Sparrow
Veteran
... I knew it was a mistake to reference that sentence, but strictly speaking if I don't like something, then by definition I am not a voyeur am I? ... voyeurism requires enjoyment.
As to the rest of that paragraph, well, I need to be familiar with an obscure baroque printmaker, those photos of wounded soldiers Harold Gillies made and the work of Tiziano Vecelli to understand her meaning ... I have an art degree and a lifelong interest in the subject and I had to look up two of the works referenced ... but as you say maybe that's just my ignorance
As to the rest of that paragraph, well, I need to be familiar with an obscure baroque printmaker, those photos of wounded soldiers Harold Gillies made and the work of Tiziano Vecelli to understand her meaning ... I have an art degree and a lifelong interest in the subject and I had to look up two of the works referenced ... but as you say maybe that's just my ignorance
Sparrow
Veteran
Oh, and here in the UK Harold Gillies's photos were only made public recently so her contention that "Perhaps the only people with the right to look at images of suffering of this extreme order are those who could do something to alleviate it—say, the surgeons at the military hospital where the photograph was taken—or those who could learn from it." was in fact the case, which renders the whole paragraph pretty pointless doesn't it?
Pioneer
Veteran
I'll have to read the entire essay but again I am curious. At what point does it cease to be voyeurism and when is it necessary for the public to understand exactly what is being done in their name? Based on what I extract from her statement quoted here is that only those with a need to know should see the results of these atrocities.
Curious attitude from a woman who is reported to have been a strong activist?
... but I suppose I am reading too much into this.
RichC
Well-known
Pioneer - thanks for your replies. You're one of the few people who've responded thoughtfully.
To pick up on your earlier post, photographs do not desensitise us to violence per se; rather, the result of seeing too many photographs of violence too often is that documentary images of war lose their impact, and that is the concern. The argument is not that photographs aren't evidence of violence and don't affect people and public opinion but that we become too used to them. I believe that photographs of war and suffering today have less power than in the heyday of photojournalism in the second half of the 20th century, simply because we've become too used to them. Think of all the iconic photographs from the 1960s-1970s, then consider the paucity of significant images in, say, the past two decades (and it's not as if nothing newsworthy has happened!); the type of images that used to affect us have today become part of the background noise of our culture.
Regarding voyeurism and photographs, surely you would have to agree that if we look at, say, the Abu Ghraib Prison photos, we are perpetuating abuse in a way? What do you think the detainees in the images feel about people staring at them being degraded for years on end? Photographs are far more a part of reality than, say, the words in a newspaper report, and impact those within them more surely. Photographs are far more intrusive than text; they're not mere interpretations of the world like a painting. We must not forget that when we look at a documentary photo, we are looking at something that happened, and perhaps still is.
Do we have a right to continue to humiliate these detainees long after the event by continuing to circulate these photographs? And if we keep showing them, will these images lose their power? I used to share a house with someone who attended accident victims, and recall him blithely talking about amputating limbs whilst eating dinner (thanks, Tony!) - but just a year before, when he started working at the hospital, he used to come home pale and shaking.
On the other hand - as you say - if we don't show these photographs, then there's the real danger of the event being forgotten, of people not knowing. Perhaps, as Sontag says, their circulation should be mediated in some way. Not easy questions. There are several books that attempt to answer them, one of the most recent being Julian Stallabrass's, "Memory of Fire: Images of War and The War of Images". As has been pointed out in this thread, two decades after "On Photography", Sontag gave a more considered second take on violence and photography in "Regarding the Pain of Others", mediating some of her more strident earlier opinions.
Photographs are more... intrusive... than other kinds of media. They're not at all like other pictures, and have power and authority unique to them that goes far beyond a surface composition of form, tone and colour. And it is these qualities that photography theory attempts to understand.
To pick up on your earlier post, photographs do not desensitise us to violence per se; rather, the result of seeing too many photographs of violence too often is that documentary images of war lose their impact, and that is the concern. The argument is not that photographs aren't evidence of violence and don't affect people and public opinion but that we become too used to them. I believe that photographs of war and suffering today have less power than in the heyday of photojournalism in the second half of the 20th century, simply because we've become too used to them. Think of all the iconic photographs from the 1960s-1970s, then consider the paucity of significant images in, say, the past two decades (and it's not as if nothing newsworthy has happened!); the type of images that used to affect us have today become part of the background noise of our culture.
Regarding voyeurism and photographs, surely you would have to agree that if we look at, say, the Abu Ghraib Prison photos, we are perpetuating abuse in a way? What do you think the detainees in the images feel about people staring at them being degraded for years on end? Photographs are far more a part of reality than, say, the words in a newspaper report, and impact those within them more surely. Photographs are far more intrusive than text; they're not mere interpretations of the world like a painting. We must not forget that when we look at a documentary photo, we are looking at something that happened, and perhaps still is.
Do we have a right to continue to humiliate these detainees long after the event by continuing to circulate these photographs? And if we keep showing them, will these images lose their power? I used to share a house with someone who attended accident victims, and recall him blithely talking about amputating limbs whilst eating dinner (thanks, Tony!) - but just a year before, when he started working at the hospital, he used to come home pale and shaking.
On the other hand - as you say - if we don't show these photographs, then there's the real danger of the event being forgotten, of people not knowing. Perhaps, as Sontag says, their circulation should be mediated in some way. Not easy questions. There are several books that attempt to answer them, one of the most recent being Julian Stallabrass's, "Memory of Fire: Images of War and The War of Images". As has been pointed out in this thread, two decades after "On Photography", Sontag gave a more considered second take on violence and photography in "Regarding the Pain of Others", mediating some of her more strident earlier opinions.
Photographs are more... intrusive... than other kinds of media. They're not at all like other pictures, and have power and authority unique to them that goes far beyond a surface composition of form, tone and colour. And it is these qualities that photography theory attempts to understand.
Last edited:
Pioneer
Veteran
Thanks RichC. I am in the midst of reading through "Regarding the Pain of Others" as well as a couple other essays that have been recommended by this thread.
I know that part of the problem is in the internet forum format itself as it is difficult to have in-depth discussions. This format is far friendlier to "sound bite" proclamations rather than in-depth narrative. I myself become concerned when quotes from these essays are presented as gospel, not as the unsubstantiated opinion they actually are, not matter how well (or poorly) presented.
Rather than questioning the author's premise they seem to prefer to accept it as fact and elaborate further on the statements. This seems to occur with greater regularity when the person quoted is a well-known and well-respected academic. I personally fear that the willingness to think critically is being replaced by internet crowd-think.
Further, though Ms Sontag actually appears to have softened her statement in this more recent essay, it is what she originally wrote in "On Photography" that is presented by those on this forum, as well as the reviews on the internet in general, as the seminal work on philosophy relative to photography. Very little is said about any further work she has done on this topic and that her original work may not actually have been as decisive as most of us are led to believe.
Ah well, such is life.
I know that part of the problem is in the internet forum format itself as it is difficult to have in-depth discussions. This format is far friendlier to "sound bite" proclamations rather than in-depth narrative. I myself become concerned when quotes from these essays are presented as gospel, not as the unsubstantiated opinion they actually are, not matter how well (or poorly) presented.
Rather than questioning the author's premise they seem to prefer to accept it as fact and elaborate further on the statements. This seems to occur with greater regularity when the person quoted is a well-known and well-respected academic. I personally fear that the willingness to think critically is being replaced by internet crowd-think.
Further, though Ms Sontag actually appears to have softened her statement in this more recent essay, it is what she originally wrote in "On Photography" that is presented by those on this forum, as well as the reviews on the internet in general, as the seminal work on philosophy relative to photography. Very little is said about any further work she has done on this topic and that her original work may not actually have been as decisive as most of us are led to believe.
Ah well, such is life.
Pioneer
Veteran
And now I have still another text to consider in your recommendation of Julian Stallabrass's, "Memory of Fire: Images of War and The War of Images".
Sigh...
Sigh...
Ranchu
Veteran
http://www.unembedded.com
(apparently you won't be able to see the photos without javascript turned off, nsfw)
(apparently you won't be able to see the photos without javascript turned off, nsfw)
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
You might also read her article in the NYT "Regarding the Torture of Others" especially in the light of RichC's comments on the Abu Ghraib photos (though some may well really dislike some of Ms Sontag's politics in that one).
...Mike
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
I think you have put your finger on a real problem, which has spread much further than the internet. In the UK, we've had major problems caused by "group think" and that doesn't include the financial chaos that culminated in 2008.
I think that's all the more reason for us to keep our hobby clear of it and say what we feel; not what we believe others wish to hear.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
I find these assertions rather too much to swallow. A record of an event is just that. In my opinion, the only route from your view leads directly to censorship in its worst form.
However, I'll go with François-Marie Arouet: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
(Well, perhaps I'll defend it until the bullets get too close.) :angel:
Ranchu
Veteran
Not if everybody keeps theorizing!
RichC
Well-known
Couldn't agree more with all of the above. A case in point is the "Sontag - best book" throwaway comment in the intro to this forum that you picked up on. I may be wrong, but I have a feeling she's mentioned simply because of her association with "philosophy of photography".
I think it's fair to say that those of us in this thread who have defended the worth of Sontag's writing have done so critically...
Sparrow
Veteran
I agree, but how would you characterise those of us who disagree with her conclusions?
These debates are always valuable I think. Although I've not altered my opinion since the 1980s at least I now have a much better understanding of why I hold them, having read most of the links posted in this thread
RichC
Well-known
With a few exceptions, most responses against Sontag here have been about her writing style, or sweeping, non-specific generalisations ("it's rubbish", "pseudo-intellectual", "rape-y" - what does that even mean!).
You can be very erudite when you choose, but your response to the last quote from Sontag was glib - as I'm sure you well know! You don't have to be familiar with the etching or painting she mention to get her point... I have no idea what these look like, but her comparison remains crystal clear. And you throw in the red herring of Harold Gillies, whom she makes no mention of (though his photographs are apposite). Surely a better riposte would be to counter the central argument in her quote, which you glossed over? I personally don't agree with everything she wrote, but I consider her essays valuable because they make us think.
Not a single person in this thread has taken Sontag to task over her arguments. If people think she's wrong, it's reasonable to ask: why? If we should be critical and think for ourselves, going "don't like it" is a poor response!
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
I'm going to disagree strongly with you, Rich.
I think that "don't like it" is probably the best possible response in regard to any discussion of art or philosophy.
You may propose that others take part in an erudite discussion but others are free to dispose of such a request as they wish.
Sparrow
Veteran
Personally I'd have said Sontag is as glibly recommended as it is denigrated in this thread, it was a glib recommendation that prompted my first response.
I was responding to a specific point in that post, about style not content ... and sadly misquoted her in my reply, a memory failing on my part ... however her style is still a big part of my problem with the work, as I had previously stated.
As to the third point ... I'll think on that one, although Pioneer did address this a couple of pages back.
Rodchenko
Olympian
Glibness either way is never the right response to Sontag. I owe it to myself as a photographer to understand the meanings of what I am doing, and Sontag, in her precise, if convoluted, language, captures the complexity of meaning in a sociological context. I don't necessarily agree with her, or any other theorist or practitioner, but it is a thoughtful analysis, and she does not deserve the level of irrational hatred she receives in these parts.
RichC
Well-known
Art, perhaps - "like"/"don't like" is my first response to art! But philosophy? No! Philosophy is, after all, the study of our world using words as tools: "liking"/"not liking" a philosophical theory is hardly a sensible response!
Let's take another field of inquiry: physics. Some responses in this thread are as ridiculous as someone "disliking" Newton's law of universal gravitation, and when asked why, replying that they don't like the way Newton wrote his equations! Disagreeing with Newton's ideas - that's fine: and which is what Einstein did in his theories of relativity.
j j
Well-known
I must have missed all the "like" posts. Maybe it's like Everett said and there are infinite realities and in one of those infinite realities there is a positive comment.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
I can't recall anyone making a statement fitting that description.
More to the point, I simply don't agree with the idea that Philosophy (note the capital "P") is a useful tool for understanding the world. 250 years ago, it was already looking dated; today, it seems to me, it's just dogma dressed up in fancy knickers. Indeed, we've moved well past Kenneth Grahame's sly dig at the Oxbridge establishment, as slipped so deftly into "Wind in the Willows"...
The clever men at Oxford
Know all there is to be knowed.
But none of them know half as much
As intelligent Mr. Toad!
Know all there is to be knowed.
But none of them know half as much
As intelligent Mr. Toad!
I am convinced that we have much better tools, with sharper edges, that we can use to understand our society and our selves. If you want to call discussion "Philosophy", then so be it. It still doesn't make it a science, anymore than putting cardboard wings on a pig makes it a pigeon.