5 ms·

> This is what Roland Barthes called photography’s “catastrophe,” the photograph’s unique ability to make a viewer “observe with horror an anterior future of wh

by aaronem 12y ago

> This is what Roland Barthes called photography’s “catastrophe,” the photograph’s unique ability to make a viewer “observe with horror an anterior future of which death is the stake.” But this catastrophe is not the brutal performance of an execution. Rather, it is a poignant bruising of the self that occurs while looking at photograph [sic], that dreadful recognition that everyone photographed is dead or will be dead. Everyone "is dead or will be dead", photographed or otherwise. Presumably it requires a professional philosopher to imagine that there is about this fact something extraordinary, or that there is about its recognition something other than a necessary stage in the transition between infancy and adulthood.

benbreen 12y ago
I think there's definitely something uncanny about being able to look a dead person in the eyes. It's not so much the recognition that everyone will die as the ability to simultaneously see them as a living being and know them to be gone. Granted, it's debatable whether photographs actually do anything new in that regard. I get the same uncanny feeling when I look in the eyes of the Hellenistic Egyptian mummy paintings: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Fayum_mummy_portraits http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Fayum_mummy_portr...
- saganus 12y ago
  Maybe photographs don't do anything new but the fact that they are more realistic helps makes it easier to get that feeling, maybe?
  - benbreen 12y ago
    I think that's right. Part of why the Fayum mummies are so startling (to me at least) is that they aren't as damaged as other ancient art. Many Greek bronzes originally featured inlaid mother of pearl or jewel irises, for instance, and I like to think of the loss of their eyes as a metaphor for the distance creating by time. With photos that distance is reduced because they're so easy to duplicate that the images they encode can never really be damaged, in a way. At least not in the way that things like Greek bronzes can.
- aaronem 12y ago
  > I think there's definitely something uncanny about being able to look a dead person in the eyes. Not really. It's also not like looking at a photograph.
pessimizer 12y ago
It's philosophically difficult to say 'someone is dead' in the present. Post-life, it's very difficult for your subject to verb. When you are consuming media of a person that is dead, though, like video or photographs, the dead subject is verbing before your eyes.
- HCIdivision17 12y ago
  I gotta note that grammar rodeo was nicely put. Mind if I use that later in conversation?
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    It was difficult to write, so please do.
- aaronem 12y ago
  Ceci n'est pas une pipe, but by all means feel free to go on imagining that it is.
  - pessimizer 12y ago
    The entire point of the exercise is imagination, not literalism. If you want to be pedantic, it's impossible to see anyone, you can only see the light that's bouncing off of them.
    - aaronem 12y ago
      Easy there, tiger. I'm just trying to point out the conflation of imagination and reality that's cheerfully running rampant both here and in the article which spawned this discussion.
      - pessimizer 12y ago
        >Easy there, tiger. You really talk to strangers like that? >I'm just trying to point out the conflation of imagination and reality that's cheerfully running rampant both here and in the article which spawned this discussion. I don't understand what you're trying to point out, or why you think it's interesting. The article is about how reality is brought into imagination via imagery; about the distinction you seem to think everyone but you is confused about. Without imagery, you're free to imagine executions however you would prefer. With imagery, your imagination is restricted to conform with what you've seen, narrowing the range of possible rationalizations for inaction or support.
HCIdivision17 12y ago
It's a bit unfair to act as though nihilism simply removes all profound meaning from things. After all, life has a terrible mortality rate, but it's oddly not 100% [0]. We tend I live as though we'll keep living, a delusion that takes hold pretty hard for most people. A photograph helps reset that, as it's always showing a point in the past that's now lost, but does so with clarity; normally the past is fuzzier than that, and that can be a bit disquieting. Heck, I'm not a professional philosopher by any stretch, though. Just someone who putters with stuff. [0] http://what-if.xkcd.com/27/ http://what-if.xkcd.com/27/ "I plan to live forever. So far so good!" (Note: statement may need TimeStamp to remain consistent)
- aaronem 12y ago
  Who said anything about nihilism?
joshuacc 12y ago
"Presumably it requires a professional philosopher to imagine that there is about this fact something extraordinary" One of the purposes of philosophy is to deeply reflect on things that most people take for granted. Sometimes this leads to the observation that the "ordinary" is actually rather strange.

by aaronem 12y ago

benbreen 12y ago

I think there's definitely something uncanny about being able to look a dead person in the eyes. It's not so much the recognition that everyone will die as the ability to simultaneously see them as a living being and know them to be gone. Granted, it's debatable whether photographs actually do anything new in that regard. I get the same uncanny feeling when I look in the eyes of the Hellenistic Egyptian mummy paintings: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Fayum_mummy_portraits http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Fayum_mummy_portr...

saganus 12y ago
Maybe photographs don't do anything new but the fact that they are more realistic helps makes it easier to get that feeling, maybe?
- benbreen 12y ago
  I think that's right. Part of why the Fayum mummies are so startling (to me at least) is that they aren't as damaged as other ancient art. Many Greek bronzes originally featured inlaid mother of pearl or jewel irises, for instance, and I like to think of the loss of their eyes as a metaphor for the distance creating by time. With photos that distance is reduced because they're so easy to duplicate that the images they encode can never really be damaged, in a way. At least not in the way that things like Greek bronzes can.
aaronem 12y ago
> I think there's definitely something uncanny about being able to look a dead person in the eyes. Not really. It's also not like looking at a photograph.

pessimizer 12y ago

It's philosophically difficult to say 'someone is dead' in the present. Post-life, it's very difficult for your subject to verb. When you are consuming media of a person that is dead, though, like video or photographs, the dead subject is verbing before your eyes.

HCIdivision17 12y ago
I gotta note that grammar rodeo was nicely put. Mind if I use that later in conversation?
- pessimizer 12y ago
  It was difficult to write, so please do.
aaronem 12y ago
Ceci n'est pas une pipe, but by all means feel free to go on imagining that it is.
- pessimizer 12y ago
  The entire point of the exercise is imagination, not literalism. If you want to be pedantic, it's impossible to see anyone, you can only see the light that's bouncing off of them.
  - aaronem 12y ago
    Easy there, tiger. I'm just trying to point out the conflation of imagination and reality that's cheerfully running rampant both here and in the article which spawned this discussion.
    - pessimizer 12y ago
      >Easy there, tiger. You really talk to strangers like that? >I'm just trying to point out the conflation of imagination and reality that's cheerfully running rampant both here and in the article which spawned this discussion. I don't understand what you're trying to point out, or why you think it's interesting. The article is about how reality is brought into imagination via imagery; about the distinction you seem to think everyone but you is confused about. Without imagery, you're free to imagine executions however you would prefer. With imagery, your imagination is restricted to conform with what you've seen, narrowing the range of possible rationalizations for inaction or support.

HCIdivision17 12y ago

It's a bit unfair to act as though nihilism simply removes all profound meaning from things. After all, life has a terrible mortality rate, but it's oddly not 100% [0]. We tend I live as though we'll keep living, a delusion that takes hold pretty hard for most people. A photograph helps reset that, as it's always showing a point in the past that's now lost, but does so with clarity; normally the past is fuzzier than that, and that can be a bit disquieting. Heck, I'm not a professional philosopher by any stretch, though. Just someone who putters with stuff. [0] http://what-if.xkcd.com/27/ http://what-if.xkcd.com/27/ "I plan to live forever. So far so good!" (Note: statement may need TimeStamp to remain consistent)

aaronem 12y ago
Who said anything about nihilism?

joshuacc 12y ago

"Presumably it requires a professional philosopher to imagine that there is about this fact something extraordinary" One of the purposes of philosophy is to deeply reflect on things that most people take for granted. Sometimes this leads to the observation that the "ordinary" is actually rather strange.