NY Times article- Sontag vs Fenton...

$12.66

A
$12.66

  • 5
  • 3
  • 103
A street portrait

A
A street portrait

  • 1
  • 0
  • 136
A street portrait

A
A street portrait

  • 2
  • 2
  • 126
img746.jpg

img746.jpg

  • 6
  • 0
  • 106
No Hall

No Hall

  • 1
  • 4
  • 119

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,798
Messages
2,781,032
Members
99,707
Latest member
lakeside
Recent bookmarks
0

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council
Advertiser
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
11,546
Location
Washington DC
Format
Multi Format
http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/200...cken-or-the-egg-part-one/index.html?th&emc=th


A very interesting article in the New York Times today about Susan Sontag and her analysis of the two versions of Roger Fenton's "In the Valley of the Shadow of Death", taken during the Crimean war. It's a very interesting article about critical analysis of an image, and how people draw conclusions based on a-priori assumptions not necessarily supported by evidence.
 

doughowk

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2003
Messages
1,809
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
Format
Large Format
Fascinating article on the possible staging of documentary photography. Many, for various reasons, have been questioning the truthfulness of photography (which is a cornerstone of photography that makes it unique from other media). Hope to catch Morris' conclusions.
 

Pinholemaster

Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
1,566
Location
Westminster,
Format
8x10 Format
Susan Susan Susan

Not the first time she's gotten photography wrong.

She never mentions in her book "On Photography" that it was written after her affair with Richard Avedon fell apart. When reading her book with that information, one can see it as her 'hate' mail to Richard, and not a true observation on all of photography.

Interesting how her view of photography changed once she included Leibowitz in her life. Susan wrote glowingly of photography when it came to Annie's work.

Ever pick up a canon ball that big? They are heavy. What we see is a road used my the military in war. Makes more sense that the road was littered with canon balls until a military official wanted the road clear. Then the second shot was made with the canon balls rolled into the ditch.

Susan wrote mostly for her bank account. I doubt if she every spent time on a battlefield, or took the time to understand how slow the photographic process was during Fenton's time.
 

Struan Gray

Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2004
Messages
914
Location
Lund, Sweden
Format
Multi Format
I am not a fan of Sontag, but she's not necessarily wrong.

In the on-the-road photograph not only are there extra balls on the road, but there are more in the ditch too. Fenton says that there was a bombardment going on, and that he picked up one ball as a present to his wife, so the appearance of all those new balls makes sense, even if he didn't move them there himself.

However, to me at least, the idea of a clearing party makes sense. Also, the lighting of the cannonballs is more rim-like in the off-the-road shot, suggesting a lower, later, sun.

On the other hand, if you think the clear road is the 'after' shot, you have to explain not only why balls have gone from the road and ditch, but why they have appeared on the hillside on the left. I can see why a scavenging or road-clearing party would remove balls from the road and ditch but not why they take the trouble to roll them up a hillside.

Of course, there could have been a bombardment *and* a scavenge. Or Fenton could have spent an hour rolling balls from off the hillsides onto the road. We don't really know, and it doesn't matter much. One thing is certain: someone who rolls cannonballs around during an active bombardment simply to improve the composition of a landscape photo hardly deserves to be called a "coward".
 
Last edited by a moderator:

bdial

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 2, 2005
Messages
7,466
Location
North East U.S.
Format
Multi Format
A very interesting read. To me it looks like the sun must be lower in the "off" picture. In the "off" picture there are fewer balls in the ditch than in the "on".
Seems plausible to me that the earlier picture was "on" and he did another after the road was cleared.
:munch:
 

mjs

Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
Messages
1,123
Location
Elkhart, Ind
Format
Multi Format
I recently re-read "On Photography" to see if perhaps time and distance had made it any more coherent.

Nope.

I've never laughed so hard at a supposedly straight book, though. Still gives me the giggles...

If she's the same person, I see no real need to read whatever she's written.

mjs
 

photobum

Member
Joined
May 18, 2003
Messages
418
Location
Northern Vir
Format
Large Format
I’ve never been much impressed with any of Sontag’s writing. If she wants to do an expose on phony heroics she might want to look into the couple of years the news media filmed in Khe Sanh. They kept filming reporters in front of the same burned out plane trying to look salty. They would fly in, in the morning, film their “report” and beat feet out before nightfall.
 

Pinholemaster

Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
1,566
Location
Westminster,
Format
8x10 Format
Armies of that era reuse cannon balls, especially when they are in the way littering a road.

Both parties in the American Civil war reused canon balls. To ask where did the canon balls go is an obvious question when separated by over a 100 years from the technology of the day. Someday people might wonder how gasoline powered cars were be used.
 

keithwms

Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2006
Messages
6,220
Location
Charlottesvi
Format
Multi Format
An amusing exposition.

I don't see why Sontag got into this issue in the first place, except to try to reduce the accomplishments of Fenton. Since she didn't actually have enough information to support her version of events, she isn't addressing the man's photography or the truth of his reportage, she is addressing his character and intent.

But isn't it entirely irrelevant whether ON came before OFF? The balls fell, and when they fell, they obviously didn't fall preferentially into the ditch. The artillery wasn't that accurate! So somebody moved them into that ditch. Whether that was done before Fenton or by Fenton, we apparently cannot know. Period. Move on.

Somewhere in the meandering debate over something one probably cannot know, these critics seem to have forgotten that cannonballs were falling in large numbers, everywhere. And Fenton was there to show what the war was like. Sontag could only go there in her coloured imagination.
 

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council
Subscriber
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
4,793
Location
Montréal, QC
Format
Multi Format
Fascinating article. Erroll Morris is really at his best when he does investigative documentary work. His more theoretical articles in his blog are sometimes weak, and lack rigour.

But I think he's doing something important in taking Sontag to the word. Too many people swear by everything she says.
 

Videbaek

Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2005
Messages
887
Format
Medium Format
Well, the article kind of makes cannonballs out of BB-gun pellets: he probably moved them onto the road, so what? As for Sontag's "On Photography", I've browsed through it a number of times and read it properly once. I can't remember anything useful. Lots of theorizing about the workings of the media and the ubiquitous role of photography therein, but there are wheelbarrow-loads of similar stuff.
 

rusty71

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2004
Messages
212
Location
St. Louis, M
Format
Medium Format
I don't understand. THe article must be a re-print since Susan Sontag has been dead for years. It's easy to see the faults of "On Photography". I don't care for her writing style. But she did raise some valuable questions.
 

jstraw

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
2,699
Location
Topeka, Kans
Format
Multi Format
Yep, as mentioned above, there are fewer canonballs in the ditch in the photograph where the road is clear. That would indicate either that it was taken first because of fewer total cannonballs...or that it was second because the "recycling" involved the balls on the road and some from the ditch.

Additionally, the additional balls on the side of the hill in the "clear road shot" could indicate that it's the second photograph and that those balls were among those not gone after in the recycling.

But it's also possible for them to be up on the side of the hill in the alleged first photo (with fewer total balls) but absent in the alleged second (with more balls) if the additional balls on the road and in the ditch were relocated into the frame from outside of its scope.

If the balls were recycled, the question is then, by whom? It's inferred that if the van was being drawn by army mules on that day there were army muledrivers. Fenton doesn't mention them. It seems likely that had he been in the company of military personnel, his letters would mention this.

On the other hand, would he have ventured into the vally of the shadow unaccompanied?

Which version of the events is consitant with the facts? If there was a barrage taking place after Fenton set his tripod, from which he retreated 100 yards, let's suppose he exposed a plate at the time he set his tripod. It's entirely reasonable that had he waited out a barrage for an hour and a half and at that time the area was more littered with shot than before, he would have exposed a second plate.

In my opinion, Fenton's letter's notwithstanding there is something else about these photographs that bothers me. I see two, differing arrangements of cannonballs on a roadway but in neither do I see the evidence I would expect to see of cannonfire. I see no craters, no toen ground and no tracks from rolling, tumbing or boincing balls.

What I think I see are canonballs spilled, say from a peviously overturned wagon. Or perhaps, spilled by Fenton or at his direction to entirely stage a photograph that still wouldn't look like the result of an artillary barrage. I find that possiblity surpassingly unlikely.

Fenton's letters aside, I present the possibility that he accompanied a party that either set out to salvage a previously lost load of cannonballs or happened upon them and decided to salvage them.
 

jstraw

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
2,699
Location
Topeka, Kans
Format
Multi Format
Based upon the position of the shadows I believe two things. The photo is taken facing south and that the sun is higher when the road is littered. If Fenton was really there between 3 and 5 pm, then the balls seem to have been removed between the two exposures.

I really think he went with a salvaging party.
 

doughowk

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2003
Messages
1,809
Location
Kalamazoo, MI
Format
Large Format
Sontag Vindicated

The final article by Earl Morris vindicates Susan Sontag in that the picture with cannonballs in the road was taken later and posed. He states that they were placed in the road for aesthetic reasons. Mystery solved.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

colrehogan

Member
Joined
May 11, 2004
Messages
2,011
Location
St. Louis, M
Format
Large Format Pan
I recently re-read "On Photography" to see if perhaps time and distance had made it any more coherent.

Nope.

I've never laughed so hard at a supposedly straight book, though. Still gives me the giggles...

If she's the same person, I see no real need to read whatever she's written.

mjs

I got bored trying to read it the first time and never got back to it.
 

Roger Hicks

Member
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
4,895
Location
Northern Aqu
Format
35mm RF
I got bored trying to read it the first time and never got back to it.
Boredom I can stand, if what I'm reading contains useful information or intelligent argument. I couldn't stand On Photography.

The big difference between Fenton and Sontag is that he was one of the greatest photographers of all time, and she was a critic who knew little or nothing about actually taking pictures.

Cheers,

R.
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
2,360
Location
East Kent, U
Format
Medium Format
The big difference between Fenton and Sontag is that he was one of the greatest photographers of all time, and she was a critic who knew little or nothing about actually taking pictures.

I absolutely agree - the only way Sontag looks good is by comparison with Roland Barthes!
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom