#SontagFlusser

[916820276]

Blogpost #2

Flusser’s assumption that the two major turning points of human history are the invention of writing and the invention of imagery strikes me as an extraordinary simplification. Their implication that writing was a negative for society also struck me as strange, especially since their theory is conveyed through writing. I did like the statement that “[images] are supposed to be maps but they turn into screens.” The activeness turned into passivity is a nice way to put it. Additionally, Flusser’s description of cameras as a black box apparatus is interesting, though I feel the language complicates the meaning. Most electronic devices and many other modern day technologies obscure their inner workings from their users.

I enjoyed Sontag’s section about the physicality of printed photos. A printed photo can fade and be torn and marked over time, and so itself becomes an image. I also enjoyed the transition sentence of “As photographs give people an imaginary possession of a past that is unreal, they also help people to take possession of space in which they are insecure,” in reference to the family photos and travel photos respectively. I‘ve certainly taken tourist photos simply because people had agreed that this site was photographable, rather than really taking in the site and taking photos that end up more unconventionally attractive. Sontag also writes about voyeurism and how photography inherently requires distance. I‘d argue that the intimacy of the scene and implied trust is quite voyeuristic. Finally, I love the poignant written imagery of “Precisely by slicing out this moment and freezing it, all photographs testify to time’s relentless melt.”

[raymang0]

Blogpost #2

I had heard the allegory of the cave and watched summary reviews before, but ts been a while and I had never actually read the plato text. It reminded me of a conversation I had with a friend in Costa Rica about a book he read, Calle dot breakdown of the bicameral mind or something. Pretty much, that human conscious has evolved, one example being that in the Odyssey when they talk about Athena commanding everyone to do something, they might have not been able to distinguish inner voice from external noise. I think that we, as a whole, are always in a cave, and always moving towards the light, and that each of us have our own cave and our own light that we see.

I believe that we do work as a whole to bring each other to the light. art is one of infinite crafts to bring knowledge or some sort of wisdom to others. I somewhat agree that wisdom can't be passed from one human to another through education, but guidance can. We all perceive the world very differently, so I think our wisdoms are also very different, we have the wisdom that we need for the things we need them for. As time goes on, it seems like the "shadow people" that deny the light when they need it aren't such because of ignorance, but maybe because of some sort of fear. When you take you first step out of the darkness into the light, it blinds you and it hurts, some decide they like the light better, and some fear it.

Questions:

Do you think there is a truth, or a true world?

what concepts do you think you could explain to someone from 100 years ago? what concepts do you think they would be unable to achieve?

If the problem of being unable to communicate some ideas to "shadow people" are true, what do you do with the knowledge you have?

[frankieschulte]

Blogpost #2

The perspective taken on by Sontag is one which I've never truly thought about when it comes to photography. It's very cynical and very grounded, exploring the idea that photography has been in a way turned into a tool for personal experience, in the wrong way. The idea explored that photography is wrong for it captures only a certain idealized moment in time is interesting to me, as I'd never considered it that way before. Many times when I go out to take photos I take hundreds of photos of a particular scene to try and capture the best possible image of it, but Sontag explores the idea that that's not capturing the moment, it's capturing the ideal moment which isn't grounded in reality. It's a very interesting way to think about photography as a medium in our life.

Flusser, meanwhile, makes an exploration in photography far more historical and research-esque, describing the development of photography as a tool to replace writing rather than a tool of evil. After putting thought into it, photography really is a medium which can replace writing; fundamentally, writers would write because it was the easiest way to describe the world around the writer and escape it. With photography, the same goal is aspired for: to capture the world around the user and to escape it. It's fascinating how the act of simply taking photos would relate so strongly to so many other art forms.

Plato's Allegory of the Cave is a story I've read back in high school and always had in the recesses of my mind, but rereading it after the other two readings puts it in a whole new light (good joke there.) Fundamentally Plato's Allegory of the Cave is an allegory for photography. All of the subjects within the cave are being shown photos and that's how they perceive the world. Today, so many people comprehend the world out beyond their bubble through photos and videos taken. Many learn of entire cultures solely through photos, and perhaps we're all within the cave ourselves and don't even realize it. It's an interesting viewpoint to take when thinking in terms of photography.

Discussion Questions:

1. Do you think it's wrong to take time to capture the ideal moment when taking photos? Or should a photographer aim to capture the world as it's seen in reality?

2. Can photography as a medium capture the same things writing intends to capture? What similarities can be found between the two that may seem less than obvious?

3. Are we all within Plato's cave when it comes to photos of the world around us? How can we free our eyes from the shadows seen on the wall?

[miracarson]

Blogpost #5 Sontag-Flusser

In a fascinating sort of certainty, Sontag skips between ideas and statements on the importance of the camera with little to no justification or citation. Some of which I agree with, and others I find somewhat bold and unfounded. I did, in particular, take issue with the point that the act of taking a photograph can only occur in response to an event. Anything worth taking a photograph of must be notably 

I’m bemused by the fact that the book is completely devoid of photographs itself. How well would examples of the statements made improve their validity? Why is this excluded? How can one make such bold statements without citation, and why are we expected to believe them?

The overabundance of photographs in the modern world as a kind of “mental pollution” baffles me. Despite being exposed to the world primarily through the internet, and remotely, for the last near-two years, I can barely recall being exposed to a particularly notable photograph during that time. The sentiment I see repeated in these readings is that seeing a photograph of something cannot replace experiencing it, only experiencing can be made timeless through photographing.

[photographyatmit]

Blogpost #2

Flusser’s assumption that the two major turning points of human history are the invention of writing and the invention of imagery strikes me as an extraordinary simplification. Their implication that writing was a negative for society also struck me as strange, especially since their theory is conveyed through writing. I did like the statement that “[images] are supposed to be maps but they turn into screens.” The activeness turned into passivity is a nice way to put it. Additionally, Flusser’s description of cameras as a black box apparatus is interesting, though I feel the language complicates the meaning. Most electronic devices and many other modern day technologies obscure their inner workings from their users.

I enjoyed Sontag’s section about the physicality of printed photos. A printed photo can fade and be torn and marked over time, and so itself becomes an image. I also enjoyed the transition sentence of “As photographs give people an imaginary possession of a past that is unreal, they also help people to take possession of space in which they are insecure,” in reference to the family photos and travel photos respectively. I‘ve certainly taken tourist photos simply because people had agreed that this site was photographable, rather than really taking in the site and taking photos that end up more unconventionally attractive. Sontag also writes about voyeurism and how photography inherently requires distance. I‘d argue that the intimacy of the scene and implied trust is quite voyeuristic. Finally, I love the poignant written imagery of “Precisely by slicing out this moment and freezing it, all photographs testify to time’s relentless melt.”

(I accidentally posted this onto my student blog, so I'm reposting this here now!)

[photographyatmit]

Blogpost #2

"In Plato's Cave" by Susan Sontag brought up some interesting points. For example, Sontag describes taking photos as "perverse" and "naughty." Sontag then goes on to describe the sometimes sexual nature of photography. But, if instead we take photography as preserving a moment forever and perverse as doing something that is unreasonable, then these definitions would imply that saving or remembering moments in unacceptable. Yet, without the aid of a tool such as the camera, people still remember moments. Therefore, I think that taking photos is not something perverse, but helps people cherish and possibly indulge in moments that would otherwise be forgotten. There, of course, is the debate about whether these moment should be preserved if they were going to be forgotten otherwise and the debate about how beneficial is indulgence. Yet, if people do not enjoy things simply for the please of enjoying them (i.e. indulging themselves), then what is life for? I believe that that is the purpose of life: is to enjoy the time we have. In this way, I don't think indulgence is something people should sexualize or scold. I think that indulgence benefits - and may be integral to - photography since, in general, I believe that people create more beautiful things when they enjoy doing so.

Concerning Flusser's arguments, I think that Flusser's use of verbose language obscures his arguments. This verbosity is arguably romantic in its nature with its flowering and fantastic words. Moreover, Flusser defines a magical world as something "in which everything is repeated and in which everything participates in a significant context." In his distinction between the historical and the magical world, he neglects the nuances of life. I believe that in his distinction between the magical and the historical, he is removing the humanity from human history. For example, he neglects the patterns of behavior (such as innovation) that have been conserved throughout history. Such characteristics define humanity. Human innovation as well as creativity have repeated throughout history and if one believes in the butterfly effect, then everything has significance. This neglection creates a pessimistic mood to the human experience. Thus, in my experience with Flusser's arguments, I think that the romantic language used juxtaposes his rather pessimistic views.

Sontag notes that "[photography] democratize[s] all experience by translating them into images." Yet, some experiences are more photographed than others, which may make photography undemocratic. So, is photography truly democratic?

Sontag also notes that "a way of certifying experience, taking photographs is also a way of refusing it - by limiting experience to a search for the photogenic, by converting experience into an image, a souvenir." So, I wonder if there is a way to truly appreciate experiences? That is, living an experience and not cherishing it enough to take a photo or is living an experience so fully that a photo isn't necessary to cherish it the best way to experience moments?

[photographyatmit]

Blogpost #2

I agree with the vast majority of the points in the Sontag reading. In particular, I really resonate with the discussion on how picture-taking can go from being a way to preserve an experience, enhancing what was already a pleasant experience, to being the primary motive for doing something. With the rise of social media, this is surely much more prevalent today than it was at the time of writing. I also concur with the view that photographs of atrocities can make them "appear familiar, remote, [and] inevitable."

As for the Flusser reading, I found it remarkably abstract to a level I had never thought possible. Though I did read all of it, I will need to discuss it further if I am to really grasp its contents.

I will lastly comment on The Many Lives of William Klein, which I greatly enjoyed. The style of Klein's photographs was brilliant, from the intentionally blurry frames to the variety of the "characters" portrayed. I would be interested in trying to imitate his style in my own photographs.

Some questions for discussion are: Do you agree with Sontag's stance that all images, including those making "a virtue of plainness," contain a sort of implicit aggression? (Note that agreeing to this is not equivalent to saying "simple image bad".) What did you make of the Flusser reading?

[photographyatmit]

Blogpost #2

"In Plato's Cave" and "Towards a Philosophy of Photography" contemplates the many hats that the photograph and its apparatus has worn in history and culture, and it has certainly made me question whether photography takes on a role in my life that I am much less aware of than I thought. A point brought up in both their works is the illusory objectivity that a photograph can provide. Sontag describes photos as always being products of interpretations, "haunted by tacit imperatives of taste and conscience." Flusser emphasizes that photographic subjects are ultimately always symbolic rather than reflective, and interestingly place them as many degrees removed from what we think of as reality (the technical image abstracts text, which itself is a symbol of what he calls the original image).

I think the wide availability of data of all kinds shares the same property -- we find trends in large datasets to be especially compelling because they feel "raw" the same way a photo might be. However, both are in the end a product of discretion, of choices and biases baked into existing societal structures. They are also strictly positive in the sense that they feel complete through what they depict but fail to highlight what is missing. There are an unfathomable number of pictures in the world, and that may make us feel that there's "enough" to capture what the world is like.

The reproducible nature of images is also interesting because it allows a photographic subject to either feel ubiquitous or common; or its multiplicity can elevate it into importance. One question I have is, when does a photo become one or the other? Is it more of a result of technical choices or of what happens "post-photo" -- how it's distributed, who it's in the hands of?

[photographyatmit]

blogpost #2

Susan Sontag stakes a series of bold claims and declarations on photography in "In Plato's Cave." I was struck by the elitism apparent in Sontag's opinions; for example, she seems to denigrate "work that makes virtue of plainness [...] still lifes of the bleaker sort." Personally, I hold an opposing opinion, that there is inherent value in the plainness of life and joy to be found in spending time with it. Interestingly, she simultaneously calls photography "imperial," "naughty," and "perverse," which reflect other aspects of photography Sontag appears to find distasteful. I can see the truth in each of these descriptors, but it seems Sontag elevates some forms of photography while finding others disgraceful.

I am curious to learn more on Sontag's opinions on different styles/subjects of photography. What photographs would she deem valuable or not?

Flusser's "Towards a Philosophy of Photography" is appropriately titled, as the first three chapters immediately dive into the metaphorical and philosophical. I appreciate the analyses that viewed photography as something that "reduces four dimensional space and time into two dimensions," as well as the in depth claims that there are much more layers to photography than those the layperson sees. In particular, I thought the claim that images require decoding, but that many fail to do so and thus criticize the world they see in photographs rather than the production process of the photograph was very interesting.

How can everyday viewers break through the surface level interpretations of photography and penetrate the depth that Flusser claims is present?

[photographyatmit]

Blogpost #2

Susan Sontag's monological take on the photographic medium, its value and state in our world is a curious read that raised many concerns that I agree with, as many as the ones I found particularly disagreeable. Overall, it appears from the "In Plato's Cave" that Sontag's portrayal of the photographic medium is for the most part negative, which she tries to convey in a few points.

For one, I find "To photograph people is to violate them" very compelling and thought provoking, which is certainly helped by Sontag's portrayal of the matter. I find myself agreeing with Sontag that photographs objectify people and do indeed turn them into symbolical possessions, at least on some trivial level. A photograph owns every to their photo, even when taking a photo someone else which is like the photographer taking and keeping a part of the subject, perhaps a "soft murder" really.

Sontag's array of mostly opposing points on the photographic medium, or at least what has become of it today, continue I find one in particular thought provoking. Sontag argues that "photographs give people an imaginary possession of a past that is unreal" and that "they also help people to take possession of space in which they are insecure." People not only take photos as a form of creating art and memorializing moments in time but also a way to keep one's anxiety in check and to control the uncontrollable. Time passes, moments end, trips come to end and all we can ever do is try to remember them, or memorialize them with a camera. Perhaps to feel in control of preserving that moment is more important than preserving the moment itself. Next time I am taking a photo I know I will wonder, "what is my hidden reason behind this photograph?"

In brutal honesty, I found Flusser's arguments to be rather difficult to understand and follow. That said, I did enjoy his abstractions of cameras, that they are but a black box in the hands of the photographers who use them. This interesting narrative raises the question that abstraction is the idea amount? A photographer who uses a professional camera controls the variables at play, shutter speed, ISO, aperture and so on while someone who uses an fully automated camera controls none. How much should photographers rely on a "block box instrument?"

[photographyatmit]

Blogpost #2

I find the following two remarks Susan Sontag makes in her essay interesting:

Comparison of a camera to a gun: While I myself would not go to the extent of making that metaphor, I do agree to some extent with the point she raises- “to photograph people is to violate them … it turns people into objects that can be symbolically possessed.” Consider street photography. It aims to capture the candidness of the human world. So the person or subject may not be aware of the photograph being taken and thus might not always consent to it. Does that mean that the photographer is “violating” the subject’s space? Maybe? But still, street photography is one of the most popular types of photography. Where exactly is the ethical/moral boundary as to what you should and should not capture?

“A photograph is both a pseudo-presence and a token of absence.” Susan is talking about the photograph here, but I think it can be extended to the act of photography as well. With a camera, the photographer is only pseudo-present at the moment- they are seeing the world from the viewfinder- not their own eyes. So they themselves are absent from the world they see. As a result- the photograph also symbolizes the absence of the photographer from the world captured.

In the other text, Vilém Flusser mentions “technical images” as abstractions of the third order. So the interpretation is the function of both the underlying textual abstraction and further traditional image abstraction of the world. Since textual abstraction and traditional image abstraction both are subject to hallucinatory state of ‘textolatry’ and ‘idolatry’ respectively, does the interpretation of technical images also have these potential hallucinatory states? Maybe the selection of scenes photographers make (or are forced to make) influences the public view which they then project onto the world? Also, considering photographs can be more powerful than texts, is this hallucinatory state by images more powerful too?

(Questions I raise are italicized in the above paragraphs)

[photographyatmit]

Blogpost #2

Sontag’s perspectives in her novel On Photography made for an intriguing read, and I found myself agreeing with as many statements as I did disagreeing. For one, I was slightly disappointed when Sontag did not expand much on her metaphor between photography and Plato’s allegory of the cave. Despite being the title of the chapter/essay, the allegory only seemed to merit two meager references whose meaning basically summarized to the criticism that photographs are “mere images of the truth”. But without photography, wouldn’t people be even more shrouded from the truth? Without the firelight casting shadows of the real world for the prisoners to see, wouldn’t they be even more blinded by the dark and less prepared to face the sunlight outside? I’ve never really seen photography as a source of truth. Instead, it’s more of a tool through which the truth can be conveyed and shared. After all, not everyone is privileged enough to escape our “caves” and see the world. And just like any other tool, cases of misuse cannot be blamed on the tool itself, but its user. Even Sontag acknowledges that “[p]hotographs are valued because they give information”. It is thus the responsibility of the photographer, publisher, and spectator to use images the right way.

Another point of disagreement arose from Sontag’s claim that photography is “an act of non-intervention” and an interest “in the status quo remaining unchanged,” even at the expense of “another person’s pain or misfortune”. Though this is true in some cases, I’ve come to also associate photography with intervention and action too. A single photographer, a single person, cannot make much of a difference especially in this time and age. However, a single photograph can inspire, incite, and invigorate multiple people to unite under a common cause for action. As convincing as facts are, humans are inherently emotional beings, and oftentimes, it’s pathos that moves us more than logos. Thus, photography does not “[deny] interconnectedness, continuity,” as Sontag thinks but makes abstract things seem more relatable or understandable. It connects people and things separated by distance, time, and other limitations.

To be frank, a lot of Flusser’s arguments flew past my head, and I struggled to understand his language. Despite that, I really liked the way he described history as linear while images were more circular and perpetual. Flusser’s perspective of the camera apparatus as a “black box” was also extremely interesting and appealing to me, as I’ve realized that a lot of things in my life can be called black boxes. I have no clue how they work, only that certain inputs yield the outputs that I want, and I realize the danger of being ignorant to this. I also noticed that both Sontag and Flusser acknowledged that two crucial turning points in human culture were the inception of writing and photography. I wonder how they might’ve responded to each other’s works.

[photographyatmit]

Blogpost #2

Susan Sontag discusses the role of photography throughout history and its significance relative to other art forms. One part that gets mentioned repeatedly is that so much more goes on behind the scenes of photographs. When I come across scenery that I want to photograph, I stop all thoughts and focus on the view through the lenses to be able to capture the exact emotion and hue of where I am. Sometimes, I regret doing so because I was not able to fully enjoy and absorb the moment. Susan also dislikes this aspect and discusses the time and thought that goes into other art media. For example, painters and sculptures may take inspiration from real-life scenarios but the final product is an incorporation of the image and the artist’s interpretation. Then is photography still considered art or would only the editing and photoshopping processes be considered art?

Flusser discusses the development of technical image making and the role of cameras in photographers’ works. “There is no such thing as naive, non-conceptual photography. A photograph is an image of concepts. In this sense, all photographers’ criteria are contained within the camera’s program.” This made me realize why I want to learn how to use a camera. I take pictures of what I find “pretty” and I am the final judge for determining if the photo came out “good” but I want to be able to put more thought into my work and learn the technical concepts behind photography. If I learn how cameras operate and are programmed, I'll be able to better portray the scene and draw the viewer’s attention to certain aspects. 

[photographyatmit]

Blogpost #2

One of the most compelling ideas from Susan Sontag was that the art of photography only emerged after its industrialization. Before industrialization, cameras were too inconvenient and expensive for people to focus on creating pieces of art through this new media. Once cameras became more accessible, it was easier for people to learn how to use them and start experimenting with them as an art medium. This resonated with me since I’ve always gone through a learning period for all my creative hobbies. Once learning the basics, I feel comfortable playing around with it.

Flusser’s idea of cameras being playthings and photographers being players also supports this idea. They use tricks and find new ways of manipulating scenery for the perfect picture. This wouldn‘t be as obtainable without a camera that was easy to use. Innovations in the controls have allowed photographers to focus instead on the fine details of their pictures. 

This makes me wonder if other forms of art were only born after the tools became accessible. Is it specific to technology, and will we see more art forms appear after industrial innovation?

[photographyatmit]

Blogpost #2

Photographs being thin slices of space and time defines their pseudo-realistic nature. A photograph would certainly add to the viewer’s familiarity with a past event or a faraway world through stronger visual impact than videos and texts. However, a photo is just a tiny observation of which the angle largely depends on the subjective choice of the photographer. Just as Susan Sontag discussed, anything could be separated and put together as the composition varies. Those decisive moments when all objects are balanced provide insights into the transient order yet fail to reflect the chaotic generality.

[photographyatmit]

Blogpost #2

Susan Sontag’s encyclopedic description of photographs, their niche qualities and position in society, past or present, is a long train of thought, fully monologue, that I enjoyed greatly. But I believe it misses two things, that are to my person the most important things about photography, or at least misplaces their importance.

One, standalone photos are a state-less medium; books are read from left to right (or right to left), videos are watched from start to finish, and podcasts are listened from begin to end. Jumping in the middle of any of these media will be tough without the context. This constitutes a barrier to entry that photographs evade. But there is more, in that videos or podcasts or any playable media runs by at a fixed pace, not stopping for you at every frame to see all the details you missed. Written media lacks that detail in its entirety, but photos do not play, and are ripe with details you missed. If the photographer takes care to frame the entire narrative or phenomenon in that image, it is not lost on the general viewer. I believe, this is why a picture of a crying child in the Korean war is much more compelling, than a video of it.

The second aspect of photos, is that they have a tremendous power is invoking memory. One glance at a photo reminds of us what went on before it was taken. If the memory is of a building we saw in a trip, it is a pleasant one and irreplaceable with generic images other tourists took. Videos replay the memory, and words fail to trigger at the same speed. In fact, this is one of my personal reasons for photography; to keep a window open to my fading memories.

In a bout of honesty, I did not follow much of Flusser’s discourse. A certain level of primal abstraction was present in his view, but it quickly lost sense in the narrative. E.g.  I couldn’t pick up what conceptual notion a “traditional image” is, and in what way the “magical world” is magical. Interpreting “technical images” as coming from text, greatly struck me as odd, and made me consider that I’ve misunderstood the meaning of text and linear writing. But if I have understood it correctly, the causal relationship between photography apparatus and scientific discourse is as relevant to the images themselves as is the causal relationship between an apple and traditional images to apple cider vinegar. In my ignorance, I did not learn the complex philosophy this writing advertises and read more of a personal highly convoluted abstraction of cameras and the history preceding them. I would love to hear someone elses interpretation.