3 ms·

The Morals of Vision: Susan Sontag’s ‘On Photography’ Revisited (Part 1)

23 points by prismatic 9y ago

jancsika 9y ago
> And yet, the idea that the whole culture of producing and consuming photography – the culture of photography itself – can be scrutinised critically is one that we should not be so eager to discount; our age of ‘fake news’ and reality television politics probably needs it more than ever. I'm certainly not eager to discount the idea of a broad institutional critique. But I am eager to discount a broad institutional critique where the methodology requires little to no hard data or even secondary sources of research which themselves may be scrutinized to weigh the conclusions the author puts forward. Also, this: > “Naïve or commercial or merely utilitarian photography,” she says, “is no different in kind from photography as practiced by the most gifted professionals: there are pictures taken by anonymous amateurs which are just as interesting, as complex formally, as representative of photography’s characteristic powers as a Stieglitz or an Evans” (OP, pg. 132.) What does "no different in kind" mean here? I can't think of a definition that either makes the entire statement facile or else is so obscurantist as to be invisible. Anyhow, it's not enough that an unknown naïve amateur can take a photograph that is as powerful visually as an expert. That could mean the "masters" have no clothes on, but it could equally mean that photography as a medium and technology has a democratizing effect. Or even a little of both. But I hope the modern human would have already known that before reading the passage.
- rwnspace 9y ago
  Regarding your second quote, my assumption is that she is applying the 'Death of the Author' principle to photography. It doesn't matter who the person behind the camera is, it only matters that what is captured and shared is interesting. Presumably masters find their clothing in consistency and dedication, not Bach-tier composition. That's my guess, at any rate.
contingencies 9y ago
If you are interested in alternative attempts to explain photography to a general audience consider reading or even chipping in to the development of the Wikibook Modern Photography at https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Modern_Photography https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Modern_Photography I really enjoyed developing https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Modern_Photography/The_camera https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Modern_Photography/The_camera
- eriknstr 9y ago
  > if you stood at the end of the valley when the shadows had grown long, then you had better run back to the cave or face the evening hunt of the local tigers Is there such a thing as an evening hunt for the tigers? I'm not saying there isn't, I just haven't heard it mentioned in any tv program about tigers.
  - contingencies 9y ago
    Tigers like most cats are generally nocturnal hunters.

23 points by prismatic 9y ago

> And yet, the idea that the whole culture of producing and consuming photography – the culture of photography itself – can be scrutinised critically is one that we should not be so eager to discount; our age of ‘fake news’ and reality television politics probably needs it more than ever. I'm certainly not eager to discount the idea of a broad institutional critique. But I am eager to discount a broad institutional critique where the methodology requires little to no hard data or even secondary sources of research which themselves may be scrutinized to weigh the conclusions the author puts forward. Also, this: > “Naïve or commercial or merely utilitarian photography,” she says, “is no different in kind from photography as practiced by the most gifted professionals: there are pictures taken by anonymous amateurs which are just as interesting, as complex formally, as representative of photography’s characteristic powers as a Stieglitz or an Evans” (OP, pg. 132.) What does "no different in kind" mean here? I can't think of a definition that either makes the entire statement facile or else is so obscurantist as to be invisible. Anyhow, it's not enough that an unknown naïve amateur can take a photograph that is as powerful visually as an expert. That could mean the "masters" have no clothes on, but it could equally mean that photography as a medium and technology has a democratizing effect. Or even a little of both. But I hope the modern human would have already known that before reading the passage.

rwnspace 9y ago
Regarding your second quote, my assumption is that she is applying the 'Death of the Author' principle to photography. It doesn't matter who the person behind the camera is, it only matters that what is captured and shared is interesting. Presumably masters find their clothing in consistency and dedication, not Bach-tier composition. That's my guess, at any rate.

contingencies 9y ago

If you are interested in alternative attempts to explain photography to a general audience consider reading or even chipping in to the development of the Wikibook Modern Photography at https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Modern_Photography https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Modern_Photography I really enjoyed developing https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Modern_Photography/The_camera https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Modern_Photography/The_camera

eriknstr 9y ago
> if you stood at the end of the valley when the shadows had grown long, then you had better run back to the cave or face the evening hunt of the local tigers Is there such a thing as an evening hunt for the tigers? I'm not saying there isn't, I just haven't heard it mentioned in any tv program about tigers.
- contingencies 9y ago
  Tigers like most cats are generally nocturnal hunters.