"Photography IS Film"

[Berkeley Mike]

Oh but I can, but the words don't define photography, they are particular and they relate to particular examples and types of photography.
To quote Lee Friedlander: "I only wanted Uncle Vernon standing by his own car (a Hudson) on a clear day, I got him and the car. I also got a bit of Aunt Mary’s laundry and Beau Jack, the dog, peeing on the fence, and a row of potted tuberous begonias on the porch and 78 trees and a million pebbles in the driveway and more. It’s a generous medium, photography. "
Photography is a medium - something you pour whatever you decide into it, with the hope that something comes out.
There is no limit to what form that photography can take. And it is unwise to try to pin it down with a particular set of rules or definitions.

This is huge. Friedlander is describing the potent value of narrative inherent in our capture; the human element of concept, intended or otherwise. Post-modern thinking suggest that the single act of pointing a camera determines narrative value. This may be a piece of our answer.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

In erecting your normative schema, you overlook entirely that words can have different meanings in different contexts.

Like JTK your main interest is a meta-argument against the question I'm trying to ask. Putting sticks in the spokes of the wheel. I'll categorize your response as "not interested" and move on.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Physics, optics, mdchanics and chemistry, the vehicles for photography, have no meaning without a vision and a viewer.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Everywhere I look I see "photography is dead" proclamations and I think it is easy to suss out the reason for the death. There's the loss of veracity in journalism, there's a loss of human involvement in the process, there's simply "just more than any human can possibly consume in a lifetime" which like all commodifications heavily discounts the entire stocks.

Our world of experience is becoming a world of images of experience, which is a completely different thing. The value of any particular image drops asymptotically toward zero, and hence the feeling that it is nothing more than as physics phenomenon. Just last week TIME crapped in its own pants with another fake image. It barely registers on the Richter scale because the world is entirely cynical about images. Thank you Google, CBS, MGM, Disney, et al.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Physics, optics, mdchanics and chemistry, the vehicles for photography, have no meaning without a vision and a viewer.

I agree totally, even when the viewer is the same as the maker.

 

[removedacct1]

So much of this discussion is fueled by a need on the part of some to segregate work deemed "less genuine" than "authentic" film-based photography: there is a pervasive disdain in this community for tools that are not completely "analog" and it shows up again and again in discussions like this. I find it very off-putting and discriminatory. Its as if this purist faction feels the need to defend their perceived territory from dilution by "lesser" media.
The same argument was raging 100 years ago when photography was coming into its own as an artistic medium: illustrators and painters declared their art under siege by this new technology. And on and on it goes.

Everywhere I look I see "photography is dead" proclamations and I think it is easy to suss out the reason for the death. There's the loss of veracity in journalism, there's a loss of human involvement in the process, there's simply "just more than any human can possibly consume in a lifetime" which like all commodifications heavily discounts the entire stocks.

I am blissfully free of caring whether or not my creative efforts have a place in context of modern image making. As they say these days - "I give zero f*cks!"

 

[faberryman]

Just last week TIME crapped in its own pants with another fake image.

It wasn't a fake image. It was two separate images juxtaposed against one another to make a point.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Like JTK your main interest is a meta-argument against the question I'm trying to ask. Putting sticks in the spokes of the wheel. I'll categorize your response as "not interested" and move on.

I disagree. What is being repeatedly illuminated in this lengthly thread is the testing of the original query. It is easy to see these kinds of comments as detractive to the solution. On the contrary, establishment of the lexicon for this discussion is the route to solution.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

So much of this discussion is fueled by a need on the part of some to segregate work deemed "less genuine" than "authentic" film-based photography

And this very thing, this presumption, distorts our efforts at solution. It is such a large factor that the holders of this presumption cannot see that it begs its own definition.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

So much of this discussion is fueled by a need on the part of some to segregate work deemed "less genuine" than "authentic" film-based photography:

Well, I have not seen much of that here in this thread and that is never a part of my interest in discussing. With rare exception, I don't think there has been anyone in this thread attempting to diminish anyone based on their um, "kind of camera." I'd suggest a re-read of the thread. Otherwise this sounds like a defensive posture that's unfounded.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

On the contrary, establishment of the lexicon for this discussion is the route to solution.

Really? I thought we clearly understood and accepted that the dictionary use was limited and didn't cover such philosophical notions as "essence" related to photography, because those notions are subjective.

I feel right now as though "essence" is a foreign word to everyone. Does "distillation" help anyone? Never been asked to give someone the essence of an argument you are making? After all, this IS the "philosophy and ethics" forum.

 

[faberryman]

I feel right now as though "essence" is a foreign word to everyone.

Why not use the dictionary definition: "the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character." Doing so might eliminate "the power to change minds" from the essence ofphotography, so I can see how you might want to opt for something else.

 

[nmp]

Words can have both precise and broader meanings. I would say precisely, "photography" involves a direct connection between subject and formed image, and colloquially or perhaps broadly, "photography" involves making an image with light. I freely admit I normally take the broader approach, but since this was about the essence of photography I thought I needed to define the term stringently in the context of this particular discussion. Others may disagree and that's all there is to it.

Even by your "precise" definition, the only direct connection would be from the image to the latent image on the negative. All the processes one would do to get to a printed image are indirect - light is used but the the image is gone. By that definition, the closest that can qualify for "photography" would be a Polaroid where there is the shortest route from the image and the print.

But then, to each his/her own opinion...

 

[ReginaldSMith]

It wasn't a fake image. It was two separate images juxtaposed against one another to make a point.

Yes. This is how TIME tried to thread the needle: "Due to the power of the image, which appeared as critics from across the political spectrum attacked President Trump’s now-reversed policy of separating children from parents who are being detained for illegally entering the United States, TIME’s editors selected Moore’s photograph to create a photo illustration, including Trump, to make the July 2, 2018, cover of the magazine."

Indeed - a "photo illustration" which just happens to look like a photo. For the public, the splicing of two photos into one like that, looks like intentional fraud. I laughed at their walk-back.

 

[faberryman]

Even by your "precise" definition, the only direct connection would be from the image to the latent image on the negative. All the processes one would do to get to a printed image are indirect - light is used but the the image is gone. By that definition, the closest that can qualify for "photography" would be a Polaroid where there is the shortest route from the image and the print.

Or transparency film.

 

[faberryman]

Yes. This is how TIME tried to thread the needle: "Due to the power of the image, which appeared as critics from across the political spectrum attacked President Trump’s now-reversed policy of separating children from parents who are being detained for illegally entering the United States, TIME’s editors selected Moore’s photograph to create a photo illustration, including Trump, to make the July 2, 2018, cover of the magazine."

Indeed - a "photo illustration" which just happens to look like a photo. For the public, the splicing of two photos into one like that, looks like intentional fraud. I laughed at their walk-back.

It didn't look like one photo to me. It looked like two photos juxtaposed against one another.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

Why not use the dictionary definition: "the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character." Doing so might eliminate "the power to change minds" from the essence ofphotography, so I can see how you might want to opt for something else.

I already provided the dictionary definition of essence many, many posts ago. The intrinsic nature of any human activity will vary according to the human doing it. For me, the "intrinsic nature of photography is the power to change minds.' For you, it is light hitting a sensitive surface etc. Why are they different? Because we engage in the activity very differently at the human intention level.

If this human intention were not explicit in photography, all photographs would be nothing more than test patterns with explanations about the great resolution, sharpness, color gamut and so on.

The reason photographs are different is that intentions are different. Intentions are neither right or wrong, they simply are. These intentions can be and are often summarized in various ways so that people can exchange them, learn from them, modify them over time. Distilling these intentions leads to the essence of their activity.

 

[faberryman]

The intrinsic nature of any human activity will vary according to the human doing it. For me, the "intrinsic nature of photography is the power to change minds.' For you, it is light hitting a sensitive surface etc. Why are they different? Because we engage in the activity very differently at the human intention level.

Not really. I sometimes make photographs to change minds. But not always. Which is why I don' think the power to change minds is the essence of photography. It is just one thing, among others, you can do with photography if you want to. If it is the essence of your photography, that's fine. Everyone should be allowed to pursue photography for their own purposes. But photography should not be limited, especially normatively, by one faction.

For additional clarity, would you expound on your view of what is encompassed by "the power to change minds" and how it relates to your photography, perhaps by referral to some of your images in the media section.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

[QUOTE="faberryman, post: 2091008, member: 79709"the power to change minds" [/QUOTE]

This speaks to AN effect of photography that can happen at the end of the process. I think it falls outside our "essence."

 

[faberryman]

This speaks to AN effect of photography that can happen at the end of the process. I think it falls outside our "essence."

It can be both an intention on the part of the photographer and, if successful, an effect on the viewer. Like you, I do not think the essence of photography is the power to change minds for the reasons I have stated. ReginaldSmith disagrees.

 

[jtk]

May I presume that you DO understand the answers to "what is the essence" are intended to be personal and individual? That's why I quoted famous photographers, to demonstrate that such answers varied widely.

I'm sorry to be pedantic, but it appears I must. We have dictionaries for establishing some universality of meaning in language. But dictionaries are not philosophical expositories. I'm not here trying to re-write dictionaries guys. I am asking about the human activity you regularly engage in called photography. If it has no essence to you beyond light striking a thing, then that's YOUR answer.

I do think "pedantic" has it's place, but only if the pedant is consistent and respects his audience. That Reginald would assert that we photographers are not engaged with "essences" defines only him, nobody else. That he consistently asserts superiority, as in his speculations about how others see their photography tells a story.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

It can be both an intention on the part of the photographer and, if successful, an effect on the viewer. Like you, I do not think the essence of photography is the power to change minds for the reasons I have stated. ReginaldSmith disagrees.

I'll say it once more. The essence of photography for me, is my subjective distillation of it as I stated. Yours, and his, and hers, and theirs, may very well be different because it will reflect your subjective views. I'm not understanding why this is so controversial to anyone?

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. That's significant, and I think the reasons for the change are pretty obviously related to commodification of all media.

 

[Berkeley Mike]

Part of our process is in the transaction between the visioner/creator and the viewer's consequent experience. There can be many modalities of transaction, derivative of the primal effect, of which the "power to change minds" is just one.

 

[ReginaldSMith]

I do think "pedantic" has it's place, but only if the pedant is consistent and respects his audience. That Reginald would assert that we photographers are not engaged with "essences" defines only him, nobody else. That he consistently asserts superiority, as in his speculations about how others see their photography tells a story.

I think you are unable to detach personalities from issues. I do see that you and faberryman both like to make your attacks on character issues and have a very hard time sticking with the old axiom, "play the ball not the man."
I gave every poster in the thread several opportunities to clarify their own essence of photography, and anyone can read what they said. Yes, mine seems different, but so what?

 

[MattKing]

You seem to be moving the goalposts of this discussion.
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.
To me, the essence of photography is writing with light. The attraction of photography is that it can be different from day to day, person to person, circumstance to circumstance.