#sontagflusser

[photographyatmit]

Blogpost #2

Flusser’s assumption that the two major turning points of human history are the invention of writing and the invention of imagery strikes me as an extraordinary simplification. Their implication that writing was a negative for society also struck me as strange, especially since their theory is conveyed through writing. I did like the statement that “[images] are supposed to be maps but they turn into screens.” The activeness turned into passivity is a nice way to put it. Additionally, Flusser’s description of cameras as a black box apparatus is interesting, though I feel the language complicates the meaning. Most electronic devices and many other modern day technologies obscure their inner workings from their users.

I enjoyed Sontag’s section about the physicality of printed photos. A printed photo can fade and be torn and marked over time, and so itself becomes an image. I also enjoyed the transition sentence of “As photographs give people an imaginary possession of a past that is unreal, they also help people to take possession of space in which they are insecure,” in reference to the family photos and travel photos respectively. I‘ve certainly taken tourist photos simply because people had agreed that this site was photographable, rather than really taking in the site and taking photos that end up more unconventionally attractive. Sontag also writes about voyeurism and how photography inherently requires distance. I‘d argue that the intimacy of the scene and implied trust is quite voyeuristic. Finally, I love the poignant written imagery of “Precisely by slicing out this moment and freezing it, all photographs testify to time’s relentless melt.”

(I accidentally posted this onto my student blog, so I'm reposting this here now!)

[photographyatmit]

Blogpost #2

"In Plato's Cave" by Susan Sontag brought up some interesting points. For example, Sontag describes taking photos as "perverse" and "naughty." Sontag then goes on to describe the sometimes sexual nature of photography. But, if instead we take photography as preserving a moment forever and perverse as doing something that is unreasonable, then these definitions would imply that saving or remembering moments in unacceptable. Yet, without the aid of a tool such as the camera, people still remember moments. Therefore, I think that taking photos is not something perverse, but helps people cherish and possibly indulge in moments that would otherwise be forgotten. There, of course, is the debate about whether these moment should be preserved if they were going to be forgotten otherwise and the debate about how beneficial is indulgence. Yet, if people do not enjoy things simply for the please of enjoying them (i.e. indulging themselves), then what is life for? I believe that that is the purpose of life: is to enjoy the time we have. In this way, I don't think indulgence is something people should sexualize or scold. I think that indulgence benefits - and may be integral to - photography since, in general, I believe that people create more beautiful things when they enjoy doing so.

Concerning Flusser's arguments, I think that Flusser's use of verbose language obscures his arguments. This verbosity is arguably romantic in its nature with its flowering and fantastic words. Moreover, Flusser defines a magical world as something "in which everything is repeated and in which everything participates in a significant context." In his distinction between the historical and the magical world, he neglects the nuances of life. I believe that in his distinction between the magical and the historical, he is removing the humanity from human history. For example, he neglects the patterns of behavior (such as innovation) that have been conserved throughout history. Such characteristics define humanity. Human innovation as well as creativity have repeated throughout history and if one believes in the butterfly effect, then everything has significance. This neglection creates a pessimistic mood to the human experience. Thus, in my experience with Flusser's arguments, I think that the romantic language used juxtaposes his rather pessimistic views.

Sontag notes that "[photography] democratize[s] all experience by translating them into images." Yet, some experiences are more photographed than others, which may make photography undemocratic. So, is photography truly democratic?

Sontag also notes that "a way of certifying experience, taking photographs is also a way of refusing it - by limiting experience to a search for the photogenic, by converting experience into an image, a souvenir." So, I wonder if there is a way to truly appreciate experiences? That is, living an experience and not cherishing it enough to take a photo or is living an experience so fully that a photo isn't necessary to cherish it the best way to experience moments?

[photographyatmit]

Blogpost #2

I agree with the vast majority of the points in the Sontag reading. In particular, I really resonate with the discussion on how picture-taking can go from being a way to preserve an experience, enhancing what was already a pleasant experience, to being the primary motive for doing something. With the rise of social media, this is surely much more prevalent today than it was at the time of writing. I also concur with the view that photographs of atrocities can make them "appear familiar, remote, [and] inevitable."

As for the Flusser reading, I found it remarkably abstract to a level I had never thought possible. Though I did read all of it, I will need to discuss it further if I am to really grasp its contents.

I will lastly comment on The Many Lives of William Klein, which I greatly enjoyed. The style of Klein's photographs was brilliant, from the intentionally blurry frames to the variety of the "characters" portrayed. I would be interested in trying to imitate his style in my own photographs.

Some questions for discussion are: Do you agree with Sontag's stance that all images, including those making "a virtue of plainness," contain a sort of implicit aggression? (Note that agreeing to this is not equivalent to saying "simple image bad".) What did you make of the Flusser reading?

[photographyatmit]

Blogpost #2

"In Plato's Cave" and "Towards a Philosophy of Photography" contemplates the many hats that the photograph and its apparatus has worn in history and culture, and it has certainly made me question whether photography takes on a role in my life that I am much less aware of than I thought. A point brought up in both their works is the illusory objectivity that a photograph can provide. Sontag describes photos as always being products of interpretations, "haunted by tacit imperatives of taste and conscience." Flusser emphasizes that photographic subjects are ultimately always symbolic rather than reflective, and interestingly place them as many degrees removed from what we think of as reality (the technical image abstracts text, which itself is a symbol of what he calls the original image).

I think the wide availability of data of all kinds shares the same property -- we find trends in large datasets to be especially compelling because they feel "raw" the same way a photo might be. However, both are in the end a product of discretion, of choices and biases baked into existing societal structures. They are also strictly positive in the sense that they feel complete through what they depict but fail to highlight what is missing. There are an unfathomable number of pictures in the world, and that may make us feel that there's "enough" to capture what the world is like.

The reproducible nature of images is also interesting because it allows a photographic subject to either feel ubiquitous or common; or its multiplicity can elevate it into importance. One question I have is, when does a photo become one or the other? Is it more of a result of technical choices or of what happens "post-photo" -- how it's distributed, who it's in the hands of?

[photographyatmit]

blogpost #2

Susan Sontag stakes a series of bold claims and declarations on photography in "In Plato's Cave." I was struck by the elitism apparent in Sontag's opinions; for example, she seems to denigrate "work that makes virtue of plainness [...] still lifes of the bleaker sort." Personally, I hold an opposing opinion, that there is inherent value in the plainness of life and joy to be found in spending time with it. Interestingly, she simultaneously calls photography "imperial," "naughty," and "perverse," which reflect other aspects of photography Sontag appears to find distasteful. I can see the truth in each of these descriptors, but it seems Sontag elevates some forms of photography while finding others disgraceful.

I am curious to learn more on Sontag's opinions on different styles/subjects of photography. What photographs would she deem valuable or not?

Flusser's "Towards a Philosophy of Photography" is appropriately titled, as the first three chapters immediately dive into the metaphorical and philosophical. I appreciate the analyses that viewed photography as something that "reduces four dimensional space and time into two dimensions," as well as the in depth claims that there are much more layers to photography than those the layperson sees. In particular, I thought the claim that images require decoding, but that many fail to do so and thus criticize the world they see in photographs rather than the production process of the photograph was very interesting.

How can everyday viewers break through the surface level interpretations of photography and penetrate the depth that Flusser claims is present?

[916820276]

Blogpost #2

Flusser’s assumption that the two major turning points of human history are the invention of writing and the invention of imagery strikes me as an extraordinary simplification. Their implication that writing was a negative for society also struck me as strange, especially since their theory is conveyed through writing. I did like the statement that “[images] are supposed to be maps but they turn into screens.” The activeness turned into passivity is a nice way to put it. Additionally, Flusser’s description of cameras as a black box apparatus is interesting, though I feel the language complicates the meaning. Most electronic devices and many other modern day technologies obscure their inner workings from their users.

I enjoyed Sontag’s section about the physicality of printed photos. A printed photo can fade and be torn and marked over time, and so itself becomes an image. I also enjoyed the transition sentence of “As photographs give people an imaginary possession of a past that is unreal, they also help people to take possession of space in which they are insecure,” in reference to the family photos and travel photos respectively. I‘ve certainly taken tourist photos simply because people had agreed that this site was photographable, rather than really taking in the site and taking photos that end up more unconventionally attractive. Sontag also writes about voyeurism and how photography inherently requires distance. I‘d argue that the intimacy of the scene and implied trust is quite voyeuristic. Finally, I love the poignant written imagery of “Precisely by slicing out this moment and freezing it, all photographs testify to time’s relentless melt.”

[photographyatmit]

Blogpost #2

Susan Sontag's monological take on the photographic medium, its value and state in our world is a curious read that raised many concerns that I agree with, as many as the ones I found particularly disagreeable. Overall, it appears from the "In Plato's Cave" that Sontag's portrayal of the photographic medium is for the most part negative, which she tries to convey in a few points.

For one, I find "To photograph people is to violate them" very compelling and thought provoking, which is certainly helped by Sontag's portrayal of the matter. I find myself agreeing with Sontag that photographs objectify people and do indeed turn them into symbolical possessions, at least on some trivial level. A photograph owns every to their photo, even when taking a photo someone else which is like the photographer taking and keeping a part of the subject, perhaps a "soft murder" really.

Sontag's array of mostly opposing points on the photographic medium, or at least what has become of it today, continue I find one in particular thought provoking. Sontag argues that "photographs give people an imaginary possession of a past that is unreal" and that "they also help people to take possession of space in which they are insecure." People not only take photos as a form of creating art and memorializing moments in time but also a way to keep one's anxiety in check and to control the uncontrollable. Time passes, moments end, trips come to end and all we can ever do is try to remember them, or memorialize them with a camera. Perhaps to feel in control of preserving that moment is more important than preserving the moment itself. Next time I am taking a photo I know I will wonder, "what is my hidden reason behind this photograph?"

In brutal honesty, I found Flusser's arguments to be rather difficult to understand and follow. That said, I did enjoy his abstractions of cameras, that they are but a black box in the hands of the photographers who use them. This interesting narrative raises the question that abstraction is the idea amount? A photographer who uses a professional camera controls the variables at play, shutter speed, ISO, aperture and so on while someone who uses an fully automated camera controls none. How much should photographers rely on a "block box instrument?"

[photographyatmit]

Blogpost #2

I find the following two remarks Susan Sontag makes in her essay interesting:

Comparison of a camera to a gun: While I myself would not go to the extent of making that metaphor, I do agree to some extent with the point she raises- “to photograph people is to violate them … it turns people into objects that can be symbolically possessed.” Consider street photography. It aims to capture the candidness of the human world. So the person or subject may not be aware of the photograph being taken and thus might not always consent to it. Does that mean that the photographer is “violating” the subject’s space? Maybe? But still, street photography is one of the most popular types of photography. Where exactly is the ethical/moral boundary as to what you should and should not capture?

“A photograph is both a pseudo-presence and a token of absence.” Susan is talking about the photograph here, but I think it can be extended to the act of photography as well. With a camera, the photographer is only pseudo-present at the moment- they are seeing the world from the viewfinder- not their own eyes. So they themselves are absent from the world they see. As a result- the photograph also symbolizes the absence of the photographer from the world captured.

In the other text, Vilém Flusser mentions “technical images” as abstractions of the third order. So the interpretation is the function of both the underlying textual abstraction and further traditional image abstraction of the world. Since textual abstraction and traditional image abstraction both are subject to hallucinatory state of ‘textolatry’ and ‘idolatry’ respectively, does the interpretation of technical images also have these potential hallucinatory states? Maybe the selection of scenes photographers make (or are forced to make) influences the public view which they then project onto the world? Also, considering photographs can be more powerful than texts, is this hallucinatory state by images more powerful too?

(Questions I raise are italicized in the above paragraphs)