My purpose in collecting them from people is to see how much these ideas of photography have changed in the last 50 years or so, and I am seeing they changed dramatically from mostly ideas involving human intentions to mostly ideas involving pure physics and mechanics.
If you want to survey the variety of what part of photography is most important to each of us, that is fundamentally different than asking us what constitutes the (single) essence of photography.
Excuse me, but I'm sick of this dumb accusation. This is NOT another "us/them" thread unless US is people who know why we photograph, and THEM are people who don't. And you're back to the "chemicals and electronics" again.Since digital wasn't an option 50 years ago it should be obvious why the change you perceive is so dramatic. This is clearly another "us/film" vs. "them/digital" threads. Shouldn't we be far past that debate? Had it been about the "essence" you claim, you wouldn't have swerved into the photograph as factual, surveillance, and AI. For me, photography is about film, because that's all I use, but a photograph can be either chemically or digitally produced.
To be honest, I thought you were looking for an objective, rather than subjective, definition of the essence of photography, which is why I thought many of your responses to my posts and the posts of everyone else, who interpreted your question in the same manner, were off the mark. Now that I understand what you meant by your question, I have looked at the images you posted in the media section to see how they embody or reflect your stated essence "the power to change minds". I am coming up short, and suspect I now don't know what you mean by "the power to change minds". Perhaps you could explicate using some examples.Again, there is no such thing as a "(single) essence of photography." Which is why I posted various related quotes from acknowledged leaders in the field before stating my own version of the essence. Its poetic. Everyone will have their own experience and distill their own essence. Just read the histories of the great photographers and photography critics to understand that.
And I am not really asking, "what part of photography is most important to you?" That's a different kind of question. I was trying to strip out the nonsense about cameras and printers and softwares and sensors and genres, and get down to what is generally known as "essence."
Now, obviously many just flat out didn't understand what was meant by essence. But, even after many attempts to explain it, the bulk of the rebuttals were arguments against the idea of asking the question! Off base by a mile.
It wasn't hard. It wasn't controversial. I've asked similar questions to hundreds of people about various ideas. "George, what's the essence of the Constitution?" George will have an answer, no problem. "Harry, what's the essence of your obsession to collect bottle caps?" Harry has no trouble with an answer. It just isn't a controversial question.
If I thought the essence of photography was making light hit a sensitive surface, I would have taken up knitting. But the first time I took pictures, I could see the potential in how the paper object itself made myself and others react in new ways. I was seeing in a different way than normal vision and that difference was clearly useful.
Excuse me, but I'm sick of this dumb accusation. This is NOT another "us/them" thread unless US is people who know why we photograph, and THEM are people who don't. And you're back to the "chemicals and electronics" again.
C'mon people, this is philosophy not physics. This is just getting downright weird now.
So, you read #209 where I quoted Robert Frank....and then you continued to think I was probing for an objective essence? Really? Because it now looks like A) you don't actually follow the discussion, or B) you don't have a clue what Frank was saying.To be honest, I thought you were looking for an objective, rather than subjective, definition of the essence of photography
I would agree with this.It's not a dumb accusation, and I'm sure others following this thread see it the same way. It started with the title: Photography IS Film, which is a pretty adamant statement. You then questioned the veracity of digital imagery through a photo club example which added a moon- ignoring the fact that photography has been doing this since the beginning. Then, somehow, it became how using digital tools can be a portal to being surveilled. After that, it was how AI will be taking all of our photos for us. Along the way, you've stated that what you were saying was going over a lot of our heads. If it is going over a majority of heads the problem is probably with how you're communicating your thoughts.
It's not a dumb accusation, and I'm sure others following this thread see it the same way. It started with the title: Photography IS Film, which is a pretty adamant statement. You then questioned the veracity of digital imagery through a photo club example which added a moon- ignoring the fact that photography has been doing this since the beginning. Then, somehow, it became how using digital tools can be a portal to being surveilled. After that, it was how AI will be taking all of our photos for us. Along the way, you've stated that what you were saying was going over a lot of our heads. If it is going over a majority of heads the problem is probably with how you're communicating your thoughts.
I'm sorry to say this but I think that ReginaldSMith's manner of managing this discussion is often not helpful, either in tone or content. This is a far more difficult topic than ReginaldSMith seems to appreciate and I see no affinity for enjoining discussion and definition. It confronts rather than elicits, dismisses rather than engaging when it falls afoul of ReginaldSMith's expectation.So, you read #209 where I quoted Robert Frank....and then you continued to think I was probing for an objective essence? Really? Because it now looks like A) you don't actually follow the discussion, or B) you don't have a clue what Frank was saying.
I kind of get by now that your goal in posting in this thread isn't constructive, and won't be constructive. I looked at your 3 media entries and then fully understood your positions here.
I'm going to see if anyone else offers constructive contributions and if not, I'll just draw my conclusions from the extremely sparse relevant comments offered already. I pretty much suspect that getting anyone out of the "chemistry and electronics rut" is a fool's errand at this point.
You know, just to be honest here, you've pretty much missed all the important ideas I was presenting and reduced it down to what you know - "film v. digital." It's utterly pointless to go back and try to explain to you ideas from 200 posts, and I will avoid attempting it. My impression of your posts is that you are a "physics guy" who understands photography at the machine level. This is a philosophy topic, in the appropriate FORUM for that, and so all this machine level talk is just missing the point at every single turn and contributing heat with no light. The various petty resentments about the "film v. digital" debate don't interest me. I really hope I don't have to tell that to anyone else in this thread.
“I was trying to strip out the nonsense about cameras and printers and softwares and sensors and genres”
A sincere effort to do that would have started with a different title.
What kind of photography are you attempting to discuss? Artistic/self-expressive? Documentary/scientific? Family snapshots? Selfies? Your latest colonoscopy? Something else?
Bitumen? Pewter? Glass? Again, your worldview is about physics.Reset. Photography IS film.
Okay, was Niepce's image using Bitumen of Judea on pewter not photography? How about a Daquerreotype? Glass plate? Did photography start with Kodak? Is digital capture just the next step in the evolution of photograph.y These questions begs an assumption of something continuous since 1823. What is it that makes them all photography?
Let's hope this thread doesn't go on as long as those did.The OP reminds me in some ways of StoneNYC.
Assumes facts not in evidence (as the US lawyers on TV might say).the meaning photography once had which is being lost.
Discounting fundamentals, I submit that photography has no undeniable essence. Never had one. Never will. As an artform it's essence is merely a matter of personal perspective and opinion.
Assumes facts not in evidence (as the US lawyers on TV might say).
I see no such loss.
If you want to refute anything I posted about above, please do it with specifics, and don't hide behind some un-related garbage about conspiracy theories.Paranoia strikes deep, yet again. It's the handy-dandy rebuttal to all logic.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/paranoia-strikes-deep/
Again, there is no such thing as a "(single) essence of photography."...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?