By the end of this essay, despite the fact that it was particularly tedious and difficult, l I felt as though it should have been the final reading for the semester, as it perfectly sums up all of the debates and discrepancies pertaining to photography that we have encountered thus far. Or perhaps, rather than summing up these issues, Jeff Wall writes in such a powerful manner that we are inclined to throw out all of our varying opinions regarding these matters and just nod our heads in approval of his arguments.
Although I highlighted much in this reading, what really caught my attention was Wall’s discussion of the cycle between modernism, reductivism, the rejection of depiction, and photography’s inability to “dispense with depiction and so… cannot participate in the adventure it might be said to have suggested in the first place” (72). Wall’s explanation that this inability is partially to blame for the fact that photography was so distanced from the art world in “the first sixty or so years of this century” is an especially interesting solution to this debate of whether or not photography is art (73). To blame the medium for its own failure, if one wants to dub it a failure, would seem to be very discouraging if this had ever been realized during this reductivist movement. Then again, as Wall alludes to at the very end of his essay, perhaps this is the only reason why photography was able to survive and now exists in its current state as an aesthetically appealing take on depiction of reality.
But my favorite part of Wall’s essay by far was the part about Ruscha and his “impersonation” of an amateur photographer (77). What I found particularly ironic, considering how whenever we see a photographer taking a photo of something seemingly random, we always wonder what it is he finds so interesting, is Wall’s statement: “Only an idiot would take pictures of nothing but the filling stations, and the existence of a book of just those pictures is a kind of proof of the existence of such a person” (77). Why is it, then, that the most random, mundane subjects seem to make for the best photographs?
Friday, February 29, 2008
Office Hours on Monday 3/3 and Tuesday 3/4
Just as a reminder, here's when you all signed up:
Monday
3:00 Eddie
3:15 Noor
3:30 Andrea
3:45 Britta
4:00 Theresa
4:15 Sierra
4:30 Kory
4:45 Dustin
Tuesday
1:30 Stephanie
1:45 Adi
2:00
2:15 Lauren
2:30
2:45
3:00 Maribel
Monday
3:00 Eddie
3:15 Noor
3:30 Andrea
3:45 Britta
4:00 Theresa
4:15 Sierra
4:30 Kory
4:45 Dustin
Tuesday
1:30 Stephanie
1:45 Adi
2:00
2:15 Lauren
2:30
2:45
3:00 Maribel
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Element of Style- Part V
This piece of writing really caught my attention from the start because the writer addresses the reader o a more personal level. The writer also forewarns the reader what is to come it the following pages which I think is unique, its almost as if this passage is little reminder or personal tutor. However I do not see how any of this is relating to photography. This chapter explains individual styles of writing and uses many comparisons of writers and how their mind works. One very interesting comparison was between the writer and a gunner and the inspiration and ideas that come out of the writer are often deemed as “wing shots, bringing down the bird of thought as it flashes by”. Its then proceeds by listing a multitude of tips and reminders that often help the writer catch this “bird of thought”. This interesting piece of literature I feel is more a less a guide to becoming a successful writer and understanding what the reader wants which is something I rarely pay attention to. On the last page if I recall it was fairly interesting to read about the advice that the writer was giving to its reader and how if one is to become a potential writer you need to give what the reader wants. It’s as if not only by persuasion but by like actually consider what the reader is coming from but not giving into what they want. I believe in the end however the writer must write about what they personally believe in and not give into the ideas of the readers. Ultimately its what the writer wants to make of it and the reader to interpret how they want.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Let Us Now Praise Famous Men
When I first read James Agee's reading, Let Us Now Praise Famous Men, I was confused. More than confused, I was just surprised, since I was expecting more of a journalistic, novel-like essay. Instead I found myself reading his essay as a poem even, illustrating the daily lives and representation of three impoverished white tenant families, sharecroopers living in Alabama. The title itself was ironic, and not necessarily indicative of what we were about to read- since they were not really praising famous men- which we tend to automatically assume is also rich men- but rather depicting the agonizing actuality of these families. And that is what Walker Evans' straight photography did as well.Both, Walker Evans photographs and the words of James Agee are depictions of truth and reality. The photographs itself would have done a lot for me. But Agee's writing definitely made the photographs a lot more clear, and much more symbolic, I feel. Although looking at and analyzing every detail the camera captures is worthwhile and can be very fulfilling, it can also be very challenging. I feel as if I got a lot more from having the photographs there to reference to, in addition to the background information- informing us of the experiences of their daily life.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Each of the ten straight photographs at the beginning of the article is a depiction of real-life, white, tenant farmers in the rural South. The faces of people in the portraits suggest hard work, humility, and resilience and the scenes capture the tangible evidence of intense poverty. With the exception of the photograph of the little boy on the ground, the gazes of the people in the photographs are sharp, as if they are looking directly at the observer. The pictures can claim objectivity because they are not overly dramatic or seemingly scripted, but rather hint at a “day in the life of a tenant farming family” by capturing the personalities of each of its members. It is of no coincidence that this is precisely what the photographers/authors were given funding to do. Yet the authors nuance their purpose by saying, “The photographs are not illustrative” (30). In a sense, they are discrediting the objectivity that the photographs evoke. Walter Evan and James Agee warn the viewer/reader from assuming that their photographs capture the complex human emotions and situations of all white, tenant farmers and families. Furthermore, they are claiming that there is no agenda behind their work. The way I understand it, they are not saying “this is the way it is,” but rather, “this is the way we saw it.” They depend on the “anti-authoritative human consciousness” of the observer to decide the truth (30). The authors say, “If complications arise, that is because they are trying to deal with it not as journalists, sociologists, politicians, entertainers, humanitarians, priests, or artists, but seriously” (30). A sociologist would use the photographs to analyze a demographic group. The politician would use the pictures for propaganda to support his platform or make policy. All examples interpret the photographs as interpretive and attach a use value to their objectivity. But this is not the intention of the photographers/writers. They describe their purpose as an “independent inquiry into certain normal predicaments of human divinity” and admit that the collection is scattered and paradoxical (30). Each picture is a feeling, an attempt at knowledge, or a piece of information; they are not intended to document a truth. I feel as if the photographers/authors are humble and well intentioned people, but in their attempt at disaffiliating themselves from a bias or motive, they ignore the way in which all photography is a medium of artistic expression. I would have to agree with Alfred Stieglitz that even the most objective photographs are influenced by the subjectivity of the photographer.
Let Us Now Praise Famous Men
When reading this article I was reminded of the phrase "a picture is worth one thousand words." The initial article was so densely descriptive it was difficult to finish and even harder to understand the objective in describing a picture. The initial writing, which was purely descriptive, seemed wasteful in an essay as Agee and Evans could have simply included the photograph and left out the description. The reader would have been able to ascertain the same information from looking at the picture as they would have from reading the description. However, reading photographic prose, as opposed to simply looking at a picture, forces the reader/voyeur to think about the picture as not simply a snapshot in time, but more so as a complicated and detailed event. It draws out the process of objectively observing a picture so that each detail is weighted and important. This seemed reminiscent of the early days of photography when the photograph was thought of as an isolated work of technology that should be appreciated as the work of a machine with little human interaction. The very matter-of-fact diction and lack of details, focusing instead on visual product, indicated a severance of the connection with humanity that is elaborated further in the second piece.
The second piece offers a more artistic view of the piece by adding value judgements to the photograph creating a sense that the author is critiquing a piece of art rather than describing a photograph. This seemed to align with the movement to view photography not as "the pencil of nature" but more so as the product of a planned, set-up frame. Although the photographer did not move objects to "create" a shot, they waited for the right moment to take the shot. This movement views photography as artistic rather than objective.
I thought it was very interesting to have both writing styles in a side-by-side comparison. For me, it starkly contrasted both perspectives of photography and allowed me to appreciate how photography is much more than an objective view of the world, it is in fact, more of an art. The relationships between objects in the photography as well as the personal interaction each viewer has with a photo is evocative and can not be dismissed with a simple description.
A new look of photography
It didn't hit me until after I finished reading this work what exactly it meant to me, and perhaps to others. As well as how it relates to photography in general. When you read this piece, it is easy to start day-dreaming-- losing some of its rich detail, (or monotonous detail) and just skim more or less through the paragraphs. And perhaps it isn't the worst thing in the world. Knowing exactly what shirt and dress is made out of isn't the most riveting information one could hope for about struggling middle class families. But the point of the work was to supplement photographs that the authors had taken of these three families, and in so doing, enrich both the writing and the photographs because of each other. And it was definitely successful.
There are two ways to veiw a photograph: without background information, or with it. With information could be as little as the title, or as much as the detailed descriptions presented in Let Us Now Praise Famous Men. I realized that both are amazing ways to look at a photograph. If a viewer doesn't have any background on a photo, they are at first puzzled and probably automatically starts searching for its meaning, its beauty--why the photographer took it in the first place. Sometimes the nature of beauty answers this question, and sometimes it may turn out utterly confusing and frustrating and maybe we give up. We figure, oh well, I don't get it. Other times we come up with our own meaning, and it becomes so special that every time we look at it, it becomes greater and greater, and maybe evolves into something entirely different. It is an exciting experience, no doubt. Strangers become friends, faraway lands become familiar.
In this work, the authors strategically put the pictures before the writing, so we are forced to look at them with no information provided. Some people probably skipped over them, and maybe some spent more time, but there is no question that these photos were somewhat lacking in meaning until after the reading was read. Once we learn about these people in detail that goes down to the buttons, they really become people we start to know and certainly become people with which we can sympathize. Even if we haven't been that poor, or had to wear the same three pairs of clothes over and over, perhaps we have felt that exhausted or needed a new pair of shoes because they had holes but they were just too comfortable to let go. That last thing has happened to me, definitely. Anyway, my point is that taking a second look at these photos after reading about them gives them depth and emotion that is hard to create the first time. Or maybe it just a different emotion that is created. One based on truth, whether it is happy or sad, rather than our own interpretation. Even if the children (or adults) look sad, that doesn't mean they are, and the reading would be able to tell us that.
There are two ways to veiw a photograph: without background information, or with it. With information could be as little as the title, or as much as the detailed descriptions presented in Let Us Now Praise Famous Men. I realized that both are amazing ways to look at a photograph. If a viewer doesn't have any background on a photo, they are at first puzzled and probably automatically starts searching for its meaning, its beauty--why the photographer took it in the first place. Sometimes the nature of beauty answers this question, and sometimes it may turn out utterly confusing and frustrating and maybe we give up. We figure, oh well, I don't get it. Other times we come up with our own meaning, and it becomes so special that every time we look at it, it becomes greater and greater, and maybe evolves into something entirely different. It is an exciting experience, no doubt. Strangers become friends, faraway lands become familiar.
In this work, the authors strategically put the pictures before the writing, so we are forced to look at them with no information provided. Some people probably skipped over them, and maybe some spent more time, but there is no question that these photos were somewhat lacking in meaning until after the reading was read. Once we learn about these people in detail that goes down to the buttons, they really become people we start to know and certainly become people with which we can sympathize. Even if we haven't been that poor, or had to wear the same three pairs of clothes over and over, perhaps we have felt that exhausted or needed a new pair of shoes because they had holes but they were just too comfortable to let go. That last thing has happened to me, definitely. Anyway, my point is that taking a second look at these photos after reading about them gives them depth and emotion that is hard to create the first time. Or maybe it just a different emotion that is created. One based on truth, whether it is happy or sad, rather than our own interpretation. Even if the children (or adults) look sad, that doesn't mean they are, and the reading would be able to tell us that.
"Let Us Now Praise Famous Men"
My immediate impression of this piece was that it was a written photograph. The first section of the photographic prose consisted of completely factual statements. There was no opinion, flowery language, or emotion about what was happening on the farm. This is interesting to me because I would think that if I were living somewhere for about a month, then I would have certain biases: likes and dislikes about the place and people. The objectivity of the writing was both impressive and offsetting. It is easy to describe clothing or the appearance of a farm with extreme objectivity, but once one starts to describe a person, the character tends to show through, especially if the author knows the person about which he is writing. Agee talks about the body as "flesh and bones" instead of personalizing it. "Face, hands, feet and legs are washed." That statement is unbelievably undeniable. It is a fact, and unlike a thesis statement, is not controversial at all.
The only time the author ever breaks objectivity is when talking about Mrs. Gudger. "I am thinking in such a way that I want to tell her how beautiful she is; and I would not be lying." The objectivity is sliced to allow emotion to flow into the paragraph. However, the statement is still not as poetic as one would guess a writer to express his admiration about someone.
There is a clear change in tone and sentence structure on page 236. There is a break in the writing; this is where Walker Evans begins to write his piece. The language instantly becomes more descriptive through emotion, instead of fact. "each man's garment wearing the shape and beauty of his induplicable body." This is way more descriptive than saying,"Trousers of a hard and cheap cotton wool, dark blue with narrow gray stripes; a twenty five cent belt stays in them always." The difference between the two writings is like the difference (as some would say at hte beginnings of photography) between a photograph and a painting. The metaphoric language is like the painting that holds emotion and has a presence in the room. The objective language is like the photograph because it is literally taken straight from a moment in time that actually happened and there is nothing added to it.
The second author clearly noticed the beauty of Mrs. Gudger also. "She was a poem as no human being shall touch." This is a more poetric description of Mrs. Gudger, which describes more than just a woman with a pretty face, but a woman who is beautiful on the inside also. The language of the second author gives her a soul in comparison with the first author.
This piece was specifically an observatation of the everyday life of three farm families. The lower class, which has "exceedingly little money" is praised as the "famous" because without them the country would not flourish. Their work in the fields is what keeps the machine made clothes they dream of available for those who actually have money. It is funny to see the men and women stress about their appearance and wearing nice clothing to town when they are not improving their social standing at all. It makes no difference which dress they wear, they are all handmade, and not the unatainable machine made clothing for the upperclass. The lower class is praised and made the hero in this essay.
The only time the author ever breaks objectivity is when talking about Mrs. Gudger. "I am thinking in such a way that I want to tell her how beautiful she is; and I would not be lying." The objectivity is sliced to allow emotion to flow into the paragraph. However, the statement is still not as poetic as one would guess a writer to express his admiration about someone.
There is a clear change in tone and sentence structure on page 236. There is a break in the writing; this is where Walker Evans begins to write his piece. The language instantly becomes more descriptive through emotion, instead of fact. "each man's garment wearing the shape and beauty of his induplicable body." This is way more descriptive than saying,"Trousers of a hard and cheap cotton wool, dark blue with narrow gray stripes; a twenty five cent belt stays in them always." The difference between the two writings is like the difference (as some would say at hte beginnings of photography) between a photograph and a painting. The metaphoric language is like the painting that holds emotion and has a presence in the room. The objective language is like the photograph because it is literally taken straight from a moment in time that actually happened and there is nothing added to it.
The second author clearly noticed the beauty of Mrs. Gudger also. "She was a poem as no human being shall touch." This is a more poetric description of Mrs. Gudger, which describes more than just a woman with a pretty face, but a woman who is beautiful on the inside also. The language of the second author gives her a soul in comparison with the first author.
This piece was specifically an observatation of the everyday life of three farm families. The lower class, which has "exceedingly little money" is praised as the "famous" because without them the country would not flourish. Their work in the fields is what keeps the machine made clothes they dream of available for those who actually have money. It is funny to see the men and women stress about their appearance and wearing nice clothing to town when they are not improving their social standing at all. It makes no difference which dress they wear, they are all handmade, and not the unatainable machine made clothing for the upperclass. The lower class is praised and made the hero in this essay.
Independent Art (Anti-Photographers)
The role of a photographer and the impact he has is once again tested and studied in this essay. I liked how this essay took different stances with each, pushing the limits of where the art lay: in the photographer (his mind, his vision), the subject being photographed, or the photograph itself. After reading it, I am still unsure of how Nancy Foote feels about it. Assuming from her title, anti- photographers could be a clear sign that its no the photographer, as she (or they) want to push the magic away from being in the photographers, to the extent that "its irrelevant whether or not they take their own pictures". The photographers hand means nothing in this essay. No longer are we sucked into the "reproduction" threat.. "what it reveals becomes important, not what it is". The art is finally independent. It is now definitely not a science. It does not matter who took the picture. It makes no difference whether or not it is a reproduction (in some cases, the reproduction is where the art lays). This essay was a great way to throw us off, it was pretty refreshing.
The word "famous" has related with many ideas. One may think of
popularity, rich, Hollywood, and of course people such as actresses,
singers, and artists. With these common thoughts in mind, one would never
consider the key figures in this weeks reading as "famous men" in any way,
shape, or form.
"Let Us Now Praise Famous Men" is close to the exact opposite of the way "famous" was described
above. The men and women in this essay are living day to day and make
enough money just to get by. As tenant farm workers, they struggle
through harsh conditions and slave away working for everything they have,
which is very little. If Agee and Evans did not mean for famous to be
used in its widely known context, then what did he mean by referring to
these men he speaks of as being "famous"? This is a tough question to
approach, and by any means one can only infer as to what they think was
intended of the title.
In my opinion, "Let Us Now Praise Famous Men" is referring to the work and the lives these people
lived out and the way they did so made them famous. They were "rare" in
the sense that their meager wages, very few clothing articles, and poor
living conditions were enough to keep them going from day to day. There
was not a hint of resentment from these characters about the fact that
they were of a lower class. They had accepted the facts and pressed on
with their lives the way they were intended to be. I feel that rarity and
being rare is often times related to fame, as can be seen today in
tabloids, magazines, and news articles of famous individuals.
"Let Us Now Praise Famous Men" - Lauren
Except for the topics of straight photography, social realism, and photojournalism, I found it particularly difficult to determine how this reading relates to that of the history of photography. On the other hand, as a reading of social conditions in the 1930s South, especially in regards to clothing, I found this excerpt quite interesting. And very well written, in a lyrical prose style.
Therefore, because I was having a hard time relating the piece to photography, I decided to note and highlight phrases that connect to theories and ideas we have previously discussed about the evolution of photography. Although these phrases may not necessarily have anything to do with photography in their original context, I thought it was interesting how the combination of Agee’s words and photography could have potentially influenced his writing style. This can be assumed from what Agee says in his preface: “They [the photographs], and the text, are co-equal, mutually independent, and fully collaborative” (xi).
I associate the first two phrases with the link between the mechanics of the camera and the natural beauty it captures: “They have begun with the massive yet delicate beauty of most things which are turned out most cheaply in great tribes by machines: and on this basis of structure they are changed into images and marvels of nature” (236). (This phrase also reminds me of when cameras and film became easily accessible once they became mass-produced.) The second: “yet they are still the doing as much of machinery as of nature” (237), which exemplifies the debate over whether man’s hand takes any part in the creation of a photograph.
The second two phrases that I found could be associated with the individuality of a photograph: “The variety of personal choice is so wide, it can easily seem pure casual chance and carelessness” (240) and “each… is an extraordinary and beautiful object: but this is irrelevant to its social meanings, as are nearly all products of honesty, intelligence, and full innocence” (241).
Therefore, because I was having a hard time relating the piece to photography, I decided to note and highlight phrases that connect to theories and ideas we have previously discussed about the evolution of photography. Although these phrases may not necessarily have anything to do with photography in their original context, I thought it was interesting how the combination of Agee’s words and photography could have potentially influenced his writing style. This can be assumed from what Agee says in his preface: “They [the photographs], and the text, are co-equal, mutually independent, and fully collaborative” (xi).
I associate the first two phrases with the link between the mechanics of the camera and the natural beauty it captures: “They have begun with the massive yet delicate beauty of most things which are turned out most cheaply in great tribes by machines: and on this basis of structure they are changed into images and marvels of nature” (236). (This phrase also reminds me of when cameras and film became easily accessible once they became mass-produced.) The second: “yet they are still the doing as much of machinery as of nature” (237), which exemplifies the debate over whether man’s hand takes any part in the creation of a photograph.
The second two phrases that I found could be associated with the individuality of a photograph: “The variety of personal choice is so wide, it can easily seem pure casual chance and carelessness” (240) and “each… is an extraordinary and beautiful object: but this is irrelevant to its social meanings, as are nearly all products of honesty, intelligence, and full innocence” (241).
"Let Us Now Praise Famous Men" - Maya
When I first read “Let Us Now Praise Famous Men” I was very confused as to what the article had to do with photography. It seemed to me that someone was simply telling a very detailed story. In order to try to understand what the article was about, I read the preface, something I usually skip. Only then did that articles connection to photography click! According to the author, the text was “co-equal, mutually independent, and fully collaborative” with the photographs that were shown at the beginning of the article. Apparently, the author chose to use both mediums in order to present a more accurate and vivid description of the lives of the people he was observing. “Ultimately, it is intended that this record and analysis be exhaustive, with no detail, however trivial it may seem, left untouched, no relevancy avoided…” The goal of the author was to make sure every observable detail of these people’s lives could be conveyed to others. While a photograph can present some aspects very well, it fails at presenting others. These aspects, such as background stories, that can be merely speculated through a photograph, can only be truthfully conveyed if someone speaks of them, or if they are written down. This is why the two mediums work so well together to present an accurate depiction of the family. However, this article also revealed to me that I am a far more visual person than I am a literal one. It was fairly difficult for me to concentrate on reading the endless descriptions offered in the article, but I can look at the minute details of photographs for hours. It takes a very long time to read out a description that could simply be seen in seconds in a photograph. It was interesting to reflect on the different ways your imagination has to fill in the blanks while reading or looking at a picture. In reading, your mind creates its own visuals based on language, while when looking, your mind has to create explanations and emotions.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Photographic Prose
Some say that a picture is worth a thousand words. In the excerpt from Agee and Evan’s “Let Us Now Praise Famous Men,” the authors utilize their prose to describe these quotidian scenes in a photographic manner. Their prose lists the objects within the scene, succeeding from one item to the next as if following a viewer’s gaze on a photograph and his or her accompanying thoughts. As a result of this, another “photographic effect” is created by the prose. As words cannot fully describe the complete detail of each photograph, the reader is forced to fill in the blank with their imagination as photographic viewers complete the world outside the framed shot. Moreover, as photographs and Agee and Evan’s text only capture singular temporal moments, each viewer and reader is forced to contemplate the events both lead up to and result from the circumstances depicted. Elements of this prose are also reminiscent of the stated goals of social photography in the previously assigned essays. Titled “Let Us Now Praise Famous Men,” the prose does not, in fact, praise the famous, but instead focuses on the rather and mundane details of everyday life. Thus, as much as social photography is said to democratize the public imagination by bringing the lives of the neglected poor to the front pages of newspapers, this excerpt sheds light on the traditionally neglected details of the average American life. Although these candid portraits of ordinary objects and scenes appear superficially uninteresting, the reader is challenged by every description to interpret and construct a mental picture through the description of each scene. Although this process is more capable of eliciting empathy from the reader, it also diminishes the artist’s control over the interpretation of his or her prose or photograph. Instead of perceiving each scene as the artist intends, the individual reader and viewer would perceive the artist’s work differently based on his or her own experiences. Thus, through this type of “photographic writing,” Agee and Evan is able comment and reflect on the role of perception and interpretation in the photographic art.
"Let Us Now Praise Famous Men" - Sierra Flynn
“Let Us Now Praise Famous Men” was an exceptionally descriptive article (that eventually turned into a book for unknown reasons). Even without the pictures, it would have been very easy to visualize the people described and their exhausting lives. In the preface, it is stated, “The photographs are not illustrative. They, and the text, are co-equal, mutually independent, and fully collaborative” (30). At first, this statement puzzled me (and not just because it contradicts the phrase “a pictures worth a thousand words”). Offhand I could not think of a situation where photographs are not meant to be illustrative. This assertion made me want to continue reading in the hope that I could eventually comprehend what the authors were trying to say. Luckily for me this statement became abundantly clear as I began to read the article. The pictures and text do work together to depict the complex lives of these American people, yet independently they still convey an intriguing story.
When reading the descriptions about the “typical” American people, I felt great compassion for them. However, I realized after I finished the article that I did not feel as much sympathy as I would have expected. The authors of this essay have a very removed point of view. If they had desired, the stories of these people could have been told in a more emotional manner that would have depicted these people as poor, hopeless Americans. I found this quite interesting because this writing came from such an objective point of view, whereas other authors would have most likely exploited the details of the underprivileged to their fullest extent.
When reading the descriptions about the “typical” American people, I felt great compassion for them. However, I realized after I finished the article that I did not feel as much sympathy as I would have expected. The authors of this essay have a very removed point of view. If they had desired, the stories of these people could have been told in a more emotional manner that would have depicted these people as poor, hopeless Americans. I found this quite interesting because this writing came from such an objective point of view, whereas other authors would have most likely exploited the details of the underprivileged to their fullest extent.
Friday, February 22, 2008
What's so famous about them?
I'm not sure if I completely missed the point, because I feel like the title threw me off. Firstly, they are not so much praised as they are merely described. They were all regular people, or workers, some of which whom worked at a church. As mentioned in my title, I don't get what's so famous about them? The writing was quite heavy, their descriptions romanticised, maybe their fame got lost in translation then? Also, Men are in the title, but woman are touched upon as well. This piece was very beautiful. I especially appreciated the section on Overalls. I never thought about them as "harnesses on overworked animals". I had an "ohh" moment reading it, it suddenly all seemed to make sense. Morever, it seemed inhumane. This essay has that "indexicality" feature that we talked about in class: "Rickets in his photograph here, wears such overalls..." (pg. 238) The essay seemed to be a conversation than an academic writing. The fact that they go back and forth between the different characters, indicates an informal dialogue maybe. I imagine the two men sitting over a cup of coffee, sifting through a pile of photographs, and remembering the past. Maybe one of them was Mr.Woods or Mr. Rickets? After finishing the text, I went back to the preface, and it all came together. Mr. Agee and Mr.Evans had gone to live with these families, hence their close familial details of everyone. I found the answer to my question: the authors wanted to appreciate these hard working men. They are famous because they built what we have today. The are the men of yesterday, whose children live on to today. Their ways have carried on. Agee explains that the photographs are not illustrative, the book was necessary to compliment it. That is probably because the pictures showed poor men with ragged clothes, living dirty lives. We would maybe look down at them and Agee doesn't want us to be quick to judge and says that pictures are not enough. There is more in a picture than what you see.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Social Photography and Social Work
"Social Photography"
I was really drawn to Lewis W. Hine's use of photography to document and raise social consciousness in American society about social issues, in particular child labor abuse and immigrant labor abuse, whose photograph each carried a lesson of its own. Hine uses photography with the ultimate objective of promoting and achieving social reform. Photography becomes, in his hands, a powerful tool for recording and making public the social injustices of many children and immigrants that existed in his era, and still today. He uses the means of social photography as an educational process. Furthermore, he states that every picture "was a piece of evidence, a record of social injustice, but also of individual human beings surviving with dignity in intolerable conditions." It was important to show this mere evidence, not only to educate the public, but also to raise sympathy and empathy in people, to hopefully inspire social change. I found this to be very reassuring. His essay states that "the greatest advance in social work is to be made by the popularizing of camera work, so these records may be made by those who are in the thick of the battle." As a person who has taken Social Welfare classes and is thinking about pursuing her degree in Social Work, I found it very interesting and empowering to see how photography- something I'm innately attracted to- can really be connected with the social issues and policies I'm interested in working with in the future.
I was really drawn to Lewis W. Hine's use of photography to document and raise social consciousness in American society about social issues, in particular child labor abuse and immigrant labor abuse, whose photograph each carried a lesson of its own. Hine uses photography with the ultimate objective of promoting and achieving social reform. Photography becomes, in his hands, a powerful tool for recording and making public the social injustices of many children and immigrants that existed in his era, and still today. He uses the means of social photography as an educational process. Furthermore, he states that every picture "was a piece of evidence, a record of social injustice, but also of individual human beings surviving with dignity in intolerable conditions." It was important to show this mere evidence, not only to educate the public, but also to raise sympathy and empathy in people, to hopefully inspire social change. I found this to be very reassuring. His essay states that "the greatest advance in social work is to be made by the popularizing of camera work, so these records may be made by those who are in the thick of the battle." As a person who has taken Social Welfare classes and is thinking about pursuing her degree in Social Work, I found it very interesting and empowering to see how photography- something I'm innately attracted to- can really be connected with the social issues and policies I'm interested in working with in the future.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Morality and Social Photography
While previous readings have shed light on the role of photography in entertainment and law enforcement, Hein’s essay offers yet another way that the modern individual interacts with the photographic medium. In his essay, Hein suggests that the role of social workers is to “educate and direct the public opinion” as “Servants of the Common Good.” He argues that photography is the perfect medium for such an endeavor because “non-essential and conflicting interests have been eliminated.” His enthusiasm for photography is the result of its ability to transcend nationality, language, and age. However, in my opinion, the photograph’s ability to be exposed to such a large audience requires more discretion in its use. Although the mechanical nature of photography removes, to a certain extent, subjectivity from photographs, the problem of doctoring and faking photographs should be of primary concern in social photography. Hein dismisses the devaluation of social photography through such means by proclaiming that “photographs of child labor in the Carolinas would stand as evidence in any court of law.” He urges social workers to take up photography and to further their cause for a common good. But by simply having a cause isn’t the photographer loosing objectivity in his or her work? I guess it is fitting that Hein brings up advertisements in the beginning of the essay. While one might morally justify the faking and doctoring of photographs to advance social justice, photography used in advertisements is also used to advance a cause –the advancement of a product and its company’s profits. Thus, it seems that Hein is arguing that as long as its cause is good, the authenticity of a photograph should not be questioned. In the end Hein quotes Eliot to illustrate the need for social photographers: “It is needful we should remember their existence [of the poor], else we may happen to leave them out of our religion and philosophy, and frame lofty theories which only fit a world of extremes.” However, to me Eliot’s quote urges more the need for just and unbiased photography more than simply social photography.
Pictorial Photography and Social Photography
I really liked Lewis Hine. His biography prior to "Social Photography" made me like him right away. What I liked about him is his selflessness. He devotes his time and efforts to brining child labor into light. The light of the public through the light of photography. Light is what he says is is the remedy for "the great social peril of darkness and ignorance", and it is what he uses to try to change the labor laws. I always like to hear about people like this because I think they deserve a little recognition. I also liked the fact that he takes photos of courageous men and women at work.
Alfred Stieglitz also makes a bold statement in his "Pictorial Photography". He spits on the idea of amateur versus professional as classes of photography. Rather, he separates all photography into three classes: the ignorant, the purely technical, and the artistic. I believe that his system of classification is better because of how much sense it makes as well as how it pitches it. He slanders the fact that amateur photographers cannot create great pictures because it is their hobby and not their profession. Then, he clearly lays out his classifying elements of his three categories that make perfect sense. There are those of us that are naturally artistic, and those of us who work at but can only force it because we don't have it. Then there are those of us that are completely ignorant. They need not be talked about. But, I find his classification to apply to writing too. You will find that I fall into the category of not artistic; I have to put a lot of time into my writings.
In Lewis Hine's "Social Photography" I can't be sure of whether or not he is in favor of social photography. He makes it clear that these kinds of photographs will make it into the public, but he also has a negative attitude towards advertising. Maybe he feels that all of these photos of, for instance, child labor, will become so advertised that people will become numb to them. Or he feels that such a sensitive issue should not be thrown about in such a cavalier way.
These few sentences are one source of confusion, "I wonder, sometimes, what an enterprising manufacturer would do if his wares, instead of being inanimate things, were the problems and activities of life itself, with all their possiblities of human appeal. Would he not grasp eagerly at such opportunities to play upon the sympathies of his customers as are afforded by the camera" (110). My impression is that he feels that people are taking advantage of the struggles of every day life by photographing them and then selling them. Perhaps he is correct. Social photographers do make a living, that is they make money, off of photographs of horrible things, and they may or may not have the intention of actually doing anything about whats in the photo. For example someone on assignment for a newspaper may be asked to go take pictures of child labor or poor people on the street; however, it is hard to believe that anything like that would be photographed for purely selfish reasons. I believe social photography and even the advertising of it is almost always for the benefit of those in the photographs. At least I hope so. I do agree that advertising goes to extremes, and usually for unnecessary or even harmful things, like cigarettes.
Art, and now photography have always been, at least partially, about representing the current state of things. Social photography doesn't stray from the usual, although perhaps it shows a side of society that used to be taboo in art. It is not, however, a bad thing.
These few sentences are one source of confusion, "I wonder, sometimes, what an enterprising manufacturer would do if his wares, instead of being inanimate things, were the problems and activities of life itself, with all their possiblities of human appeal. Would he not grasp eagerly at such opportunities to play upon the sympathies of his customers as are afforded by the camera" (110). My impression is that he feels that people are taking advantage of the struggles of every day life by photographing them and then selling them. Perhaps he is correct. Social photographers do make a living, that is they make money, off of photographs of horrible things, and they may or may not have the intention of actually doing anything about whats in the photo. For example someone on assignment for a newspaper may be asked to go take pictures of child labor or poor people on the street; however, it is hard to believe that anything like that would be photographed for purely selfish reasons. I believe social photography and even the advertising of it is almost always for the benefit of those in the photographs. At least I hope so. I do agree that advertising goes to extremes, and usually for unnecessary or even harmful things, like cigarettes.
Art, and now photography have always been, at least partially, about representing the current state of things. Social photography doesn't stray from the usual, although perhaps it shows a side of society that used to be taboo in art. It is not, however, a bad thing.
Social Photography
Out of the readings by Hine, Stieglitz, and Strand the reading that I most enjoyed was “Social Photography” by Lewis W. Hine. Before reading this essay, I hadn’t really thought about photography having “social” purposes. So far, we have only discussed photography for enjoyment as an art form that was mainly for people of a higher class.
His method of which he started the essay I believe is very effective. He creates a scenario of harsh working conditions in which he makes a situational aspect more personal. This helped greatly as the reader, to be able to think about a different perspective on life and be able to relate a bit more closely to the topic of this essay. He quickly delves into the idea that a photograph “carries its own lesson”. I feel that is a powerful statement that holds much truth, especially in the social area of photography, there is much to be learned from a photo of child labor or a grown man tirelessly working at a mill.
With social photography, Hine argues, that “the photography has an added realism of its own; it has an inherent attraction not found in other forms of illustration.” This is an interesting aspect to think about because with social cases the camera is capturing real life scenarios, not just people posing for a photo or an abstract view of a city. Social photography is captured in the real, within the moment of which the event is created, and it holds so much expression and emotion that is not possible to capture in a normal photo. Social photography in a sense tells a story and acts as a “record of the past”. The point and purpose of social photography is for one to get a camera, see new things, learn of new things, and expand your knowledge and mind altogether.
Strand and Hine would agree that the attempt by some to classify photography as purely objective is allusive. Not only is it incorrect, it stifles the potential of the medium and confines the photographer to an inferior artistic and social status. Strand says, “this objectivity is of the very essence of photography, its contribution and at the same time its limitation” (142). I admire the graceful way in which Strand complicates the ontology of photography. He claims that a photograph has an objective quality derived from its indexical abilities. A camera allows for a perfectly accurate depiction of something that is real, but as Strand says, there is “an intelligence and spirit channeling through a machine” (150). Long gone are the days where photographers assert themselves as proud scientists who claim intellectual status. Strand is suggesting, quite clearly, that the intentions of the photographer enhance the capabilities of the machine. He or she can claim artist status. The desires, beliefs, and motivations of the artist photographer are seen through their selection of subject matter, camera angle, positioning of light, development technique, etc. They camera only objectifies their subjectivity. Strand says, “It is in the organization of this objectivity that the photographer’s point of view towards life enters in” (142). Hine expands on the argument made by Strand and asserts that when photography is used for humanistic purposes, the “sympathetic photographer” (110) becomes a “social worker” (112)
and “Servant of the Common Good (110). Like Hine, he does not deny that the photograph is a reflection of the intent of the photographer. He describes (ok, maybe slightly romanticizes) these photographers as “men ready to give the loving pains of life to the faithful representing of commonplace things” and “men who see beauty in the commonplace things” (113). He plays upon the popular religious dictum, “Let there be light,” (112) to suggest that photography’s most progressive purpose is to shed literal and metaphorical light on current social situations and the real lives of people. Both Strand and Hine argue that by divorcing photography from its marriage to objectivity, the photographer is able to claim new roles as artists and agents of social progress. These photographers are no longer content with being understood as “appendages of the machine,” to use a Marxist phrase. And it’s about time! Objectivity sure sells the photographer short.
and “Servant of the Common Good (110). Like Hine, he does not deny that the photograph is a reflection of the intent of the photographer. He describes (ok, maybe slightly romanticizes) these photographers as “men ready to give the loving pains of life to the faithful representing of commonplace things” and “men who see beauty in the commonplace things” (113). He plays upon the popular religious dictum, “Let there be light,” (112) to suggest that photography’s most progressive purpose is to shed literal and metaphorical light on current social situations and the real lives of people. Both Strand and Hine argue that by divorcing photography from its marriage to objectivity, the photographer is able to claim new roles as artists and agents of social progress. These photographers are no longer content with being understood as “appendages of the machine,” to use a Marxist phrase. And it’s about time! Objectivity sure sells the photographer short.
Social Photography
I really enjoyed this essay about the use of photography as a way to document real life in America. I thought it was interesting reading about the biography of Hines and how he differed from his predecessors in this field. The fact that Hines was not not looking for empathy in photographs of the slums and poverty-stricken areas of America signaled, to me, that he was presenting a "true" picture of America. This reminded me of the conversation we've had in class about how unbiased a picture can be considered. Even without photoshop capabilities, a picture can be framed by the photographer and his or her choices of what to photograph and what not to photograph are important elements in designing a photograph. Therefore, can Hines's pictures really be considered "documentary" or can any photograph be categorized as such? The article touches upon this idea but never offers a resolution, except "Despise not the camera." I think this is a difficult question to answer and I think that photographs are by nature selective slices of life. However, I do not think they should be discounted as documentary merely because they are strategically chosen for politically motivated reasons.
I really enjoyed the intertwining of history and photography in the piece. It was fascinating to me that Hines worked during the depression photographing slums and poor children. The photographs were meant to portray everyday life as well as inspire people to help end cruel child labor laws. While his photos were supposed to be simply photos of life, they were chosen with great care in regards to what was shown.
I also enjoyed reading about Hines's personal biography. It was nice to be able to the put the author in context and understand where he was coming from.
Pictorial Photography
I liked Stieglitz's piece about Pictorial Photography because he accentuated the amount of subjectivity involved in the produciton of a photography. He argued that photography is definitely a "plastic" art because of the many different ways a photographer can develop a print from a negative. "instead of being purely mechanical, the printing processes were distinctly individual, and that the negative never yielded the same sort of print." The photographer has complete control over his subject because he can choose what he wants to photograph, and then the "Lens, camera, plate, developing baths, printing process, and the like are used by them simply as tools for the elaboration of theor ideas, and not as tyrants to enslave and dwarf them." Stieglitz argues that there is an abundance of subjectivity in photography, comparable to painting. Only the photographer has control over how much to develop or fix the photograph and he "requires a knowledge of and feeling for the comprehensive and beautiful tonality of nature...so that the whole may be harmonious in tone...The turning out of prints likewise is a plastic and not a mechanical process." Each print has unique characteristics alike to a fingerprint, because each print is made a little differently. It is close to impossible to develop the same negative in exactly the same way, making photography plastic in nature due to the many influences the creator has. The photographer must know nature as well as, if not better, than a painter. "The photographer must be familiar not only with the positive, but also with the negative value of tones." I like that Stieglitz is such a big advocate of photography as art. he mentions that the basis of photography is art, because it portrays many of the same styles and qualities as other art of the period. "photographs could be realistic or impressionistic jsut as their maker was moved by one or the other influence." We have looked at blurred photographs and collages of photos that scream their views on politics. These photographs parallel the paintings adn sculptures of the time. It is somewhat a sadness that it took a monetary value of the photograph to influence the public that the medium was worth the while. "The significance of this will be the more marked when the prices paid for some of these pictures are considered." But photography was accepted, for both its artistic value and its utility. We have looked at its utility in past essay with examples such as the mug shot, but now we focus on the artistic side of the photograph. Stieglitz reminds us that there is much more to a photograph than just mechanical reproduciton. A photo is an expression of the artist's emotions through their choice of subjcet, contrast, focus, and nowadays color.
"Social Photography" - Sierra Flynn
After reading only the introduction of “Social Photography” by Lewis W. Hine, I was already intrigued. The introduction states, “he wished to show working people in their environments in a more detached and objective manner” (109). For some reason, this type of photography appeals to me. I find photographs that try to expose or uncover something very captivating, for when the photographer achieves this goal the picture speaks to the viewer. In scenes like Hines portrayed, the angst and pain of the people can be felt through the image. I admire photographers who have the ability to convey such emotion through a picture. Also, I was fond of Hines statement, “it [photography] has an inherent attraction not found in other forms of illustration” (111). I agree with Hines’ claim because I believe that people are attracted to photography because of its ability to capture an exact moment in time. No other form of art can depict a split second and capture the emotion occurring at that time. In the same paragraph, Hines also writes, “photographs may not lie, liars may photograph” (111). I found this interesting because I rarely take a moment to consider whether the image I am viewing is in context or not. In newspapers and magazines, readers generally assume the photographs were taken in an honest manner and that the pictures are being displayed in the correct context. However, photographers have the ability to manipulate the images in whatever manner they wish. It is a bit disconcerting to know that pictures can be changed to fit what the photographer wishes to display and not the actual event. I doubt that many do commit such callous actions, but knowing they have the capability to alter photographs is slightly distressing.
"Pictorial Photography" - Lauren
What is particularly interesting about Stieglitz’s article, “Pictorial Photography”, is that it directly contrasts what Franz Roh said in his article, “Mechanism and Expression” (and what I discussed in my previous response) regarding his opinion that photography can be categorized as art as long as the photo is taken by a professional. Stieglitz on the other hand states that a true artistic photograph comes from the love of photography, not the profession of photography.
“Nearly all the greatest work is being, and has always been done, by those who are following photography for the love of it, and not merely for financial reasons” (117). According to Stieglitz, the lover of photography is the amateur, not the professional, such as a portrait photographers. But then again, Stieglitz is not saying that Ol’ Average Joe who just got his new Kodak camera can take an artistic photograph valued at “upward[s] of one hundred dollars” (122). Rather, he is saying that an artistic photograph of this caliber not only comes from the photographer who loves his hobby, but is also “the result of an artistic instinct coupled with years of labor” (118).
After reading the introduction to this article, the short biography of Stieglitz, what is really interesting to me is considering how Stieglitz and other “amateur” photographers survived if they weren’t making a profit. Stieglitz published pamphlets and journals—neither of which would have created much of a profit—and held an exhibition for several of years…. One wonders how he bought his film…
“Nearly all the greatest work is being, and has always been done, by those who are following photography for the love of it, and not merely for financial reasons” (117). According to Stieglitz, the lover of photography is the amateur, not the professional, such as a portrait photographers. But then again, Stieglitz is not saying that Ol’ Average Joe who just got his new Kodak camera can take an artistic photograph valued at “upward[s] of one hundred dollars” (122). Rather, he is saying that an artistic photograph of this caliber not only comes from the photographer who loves his hobby, but is also “the result of an artistic instinct coupled with years of labor” (118).
After reading the introduction to this article, the short biography of Stieglitz, what is really interesting to me is considering how Stieglitz and other “amateur” photographers survived if they weren’t making a profit. Stieglitz published pamphlets and journals—neither of which would have created much of a profit—and held an exhibition for several of years…. One wonders how he bought his film…
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Social Photography
I really enjoyed Hine’s essay about his new idea of using photography as a source of documenting and more of a learning tool rather than a tool of shame or exploitation. His first paragraph is somewhat unique and different from all the other essays that we have read in that he creates a setting that the reader can become enveloped in, almost like he has created his own little story . I found this a much easier reading than previous ones.
Hine’s opionion about photography is somewhat different from the traditional views that have to relate to the ontology and aura of this art. He tries to send a message to his readers that photography has its own methods of persuasion and teaching within the social world. In newspapers, reading articles can give a person a certain opinion about the topic that is being discussed but if a photograph is inserted then that opinion can change. The effect of a visual in the modern world today has massive impact on societal views and personal conclusions. This is so because unlike paintings and illustrations, photographs don’t give false evidence what one sees is real. On very interesting quote that further interprets explains this concept is “while photographs may not lie, liars may photograph”. Therefore, even if there is false evidence given through an article of writing it is not because of the photograph itself but the photographer who is the one giving false hopes and lying to society. Lastly, it feels as though Hine’s uses his essay to promote the use of photography. In one quote he clearly is trying to persuade the general work force to go out and buy a camera and set aside time to document the accomplishments that occur in the work force. I feel that his passion for using photography as a tool of documentation within the work force is very interesting. Its as if he is trying to warn the world of the certain hardships that some workers face but also show all the accomplishments that their hard work put into.
Hine’s opionion about photography is somewhat different from the traditional views that have to relate to the ontology and aura of this art. He tries to send a message to his readers that photography has its own methods of persuasion and teaching within the social world. In newspapers, reading articles can give a person a certain opinion about the topic that is being discussed but if a photograph is inserted then that opinion can change. The effect of a visual in the modern world today has massive impact on societal views and personal conclusions. This is so because unlike paintings and illustrations, photographs don’t give false evidence what one sees is real. On very interesting quote that further interprets explains this concept is “while photographs may not lie, liars may photograph”. Therefore, even if there is false evidence given through an article of writing it is not because of the photograph itself but the photographer who is the one giving false hopes and lying to society. Lastly, it feels as though Hine’s uses his essay to promote the use of photography. In one quote he clearly is trying to persuade the general work force to go out and buy a camera and set aside time to document the accomplishments that occur in the work force. I feel that his passion for using photography as a tool of documentation within the work force is very interesting. Its as if he is trying to warn the world of the certain hardships that some workers face but also show all the accomplishments that their hard work put into.
Steiglitz Piece
This may be weird but for some reason while reading this, I really wanted to shout "Woohooo!" and clap for him. I found it quite amusing as he was really dissing the idea of professional photography and artistic photographs (when made by those whole claim them to be those things). He begins by the well familiar debate about photography calling under the sciences or art. he calls it the "bastard" of both. He says he doesn't care about any of that. What is important is that great work is produced. ".. And using the term amateur to convey the idea of immature productions and to excuse atrociously poor photographs." I found that quite funny honestly. Steiglitz article was incredibly believable and inviting because he did not choose one or the other. He put out the different debates and arguments, but said, I don't care about any of that. He also didn't try to sell photography to us, he said, yes there are there great beautiful night photographs that have so much put into them But at the same time, yea there are these really bad ones too. But those ones have some credit in them too. also he admits that writing is even better than painting and photography, when it comes to expressing thoughts. I just liked his nonchalant, kind of sarcastic yet honest, tongue in cheek attitude. Also, he goes into something we have not encountered yet: Retouching. He quotes Dr.Emerson absolutely bashing retouching saying it takes a good or bad photo and makes it a bad drawing or painting. I loved how mad he was at the little tacky studio's that have fake backgrounds and head rests, claiming their artistic qualities. He takes us through a few innovations (from "gum print" to "platinum") and most importantly from "stiff characterless" to perfection. The portrait photograph, with true tones has improved enormously. He explains that "this is real photography.. that which the world is accustomed to regard as pictorial photography is not the real photography, but an ignorant imposition". Laszlo might agree with this in his concepts on accidental photography, with an awkward positioning, that without the camera, our eye tries to correct it, but when frozen in a picture just looks wrong and is thrown away . That may not be retouching directly, but someone could attempt to retouch that (a bad angle making you look like you have a double chin). but They both could argue that that is true photography, with real deformations and perspectives.
Monday, February 18, 2008
The Age of Light
I thought that this essay, although quite short, was a very densely written piece. Man Ray chose his words very carefully and the essay is somewhat difficult to understand because each sentence is deeply meaningful.
I am assuming that Man Ray is in some capacity introducing a collection of photographs, either in a book or in a curated show. He invokes a sense of the progress of civilization from the beginning. The title, "The Age of Light" is remniscent of the Ice Age or the Age of Discovery or various other denotations of time periods. He is introducing the idea that civilization has progressed and is entering a new period of creation and exploration. His opening statement corroborates this idea by claiming the the sole motivation of society is to perpetuate itself and the work of an artist is considered "wasteful." He goes on to say that as humans are incapable of improving themselves, they are also incapable of learing from the past. I took this to mean that although the main driving force of humans is continuining their existence, they deviate from this purpose and don't learn from their past mistakes of doing so.
Man Ray uses very forceful and absolute diction in his piece. I believe this is because his piece is so short he wanted to write meaningfully in a short amount of time. In my opinion this forceful language detracts from his message because I lose sight of what he is arguing. His arguments seem flawed because such sweeping statements such as "the all-absorbing motive of society," and "No plastic expression can ever be more than a residue of experience," seem too generalized and therefore untrue.
I am assuming that Man Ray is in some capacity introducing a collection of photographs, either in a book or in a curated show. He invokes a sense of the progress of civilization from the beginning. The title, "The Age of Light" is remniscent of the Ice Age or the Age of Discovery or various other denotations of time periods. He is introducing the idea that civilization has progressed and is entering a new period of creation and exploration. His opening statement corroborates this idea by claiming the the sole motivation of society is to perpetuate itself and the work of an artist is considered "wasteful." He goes on to say that as humans are incapable of improving themselves, they are also incapable of learing from the past. I took this to mean that although the main driving force of humans is continuining their existence, they deviate from this purpose and don't learn from their past mistakes of doing so.
Man Ray uses very forceful and absolute diction in his piece. I believe this is because his piece is so short he wanted to write meaningfully in a short amount of time. In my opinion this forceful language detracts from his message because I lose sight of what he is arguing. His arguments seem flawed because such sweeping statements such as "the all-absorbing motive of society," and "No plastic expression can ever be more than a residue of experience," seem too generalized and therefore untrue.
The Photographer and the Viewer
To me, the set of essays by Moholy-Nagy and Ray is concerned with the relationships which the individual viewers create with photographs. Moholy-Nagy contends that photography helps to create an “objective vision” that can “complete or supplement… the eye” by freezing time through movement studies or enlarging space through microscopic photographs. On the other hand, painting relies on the optical perception of the human eye its interpretation by the human brain. However, even though photography is able to help supplant the viewer’s vision by illuminating previously unobservable worlds, these images are only capable of being interpreted in the light of the viewer’s understanding of optics and the outside world. This reminds me of the enormous image of an atomic resolution electron micrograph that is on display in the lobby of the de Young Museum. To the ordinary viewer this image may appear simply to be lattices of grey fuzzy spheres, but to scientists the arrangement of these atoms represents something more. Thus, to Moholy-Nagy, simply creating and capturing photographic images does not allow the viewer to understand photography completely. Only through the understanding of the optical process can the viewer truly appreciate and create “new relationships” with photographs. A similar connection between the photograph and the viewer is expressed by Ray. To Ray, a photograph is akin to “the undisturbed ashes of an object consumed by flames.” It is up to the viewer to reconstruct the actual experience through the optical history of the film. However, Ray argues that this reconstruction is not only colored by the optical history of the exposure but also the personal history of the viewer. As a result, Ray argues that in order to fully understand and appreciate the photography the eye (and the brain) must “train itself to see… without prejudice or restraint.” Through their arguments both Moholy-Nagy and Ray both suggest that a photograph and its interpretation depends as much on the record of light created by the photographer as the scientific understanding and personal history of its viewer.
The Age of Light
In Man Ray’s piece, “The Age of Light,” I found a lot of what he said to be quite reasonable. “All progress results from an intense individual desire to improve the immediate present, from an all-conscious sense of material insufficiency” (167). How it relates to photography I will get to, but I feel it is pretty accurate that progress, whether it is in our own lives, or technologically comes around when we absolutely need it. Procrastination relates to this. Although some of the technology we have now is not absolutely necessary, it still stems from this intense desire to improve our material standard. The iphone, even having internet at all on a cell phone, lap tops with a thousand applications—all of these things probably started by someone thinking the current modes of technology were insufficient. I might have to amend my statement that new technology comes around when we need it, but I still definitely agree with Ray’s original statement. So comes photography into the play of new technologies. He asks, “For what can be more binding amongst beings than the discovery of a common desire?” Photography probably did do a great deal in bringing people together, once it was accessible to everyone. Not only did it bring the world in by allowing images from Asia reach the New World, but it allowed everyone (once it was made affordable) this luxury of taking and enjoying photos.
Ray goes on to say (in my interpretation) that photographs capture people’s extremely candid experiences/expressions and we can relate to these on a remarkably personal level. We can see photographs of “…an image that has tragically survived an experience.” This is an interesting point. Everyday we have the opportunity to see photographs of horrible events in which the people in the photo died. In a way we are grateful to be able to learn and appreciate our own good fortune. But on the other hand it is almost an unfair advantage on our part. I believe it was an important technological and social step to invent photography because we need to be able to see these tragedies specifically to learn from them. There are still people who deny the Holocaust existed, and without photography it may have been much harder to prove.
This reading was a bit challenging to understand but those are some things I got out of it. I feel like the underlying meaning is that desire impels us to do things, create things, say things, and is the ultimate driving force behind the modern world.
Ray goes on to say (in my interpretation) that photographs capture people’s extremely candid experiences/expressions and we can relate to these on a remarkably personal level. We can see photographs of “…an image that has tragically survived an experience.” This is an interesting point. Everyday we have the opportunity to see photographs of horrible events in which the people in the photo died. In a way we are grateful to be able to learn and appreciate our own good fortune. But on the other hand it is almost an unfair advantage on our part. I believe it was an important technological and social step to invent photography because we need to be able to see these tragedies specifically to learn from them. There are still people who deny the Holocaust existed, and without photography it may have been much harder to prove.
This reading was a bit challenging to understand but those are some things I got out of it. I feel like the underlying meaning is that desire impels us to do things, create things, say things, and is the ultimate driving force behind the modern world.
Mechanism and Expression
This essay by Franz Roh I found fairly interesting because of not only the content but of how it was written. His use of bold wording throughout his text throws me off a bit. I feel as though they are supposed to have a double meaning or are more important statements. Also his habit of not capitalizing letters after a period really threw me off. I can a recall a couple times I had reread a sentence to see if it was a finished sentence or just a break on the page. I however liked how Roh talked about how cameras were going to be like the next typewriters in the classroom. This statement shows that photography is the more common art that can be used for the general population. It allows the masses to be able to use the camera as more a leisure time activity or as a practical tool used to remember experiences. This shows that “the camera supplies a want of the lower classes” meaning that it is available to the lower classes and not used as a professional item. In fact “it often occurs that photographs taken by the one will always appear uninteresting, though he be skilled in technique, while photoes by the other who considers himself but an amateur and whose work is not technically perfect, yet invariable are of forcible effect.” This definitely supports the idea that the camera is the new modern technology and will be used so regularly that not knowing how to operate a camera would be unheard of. And the idea of a random photograph taken by an amateur can be more appealing and artistic than a professional photograph. In conclusion, the expansion of photography is to everyday life is going to be beneficial to society and not looked upon as a struggling art form.
Franz Roh - Mechanism and Expression
in roh's essay, he traces the development of photography in comparison with other innovative technologies. roh describes how a novel idea is first snatched by the few educated or affluent, then as technology progresses, the product is available at many businesses for the use of the professional, and sooner or later, the product will be cheap enough and simple enough for the masses to use. "the importance to the history of mankind development of instruments such as the camera, lies in obtaining increasingly complex results while handling of hte apparatus becomes more and more simple. " laziness is the key to survive in our world today, and obviously the trend started over a hundred years ago. if a product is easy to use but has an important function, it will be a hit in the market. people don't want to have to work to use their new product, they want to be able to use it right away.
the argument of whether photographt is art seemed to be an everlasting debate at this point in time. roh stands for the side of photography as an art, however, he does not fail to mention its functionality, "whosoever in 1800 on a long journey wrote a diary of 300 pages, would in the present time take home 100 metres of leika-film-band that contain more complete memories than the word, being charged with contemplation, making use of the international language of outer environment that fundamentally neither changes after centuries nor after countries..." roh is explaining that photography is functional because a picture can capture a memory in more detail than any written document could. have you ever heard the phrase "a picture is worth a thousand words?" a person from any country can look at a picture and feel an emotion, because everyone has felt the majesty of nature, but not all can appreciate it through the use of word.
roh talks about the plastic arts and the inclusion of photography. he states," we can establish a new category without diminishing the aesthetic value of the old." roh recognizes that photography is very mechanical, and untouched by the human hand, but inserts his opinion about what art really is. just because photographs are not comprised of brush strokes taken straight from the soul, or "smelting pot of the soul," as he calls it, that does not mean it is any less of an art. he argues that "personality is required" in order to become a good photographer.
roh then proceeds to talk about the different types of photography such as the reality photo, the photogram, photomontage, photos with etching or painting, and photos with type. he shows the uniqueness of each different category, which helps to explain their place in the art world.
the argument of whether photographt is art seemed to be an everlasting debate at this point in time. roh stands for the side of photography as an art, however, he does not fail to mention its functionality, "whosoever in 1800 on a long journey wrote a diary of 300 pages, would in the present time take home 100 metres of leika-film-band that contain more complete memories than the word, being charged with contemplation, making use of the international language of outer environment that fundamentally neither changes after centuries nor after countries..." roh is explaining that photography is functional because a picture can capture a memory in more detail than any written document could. have you ever heard the phrase "a picture is worth a thousand words?" a person from any country can look at a picture and feel an emotion, because everyone has felt the majesty of nature, but not all can appreciate it through the use of word.
roh talks about the plastic arts and the inclusion of photography. he states," we can establish a new category without diminishing the aesthetic value of the old." roh recognizes that photography is very mechanical, and untouched by the human hand, but inserts his opinion about what art really is. just because photographs are not comprised of brush strokes taken straight from the soul, or "smelting pot of the soul," as he calls it, that does not mean it is any less of an art. he argues that "personality is required" in order to become a good photographer.
roh then proceeds to talk about the different types of photography such as the reality photo, the photogram, photomontage, photos with etching or painting, and photos with type. he shows the uniqueness of each different category, which helps to explain their place in the art world.
The Age of Light
I find it interesting that the topic of this week’s reading was Surrealism and Dada but none of the three readings explicitly mentions either style of art. Maybe I am missing the point altogether!
I am choosing to respond to the piece by Man Ray because it had the biggest shock factor, although I think it was mostly over my head. I questioned the opening idea of art being an “idyllic occupation” that should only be employed after the “more vital problems of existence” have been solved (167). But then, a few sentences later, one finds out that the opening was really a counterargument to his main point. Ray says, “All progress results from an intense individual desire to improve the immediate present” (167). This statement glorifies the individual and romanticizes their role in progress. Contrastingly, he expresses the sentiment that larger groups, like race and class, thwart development. He says there is an incapacity of race and class to “improve itself” and “to learn from previous errors in history”(167). He compares race and class in society to style in art. Ray says, “Race and class, like styles, then become irrelevant, while the emotion of the human individual becomes universal,” which further suggests his affinity towards individualism (167). I do not know anything about Man Ray or the time he was alive, but it seems to me that he is not in favor of the strict boundaries that define different styles of art. He would agree more with the romantic idea brought up by Franz Roh, which says that “everyone who has something to say will find a way of saying it” (156). He uses the word desire in interesting ways. I think this is part of the reason the piece is so hard. It reminds me of the Benjamin article. The word desire, just like cult or aura, is not extremely difficult, but the author divorces its normal connotation and attaches unfamiliar meanings to it. He says, “the creator dealing in human values allows the subconscious forces to filter through him, colored by his own selectivity, which is universal human desire” (168). It seems to me like Ray uses the word desire to explain the subconscious. It is the desire of the artist, rather than a specific artistic style, that moves the viewer to action and makes art more than an “idyllic occupation.”
I am choosing to respond to the piece by Man Ray because it had the biggest shock factor, although I think it was mostly over my head. I questioned the opening idea of art being an “idyllic occupation” that should only be employed after the “more vital problems of existence” have been solved (167). But then, a few sentences later, one finds out that the opening was really a counterargument to his main point. Ray says, “All progress results from an intense individual desire to improve the immediate present” (167). This statement glorifies the individual and romanticizes their role in progress. Contrastingly, he expresses the sentiment that larger groups, like race and class, thwart development. He says there is an incapacity of race and class to “improve itself” and “to learn from previous errors in history”(167). He compares race and class in society to style in art. Ray says, “Race and class, like styles, then become irrelevant, while the emotion of the human individual becomes universal,” which further suggests his affinity towards individualism (167). I do not know anything about Man Ray or the time he was alive, but it seems to me that he is not in favor of the strict boundaries that define different styles of art. He would agree more with the romantic idea brought up by Franz Roh, which says that “everyone who has something to say will find a way of saying it” (156). He uses the word desire in interesting ways. I think this is part of the reason the piece is so hard. It reminds me of the Benjamin article. The word desire, just like cult or aura, is not extremely difficult, but the author divorces its normal connotation and attaches unfamiliar meanings to it. He says, “the creator dealing in human values allows the subconscious forces to filter through him, colored by his own selectivity, which is universal human desire” (168). It seems to me like Ray uses the word desire to explain the subconscious. It is the desire of the artist, rather than a specific artistic style, that moves the viewer to action and makes art more than an “idyllic occupation.”
Mechanism and Expression
In Mechanism and Expression by Franz Roh, I was more drawn to the style of writing than the actual essay itself. It doesn't make sense to not use capital letters. I was so confused that I had to reread the whole section over. His whole essay seems to be one huge run-on sentence, blending all of his ideas into one breath.
Once I had gotten past this anomaly, I was intrigued by Franz's accurate prediction about the future of film an photography. He says, "the statement is right, that not to be able to handle a camera will soon be looked upon as equal to illiteracy". How very right he was, as today, one can buy a Kodak camera on impulse and open it ready to use. He bases this prediction on the fact that the 1900 invention of the typewriter underwent a similar experience. Something that is effective, easy to use, and profitable will thrive in the world we live in. He also compares photography to the art of playing the piano. Although there are a limited range of colors from white to black, and likewise there are a limited amount of piano keys (also both black and white), both can create wonderful pieces of art. There can always be a sense of uniqueness and individuality because of the combinations you can create with the limited resources. With photography, "never-the-less the worth of photography lies in the aesthetic value of nature itself. is it but necessary to master the implements of photography to become a good photographer? by no means". The limited amount of light shades of grey, white, and black is supplemented by the abundance of nature, which holds the true key to success in photos. Like the typewriter and words, like the piano and musical notes, Franz believes the success of photography will be based on its eventual simplicity as well as abundance and uniqueness in the natural world.
Once I had gotten past this anomaly, I was intrigued by Franz's accurate prediction about the future of film an photography. He says, "the statement is right, that not to be able to handle a camera will soon be looked upon as equal to illiteracy". How very right he was, as today, one can buy a Kodak camera on impulse and open it ready to use. He bases this prediction on the fact that the 1900 invention of the typewriter underwent a similar experience. Something that is effective, easy to use, and profitable will thrive in the world we live in. He also compares photography to the art of playing the piano. Although there are a limited range of colors from white to black, and likewise there are a limited amount of piano keys (also both black and white), both can create wonderful pieces of art. There can always be a sense of uniqueness and individuality because of the combinations you can create with the limited resources. With photography, "never-the-less the worth of photography lies in the aesthetic value of nature itself. is it but necessary to master the implements of photography to become a good photographer? by no means". The limited amount of light shades of grey, white, and black is supplemented by the abundance of nature, which holds the true key to success in photos. Like the typewriter and words, like the piano and musical notes, Franz believes the success of photography will be based on its eventual simplicity as well as abundance and uniqueness in the natural world.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Mechanism and Expression
The first notable aspect of this essay is that Franz Roh does not use capitalization. This was the first thing that caught my eye in this essay and it was strange to read and look at but then I grew accustomed to it. I can only help but wonder if there was a real intention behind the absence of capitalization in the sentence structure or if this is simply how he preferred to write all of his essays. Also, many phrases are bold throughout the essay. My best guess it that there is special significance to these words in particular that Roh wants the reader to notice. These bold terms possibly represent points of interest that are meant to sink into our thoughts a little further than the plain text. I think this is the first time also that I have paid attention to the structure of the essay out of all of the works we have read thus far.
I found a few of Roh’s statements to hold a lot of power and meaning. This statement, “the statement is right, that not to be able to handle a camera will soon be looked upon as equal to illiteracy” made me say “wow” (156). Basically, what is trying to be said here is that everyone who is eligible should have a camera very soon and this epidemic is growing steadily. This new trend will grow to the point that everyone who is anyone should know about photography, cameras, and how to properly use them. According to Roh, this is a possibility because “it is not only the medium of wonderful pictorial sport, but has extremely practical backgrounds” (156). I especially enjoy this phrase he uses to describe what photography will be used for in which he says, “pictorial preparation should be served as aims at producing a surface imbued with expression” (157). I find the phrases and terminology he uses so interesting because this is not language one uses every day, it carries an intricate element to it which interests me.
Overall, Roh argues in this essay what he believes to be the important aspects of the art of photography. He gives credit to nature but also credits the fact that it is not nature alone that is accountable for the photo, but it is brought about through mechanical processes (158). Roh also focuses on creativity and the meaning it carries in photography. He makes the claim that photography is creative in the sense that the person behind the camera gets to choose the object, and that is a “creative action” (159). Roh concludes his essay by running through the types of applied photography which add to his argument of the importance of “mechanical” means used to produce photographs.
"Mechanism and Expression" - Sierra Flynn
Franz Roh’s “Mechanism and Expression” was an interesting piece. In his writing, Roh makes a particular statement about the development of photography. He states, “…that not to be able to handle a camera will soon be looked upon as equal to illiteracy” (156). Although his claim is a bit extreme, it reflects the idea that photography is becoming more accessible to the masses. This emphasizes the technological development that is engulfing the country and the fact that now the camera is not just seen as a tool of the rich or artistic. Photography is becoming something that everyone can experience and enjoy. The process that photography went through (and was going through when Roh wrote this essay) is true for most technological developments. It originates with the creator, is (sort of) frowned upon by the general public, it becomes available to the wealthy, and eventually it trickles down to the masses. Intuitively I understood and accepted this obvious process, but this article made me aware of what actually happens. Roh mentions this process to stress the idea that photography, like any other technology, will reach the masses at some point in time. Roh’s idea of photography’s newfound accessibility continues with the statement, “with regard to sociology it may be stated that photography serves the capitalistic upper classes by its steadily increasing insertion into advertisement…camera supplies the want of the lower classes: for we often meet a common man…attempting to fix an incident of his holiday experience” (157). This statement again is conveying the idea of photography’s accessibility. This, however, emphasizes that while everyone can use photography, specific economic levels have different ways of applying the technology. In the present day, this is not wholly true because billboards and advertisements appeal to all social and economic statuses. However, the creators of those ads do think about whom they are trying to entice to purchase their products, so the idea of photography applying to an economic divide still applies in the slightest. Overall, Roh, in these two paragraphs, is highlighting the idea that photography can and will be useful to people of all monetary and social standings, and that the expansion of photography to the masses is not going to have negative effects on society.
"Mechanism and Expression" - Lauren Iacobucci
In continuing the debate on whether or not photography is a form of art, Franz Roh seems to decide to elaborate upon the definition of true photography in order to make it more applicable to the art world and argue that, yes, photography is art. We have read several different opinions on why photography is or is not art, but the approach that Roh takes in this excerpt from his book, Mechanism and Expression, is not only rather interesting but also considerably unique compared to those arguments previously expressed. But his approach is quite successful, in my opinion, in achieving its goal of convincing everyone that photography is art.
According to Roh, the fact that everyone can operate a camera due to its simplicity is both a positive and negative aspect for photography. Roh brings up the point “that not to be able to handle a camera will soon be looked upon as equal to illiteracy”—which has become remarkably true—but also that not everyone who can work a camera and take a photo is a photographer (156). What Roh is critiquing is the fact that non-professional photographers, i.e. amateurs, seem to be tainting the photography/art field, a field that Roh describes as “misjudged history of general non-professional productivity” (156). Essentially, what Roh is putting forward is that photography is art when it is produced by someone who practices photography not merely as a hobby, but as a profession, such as a painter paints for a living.
Considering photography in this fashion may help many, especially those from Roh’s time period (this book was published in 1929) accept it as a true art form—one which takes much consideration, planning, and imaginative influence, just like drawing, painting, and sculpture.
According to Roh, the fact that everyone can operate a camera due to its simplicity is both a positive and negative aspect for photography. Roh brings up the point “that not to be able to handle a camera will soon be looked upon as equal to illiteracy”—which has become remarkably true—but also that not everyone who can work a camera and take a photo is a photographer (156). What Roh is critiquing is the fact that non-professional photographers, i.e. amateurs, seem to be tainting the photography/art field, a field that Roh describes as “misjudged history of general non-professional productivity” (156). Essentially, what Roh is putting forward is that photography is art when it is produced by someone who practices photography not merely as a hobby, but as a profession, such as a painter paints for a living.
Considering photography in this fashion may help many, especially those from Roh’s time period (this book was published in 1929) accept it as a true art form—one which takes much consideration, planning, and imaginative influence, just like drawing, painting, and sculpture.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Photography by Laszlo Moholy Nagy
Nagy's piece is yet another rant about the innovation of photography. But in Nagy's case, I'd say it was less of a rant, and more of a whisper, in comparison to the other pieces we've read. It felt like he was still new at photography and was recently introduced to it, and could not shout and scream and romanticize it, as he was still learning about it. That is mostly why I liked it and felt at ease reading it. Nagy explains that new creations and methods are always being discovered but it takes a while for people to adapt to it. He says "the new function is shrouded in the traditional form". Maybe that is what the problem is: people are so stuck on painting and photography is constantly being compared to it, thus the constant debate. Another thing that makes me think he is still a baby at this, is his explanation of the camera catching things we can't (if i recall it was called camera obscura?). There is a repeated fascination with the idea of the camera capturing true distortions, free of man's hand, compelled to see what is "optically true". Nagy calls this "seeing the world with entirely different eyes".
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Society and Photography
Gunning traces the development of photography as well as the evolution of the role of photography in his essay “Circulation, Mobility, Modernity, and the Body.” As an instrument of modernity, photography played a role similar to that of the railroad and conveyer belts by circulating impressions and indices of real objects. However, while billed as unbiased evidence and an incorruptible truth, photography was shown to be a “distorted” representation of our reality. In his discourse on police photographs, Gunning illustrates the early attempts of photographic distortion used by criminals in their portraits. The struggle to capture an objective image in criminal portraiture differs dramatically from the traditional role of portraits proposed by Walter Benjamin. For Benjamin, early portraits conveyed a cult value in which the viewer develops a personal connection and becomes absorbed by the photograph. In contrast, Gunning’s criminal portraits were meant to be seen as evidence, resulting in their mass distribution and reproduction. Due to its mechanistic nature and as a result of its use as “evidence,” photographs begin to lose its subjectivity in its ability to illicit personal responses and become, to the public, a form of proof acceptable even in a court of law. However, despite its common acceptance as proof, photography and cinema are incapable of capturing the full “truth” behind the recorded event due to the discrepancies between reality and the narrative created by the viewer based on his or her own experiences and prejudices. The result is that criminals are often more afraid of being photographed than committing the actual crime. Therefore, Gunning shows that there is not a simple relationship between photography and society. Rather, society’s perception of photographed individuals and the development of photography to shape these perceptions both influenced one another in this era of technological transformation.
Gunning: Tracing the Individual Body
In this essay Gunning examines the relationship between photography and modernity primarily through the example of photography's use in detective work and criminology. First, he sets a backdrop for his reasoning with a definition of modernity as a change in the human experience caused by the advancement of techniques of production and circulation. The capitalist mode of production has led to mass production, standardization, and mechanization. This in turn has led to the necessity of a widespread system of circulation to deliver the mass produced products. Ramifications of this however, are that concepts of space and self have changed, with objects and people being able to travel vast distances from their point of origin, and standardization leading to interchangability of objects and people as well.
Gunning relates the concept of modernity to the advent of photography by using the same criteria. First, he draws upon Oliver Wendell Holmes's view of a photograph as a standardized mechanical reproduction of an object to make a case for its modernity. He says that photographs are interchangeable for the objects themselves, which brings into question the essence of any object if it can be replaced by an image. Secondly, the circulation of photographs and films using the infrastructure set up by capitalist mass production "abolished spatial barriers," bringing images of life to people from unprecedented distances and simultaneously altering the way humans perceive the world around them.
However, when applied to the world of criminology, photography does something quite different. Photographs of individual human beings are not interchangeable, they depict a single person who is different from anybody else in the world. The use of photographs for identification purposes actually counteracts the modern, urbanizing forces that makes it possible for people to be completely anonymous. Furthermore, the circulation of photographs contributing to a database effectively diminishes the advantage that criminals gain from using the same system of circulation. The use of photographs for detective work is closely related to the concept of index, and Gunning's description attests to its strength as a tool for objective classification.
Gunning relates the concept of modernity to the advent of photography by using the same criteria. First, he draws upon Oliver Wendell Holmes's view of a photograph as a standardized mechanical reproduction of an object to make a case for its modernity. He says that photographs are interchangeable for the objects themselves, which brings into question the essence of any object if it can be replaced by an image. Secondly, the circulation of photographs and films using the infrastructure set up by capitalist mass production "abolished spatial barriers," bringing images of life to people from unprecedented distances and simultaneously altering the way humans perceive the world around them.
However, when applied to the world of criminology, photography does something quite different. Photographs of individual human beings are not interchangeable, they depict a single person who is different from anybody else in the world. The use of photographs for identification purposes actually counteracts the modern, urbanizing forces that makes it possible for people to be completely anonymous. Furthermore, the circulation of photographs contributing to a database effectively diminishes the advantage that criminals gain from using the same system of circulation. The use of photographs for detective work is closely related to the concept of index, and Gunning's description attests to its strength as a tool for objective classification.
Tracing the Individual Body
Gunning's references are amazing. He brings in various characters of authority such as Walter Benjamin and Holmes. He tries to depict photography not just from an artistic point of view, but from various angles that demonstrates the marvel of photography itself. The first interesting point Gunning presents shows photography becoming a part of modernity. Photography was easily circulated and was a technological advancement, which Gunning argues is a, "change in experience." This was very fascinating to me, because to me, presently, something as simple as a movie or a photograph does not hold such a significant place as when people use to go to theatres just to watch a reel of moving landscape attached to a train. The incorporation of the photograph to identify criminals, and thus melting into fictional detective stories also caught my interest. I thought it was interesting how pop culture is influenced by machines, much like today. The body, was by far my favorite subject in this piece. The body, the ability to view it from all angles, to capture and document certain characteristics of it is amazing. It seems as though it captures a body in time forever. Gunning argues that, "THe photograph mediates between the public and the private, attesting to an intimacy of bodies that has now become a matter of record." The battle between intimacy and public display of bodies is radical. Today, we see bodies in tabloid magazines. I feel like Gunning did an awesome job incorporating passages and different elements of pop and intellectual culture.
One by One
There were three specific topics in Gunning's essay "Tracing the Individual Body" that caught my attention. The first is the concept of circulation. Gunning uses the word circulation with a double meaning of people and traffic, and also coin. He mentions the connection between the circulation in photography and the circulation of money. Because of the new mechanical reproducibility, a single print can take form thousands of times and belong to thousands of people. With the circulation of each print, there is a circulation of money. Gunning recognizes the capitalist driven society and applauds photography for jumping into the market and fitting in so quickly and easily.
The second topic that interested me was the mug shot. Oh yes, it is funny that the criminals made funny faces, but the way that detectives and police got around these illusions is even more fascinating. Gunning quotes Alan Sekula,"he did this by yoking anthropometrics (the precise measurement of body parts), the optical precision of hte camera, a refined physiognomonic vocabulary and statistics." The police meticulously measured every body part of each criminal photographed and filed the photographs by the proportion of the person. Since each photograph was standardized, each criminal could be identified even if the face was distorted. A simple hair cut or dye could no longer hide guilt, a change would now have to be made to the fingers, ears, head size, etc. Changing all of these characteristics would be impossible.
The last minor detail that caught my eye in Gunning's essay is the fact that little details catch people's eyes. A man caught sight of his wife on screen with another man and got extremely jealous. However, photographs leave out all context, so even the most important details, even through present, can be overlooked, and other details can be misinterpreted. The wife was actually with her brother, but the photograph could not give the husband such a hint to calm his jealousy. The evolution of the photograph is film, which does give context because it tells an entire story.
The second topic that interested me was the mug shot. Oh yes, it is funny that the criminals made funny faces, but the way that detectives and police got around these illusions is even more fascinating. Gunning quotes Alan Sekula,"he did this by yoking anthropometrics (the precise measurement of body parts), the optical precision of hte camera, a refined physiognomonic vocabulary and statistics." The police meticulously measured every body part of each criminal photographed and filed the photographs by the proportion of the person. Since each photograph was standardized, each criminal could be identified even if the face was distorted. A simple hair cut or dye could no longer hide guilt, a change would now have to be made to the fingers, ears, head size, etc. Changing all of these characteristics would be impossible.
The last minor detail that caught my eye in Gunning's essay is the fact that little details catch people's eyes. A man caught sight of his wife on screen with another man and got extremely jealous. However, photographs leave out all context, so even the most important details, even through present, can be overlooked, and other details can be misinterpreted. The wife was actually with her brother, but the photograph could not give the husband such a hint to calm his jealousy. The evolution of the photograph is film, which does give context because it tells an entire story.
Tracing the Individual Body - Stephanie Cortez
Overall, this was by far the most interesting article we have read. Right from the start Gunning spoke of “modernity” and how modern change can be traced back to the Industrial Revolution. This concept was interesting to me in the sense that in today’s time one doesn’t really think of anything “modern” coming from that time period or arising from that era. Today, we usually think of what new technologies and electronic devices, iPods, and phones are new on the market, and we generally don’t peek way back into history when considering things that have been improved.
In the introductory portion of the writing, Gunning jumped around a lot using different examples, quotes from knowledgeable people, and different opinions on photography. This way of organization was interesting in the way that many thoughts and ideas were provided, but at the same time slightly confusing. Not until the article reached the topic of “Rationalizing Photography’s Indiscretion” did it all the pieces fit together and his points of photographic reality flowed in a somewhat orderly way.
Is photography discreet or indiscreet? Gunning claims that, “photography is indeed indiscreet, capturing information that could otherwise be hushed up or explained away.” With the way he explained the definition of “indiscreet” I would have to agree with Gunning. It is true that a photo can be kept for a while, studied in detail and drawn conclusions from or that same captured moment could be hidden and never witnessed by anyone again. Another quote from this section that I found to hold much power is, “photography operates as one of the most ambiguous emblems of modern experience” (5). Basically, here he is saying that the physicality of photography represents modernity and modernity is essentially a unique representation of real life. We need to fully understand a particular photograph, in order to get meaning from it.
The author places the focus for the duration of the essay on the photograph being an assistant in the process of detection. Gunning claims that the photograph is the “ultimate modern clue” due to its indexical aspect, iconic aspect, and its detachable nature. The photograph has become a “new discourse of power and control” (6). This aspect later evolved into universal surveillance with photography and a gallery like spectacle used for criminal viewing. I have never looked into photography this closely before this class, nor have I read an article such as this that has made me think of the important uses of photography besides the common enjoyment of an individual.
Tracing the Individual Body...
It is interesting to think of photography in the way this piece talked about it. Usually photography has been either debated on the idea of art or not? Or it has been condoned wildly as one of the greatest inventions of the 19th century. And this piece does too, in a way, condone it. But it also puts a negative feeling into our heads when we consider how it convicts people and how it finds guilt with no question. It is a continuation of the idea that the camera is a strictly mechanical being that reproduces the truth. There was hardly any mention of the person behind the camera snapping the shot, which I found interesting. Only the camera is to blame, or thank, whichever way you choose to look at it.
The fact that criminals are caught in the act with and the camera “…uncovers a guilty image that the criminal cannot obfuscate…because the criminal remains unawares that a photo was being taken” (17 of reader) creates this credibility that is fantastic. The evolution of the courtroom and the way convictions are made because of photography/film is really an amazing feat. No longer do we use testimonies alone, but a more scientific, fact based approach. I had never thought of photography in this way, many probably take it for granted, but it is something to think about. Also the dichotomy of photography as a very artsy, premeditated art and photography as a quick the-subject-is-unaware science. The fact that this technology is so versatile only adds to the many affects it has on people.
Finally, the idea of the photo making this authoritative relationship between a “deviant…and a recording apparatus…” (16) was something new to me. Again it brings up the question of how the deviant must feel towards an inanimate object. I suppose it was the person taking the photograph that held the authority over the person but the physical camera between them really puts a distance between the deviant and the photographer. I don’t really know what I’m getting at here but it could possibly be entertaining to investigate further.
The fact that criminals are caught in the act with and the camera “…uncovers a guilty image that the criminal cannot obfuscate…because the criminal remains unawares that a photo was being taken” (17 of reader) creates this credibility that is fantastic. The evolution of the courtroom and the way convictions are made because of photography/film is really an amazing feat. No longer do we use testimonies alone, but a more scientific, fact based approach. I had never thought of photography in this way, many probably take it for granted, but it is something to think about. Also the dichotomy of photography as a very artsy, premeditated art and photography as a quick the-subject-is-unaware science. The fact that this technology is so versatile only adds to the many affects it has on people.
Finally, the idea of the photo making this authoritative relationship between a “deviant…and a recording apparatus…” (16) was something new to me. Again it brings up the question of how the deviant must feel towards an inanimate object. I suppose it was the person taking the photograph that held the authority over the person but the physical camera between them really puts a distance between the deviant and the photographer. I don’t really know what I’m getting at here but it could possibly be entertaining to investigate further.
I must admit that I checked to make sure that I was reading from the right reader many times because the subject matter is almost identical to what we have been discussing in my medical sociology class this week. As I read the sentences, “photography, through its indexicality, iconic accuracy, and mobility of circulation, provides the ultimate means of tying to a specific and unique body. In this way the process of criminal identification represents a new aspect of the disciplining of the body which typifies modernity,” my mind immediately darted to Michele Foucault and his theory of embodied power (6). And then, one paragraph later, his name popped up! It hadn’t occurred to me, although it makes perfect sense in retrospect, that photography was invented during the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution, starting around 1820 and slowing down in the latter years of the nineteenth century, brought about dynamic changes in the organization of people and labor. We have agreed that the first photograph was developed in 1827 and the technique morphed and developed well into the twentieth century. Kris alluded to the theory of technological determinism in class on Tuesday. She described the theory as suggesting that a technology is invented and the world changes around it. It is as if the technology miraculously and unexpectedly “dropped from heaven.” I have approached the invention of photography from this lense up to this point, probably because most of what we have read has centered on what photography did rather than how it became. But the dates seem awfully coincidental. Kris mentioned that the critique of technological determinism is that it dismisses the social, political, and economic context of every invention. Kracauer situates the advent of the photograph in a time of positivism and a desire for realism, suggesting that the invention can be artistically and theoretically contextualized. Like Kracauer, Gunning breaks from technological determinism and argues that the invention of photography was influenced by a need to maintain order and control among the newly formed urban populations. He says that modernity caused “an extension of the power and productivity of the human body and a consequent transformation of the body through new thresholds of demand and danger, creating new regimes of bodily discipline and regulation” (3). Foucault’s theories are foundationalized in the idea that the changing economic and social structure of the Industrial Revolution demanded an increase in state power over the deviant masses. Gunning quite eloquently proclaims that “Photography serves the purpose of surveillance and identification necessary to a bureaucratic police system by establishing identity through its mesh of iconic resemblance and identical reference” (13). The individual in a population is identified through their body. The article reads, “By falling under the regime of photography, the criminal became a corpus delicti, his own body supplying evidence of guilt” (16). Because a photograph is an index of a material reality, something that represents an event that occurred in real time and space, it is a mechanism of control. Foucault would go so far as to say that the power of photography is so diffuse that it disciplines our bodies—we avoid doing wrong not because of our own moral conscious, but rather out of the fear of being caught.
Tracing the Individual Body: Photography, Detectives, and Early Cinema – Ellie Monobe
I found this essay interesting but not as captivating as previous ones. One particular topic of interest that this essay conveyed was explanation of the origin of mug shots and CSI photography and research. This essay gave me a sense of relief due to the fact that we were not reading about the ontology or the continuous debate of photography as an art, but more about the capacity of its usefulness. One particular quote that caught my attention was stated by Benjamin, “Photography made it possible for the first time to preserve permanent and unmistakable traces of a human being.” This quote reflects the exact opposite of what we were discussing the other. Instead of photography capturing the perfect moment in time before its corruption by human kind, this photography being discussed is about capturing the right moment in time where humans make mistakes, thus to put in use later to catch the corrupted human. This new discovery of a different use for photography “became the ideal tool of the process of detection, the ultimate modern clue,” and its remarkable to think that photography is often viewed as this sort of art form used for the good of human kind rather than the traditional art form of perspective and imagination.
"Tracing the Individual Body" - Sierra Flynn
I found this essay very interesting because, although it may sound morbid, I have always been fascinated with crime and detective stories. I have never before contemplated the origin of the mug shot and the difficulty associated with identifying criminals before the development of photography. In the writing, it is stated that photography provides the ultimate means of tying identity to a specific and unique body (6) and that “photography made it possible for the first time to preserve permanent and unmistakable traces of a human being” (Benjamin 7). These statements are extremely valid. For the first time in history, the criminal justice system did not have to rely on verbal descriptions that could be marred by the “inescapable subjectivity” of the witnesses. They could instead physically match the culprits with an image. The essay also states photography captures “the criminal in an act of unconscious revelation” (8). In class we discussed how photography allows observers to see intricate details that are normally overlooked. When thinking about photography in the sense of criminal documentation, it gives a whole new meaning to the idea of spotting unique (and identifiable) details; the details are no longer art, but a court verdict. Lastly, I found the Freud’s “development of paranoia” case intriguing. This severe case of paranoia made me wonder if the public echoed the thoughts of this crazed lady or if they felt safer because of these technological advancements. It is a bit difficult (and almost comical) to imagine an old still or video camera catching someone in the middle of a lewd act. However, the idea alone could have led people to feel a bit wary as they walked down the street. This essay was of great interest to me and I find it very applicable to the previous discussions we have conducted in class.
"Tracing the Individual Body" - Lauren Iacobucci
Beginning to understand the various early applications of photography (and cinema) is quite interesting, especially its use in detection and criminology, such as is described in Tom Gunning’s article “Tracing the Individual Body: Photography, Detectives and Early Cinema. We know that photography was used for record-keeping purposes, which Charles Baudelaire states should be its only purpose, but understanding its use for identifying criminals is rather astonishing, especially considering how this application pre-dated the digital era and how it affected the entertainment world.
There are two main points of Gunning’s article that I find particularly intriguing. The first is his poetic explanation of how a photograph denies a man control over his own identity, similarly to how Walter Benjamin describes how the film camera removes the aura of the actor. His second interesting point is about the reaction of the entertainment world (be it fiction novels, film, plays, etc.) to these progresses in the use of photography for criminal identification.
Throughout his article, Gunning repeatedly brings up how “the system” is able to exert “power over the criminal’s body and image” through the process of photographing criminals and keeping an elaborately organized archive of these photographs (p 30 of article). This point is rather interesting because it brings up knowledge of the myth that a photograph steals a part of one’s soul. Even if disfiguration of one’s own face doesn’t allow a criminal to outrun the authorities because they have his identity on record, we begin to realize that we have no power over the outcome of our own identity and thus, the actions of our pasts. This is especially alarming today when one considers how widely used surveillance is and, according to movies about the modern urban future, how powerful surveillance can become for “the system”.
Gunning’s other point, about detection in the entertainment world, is fascinating more so in regards to how humans reacted to this new technological phenomenon of photography. There are two quotes pertaining to this matter in “Tracing the Individual Body” that I find particularly intriguing. The first is about the publics’ reaction to the use of photography for the identification of criminals: “The public display of portraits of professional criminals… became one of the most popular forms of photographic galleries, with tourists flocking to them as an urban sight….” (24) The second occurs in Gunning’s discussion of the emergence of surveillance: “The camera recording the very act of malefaction appears in drama, literature, and early film before it was really an important process of criminal detection.” (35) Not only is it ironic that the entertainment world came up with this application of the camera before the police system did, but it is also ironic that this fascination with the photograph as a witness was portrayed in the cinema, the latter actually following photography chronologically.
There are two main points of Gunning’s article that I find particularly intriguing. The first is his poetic explanation of how a photograph denies a man control over his own identity, similarly to how Walter Benjamin describes how the film camera removes the aura of the actor. His second interesting point is about the reaction of the entertainment world (be it fiction novels, film, plays, etc.) to these progresses in the use of photography for criminal identification.
Throughout his article, Gunning repeatedly brings up how “the system” is able to exert “power over the criminal’s body and image” through the process of photographing criminals and keeping an elaborately organized archive of these photographs (p 30 of article). This point is rather interesting because it brings up knowledge of the myth that a photograph steals a part of one’s soul. Even if disfiguration of one’s own face doesn’t allow a criminal to outrun the authorities because they have his identity on record, we begin to realize that we have no power over the outcome of our own identity and thus, the actions of our pasts. This is especially alarming today when one considers how widely used surveillance is and, according to movies about the modern urban future, how powerful surveillance can become for “the system”.
Gunning’s other point, about detection in the entertainment world, is fascinating more so in regards to how humans reacted to this new technological phenomenon of photography. There are two quotes pertaining to this matter in “Tracing the Individual Body” that I find particularly intriguing. The first is about the publics’ reaction to the use of photography for the identification of criminals: “The public display of portraits of professional criminals… became one of the most popular forms of photographic galleries, with tourists flocking to them as an urban sight….” (24) The second occurs in Gunning’s discussion of the emergence of surveillance: “The camera recording the very act of malefaction appears in drama, literature, and early film before it was really an important process of criminal detection.” (35) Not only is it ironic that the entertainment world came up with this application of the camera before the police system did, but it is also ironic that this fascination with the photograph as a witness was portrayed in the cinema, the latter actually following photography chronologically.
"Tracing the Individual Body" -Maya Swanson
Tom Gunning’s article “Tracing the Individual Body: Photography, Detectives and Early Cinema” was really interesting to me because I love detective stories! It was neat to see how photography could be applied to life situations, such as detective work, because none of the other articles we have read actually applied photography to new situations.
In the article, Gunning gives many quotes from Sherlock Holmes novels, one of them concerning a duke’s affair; “Holmes makes it clear that the Grand Duke’s indiscretion lies in having been photographed with his mistress, rather than in having had a love affair…As a mode of evidence that cannot be denied, photography is indeed indiscreet, capturing information that could otherwise be hushed up or explained away.” A photograph, according to Gunnings and as proved by Holmes, is a permanent public record. It is very hard to dispute a photograph, which is known for recording accuracy. Without the photograph to provide indisputable evidence, it would have been easy for the Duke’s affair to be denied. If for example only one person had seen the two together, it would have been one person’s word against the Dukes. But the photograph allowed the entire world to see them together. The photograph would have the final word in a situation because of its complete objectivity; “(The Photograph) is an objective mechanical means of making an image with only minimal human intervention.”
Another important contribution photography gave to detective work was its ability to identify people. A photograph serves as a record of someone’s image, which can later be matched to the real person. “The photograph could be used as a guarantor of identity and as a means of establishing guilt or innocence…The body reemerges as something to grab hold of, and the photograph supplies one means of gaining a purchase on a fugitive physicality.” The photograph marks the individual, allowing police to keep tract of people. It is essential for identification.
As Gunnings says, “Photography became the ideal tool of the process of detection, the ultimate modern clue.”
In the article, Gunning gives many quotes from Sherlock Holmes novels, one of them concerning a duke’s affair; “Holmes makes it clear that the Grand Duke’s indiscretion lies in having been photographed with his mistress, rather than in having had a love affair…As a mode of evidence that cannot be denied, photography is indeed indiscreet, capturing information that could otherwise be hushed up or explained away.” A photograph, according to Gunnings and as proved by Holmes, is a permanent public record. It is very hard to dispute a photograph, which is known for recording accuracy. Without the photograph to provide indisputable evidence, it would have been easy for the Duke’s affair to be denied. If for example only one person had seen the two together, it would have been one person’s word against the Dukes. But the photograph allowed the entire world to see them together. The photograph would have the final word in a situation because of its complete objectivity; “(The Photograph) is an objective mechanical means of making an image with only minimal human intervention.”
Another important contribution photography gave to detective work was its ability to identify people. A photograph serves as a record of someone’s image, which can later be matched to the real person. “The photograph could be used as a guarantor of identity and as a means of establishing guilt or innocence…The body reemerges as something to grab hold of, and the photograph supplies one means of gaining a purchase on a fugitive physicality.” The photograph marks the individual, allowing police to keep tract of people. It is essential for identification.
As Gunnings says, “Photography became the ideal tool of the process of detection, the ultimate modern clue.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)