View Full Version : Photography and Existentialism
Morca007
11-18-2007, 14:21
I am currently writing my term paper in my Existentialism class on photography, so I figured I would post some of those ideas here.
-Photography is an art dependant upon "the other," in that all of the tools required to practice it are made by others. Even the film we use is produced by others, which determines the look of our output. Does this mean that photography cannot be considered authentic?
-In street, and portrait photography, where the photographer uses other people to create his message, or at least to portray the message, can it be considered only the product of the photographer?
-Indeed, in any photography save for studio work of still life, where the photographer is in control of everything, is the photographer ever truly responsible for the entirety of their output?
Just a few things to ponder... ;)
How is photography of an existing piece of art (say a painting) different from photography of natural artworks like a sunset, or a flower?
Morca007
11-18-2007, 14:29
Interesting question Frank.
I suppose it really is a central question in photography; do we create art or merely record the art that is the world around us?
clarence
11-18-2007, 14:33
Any representational artform relies on subject matter that exists in the real world.
And all art is dependent on 'the other', anyway. Otherwise it would just be solipsistic, intellectual masturbation.
Clarence
I think that by framing it in a photograph, we can elevate any object or scene to art. Art is created by framing or isolating an object from it's surroundings?
bessasebastian
11-18-2007, 14:46
-Photography is an art dependant upon "the other," in that all of the tools required to practice it are made by others. Even the film we use is produced by others, which determines the look of our output. Does this mean that photography cannot be considered authentic?
I cant think of anything being without being dependant on something.
I cant think of anything being without being dependant on something.
We are / it is, all interconnected / interdependent.
That's the problem with existentialism, we may be born and die utterly alone and there may not be a god, but there are all these connections and interdependencies that do give order and meaning to life.
crawdiddy
11-18-2007, 15:03
Your original thesis is interesting, Matt. I would counter that many art forms use materials and subject matter created by others. Consider musical comositions for the piano, for example. The piano has 88 keys, which circumscribe the range of tones which can be used in the composition. The piano has existed for centuries, in one form or another. Can piano compositions be considered authentic?
I'm not necessarily arguing against your thesis. Simply saying that all art forms have the same characteristics to some degree.
SolaresLarrave
11-18-2007, 15:05
In the literature of existentialism concepts like life, truth, existence and others come as a result of an intense, visual experience that yields a sudden realization. In Sartre's La nausée, the main character becomes aware of his own situation by way of a contrast between a dark-chocolate color wall and the bar tender's blue shirt. There's another part in which his hand, laying upside down on a table, leads him to think of an upturned crab, which in turn suggests to him something akin to the fact that nobody has real power over life.
I'd be thinking along the lines of the power of images... if I were you. There are other lines of existentialism; Albert Camus comes to mind, or Kierkegaard, along with the famous German philosopher Heidegger. They all had a philosophy that integrated representation and life. Maybe you should look into that, or in the way in which photography can participate of the pattern of sudden revelations that appears frequently in what's considered existentialist philosophy.
One can tell I'm a professor... and my undergraduate major was philosophy and literature! :) Good luck!
I am currently writing my term paper in my Existentialism class on photography, so I figured I would post some of those ideas here.
-Photography is an art dependant upon "the other," in that all of the tools required to practice it are made by others. Even the film we use is produced by others, which determines the look of our output. Does this mean that photography cannot be considered authentic?
As are all forms of art. Painters don't make their canvases, musicians don't make their instruments, actors seldom read their own lines. So, if you are saying photography is just like any art, then you would right.
-In street, and portrait photography, where the photographer uses other people to create his message, or at least to portray the message, can it be considered only the product of the photographer?
Sure. No one else is creating the work. It would really depend on how much the photographer wants to control the result. Just because the object is already in existence does not mean the photographer has to follow. Representative art has always been in relation to the artist interpretation of the world. The photographer is alway making choices. If the person I photograph is not what I want, I can get another person.
-Indeed, in any photography save for studio work of still life, where the photographer is in control of everything, is the photographer ever truly responsible for the entirety of their output?
Just a few things to ponder... ;)
You are contradicting yourself. If what you say is true, a studio still life would still be a product of what is represented as the photographer can not manufacture things like apples.
I think you are working backwards. You should start with the art and come up with the argument based on what you find. If you start with the argument and try to fit the art to that, you are going to be disappointed because it won't fit.
Morca007
11-18-2007, 15:39
Francisco- That is very much what I am thinking about writing on. Particularly the connection between the literal, visual language of images in relation to Meursault in The Stranger. How we can be distracted by the details of concrete experience.
I am glad that so many people are getting at the aspect of interconnectedness that permeates all art forms. I agree that photography is only as beholden to the other as any other art. It is not the material that matters, but the choices we make in relation to them.
Sitemistic- Oy, Heidegger. :P
I am currently writing my term paper in my Existentialism class on photography, so I figured I would post some of those ideas here.
-Photography is an art dependant upon "the other," in that all of the tools required to practice it are made by others. Even the film we use is produced by others, which determines the look of our output. Does this mean that photography cannot be considered authentic?
-In street, and portrait photography, where the photographer uses other people to create his message, or at least to portray the message, can it be considered only the product of the photographer?
-Indeed, in any photography save for studio work of still life, where the photographer is in control of everything, is the photographer ever truly responsible for the entirety of their output?
Just a few things to ponder... ;)
Hi Matt,
I don't catch why do you have to climb to Existesialism to find the simple fact that without a Photographer and a Subject, there is no picture. The photo is the end result of this relationship.
"The other" sounds to me just a play of words, quite void of real contents.
Cheers,
Ruben
If I photograph someone admiring a work of art do I in turn create art?
Regards,
Bill
If I photograph someone admiring a work of art do I in turn create art?
Regards,
Bill
Is the woman attractive? ;)
Morca007
11-18-2007, 15:45
Finder- I'm not sure what you mean about my starting with an argument, I'm starting with only questions. People who start with answers are fools.
Ruben- "climb to Existentialism," eh? That would imply a hierarchy of thinking. It's merely a different lens with which to view things.
Bill- Frank's question is the determining factor. ;)
SolaresLarrave
11-18-2007, 15:49
Ah, Mersault and the knife on whose blade the sun shines, blinds him and then kills a man, only to say in his trial that "the heat made me do it."
A looooooooong time ago, I took a course in existentialist philosophy with a professor whose life was, in turn, pretty bourgeois, but he saw himself as an existentialist. I learned a lot from him, though...
Now, do you have to address photography as a source of images? Prints? Or will you take a look at photographers and their work? Nothing shows the idea of images and their content/value better than HCB... and, of course, Brassai, in his Paris de nuit images.
Sounds like something interesting.... :)
..........Ruben- "climb to Existentialism," eh? That would imply a hierarchy of thinking. It's merely a different lens with which to view things...........
Hi Matt,
Sorry if I sound harsh. In my opinion Phylosophy is relevant as an instrument of practical orientation. Where do you arrive in Photography, or Art, with your Existensialist analysis ? What's the practical conclusion.
Cheers,
Ruben
Morca007
11-18-2007, 15:59
Francisco- The paper is itself an object lesson in Existential authenticity- We have nothing but choices in what we do with it, we just have to accept responsibility for the consequences. Next to no guidelines. I plan to incorporate the work of other photographers, including HCB and Doisneau.
Ruben- No offense taken, I am of much the same mind. The practical upshot of these questions has to do with whether or not photography is worthwhile at all! To determine that from an existentialist standpoint, I need to look at the motivations behind my actions; am I photographing in a particular style because I genuinely like it, or because it is popular? Is using a camera with any auto function sacrificing choice? Of course, there's a limit to how deep (or shallow!) one might want to go, but I find it useful.
.............Ruben- No offense taken, I am of much the same mind. The practical upshot of these questions has to do with whether or not photography is worthwhile at all! To determine that from an existentialist standpoint, I need to look at the motivations behind my actions; am I photographing in a particular style because I genuinely like it, or because it is popular? ...........
Now you are talking!
Cheers,
Ruben
grainhound
11-18-2007, 16:27
My field of study was verbal expression rather than images, and photography has always been an interest rather than a serious pursuit. From my untrained point of view, photography is analogous to found poetry. Both art forms depend on found subjects, a possible image or writing. You have to look for either. If you’re a photographer, you find, or come across, a subject that says, means, or implies something to you, and use photographic tools to visually interpret it so that others will see what the subject said, meant, or implied to you. A poet will likely rearrange the found writing by breaking it up into lines in a way that it probably wasn’t originally written, but that conveys something new, from the poet’s imagination, using the original words. The analogy doesn’t entirely hold up as I’m comparing words to images, and the two are mostly dissimilar when they work meaning. The two do require seeing a subject through a distinct imagination; I thought one of Richard Brautigan’s more interesting found poems was one he discovered pinned up in a laundromat. He was no doubt one of the few to see the original.
I read all the posts with great focus and interest. but I came away realizing that the only part I really understood was the part about Mental Masturbation,.....
And, I'm actually a little fuzzy on the mental part.
Is all this actually going to lead to gainful employment?
xayraa33
11-18-2007, 17:10
I read all the posts with great focus and interest. but I came away realizing that the only part I really understood was the part about Mental Masturbation,.....
And, I'm actually a little fuzzy on the mental part.
Is all this actually going to lead to gainful employment?
OMG ! you'll need your eyesight for photography . ;)
Finder- I'm not sure what you mean about my starting with an argument, I'm starting with only questions. People who start with answers are fools.
What I mean is you seem to be starting with Existentialism is valid and can describe art. I would start with the art and then explore. But I am more in Ruben's camp that I am not really convinced philosophy can say anything worthwhile about art - sorry Ruben if I misunderstood you. For example, you and others have used the tern "language" with photography without really finding out if photography is a language - it has little if anything in common with languages, BTW. It seems most of what philosophy does is simply linguistic contortions without any real investigation into the subject it professes to describe, at least in terms of art. (Marc A, sorry!)
But I am happy you are asking questions.
Dektol Dan
11-18-2007, 17:23
Knock yourselves out.
rogue_designer
11-18-2007, 17:25
Interesting question Frank.
I suppose it really is a central question in photography; do we create art or merely record the art that is the world around us?
We create art by choosing what to show or eliminate from the world around us.
That extends to not only field of view, focus and timing, but also to choices about color vs. b&w, grain, tonality, size/scale of presentation.
-Indeed, in any photography save for studio work of still life, where the photographer is in control of everything, is the photographer ever truly responsible for the entirety of their output?
Probably not! Special reference here to Henri Cartier Bresson and his concept of the "decisive moment." The photographer is using his skill to capture a moment that is already "out there" in space and time. In which case the act of photographing is kinda like a transaction between the artist and the universe. (Whew) I have often though that if I ever started a photography web site I would call it something like "slivers of time" or similar. Which name, for me, indicates the idea that the photographer is capturing a moment in time and freezing it. More than that he is "representing" it and what he is representing it as may be nothing to do with "truth." (Truth, what is truth? - dont get me started on that one!) After all how often do "simple" images take on a life of thier own and become soemthing symbolic that perhaps never was intended by the photographer - think of that famous picture of Che Guevara taken by the Cuban photogrpaher that ended up as a kind of symbol of youthful rebellion for an entire generation .
Some photgraphers consciously use their art to create something that does not exist in life except perhaps as a concept. As it happended, last night I was watching a program on TV about a famous Australian photographer and cinematographer, Frank Hurley. Hurley was famous as a cine cameraman who accompanied Ernest Shackleton on his epic trip to Antartica and recorded it for posterity. He also served as an official photographer in WW1 on the western front and elsewhere. He got into big trouble with the authorities because he would often use his skills in the dark room to combine images, say of biplanes flying over, men rising from the trenches as they go into battle and explosions going off in no mans land. He never captured that image as a single image although he did capture all of them at different times. As he said he could not control events so as to be pointing the camera in the right place at the right time. But he argued that in a very real sense what he was depicting was the reality of life and death on the western front. I have some sympathy with that view. He was in short, using his camera to tell a story and from his perspective none of the images were re-enactments for the camera, they were all real, and somewhere on the battlefield, images such as these were being played out every day.
So perhaps here we see two ends of the spectrum. Henri Cartier Bresson and Frank Hurley.
My own view is that the entire process of photographing and producing it as an image is part of a process of creating art, no matter whether you are a Hurley or a Bresson. Imagine that you take a picture of a flower - say a lily. Is this just a representation of reality? What if I convert it to black and white then crop it hard so that all you can see are the sinuous curves that look like the curves of a females body. What about then? To me they are both art and both legitimate.
BTW you may from my rambling discussion realise that I have no bloody idea what existentialism means, but it was a good chance to wax lyrical. I also had no idea what I was going to say until I typed it. Not sure what philosophy would have to say about that - or psychiatry :^)
As a comical aside here, neither do I know what either would say about Mapplethorpe's body of work as a photographer . I once heard it said that his most infamous photograph (the one involving a fist and the very private and personal part of someone's anatomy) was intended as a metaphor for "struggle." I am pretty sure the person was joking although I recall he was using the joke to make a serious point about censorship.
xayraa33
11-18-2007, 18:00
oh.. there is no meaning to life , so by embracing existence, I will find meaning. so I will interpet the everyday mundane little things as meaningful to my life, so now I have a purpose.
sounds like a con job to me.
oh.. there is no meaning to life , so by embracing existence, I will find meaning. so I will interpet the everyday mundane little things as meaningful to my life, so now I have a purpose.
sounds like a con job to me.
So, how do you feel about religion? :)
xayraa33
11-18-2007, 18:12
So, how do you feel about religion? :)
it is the same Frank, just add social order to it so it is actually just a little more usefull.
these are methods to make us go on in life on without considering suicide.
or the path of the Buddha, one of the more intellegent doctors of human life.
you have to find what works for you.
Everything is an idea even a good photograph.
Where is truth and meaning in art? In the artwork or in the viewer?
Everything is an idea even a good photograph.
And for a moment, I thought you just abandoned a conceptual reality.
Where is truth and meaning in art? In the artwork or in the viewer?
Good question. Thats my point that art often takes on an unintended meaning becuse it is used for a purpose never intended by the artist or because it is being viewed through the lens of a different society or time.
it is the same Frank, just add social order to it so it is actually just a little more usefull.
these are methods to make us go on in life on without considering suicide.
or the path of the Buddha, one of the more intellegent doctors of human life.
you have to find what works for you.
Everything is an idea even a good photograph.
Agreed .
Agreed .
You really think religion is a con job with a social order??
crawdiddy
11-18-2007, 18:47
Philosophy contributes worthwhile explorations of everything, first of all. That is it's function and purpose. Art has meaning to the artist, and to the viewer, and the various meanings may have very little to do with each other. Once created, it has a life of its own. Does Photography correspond to other arts, as far as employing a language, or means of expression? Yes. However different it is than a poem, or novel or play, it's still communication.
Peterm1 had an interesting story about the manipulation of photography. On one level, photography seems objective-- not subject to manipulation. It is what it is. How can it lie? But the more we learn about it (and we've been learning about it for "only" about 150 years), the more we see that all photographs can be questioned. We could even say they all lie. What they appear to represent may not exist in reality. Many factors can lead to this, all the way from darkroom (or photoshop) manipulation, to choice of perspective, DOF, compression of time (or lack thereof), etc. All photographs represent "facts," at least on some level, but none of them are necessarily the "truth."
Sitemistic I am never going to be able to look at your avatar with equanimity again! I thought you were thinking deep thoughts. All you were doing were contemplating a burp! Mind you I cannot complain. Look at my avatar! - Me taking a photo of me in a mirror. How sad, lonely and pathetic does that make me look? Not even a friend to take my picture.
BTW were you at a blackpowder shoot by any chance? Your clothing makes you look as if you may have been at a rendezvous meet. No offence intended by the way. But many years ago I used to enjoy blackpowder target shooting before I discovered photography. And it involved dressing up in gear much like you are wearing in this photo.
It was my way of staving off existentialistic gloom and doom.
You really think religion is a con job with a social order??
Actually religion is a social order with a con job to work on unbelievers.
Chris101
11-18-2007, 22:55
So ... suppose that I mine some silver with my bare hands, distill nitric acid from my own excrement, dry out sea water and precipitate some silver halide, and let the sludge dry on the inside of a tree I've hollowed out. Then I poke a pinhole in it (with a hangnail from my toe of course) and make some exposures of myself. I use my own urine to develop it (yep - it works!)
No 'other' has been employed in any step. Is this photography?
Wow. There seems to be a confusion between religion and ideology.
dave lackey
11-19-2007, 06:03
I am currently writing my term paper in my Existentialism class on photography, so I figured I would post some of those ideas here.
-Photography is an art dependant upon "the other," in that all of the tools required to practice it are made by others. Even the film we use is produced by others, which determines the look of our output. Does this mean that photography cannot be considered authentic?
-In street, and portrait photography, where the photographer uses other people to create his message, or at least to portray the message, can it be considered only the product of the photographer?
-Indeed, in any photography save for studio work of still life, where the photographer is in control of everything, is the photographer ever truly responsible for the entirety of their output?
Just a few things to ponder... ;)
To begin with, an artist working with paintdoes not normally create his own tools, be it the brush or canvas. Nor is any artist in total control of what he is creating...if he/she were, then they would have both control over the mood of the art and the reaction/emotions of its viewers.
So, it seems that there are differences between photography and other forms of art, but I think they are more similar than dissimilar.
YMMV..
To begin with, an artist working with paintdoes not normally create his own tools, be it the brush or canvas. Nor is any artist in total control of what he is creating...if he/she were, then they would have both control over the mood of the art and the reaction/emotions of its viewers.
So, it seems that there are differences between photography and other forms of art, but I think they are more similar than dissimilar.
YMMV..
In what way is photography similar to dance, or music?
:)
rogue_designer
11-19-2007, 06:41
In what way is photography similar to dance, or music?
:)
They both attempt to communicate ideas/emotions to an audience. Both photography and dance in particular manipulate time and motion (one static, on fluid) to do this.
(edit: and a leica shutter thwap IS music. ;) )
mfunnell
11-19-2007, 06:50
So ... suppose that I mine some silver with my bare hands, distill nitric acid from my own excrement, dry out sea water and precipitate some silver halide, and let the sludge dry on the inside of a tree I've hollowed out. Then I poke a pinhole in it (with a hangnail from my toe of course) and make some exposures of myself. I use my own urine to develop it (yep - it works!)
No 'other' has been employed in any step. Is this photography?Probably. However, it sounds deeply unpleasant. At the very least, I'd personally avoid touching any contact prints :eek:
...Mike
They both attempt to communicate ideas/emotions to an audience. Both photography and dance in particular manipulate time and motion (one static, on fluid) to do this.
(edit: and a leica shutter thwap IS music. ;) )
Are you sure? I don’t think anyone has yet argued for the necessity of any audience.
And yes a Leica shutter has a tonality all it’s own :D
rogue_designer
11-19-2007, 07:41
Are you sure? I don’t think anyone has yet argued for the necessity of any audience.
Ah - I thought an audience was implicit in the definition of art. But that gets into another thread altogether.
Ah - I thought an audience was implicit in the definition of art. But that gets into another thread altogether.
I’m pretty sure it’s this one actually…………..;)
dave lackey
11-19-2007, 09:14
In what way is photography similar to dance, or music?
:)
Oh, my...such a deep question whilst I am at work. So much to discuss about the definition of art, it would be impossible to discuss here. Thanks for eliciting some discussion...
But, we could at least start with a basic definition of art:
"National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act* (excerpts)20 U.S.C. 952 (b) The term ''the arts'' includes, but is not limited to, music (instrumental and vocal), dance, drama, folk art, creative writing, architecture and allied fields, painting, sculpture, photography, graphic and craft arts, industrial design, costume and fashion design, motion pictures, television, radio, film, video, tape and sound recording, the arts related to the presentation, performance, execution, and exhibition of such major art forms, all those traditional arts practiced by the diverse peoples of this country. (sic) and the study and application of the arts to the human environment.
20 U.S.C. 952 (c) The term ''production'' means plays (with or without music), ballet, dance and choral performances, concerts, recitals, operas, exhibitions, readings, motion pictures, television, radio, film, video, and tape and sound recordings, and any other activities involving the execution or rendition of the arts and meeting such standards as may be approved by the National Endowment for the Arts established by section 954 of this title. "
Whew!
Then there is the idea of conveying, creatively, emotion and expression.
We could discuss forever but must get back to work. Will check back later.:(
rogue_designer
11-19-2007, 09:26
Hmm - well that definition is useful for determining which disciplines are listed under that heading within the federal government. But not for determining art itself.
For me its a fuzzy word.
I have some elements I certainly prefer within the definition, but there are so many exceptions. One version:
A human enterprise whose intent is to communicate through a chosen medium the ideas or emotions of the creator (rather than a commercial enterprise) - usually through indirect means. (e.g. Showing a sad face, rather than stating "I am sad")
Obviously this is woefully inadequate. It does not account for the artist who toils away in an attic and does not ever intend to show his work to an audience, though it could be argued he is his own audience for this purpose, or has created a specific one in his mind to which the works are aimed.
And of course any other number of holes.
Oh, my...such a deep question whilst I am at work. So much to discuss about the definition of art, it would be impossible to discuss here. Thanks for eliciting some discussion...
But, we could at least start with a basic definition of art:
"National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act* (excerpts)20 U.S.C. 952 (b) The term ''the arts'' includes, but is not limited to, music (instrumental and vocal), dance, drama, folk art, creative writing, architecture and allied fields, painting, sculpture, photography, graphic and craft arts, industrial design, costume and fashion design, motion pictures, television, radio, film, video, tape and sound recording, the arts related to the presentation, performance, execution, and exhibition of such major art forms, all those traditional arts practiced by the diverse peoples of this country. (sic) and the study and application of the arts to the human environment.
20 U.S.C. 952 (c) The term ''production'' means plays (with or without music), ballet, dance and choral performances, concerts, recitals, operas, exhibitions, readings, motion pictures, television, radio, film, video, and tape and sound recordings, and any other activities involving the execution or rendition of the arts and meeting such standards as may be approved by the National Endowment for the Arts established by section 954 of this title. "
Whew!
Then there is the idea of conveying, creatively, emotion and expression.
We could discuss forever but must get back to work. Will check back later.:(
Sorry I don’t agree with all that lawyer speak it’s impractical as a definition; in a recent discussion some friends and I arrived at something like “art is anything conceived by man, and craft is its practise” where the terms art and craft don’t imply any value judgment. Do you think that holds water?
Hmm - well that definition is useful for determining which disciplines are listed under that heading within the federal government. But not for determining art itself.
For me its a fuzzy word.
I have some elements I certainly prefer within the definition, but there are so many exceptions. One version:
A human enterprise whose intent is to communicate through a chosen medium the ideas or emotions of the creator (rather than a commercial enterprise) - usually through indirect means. (e.g. Showing a sad face, rather than stating "I am sad")
Obviously this is woefully inadequate. It does not account for the artist who toils away in an attic and does not ever intend to show his work to an audience, though it could be argued he is his own audience for this purpose, or has created a specific one in his mind to which the works are aimed.
And of course any other number of holes.
Nice attempt, but there are too many holes. The painting on the Cistine Chapel was a commercial enterprise and I have no idea if it reflects Michealangelo's ideas or emotions. If a character in a Shakespeare play says he is sad, it is not an artistic expression? Words in a photograph disqualify it as art?
Sorry, I don't mean to pick. You gave a very good attempt at defining something that cannot really be defined. BTW, Bower birds make aesthetic compositions so it is not limited to humans.
I think the answer to these questions are in relationships to the work and not the work itself. I also think the artist's relationship to a work is not the same as a viewers.
rogue_designer
11-19-2007, 11:20
BTW, Bower birds make aesthetic compositions so it is not limited to humans.
Yes - far too many holes. I agree. :)
I will say that I think an aesthetic composition without intent doesn't qualify it as art... which does limit it to human endeavors. They can be aesthetically pleasing - but are not art - just as art doesn't have aesthetics as a requirement.
A photograph of a bower bird's composition tho, is art. ;) We congratulate the photographer, and not the bower bird.
Yes - far too many holes. I agree. :)
I will say that I think an aesthetic composition without intent doesn't qualify it as art... which does limit it to human endeavors. They can be aesthetically pleasing - but are not art - just as art doesn't have aesthetics as a requirement.
A photograph of a bower bird's composition tho, is art. ;) We congratulate the photographer, and not the bower bird.
But the Bower bird's constructions do have intent and they are unique to each bird.
rogue_designer
11-19-2007, 12:04
But the Bower bird's constructions do have intent and they are unique to each bird.
I would maintain that intent is human. But that's a more personal call.
Marc - you are far more qualified than I to guide someone in a quest to understand the idea of the other. But I would like to offer this photograph as one that is utterly steeped in questions about "otherness" and race:
http://www.masters-of-photography.com/W/winogrand/winogrand_central_park_zoo_full.html
The idea of photography being a means by which we create our identity as individuals through others (and the Other) is one well worth exploring, and existentialism (in the sense portrayed by Sartre in "Nausea") may come into it. I think it was the nausea that undid Diane Arbus, in the end.
Steve Bellayr
11-19-2007, 12:24
I am not really sure if photography meets all the definitions of existentialism. (Existentialism also deals with Man's alienation in a hostile universe & freedom of choice and responsibility for one's actions.) Photography may be partially existential, if you exclude Man Ray & photograms. Roland Barthes in his treatise "Camera Lucida" defines photography as an instrument that provides evidence of existence. The photographer was there; the object photographed existed at one time in one place. Another book that might be of interest is Dyer's "On Going Moment." After all it was the literary crowd that invented Existentialism not the photographers.
I am currently writing my term paper in my Existentialism class on photography, so I figured I would post some of those ideas here.
-Photography is an art dependant upon "the other," in that all of the tools required to practice it are made by others. Even the film we use is produced by others, which determines the look of our output. Does this mean that photography cannot be considered authentic?
[...]
-Indeed, in any photography save for studio work of still life, where the photographer is in control of everything, is the photographer ever truly responsible for the entirety of their output?
Just a few things to ponder... ;)
I don't know what you mean by "authentic" at all. whether your first statement works or not hinges on what you yourself define as authentic, and It'd be a legit strategy to limit yourself to proving a narrowed-down point. researching authenticity would also be a logical starting point.
Furthermore, the sole fact that someone else produces your film, paint, sensor or whatever does not determine the final look of your images.
i.e. all the stuff in my own gallery was shot with consumer gear, though it doesn't look like it. on the contrary, the images exploit technical and formal loopholes explicitly inserted into the canonical idea of how a photograph ought to look and feel. It is via these implicit breaking points that a sense of stability is produced. Heidegger realized this in his discussion of metaphysics and metaphor as related to architecture: the foundations are unstable, and this instability is a fuel.
As you can probably infer from my lines I am also deeply influenced by Derrida, though not because of a masturbatory lust, but because my discovering of his work clarified a lot of my own explorations after the fact.
yet, photography is metaphysics: it, like other arts, posits a reality that albeit it is related to a "realist/positivist" assumption of reality still delineates its own system.
What others in this discussion highlighted as contextualism is an important point: the assumed distance to the "others" moves them infinately closer; the known suddenly becomes "uncanny" as famously described by Freud in his discussion of the domestic.
In this sense, Existentialism is alienation from [ ]. If I were pressed to search for it in my own work,
[and I'm really sorry if I'm shamelessly plugging myself here (but this topic touches a raw nerve with me..)]
it is right there, as an absence, in the middle of it all, invisible.
sorry for the convoluted post - it was a long day.
max
shadowfox
11-19-2007, 13:10
Ok, I don't get it. I thought the forum (RFF as a whole) is urged to move towards actually taking pictures rather then talking about gears.
And now we have a sub-forum to "talk" about the Philosophy on Photography? ... as opposed to actually taking pictures???
Confused is an understatement for me at this moment.
rogue_designer
11-19-2007, 13:21
Confused is an understatement for me at this moment.
Sure it's not an existential crisis? :D
Learning without thought is labour lost; thought without learning is perilous. Confucius.
Confused is an understatement for me at this moment.
ah! unknowingly guided by this confusion you will soon create your best works ever :D
Ok, I don't get it. I thought the forum (RFF as a whole) is urged to move towards actually taking pictures rather then talking about gears.
And now we have a sub-forum to "talk" about the Philosophy on Photography? ... as opposed to actually taking pictures???
Confused is an understatement for me at this moment.
That which is not forbidden should be compulsory?
:D
ah! unknowingly guided by this confusion you will soon create your best works ever :D
I do that a lot as I get older, nice thought however
:)
Hephaestus
11-19-2007, 22:25
I am very sleepy and so I have not read any of the response in this thread. However, I'd be inclined to use Sartre's concept of "the Look" and how a being-for-itself (subject) can never relate to another as a being-for-itself but rather must see the other as being-in-itself object. Sartre said that there is a constant conflict in our interactions where we are objectified by others and then we objectify them; that transcendance is transcended and back again. There is a really great passage about a man who is looking through a key-hole and then gets caught 'peeping' and is then objectified by the other. Look for that, if you've not already read it.
Sorry... I'm sleepy and it's been a while since I've taken up any existentialist literature. Good luck with your project.
shadowfox
11-20-2007, 07:23
Sure it's not an existential crisis? :D
Always, rogue, always ;)
"Art" is a construct to express our own existence .... only if we perceive that we have created what is sensed as "Art" have we created "Art". Perception by others of our creation as "Art" is not a requirement.
As for the "Other" requirement to perform photography, ... Absolutely. The sun has to create the photons used or the tungsten filament has to be heated by electrons chemically released in a reaction.... silver bromide is decomposed by the energetics of the photon ...etc.
Sensing is just another form of measurement and if we drill in too far, we run right up against Heisenberg (sp?) ... by sensing, we modify...
M4streetshooter
11-21-2007, 16:08
Maybe I'm missing something.....
we don't even breathe our own air........
"Art" is a construct to express our own existence .... only if we perceive that we have created what is sensed as "Art" have we created "Art". Perception by others of our creation as "Art" is not a requirement.
As for the "Other" requirement to perform photography, ... Absolutely. The sun has to create the photons used or the tungsten filament has to be heated by electrons chemically released in a reaction.... silver bromide is decomposed by the energetics of the photon ...etc.
Sensing is just another form of measurement and if we drill in too far, we run right up against Heisenberg (sp?) ... by sensing, we modify...
I agree the artist is expressing himself by the creation of the art. But for the art to exist why must the artist put a label on it? in this context, it must simply be a physical entity, a picture.
The audience that subsequently view that picture are not constrained by the artist’s opinion of it; they are free to form their own views, therefore the Heisenberg principal is irrelevant in this case as the audience has already altered the work on a macro level simply by forming it’s opinions of it.
The Art itself exists in the gap between the photographer’s perception and his audience’s, separate in and of itself.
Art for art's sake?
I agree the artist is expressing himself by the creation of the art.
So you do not think traditional art is art. That art form is not a personal expression.
I think Art is in the concept, the mind of man imagining anything. The rest is just the creation of artefact, movement, noise or whatever, the manifestation of the art; the craft part if you like.
I don’t know how you define traditional but yes by that definition it must be. It is only a personal expression by the artist not the audience
I think Art is in the concept, the mind of man imagining anything. The rest is just the creation of artefact, movement, noise or whatever, the manifestation of the art; the craft part if you like.
I don’t know how you define traditional but yes by that definition it must be. It is only a personal expression by the artist not the audience
Then, IMHO, we are going to disagree on what art is. I think to narrow the definition of art to just what you want it to be and not start with what is art and then find the commonality is going about the problem backwards. Frank Boas in hie work Primative Art makes an interesting point that the tradition artist is confined to a particular form, but the artist can gain mastery where he or she can take the form beyond the confines of imitation and add something to make the work a masterpiece - quality if you like.
Having known and seen many traditional artists, I would find hard to say they are not artists just because they are not expressing themselves and adhering to set forms. This also makes actors and musicians simply crafts people as they may not be engaged in self expression.
Then, IMHO, we are going to disagree on what art is. I think to narrow the definition of art to just what you want it to be and not start with what is art and then find the commonality is going about the problem backwards. Frank Boas in hie work Primative Art makes an interesting point that the tradition artist is confined to a particular form, but the artist can gain mastery where he or she can take the form beyond the confines of imitation and add something to make the work a masterpiece - quality if you like.
Having known and seen many traditional artists, I would find hard to say they are not artists just because they are not expressing themselves and adhering to set forms. This also makes actors and musicians simply crafts people as they may not be engaged in self expression.
With respect; I am not narrowing the field what I said was “I think Art is in the concept, the mind of man imagining anything”
Traditional art is clearly Art, it is absurd to exclude a form based Frank Boas’ opinion, art cannot be determined by a value judgment
Wow! Just spent the last 1 1/2hour reading through this and found it quite interesting. I don't know if it will make me a better photographer or not, but it certainly won't hurt.;) I did learn the meaning to a few new words. For that I thank you all. Reading through Rouge Designers post a bell went off in my head when I saw the word create. That is the true meaning to Art, simply to create. Can we create something out of nothing? No! To bring religion into the picture,(which is a word I don't really care for) I prefer the word Faith. But anyway, Only God could make something out of nothing. Genesis ch.1, if you believe the bible,...and God said..(lets not get into an argument please about evolution or whether the bible is right, I'm only stating this from what the bible actually says)Anyhow what i'm meaning is that we are not God & we are totally dependent on taking raw, chemical, or manmade materials and forming a work of art. So as long as a photograph is not copied, the creation of a photograph with the tools/materials given, then it is authenic. This also answers the street question "Are you taking my picture"? No sir, I am taking my picture! The copyright is mine, I am the creator. To answer the third question Matt, is a Yes & no! In a studio the photographer has complete control of everything even the light. On the outside we can't control the sun, so for that I say no. But we can control the exposure in whatever given situation of light we are dealing with. We can even wait for the right time I suppose for the light to be right, so for that I say yes.
What I mean is you seem to be starting with Existentialism is valid and can describe art. I would start with the art and then explore. But I am more in Ruben's camp that I am not really convinced philosophy can say anything worthwhile about art - sorry Ruben if I misunderstood you. For example, you and others have used the tern "language" with photography without really finding out if photography is a language - it has little if anything in common with languages, BTW. It seems most of what philosophy does is simply linguistic contortions without any real investigation into the subject it professes to describe, at least in terms of art. (Marc A, sorry!)
But I am happy you are asking questions.
Bonjour Finder :) ,
As usual, your point is very interesting and very difficult to rebut. As we have already discussed this matter in another thread (can't remember where exactly) I begin to understand your point.
You have two different theses which you stick to:
1. Art is not a form of language, does not mean anything in a linguistic manner ...etc. (the "Anti-linguistic Argument")
2. Art does not express any personal intention, it has nothing to do with the artist personality ...etc. (the "Traditional Art Argument" TAA)
Those are powerful thesis.
(I don't think this helps Morca, because if he starts his essay by questionning the relevancy of the topic he has to deal with, I have no doubt about the mark he's going to get, that is D or E. In the French system, I would mark such an essay 6/20. That's why I didn't get into: is it relevant to hold an existentialist conception of photography? etc.)
Back to the definition of art.
1. That art is not a form of language seems a weak thesis for a very simple reason: it happens that (I don't need here the universal assertion: "it is always true that ..") art is a form of language or linguistic expression. It is obvious of literature/poetry unless you consider art is only pictorial; but it is also obvious when the artist intended to say something in his pictures - you cannot dismiss the explicit intention of the artist. That does not mean that the intention of the artist is personal, I mean the artist can express personal (modern Western conception, if you want, but I’m not sure) or impersonal/collective/social (Traditional conception if you prefer) meaning. For instance, religious art and traditional art (!) often use art as a representative means to express a conceptual content (theological relations, religious meaning). In Christian art, there's always a code to decipher the artistic representation - but maybe you don't consider Christian art as an art. Even in contemporary art, you need sometimes the code: Picasso himself said a lot of things in his painting by using Christian symbols (see the picture attached). Another example: Islamic art is likely to be the most “linguistic” art, for the only allowed representation is written verses of the Quran and abstract (geometrical) shapes. And what about Dürer’s engravings or other artist of this artistic movement. See E. Panofsky about aesthetical semiotics, though I guess you don’t like his theory.
Anyway, you can say there’s something else in art than linguistic meaning and I couldn’t disagree with you, but you cannot say art is not a language. To support this assertion, you would have to exclude a lot of artistic works.
2. Art is not a form of personal expression: here again, you can say that some artistic works are not about personal expression (the TAA is relevant here), but you just cannot say art is not about personal expression at all. Western practice of art since the Renaissance proves you wrong, unless you consider it is not art and only traditional art is art.
Now IMHO, taken together your theses are inconsistent:
1. You hold that art is not about, say, “linguistic content” expression, and obviously traditional/religious art is about it. The most problematic thing in this thesis is that you seem to adopt a cultural (Western) conception of art as “pure art”, not to say “l’art pour l’art”. That’s very strange because you use traditional art as a philosophical test for another Western conception of art as personal expression.
2. indeed, you hold that art is not about personal expression, hence the TAA. The TAA is relevant if you understand traditional art as a social practice that produce social/religious meanings. But if you accept that you cannot say that art is not a form of “linguistic content” expression. In traditional art, pictorial “creation” (in a non-promethean sense) is always related to a narrative/conceptual/theological content.
So the TAA refutes the first thesis, and in order to hold the latter you have to abandon the former.
Best,
Marc
I think the answer to these questions are in relationships to the work and not the work itself. I also think the artist's relationship to a work is not the same as a viewers.
Absolutely; I agree with you.
[...]
1. That art is not a form of language seems a weak thesis for a very simple reason: it happens that [...] art is a form of language or linguistic expression. It is obvious of literature/poetry unless you consider art is only pictorial; [...] For instance, religious art and traditional art (!) often use art as a representative means to express a conceptual content (theological relations, religious meaning). In Christian art, there's always a code to decipher the artistic representation - but maybe you don't consider Christian art as an art. Even in contemporary art, you need sometimes the code: Picasso himself said a lot of things in his painting by using Christian symbols (see the picture attached). Another example: Islamic art is likely to be the most “linguistic” art, for the only allowed representation is written verses of the Quran and abstract (geometrical) shapes. And what about Dürer’s engravings or other artist of this artistic movement. See E. Panofsky about aesthetical semiotics, though I guess you don’t like his theory. [...]
In this paragraph you muddle the waters between linguistics and semiology. the former being a branch of the latter does not automatically encapsulate anything semiotic in the linguistic. In fact, an artwork does not "say" anything; fundamental linguistics merely occupied itself with the act of speaking, even disregarding the written word- though that is history.
An artwork does not speak in a linguistic sense, and it is not per se related to the linguistic system of langue and parole. Do not confuse symbols with words.
You might assign meaning or words to a given symbol after the fact, but there is no proof that the symbol ever actually "contained" your delayed attribution. As such, "content" is as arbitrary as language, which thrives on translatability and the universal interchangeability of words. there is only ever differences. the word does not contain the object, and vice versa. the relationship is arbitrary, yet socially regulated.
It is a fundamental paradox, though, that without language we could not discuss art, and thus tend to subjugate an artwork's intersubjectively defined "meaning" to language itself - an act of illegal analogy that also happens to aid in attributing "he said this or that through the work" to the artist.
In this paragraph you muddle the waters between linguistics and semiology. the former being a branch of the latter does not automatically encapsulate anything semiotic in the linguistic. In fact, an artwork does not "say" anything; fundamental linguistics merely occupied itself with the act of speaking, even disregarding the written word- though that is history.
An artwork does not speak in a linguistic sense, and it is not per se related to the linguistic system of langue and parole. Do not confuse symbols with words.
You might assign meaning or words to a given symbol after the fact, but there is no proof that the symbol ever actually "contained" your delayed attribution. As such, "content" is as arbitrary as language, which thrives on translatability and the universal interchangeability of words. there is only ever differences. the word does not contain the object, and vice versa. the relationship is arbitrary, yet socially regulated.
It is a fundamental paradox, though, that without language we could not discuss art, and thus tend to subjugate an artwork's intersubjectively defined "meaning" to language itself - an act of illegal analogy that also happens to aid in attributing "he said this or that through the work" to the artist.
I agree with with you, and you stress on an important distinction between linguistic and semiology. However I'm not embarrassed by that: I hold that semiotic relations in artwork "often" (not always or necessarily) are of linguistic kind; that is symbols refers to idea as a written word or a sound refer to an idea; then the articulation of those symbols, though different from linguistic articulation, can be translated in a linguistic syntactic structure. That's why I didn't made the distinction, that's why also I don't need a strong counter-argument such as : "semiotic relations in artwork are necessarily of linguistic kind".
If theere are some artistic works that verify the assertion: "sometimes/often/ it happens that semiotic relations in artwork are of linguistic kind", then I made my point. IMHO, the weak assertion is not disputable.
Best,
Marc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finder
I think the answer to these questions are in relationships to the work and not the work itself. I also think the artist's relationship to a work is not the same as a viewers.
Absolutely; I agree with you.
__________________
After : RFF EuroMeet Paris 2007!
WHAT ABOUT A 2008 EUROPEAN RFF MEETING? >>> Please click & join us!
My PBase gallery
While I also agree with that, the question that then needs to be asked is; is the relationship between the artist and the art really necessary?
I am thinking about prehistoric cave painting or those extremely old South African objects. In those cases there is no contemporary relationship between art and artist, we cannot even be sure the creatures that made them were fully human, yet their work is undeniably art.
The relevance of linguistics, symbolism or tradition also looks meaningless over the long term, when one is ignorant of the society that produced them one must judge the object on its intrinsic values.
On the other hand one can imagine that the society that produced the prehistoric painter also produced dancers and musicians whose relationship with their art was equally valid at the time but is now completely lost, we would then have to conclude that in fact the relationship between the viewer and the art is the more important.
Congratulation on the new arrival Marc
:) :)
noimmunity
11-23-2007, 07:41
People are talking on so many different levels here, the most interesting thing for me in reading this thread (coming late into the game) is to see the way people continue the discussion, making some really interesting points and raising some really good questions, even while incessantly misunderstanding each other and talking past each other. It could make a very cool montage effect!
In general, we can say that Existentialism isn't a very useful vehicle for posing questions about images compared to many other kinds of philosophical, sociological, political and even economic critiques.
There is a very good book by Christiane Vollaire published in France this year, titled < Humanitaire, le coeur de la guerre > (in English, "Humanitarianism, the heart of war"). The intelligent pun in the title of course will give readers an idea of what is to come--an unusually thought-provoking critique of humanitarian aid. I mention this book because it contains an extraordinary discussion of the way in which photograpghic art of a very high professional caliber can be used to prevent people from seeing things (in this case, the economic and political realities behind humanitarian aid) precisely by showing things extensively in highly formalized ways. One of the best examples of this would be Sebastiao Salgado's series of photos on famine in Africa.
This is one of the formulas common to our era: one of the best ways to hide things is by showing them in spectacular fashion.
I do not think that we can responsibly talk about images today without considering the way in which domains that had been previously kept separate--the economic, the political, and the ontological--are now converging upon each other in unprecedented ways. This conjuncture (not exactly confusion) means that we will have to include many things in the "frame" of the work that were normally thought to be wholly external.
But perhaps the biggest challenge we face is that the very possibility of framing--raised earlier in this thread as a fundamental part of art--is now disappearing with the advent of the virtual.
[...] that is symbols refers to idea as a written word or a sound refer to an idea; then the articulation of those symbols, though different from linguistic articulation, can be translated in a linguistic syntactic structure.
[...]
If theere are some artistic works that verify the assertion: "sometimes/often/ it happens that semiotic relations in artwork are of linguistic kind", then I made my point. IMHO, the weak assertion is not disputable.
precisely, there is a moment of referral. we make the same point, and I do understand now where your decision not to differentiate originates. there is a longing not to, of sorts. some might venture to say that semiological differentiation is moot anyways, since it cannot be shown in the sense of producing proof. this is where we touch the second paragraph of yours that I've quoted above.
"verification" is touchy territory.. yet none of us thankfully ever tried to "prove" anything here, in the sense of logics, rationalist methodology or the like. I say "thankfully" because if that were the case we'd now inevitably have to talk about epistemology. considering that caveat, I'd be careful with "not disputable", as this aspiration is made or broken depending on the underlying epistemological and methodological model.
However, we now see that art is "neither". It cannot be "proven". Thankfully, though, we can still believe it to be whatever we wish it to be, and practice art accordingly.
best wishes & thank you for the enjoyable discussion,
Max
There once was a Bishop called Berkeley
who remarked, metaphysically, darkly:
"Quite half what we see
cannot possibly be,
and the rest's altogether unlarkly"
mackigator
12-17-2007, 12:07
"am I photographing in a particular style because I genuinely like it, or because it is popular?"
Now that's always a good question. The best artists seem to consistently create art to please themselves.
"solipsistic, intellectual masturbation" Sounds like a good title for this paper!
Many have seen this, but check out Winogrand refusing to take the bait on the questions about "what he does" in this Q&A:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/whileseated/447245908/
And the video interview that has been discussed on RFF before:
http://www.jimarnold.org/downloads/winogrand/flash/
canonetc
12-21-2007, 00:43
One purpose of art is to allow us to transcend personal and existential limitations, meaning, everything we know, don't know or think we know. Photography, regardless of the tools used by the artist or involving an "other", is an act, that may or may not result in a tangible product. A mime with a mime-camera can take pictures. Where do his photographs exist? The same place our photographs exist: nowhere. The mime acts....with a certain level of absurdity and freedom.
When we get entangled with the tangible, the mystery of photography ceases to be mysterious. That is the threat we face every day. Absurdly so.
Chris
canonetc
moonwrack
12-21-2007, 09:05
The Artist Paul Nash said "Photography is not an art form but many artists are photographers".
pthompson
12-29-2007, 09:01
"am I photographing in a particular style because I genuinely like it, or because it is popular?"
Now that's always a good question. The best artists seem to consistently create art to please themselves.
Often when we reduce complex issues down to simple presentations, we create false choices...
This reminded me of an exchange between an art critic and the artist Jasper Johns - very loosely paraphrased:
Critic: Do you use readymade templates for your numbers because you like them, or because they come that way?
Johns: I like them because that's the way they come.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.