Privatization and image-making

[noimmunity]

Let me begin with a descriptive hypothesis. The following phrase aptly describes one of the overwhelming trends of our era: "there is a reduction of the world to what can be possessed, owned, viewed in the comfort of one's home--a massive privatization of desire." (Jason Read, "The Production of Subjectivity: From the Transindividual to the Commons". Emphasis added)

I feel that an enormous amount of photography today falls into this general category. It is what I call capture.

Just for the record, so nobody misunderstands my position, I do not feel that I am any different.

But there are some photographs that unusually take us out of that mode. They expose, rather than capture. To be successful, the first thing they need to expose is the viewer herself. This could mean making the viewer aware of his relation to relations exposed by the photog.

I wonder what other people think?

 

[lawrence]

Sounds like a bad case of Sontagitis. And since when was 'desire' anything other than private?

 

[noimmunity]

And since when was 'desire' anything other than private?

Ever since the end of the 19th century, when it was showed that deep structures inhabit language, the unconscious inhabits the ego, and human relations are present in commodities...and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Klaus Theweleit has an amusing book titled Object Choice: All You Need Is Love which analyzes the various socially-constructed elements of the emotion considered most intimate.

 

[Lauffray]

I read that twice and still don't understand 😛

 

[nongfuspring]

The statement could to with a bit of context, but sounds reasonable.

What you're saying is maybe similar to what Jacques Ranciere says in "The Emancipated Spectator" - basically that the vast majority of images that we encounter are consumed passively and in a kind of idealised ignorance to they way they are produced and transmitted.

His solution has a slightly different emphasis to yours though, that the image must activate the viewer into experiencing an ethical dilemma. I think his criticism of the idea of an image that "exposes" would be that it isn't just enough to "expose" the relationship between the viewer, photographer, and subject, but it must instead aim to force a sense of philosophical ambiguity within the viewer him/herself thereby making the viewer recognise his/her own agency not just as a passive spectator but as an active individual.

I take Ranciere's side on this, I think there are many images that "expose" the relationship between the viewer/photographer and subject but don't really encourage the viewer to step outside of this zone of privatisation you mention. Personally I think an image ideally should have a sense of rupture or an aspect of internal contradiction - exposure should probably be a part of that but I'm not sure if it's the most important ingredient.

 

[dpetrzelka]

In the same vein of thought, I heard Quinton Gordon say in one of his workshops - I'm paraphrasing here - The goal should be to take photographs about something, rather than simply photographs of something.

Inherent to that, is the notion that the photographer brings a point of view (pun intended) to the image. The making of, and viewing of images is very personal, not only in the emiotnal sense, but in the idea that we can only have intentions of what we want the viewer to see, feel, know, etc. We, as photographers, can only set the stage, but we can neither control, nor predict how the viewer will respond. We can hope, through our execution of the craft, that the viewer is enticed to look beyond the image as a 'capture,' and that they are in some way moved, challenged, or exposed to something beyond the matter of fact image that so many take.

I am far from accomplishing any of these goals in my photography- but I feel strongly that they are something worth aiming for.

 

[Lauffray]

In the same vein of thought, I heard Quinton Gordon say in one of his workshops - I'm paraphrasing here - The goal should be to take photographs about something, rather than simply photographs of something.

I know Quinton, great photographer. Have you ever visited his wife's gallery in Victoria ?

That's an interesting point, but how do you make that distinction while shooting ?

 

[Pioneer]

Photography is not about the thing photographed. It is about how that thing looks photographed. - Garry Winogrand

"I look for things I like and then I take a photograph of it. Any philosophical statements that may result were completely unintentional and are attributable only to the viewer." - Dan
​

 

[dpetrzelka]

That's an interesting point, but how do you make that distinction while shooting ?

Therein lies the problem - that of intent.

First how do you train your mind and eye to first observe with intent, and then to shoot with intent. Edit with intent, and then print / publish with that same focus of intent.

Secondly, how do you prove or convey that intent to viewers of your work.

Intent can of course mean - purpose, aim, meaning, significance, objective. But could it also include aspiration? Are we only sucessful in our photography if we achieve that level of intent, or convey meaning?

Does our work have merit if it only has aspiration - that desire to be something great, or greater?

-----

I haven't yet had the opportunity to visit them up in BC - I met Quinton in PDX, and he is a wonderful person and instructor - reignited my interest in image making. A big part of why I'm back here on the forum.

 

[noimmunity]

The statement could to with a bit of context, but sounds reasonable.

What you're saying is maybe similar to what Jacques Ranciere says in "The Emancipated Spectator" - basically that the vast majority of images that we encounter are consumed passively and in a kind of idealised ignorance to they way they are produced and transmitted.

His solution has a slightly different emphasis to yours though, that the image must activate the viewer into experiencing an ethical dilemma. I think his criticism of the idea of an image that "exposes" would be that it isn't just enough to "expose" the relationship between the viewer, photographer, and subject, but it must instead aim to force a sense of philosophical ambiguity within the viewer him/herself thereby making the viewer recognise his/her own agency not just as a passive spectator but as an active individual.

I take Ranciere's side on this, I think there are many images that "expose" the relationship between the viewer/photographer and subject but don't really encourage the viewer to step outside of this zone of privatisation you mention. Personally I think an image ideally should have a sense of rupture or an aspect of internal contradiction - exposure should probably be a part of that but I'm not sure if it's the most important ingredient.

Wonderful response. Thank you.

The way that I understand it, "to expose" intrinsically means to jar the viewer out of the privatized viewing position. But it would be necessary to explain what "privatized" means in way that avoids the usual pitfalls. Anyway, to cut to the chase, there is a point of agreement with Ranciere's view.

To illustrate what I mean, I will take the example of Salgado's celebrated photos of African famine victims. Contrary to expectations, I will say that this series of photos, which often show victims in framings that accentuate isolation to the point of disconnection (eg by an overexposed background that fades into white, leaving only dead tree and malnourished boy), is not meant to expose so much as to capture.

In fact, the photos were used to mobilize a donation campaign in advanced market nations, without encouraging people in those markets to come to terms with all the ways in which an elaborate series of institutions and practices, from resource extraction, military expenditure, humanitarian aid, and capital markets, i.e., all the institutions and practices of the "civil society" in which they live, all work together to create conditions of extreme expropriation in Africa.

In Ranciere's terms, these photos did not create an ethical dilemma for the viewer.

 

[nongfuspring]

Wonderful response. Thank you.

The way that I understand it, "to expose" intrinsically means to jar the viewer out of the privatized viewing position. But it would be necessary to explain what "privatized" means in way that avoids the usual pitfalls. Anyway, to cut to the chase, there is a point of agreement with Ranciere's view.

To illustrate what I mean, I will take the example of Salgado's celebrated photos of African famine victims. Contrary to expectations, I will say that this series of photos, which often show victims in framings that accentuate isolation to the point of disconnection (eg by an overexposed background that fades into white, leaving only dead tree and malnourished boy), is not meant to expose so much as to capture.

In fact, the photos were used to mobilize a donation campaign in advanced market nations, without encouraging people in those markets to come to terms with all the ways in which an elaborate series of institutions and practices, from resource extraction, military expenditure, humanitarian aid, and capital markets, i.e., all the institutions and practices of the "civil society" in which they live, all work together to create conditions of extreme expropriation in Africa.

In Ranciere's terms, these photos did not create an ethical dilemma for the viewer.

Exactly, I think the Salgado example is a really good one, though pretty complicated too. I think one of the common criticisms of Salgado's West African famine series is that they're just too beautiful as images, some people were literally offended by that fact (e.g. NYT criticised their composition for being "too good"). When this spectacle of suffering becomes too attractive, for us to gain too much aesthetic pleasure from looking at it, we can be offended by our own enjoyment. IMO a lot of the responses are textbook examples of ethical disavowal; we enjoy the pictures on one level and are disgusted by ourselves on the other (and then that disgust gets emotionally displaced onto the photographer). In that sense I think sometimes the Salgado photos did kind of create a schism in some people, but maybe not in the sense that they'd actually consider their personal role in the events, just the fact they'd rather not have been put in such an awkward ethical situation of feeling like a complicit spectator.

I'm not sure if I'm being especially clear, I've had a couple of beers. Good topic though, if there's any issue in contemporary photography (or culture in general) worth discussing it is this issue of exposure as you put it.

 

[Hsg]

What is beauty?

How does Ranciere or any other armchair intellectual define beauty?

 

[David Hughes]

As the man said "how true those words are even today" but you need a long memory to sort that reference out...

Regards, David

 

[nongfuspring]

What is beauty?

How does Ranciere or any other armchair intellectual define beauty?

This topic has nothing to do with beauty.

If you want to know then start with Kant I guess, read section 2.a.: http://www.iep.utm.edu/kantaest/#SH2a

 

[Daniel Teoli Jr.]

Let me begin with a descriptive hypothesis. The following phrase aptly describes one of the overwhelming trends of our era: "there is a reduction of the world to what can be possessed, owned, viewed in the comfort of one's home--a massive privatization of desire." (Jason Read, "The Production of Subjectivity: From the Transindividual to the Commons". Emphasis added)

I feel that an enormous amount of photography today falls into this general category. It is what I call capture.

Just for the record, so nobody misunderstands my position, I do not feel that I am any different.

But there are some photographs that unusually take us out of that mode. They expose, rather than capture. To be successful, the first thing they need to expose is the viewer herself. This could mean making the viewer aware of his relation to relations exposed by the photog.

I wonder what other people think?

Some people like to talk photos, others like to make photos. If your landscaper you have time to think. Street / doc photog can't be pretentious. 2 blinks of the eye and it is gone. I think about the shot a second or two, then I just press the button.