the exhibition will continue in your head for the rest of your life, in all the streets you walk.
From http://www.rogerandfrances.com/bodyofwork.html
Cheers,
R.
__--
Well-known
I agree with Ron (airfrogusmc) that the OP should read for himself or herself — and I am sure that the OP, like any reasonable person, can figure out which postings in this train wreck of a thread make sense and which don't.
To digress from the discussion on Susan Sontag for a minute, there are many ways to write about the visual arts, including photography. The best book that I read last year is TJ Clark's Picasso and Truth, which essentially contains an in-depth reading of five paintings completed before and after Cubism, terminating in a discussion of Guernica. Clark concentrates on the nature of the interior space in Picasso's paintings and how it develops — and how this view of reality relates to the Zeitgeist, expressed through references to some of the writings of Nietzsche and Wittgenstein. It's an excellent short book, whose look into the issues of space in painting that Picasso wrestled with should make you look with new eyes at use of space in your photography.
Although its language is not abstruse or difficult, it's not a book that can be read quickly because the density of ideas will make you slow down and think, which I believe is a good thing. Some of the illustrations of the paintings are repeated several times in the book, so that the reader does not have to constantly flip back and forth. Incidentally, in one the endnotes, Clark has a scathing criticism that often writing on Picasso has focussed on celebrity gossip rather than real analysis — in a swipe at John Richardson's large (currently) three-tome biography. Richardson is easier to read, but writes precious little analytical about Picasso's painting, really nothing that has not been written elsewhere.
Coming back to Sontag, two issues have been bandied about: one is that she's a lousy writer and the other is that what she writes in On Photography is simply wrongheaded. A lot that has been said in this thread stems either from ignorance or simple prejudice. I have no reason to defend Sontag: although I mentioned that I read On Photography years ago and don't remember anything, after reading Suzie Linfield's essay, it seems to me that I've never read that book but only have some impressions from what others have written about it. Last night, I read three things that seem to me worthwhile to read if you want to have some idea of what Sontag wrote and how she wrote it.
First, here is a brief obituary in the Telegraph, published in 2004. Second, here is a 1995 Paris Review interview with Sontag, which provides an idea of her views on writing. And, third, here is an article by Sontag, titled Looking at War: Photography’s view of devastation and death, published in the New Yorker in 2002. In it she recants some of her views in On Photography and, in general, is dazzling in intellect and expression — in other words, she's an excellent writer.
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
Ranchu
Veteran
It seems to me nobody here is really defending Sontag, what is being defended is the manner in which she is discussed. I wonder if that has anything at all to do with photography.
Pioneer
Veteran
I will say one thing about this thread, it has certainly enlarged my reading list. I have already read several on-line articles and have more books on the way for my lazy, afternoons on the back porch.
I do agree with airfrogusmc that you should not restrict your reading to only those titles that are popular with everyone. Certainly no one should avoid Ms Sontag's work based on my own personal dislike for it, nor should it be read because others think it is wonderful. If it should be read at all it should be read to provide a rounded experience of writings relative to the philosophy of photography. Just don't stop there whether you agree or disagree. And don't ever read anything without critically thinking about what you have just read.
And to be completely truthful, none of this has to be read at all in order to take really good, even great, photographs. So if you haven't read it, and you have no desire to read it, don't worry. You will probably still be able to create decent photographs.
I do agree with airfrogusmc that you should not restrict your reading to only those titles that are popular with everyone. Certainly no one should avoid Ms Sontag's work based on my own personal dislike for it, nor should it be read because others think it is wonderful. If it should be read at all it should be read to provide a rounded experience of writings relative to the philosophy of photography. Just don't stop there whether you agree or disagree. And don't ever read anything without critically thinking about what you have just read.
And to be completely truthful, none of this has to be read at all in order to take really good, even great, photographs. So if you haven't read it, and you have no desire to read it, don't worry. You will probably still be able to create decent photographs.
Ranchu
Veteran
Take pictures instead of reading about them.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
That is an astonishing — and frankly intemperate — misreading of Mitch's thoughtful and rather nuanced post.
You can do better.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
One need not be a historian to make history. But that does not invalidate the study of history.
One need not be a physiologist to be fully alive. But that does not invalidate the study of physiology.
Etc.
Ranchu
Veteran
Well whatever. I've yet to hear her good points from anyone, and I keep getting called ignorant for being direct about how worthless "On Photograpy" is. I'm frankly intemperate, I guess.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
If you think that's a reasonable response to what Mitch wrote, you might better have avoided responding at all, since you obviously did not take the care to read it at all closely.
Did you read Sontag with as much care?
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
That is a 10-4 good buddy!
Things are looking up...
