Last Post Ever!

In Ectoplasm, Geoffrey Bathen says, “Photography is faced with two apparent crises, one technological (the introduction of computerized images) and one epistemological (having to do with broader changes in ethics, knowledge, and culture)” (351). He is referring to the advent of digital technologies and its subsequent influence on the photographic medium. The technological crises is rather straightforward—people began to question whether an image produced or manipulated on a computer can be considered photographic—so I am choosing to focus my discussion on the epistemological crises brought about by advancements in digital medias. Bathen makes the argument that although all forms of photography involve intervention from the artist and some manipulation, “…digitization abandons even the rhetoric of truth that has been such an important part of photography’s cultural success” (353). Digital images are received with intense skepticism. There is no doubt that the newness of the art form contributes to this skepticism. However, Bathen also makes the argument that digitization loses credibility because it strips an image of its indexicality. There can be no guarantee that the digital image existed in a real time and space. Photography has had huge success in claiming objectivity because it is an index. No matter how much manipulation went into the taking or development of the picture, the viewer feels assured that the photograph documents a truth. In How To Do Things with Pictures, William Mitchell says that “the fact that what is represented on paper undeniably existed, if only for a moment, is the ultimate source of the medium’s extraordinary powers of persuasion” (320). Bathen theorizes that the perceived manipulability of digital photography will upset photography’s association with objectivity. For the first time, the issue of a “fake,” a non-authentic, photograph is discussed. Bathen describes the following epistemological challenge: “The prospect is that, unable to spot the ‘fake’ from the ‘real,’ viewers will increasingly discard their faith in the photograph’s ability to deliver objective truth” (351). I was caught off guard by this part of the essay. What exactly is the real photograph? And what separates the real from the fake? We came to the conclusion after reading Benjamin’s article that if all photographs are copies of a negative, than the reproduced photo is no less real than the original copy (yes, this is an oxymoron)? In this sense, there is no fake photograph. Bathen’s proposes that digital technologies pose the threat of fake photographs, ones in which the original idea of a photo is manipulated. The digital image is having to fight to be seen as real and authentic. Like other artists that we have read before, Bathen argues that photography-as-we-know-it is inevitably going to change as a result of digitalization. He even goes so far as to say that old style photography will die. But he is not sad or pessimistic. Instead, he says “Photography’s passing must necessarily entail the inscription of another way of seeing—and of being” (357). I appreciate Bathen’s careful attention to avoid technological determinism. He calls digital media the “manifestations of our culture’s latest worldview.” Digitization is the result of an increasing acceptance of a cyborg, part nature part machine, way of life. The author makes the brilliant point that “digitization, cosmetic surgery, cloning, genetic engineering…” share a common trend. All are revealing our “desire to attempt immorality” (355) by accepting the alteration, manipulation, and enhancement of nature by technology.

Ectoplasm: Photography in the Digital Age

Batchen’s essay deals with the transformation of photography in the digital age. Ironically, despite being titled “Ectoplasm: Photography in the Digital Age,” the word ectoplasm is neither used nor defined in the essay. To Batchen, photography itself has always been tied with the concept of preservation and death. His description of process of primitive portraits requiring the subject to play dead was reminiscent of the psychoanalytical view of photography as product of the “mummy complex.” Moreover, I find these notions of preservation and death seems to highlight what Batchen cites as one of the primary concerns with digital photography –that photographs may no longer be viewed as indexical evidence for one’s presence or being. However, while others debate the effect of digitization on “image integrity,” Batchen argues that, from its inception, photography has never been free of manipulation. He cites that examples manipulated magazine covers and contends that the mere act of adjusting the lighting and exposure to take a photograph challenges the photographic film’s indexical fidelity. It seems to me then that the efforts of artists ranging from Cindy Sherman to Lorna Simpson serve a similar function as digital photography by questioning our presumptions of photographs and truth. Despite being heralded as an objective medium free from human involvement (pencil of nature) and thus accurate account of reality, photographs have been shown by artists and now the photographic medium itself to be simply an unreliable method of preservation. In his essay, Batchen actively tries to undermine this notion of photography as a accurate reflection of truth. He describes photography as more something that is more akin to a network of indexes a collection of ghosts. While looking up “ectoplasm” on the internet, I found it interesting that digital photographs often listed as evidence of its existence along with text that offer scientific explanations to the optical effect. It then seems that photographs (especially digital photographs) are in many ways analogous to ectoplasm united by their existence as things that are both physical and the supernatural and their ability to incite controversy.

Ectoplasm

So this essay was really interesting to me because it followed my train of thought of how to approach photography. Relating photography to death, space and time is somewhat natural when thinking about photographs of past relatives or historical figures. "In stopping or turning back time, photography appeared to be once again playing with life and death." It plays with life and death because it shows you something that is gone, and can never be captured in the same way again. "photography has already enabled us to hand down to future ages a picture of the sunshine of yesterday." Batchen talks about two ways that photography will no longer portray objective truth: the first is through computers digitizing images so that they no longer can be trusted to portray reality, and the second is that the viewer cannot differentiate the original from copies or simulations. Benjamin brought up this topic of mechanical reproduction and how the aura will be lost due to photography, however, now not only is the aura lost, but so is the foundation on which photography was based: the portrayal of reality and truth of the surroundings.

Batchen mentions how portraits were reversed in concept because in order for the subject to be able to look alive, they would first have to constrain themselves like they were dead. Without this temporary embalming to take the photograph, the subjects actually appeared dead, like corpses. "Every photograph is therefore a chilling reminder of human mortality." Every photography reminds us that those in it will die or already have, which leads the viewer to ponder their own end.

"computer visualization, on the other hand, allows photographic-style images to be made in which there is potentially no direct referent to an outside world." At first, this makes you think that the entire basis of photography is shattered, but this is just another way to show the evolution of photography and how the artworld is currently being shaped. Soon there will be a new diagram to draw that has "not digital and not photography" written on one of the sides of the diamond.

Ectoplasm: Photography in the Digital Age

I really enjoyed Geoffrey Batchens' essay, I thought it was the perfect essay to conclude our discussion on photography with.  I found myself thinking about digital photography differently after I read Batchens' essay.  Because I have grown up in a digital age I take it for granted that pictures are probably altered in some way.  It seems everywhere images are photoshopped or airbrushed: magazine covers, images of nature, even personal photos can be altered to eliminate red-eye.  But I had always thought that anything being presented as photographic art would not be digitally altered, unless it was intentional.  Reading Batchens' essay made me realize the impact that digital enhancement had on photography, making people loose faith in what had previously been thought of as a medium that captured truth.

I enjoyed the way that Batchens' dealt with this seeming loss of faith.  He writes that digital photography allows human creativity to flourish because it provides a hands-on approach in all the different steps.  I thought this was a very interesting way of dealing with what many people consider a detachment from artistic principles.  Although I am not wholly convinced of his argument because I feel like digital photography, to a large extent, cheapens photographs, allowing anyone access to the photos.  Overall I appreciated Batchens' treatment of the difficult anomaly that digital photography presents to the art world.  

Ectoplasm: Photography in the Digital Age

I found this essay by Geoffrey Batchen to be one of the most interesting essays that we have read all semester. I believe it to be the most interesting because it deals with the recent changes and advancements in photography which made it highly relatable. Today there is much speculation over the concept of traditional photography. Is it dead? Alive? Where is it going and what will be seen of photography in the future?

Batchen speaks of the “widespread introduction of computer driven imaging processes that allows “fake” photos to be passed off as real ones.” This statement is very relatable to what is taking place with photography today as seen with magazines, tabloids, newsstands and photos released on the internet. Digitally altering photographs cause the images to lose their power as reliable sources of information and will quickly lead to just about everything being turned to “artificial nature.”

Digital imaging has become an overly fictional process which relies solely on technology and has taken over the traditional objection and art of photo taking. This statement only leads to the idea that if it is an “overly” fictional process already, there will be new and improved ways of altering photos in the future. This thought is a little frightening only because there are numerous possibilities of how photography can be altered and it could be possible that the natural art is destroyed altogether. Given the entire context of this situation, it seems as if only time will tell what is in store for the future of photography.

Ectoplasm

In this essay, there were many really intriguing statements about photography that we haven't ever discussed before. One in particular I'd like to talk about: "Whatever its nominal subject, photography was a visual inscription of the passing of time and therefore also an intimation of every viewer's own inevitable passing" (352 of R). We see photographs from decades ago that are records of time passed and people who have passed and it is true: they reveal the transitivity of our own lives and everything in our lives. It reminds me of the scene in Dead Poet's Society where Robin Williams is telling his class to seize the day. He says this as they look at old black and white pictures of boys who went to the school who knows how many years ago. That scene has always stuck with me and I think it's because of how powerful looking at old photographs or even recent photographs can be. Pictures from our childhoods reveal how much we've grown and how fast the time goes. Even looking at pictures from my parent's childhoods brings a sadness of how gone those days are and how fast my days are going to go. Photography can be a morbid subject, revealing some truths we'd rather not accept. Some might say thats one of the best things about it.

I also thought some statements about digital photography were interesting: "...digital images are actually closer in spirit to the creative processes of art than they are to the truth values of documentary" (353) The reason the author says this, I think, is because of all work that goes into "touching up" or refinishing a digital work, or maybe even manipulating it, whether its the color, format, or contrast. I would tend to disagree, although I do agree that it takes a skilled person to make a great digital picture. I think that film photography needs a lot of patience and work that is different but still "using the digits" and creates photographs that are just as impressive as some digital pictures. I am sad that film is becoming obselete and the dark room is becoming something of the past.

Ectoplasm: Photography in the Digital Age

I really enjoyed Geoffrey Batchens essay on the photography in the digital age. I found it remarkable to read that “in 1989 photography was dead,” which I find really hard to understand but if though about it makes complete sense. Individuals in the past relied on photography to display the truth and used to documents. And since the development of the computer, image processing has taken of the medium and people have lost faith in the truthfulness of photography. Another important concept that I found interesting and easier to understand was that it was “no longer possible to tell any original from its simulations.” Which goes back to the Benjamin’s constant argument of the loss of the aura in reproductions, there are so many multiples in the world that are so accessible it loses its value. One example was the “After Sherrie Levine” website that was discovered, the website was a reproduction of Levine’s reproduction of Evan’s work. At the website there could have been infinite amount of reproductions made with certificate of proof also.
As the essay continues I found the idea of photography being a vision of life and death very compelling. Initially, I though photography as to a medium to capture life but I was wrong, in the beginning with the start of daguerreotypes being associated with “black magic”. It continues with the explanation of the slowness of exposure times and the creation of corpse like images. However, to contradict with the idea of photography being related to the idea of death Benjamin again inputs the idea of the aura and its death that is often represented in photography is a result of “authentic social relations” that “could be brought back to life”. Because the sacrifice of the spiritual authenticity within a photography it allows relations to develop, and on a deeper level, the development of capitalism.