The Ontology of the Photographic Image - Stephanie Cortez

“The Ontology of the Photographic Image” by Andre Bazin was a difficult piece to get through. Bazin makes the comment at one point that, “Perspective was the original sin of Western painting” (240). I found this to be an important statement, one to ponder over for while, yet, there are no conclusions or real meaning I can get from it on my own. Reading it, however, made it come across as very profound and heavy with insight. A few times actually, I found myself reading over passages in attempts to further digest what he intends to say. For the most part, his writing was dense and had to be read with careful attention to detail in order to fully interpret the message on photography and film that he delivers.

On page 241 Bazin says, “Photography affects us like a phenomenon in nature, like a flower or a snowflake whose vegetable or earthily origins are an inseparable art of their beauty.” This statement is intriguing to me and I enjoy how deeply rooted the feeling of photography is for Bazin; he definitely illustrates that feeling here. He sees photography as the truth and as a great phenomenon that is sweeping the earth. Every component and detail of the photograph is beautiful and it has so much to offer to the viewer. Photography is the real deal and Andre Bazin even refers to photography as “being” the model of which is the value and virtue of the ideal image (241).

It is obvious that Bazin feels photography is the greatest of all arts. This idea is proven when he says that painting is an inferior way of creating likeness. According to him, photography embalms time. The last statement he makes to close the essay says, “Photography is clearly the most important event in the history of plastic arts” (243). This again, reveals the allotted credit that is given to the magnificence of photography and how this surpasses other so called “plastic arts” at that time.

The Ontology of the Photographic Image-Ellie Monobe

I found this writing somewhat interesting in the beginning; I thought that the mention of Eygiptian processes of preserving the body was an interesting lead into photography. It was interesting to read about Bazin making the connection between how humans like to keep images of people who have past and the preservation of people through mummification.
One quote that really caught my eye during this reading was that “perspective was the original sin of Western painting”. This quote makes the “perspective” that was found in western painting as some holy gift that was born. Later on in the passage it then recognizes photography as freeing the plastic arts from likeliness and it was Niepce and Lumiere that unleashed perspective from sin and applied it to photography. Unlike painting, photography satisfied the realist ideas and showed us reality and life experiences. Painting, in this text, was viewed as something far more superior but yet too much like all the other art forms in the world. I got the feeling that to some people who appreciated changed enjoyed photography and saw it as some kind of release. He made it seem that it was impossible to ever create an image without the interference o f humans until photography was discovered and then there was no use for man besides hitting the button and developing the picture.
Lastly, another quote that I really felt like I grasped the concept of the superiority photography developed over painting was that “for photography does not create eternity, as art does, it embalms time, rescuing it simply from its proper corruption”. The plastic arts can create this aura that can pull you and can make you ponder about the era and generation it was created in. No one can look at a paingint for only a second and know exactly what place, time and what events were occurring at the moment the art was being formed because it takes a lot longer to produce than just a snapshot. Photography can capture a moment in time and have it there in your hands to view forever, when before if the picture wasn’t taken it could’ve been gone in an instant, or corrupted as Bazin would say.

"The Ontology of the Photographic Image" - Sierra Flynn

I found Andre Bazin’s essay “The Ontology of the Photographic Image” to be quite interesting. His arguments for photography being “the most important event in the history of plastic arts” are actually quite compelling. The arguments touch on many factors that we have discussed in class and ultimately favor photography over painting. While reading, one specific paragraph, in which he was lauding another one of photography’s remarkable aspects, caught my attention. Bazin states, “No matter how skillful the painter, his work was always in fee to an inescapable subjectivity. The fact that a human hand intervened cast a shadow of doubt over the image” (240). I find the statement, “cast a shadow of doubt over the image” an interesting use of imagery, for when I first read it I actually visualized a painter’s hand casting a shadow over a canvas. I am not sure if this is what Bazin intended, but that shadow, for me, created a negative feeling towards the hand that I associated with a painter. This imagery reinforces his idea that the photographer is better than the painter and, in turn, photography is better than painting. Also, I found that I partially agreed with Bazin’s statement. I believe the “shadow of doubt” is found in paintings, but that it allows for the artist to insert his perspective into his work more easily. A painter can easily alter the appearance of the object being portrayed, but a photographer can only manipulate the scene that is being photographed to a certain extent. I think Bazin has an extreme affinity to photography that he tries to subtlety state throughout his essay. Overall, I enjoyed reading this piece and I hope that I interpreted it somewhat correctly.

"The Ontology of the Photographic Image" - Maya Swanson

I found the most intriguing part of Andre Bazin’s “The Ontology of the Photographic Image” to be the very beginning. His thoughts gave me a better understanding as to why people are so fascinated with the photograph. Bazin begins his essay with talk of how, ever since the dawn of humanity, people have been obsessed with preserving life images of the dead, starting with the ancient Egyptians and mummification. “The image helps us to remember the subject and to preserve him from a second spiritual death.” It is difficult to remember those who are not around anymore unless there is an accurate image of the person still around.
However, artistic thought began to turn, and painting stopped being so much an accurate representation of the world and began to focus on aesthetic expression and new creation. Bazin says that the most skilled artists are able to “hold reality at their command and mold it at will into the fabric of their art.”
But with the invention of the photograph, people’s obsession once more turned to realism. Photography’s amazing ability to capture reality accurately emphasized how paintings could not do this. “No matter how skillful the painter, his work was always in fee to an inescapable subjectivity. The fact that a human hand intervened cast a shadow of doubt over the image.” Bazin stresses the superiority of the photograph because it can duplicate reality in a way that painting cannot. All other art forms require the intervention of humans, while photography does not depend on human craftsmanship; “Photo is a mechanical reproduction in the making of which man plays no part.”

"The Ontology of the Photographyic Image" - Lauren

I found André Bazin’s article to be rather entertaining. Not only does he blatantly state that painting is inferior to photography, but he tries to make this statement in a rather ambiguous manner… which he is clearly quite unsuccessful at. This is apparent in several statements at the beginning of his article where he points out the negative aspects of painting and how photography surpasses these aspects, but then covers up his argument by stating that photography has qualities of its own that are substandard to those of paintings.

By the middle and end of his article, though, Bazin completely praises photography, making such statements as, “painting is, after all, an inferior way of making likeness” and “photography can even surpass art in creative power”. By now, Bazin seems to have gained enough confidence in his article to forcibly put forward his argument that photography is better than painting.

There are a few points in “The Ontology of the Photographic Image” that relate to earlier readings we have discussed, too. First of all, he says that “A very faithful drawing may actually tell us more about the model but despite the promptings of our critical intelligence it will never have the irrational power of the photograph to bear away our faith”. This statement first contradicts, then supports arguments made in previous readings that state that humans consider photographs to tell us more about reality than paintings ever could. Bazin’s belief that a “drawing may actually tell us more about the model” – which we can interpret as telling us more about the model’s personality and/or emotions – contradicts those arguments made by other scholars in earlier articles.

Another point that Bazin makes, that “the photographic image is the object itself, the object freed from the conditions of time and space that govern it”, helps us to understand the difference between old art and new art in the realm of space and time. What is curious here is that Bazin claims that a photograph actually “embalms time, rescuing it simply from its proper corruption”. Bazin essentially idolizes the capabilities of photography, and it was at this point in his article that I began to question his sanity… especially when he says, “photography actually contributes something to the order of natural creation instead of providing a substitute for it”.

What really gets me, though, is Bazin never actually describes what he means by “the plastic arts”, and if he considers photography such a fantastic invention, why does he doubt the possibilities of photography in the “reproduction of color”?

Tracing the Individual Body

I truly enjoyed this piece as I could definitely relate to it. I found it quite amusing honestly. It was very interesting to see how the photograph evolved into a means of evidence. Over and over again in our readings, how real an image is, whether in film or a photograph, even in a painting. They are doubted and then praised for how natural and pure they are. Then this reading twists it around even more and says, yea what the picture is displaying is real, but what you should doubt is what you are seeing. That is the culprit in the photo, but is it really his true natural face you are seeing? Can he easily be mistaken with someone else.  Also with the Une erreur tragique where the husband sees his woman with some other guy that he trips out about then later finds out was her brother. Yes, the photograph DID show her with another man, but he failed to realize it was her brother. I especially liked the phrase "it is not a just image, it is just an image". A lot of us today, secretly, whether we want to admit it or not, as fascinated candid photographs of ourselves. Those are the ones that Tom Gunning explains show the closest to the truth of who someone is. When they are unsure of whether or not they are being photographed, or even better, when they have no idea at all. I know I personally like to see pictures of myself when I don't know there is a camera around. It kind of shows me what people see me as, when I am unaware of myself (if that makes sense). I'm not being conceited, just honest. Gunning calls this "a moment of unconscious self betrayal". This, thus far, has been my favorite piece. :)

The Ontology of the Photographic Image

Okay. So that was incredibly confusing and I'm not sure why. It was very far from Walter Benjamin's Essay in his choice of words. But then again I take that back. Maybe it's just me, but i felt like Andre Bazin couldn't make his mind up about photography. I did not buy what he was saying. First he semi-critiques painting: "How vain a thing is painting". It was a way to preserve oneself alongside sculptures/mummies. It is seen as an illusion and almost devirginized by the touch of man's hand..."cast a shadow of doubt over the image". On the other side, there is this holy amazing thing that man plays no part. That which is the camera. Now I don't know why but I felt like he wasn't fully believing what he was saying either. Maybe it is because of his choice of words, by making it seem over the top, but he never puts in enough evidence. I think photography does have man's hands all over it. Man's hand's created the camera after all! Bazin seems to agree with this in saying that the photographer's personality is part of the picture in what he chooses to photograph and what the purpose of the photo is. But I think the photographer plays a larger role than that. I mean why else isn't everyone a well renowned photographer?? Clearly there is something that others have that we don't. Just as painting, there is the talent of painting  a beautiful picture. THey pick what they want to paint and what the painting is for? How does it make it any different other than you have to be able to paint? Well to take a picture, you have to understand lighting and focus and all that, which makes it of equal difficulty and importance. I think it is a pretty cheesy piece honestly, and as I said earlier, I'm not buying it. I'm kind of annoyed by how glorious he makes photography seem; "the power of photography" and "(nature) imitates the artist". I especially enjoyed the last line where he throws in "On the other hand, of coursee, cinema is also a language". All those little details just made it seem sarcastic and not nearly as powerful as Benjamins piece.