Susan Sontag

[pdeeh]

Very nicely put David.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Almost anyone can write a book on almost anything. Sontag, for example. Since she had already established a following for previous writing, she could not only write on photography, but sell those books. I had to read her On Photography in a college class 45 years ago, and haven't forgiven her to this day.

she is not an easy read fo sure

 

[RalphLambrecht]

not every picture needs to be taken

 

[Ian Grant]

Sontag was never a photographer On Photography was written by her after a particularly acrimonious divorce from Richard Avedon who was.

Not sure where that idea comes from.

Ian

 

[Bill Burk]

I really had them mixed up in my mind (so never thought to take Susan Sontag seriously).

I thought Suzanne Somers wrote "On Photography".

But, I guess it's important to clarify Susan Sontag wasn't on "Three's Company." They were never the same person.

On Photography was written by her after a particularly acrimonious divorce from Richard Avedon who was.

That relationship didn't make it into Wikipedia.

Not sure where that idea comes from.

Ian

Me neither, but it's funny. benjiboy, you were joking, right?

 

[Ian Grant]

Thanks for offer if you are in London...
I think it is really Annie's book and Susan was a ghost that explains why I stopped, Annie has a personality defect, rather than Susan...

They didn't meet until 12 years after the books publication.

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

I read "On Photography" in the mid to late 1980's. It's importance is her essays raise issues which we as individuals (and particularly photographers) may or may not agree with, but they make us think about the way we approach image making and/or looking at other peoples images.

When I tried reading it again it was after reading a plethora of articles and books on critical theory that had come after and reaching a point where I was comfortable contextualising my own work at many levels. So reading it again it seemed, like others have said, dated and less relevant in today's world.

Ian

 

[CropDusterMan]

One key element of her many interrelated arguments was that the proliferation of photography was causing people to replace participation in, or appreciation of, an event with the act of photographing.

Nice post David, some good insight there...I laughed a bit with the portion of your quote above....

Recently, I was at the summit of Haleakala on Maui for the sunrise...after witnessing the throngs of people at the summit, I moved further down to do my images...I was amazed at the number of people who were watching the sunrise through their phones display, instead of enjoying it simply by looking. It represented a disconnect to me...

Bizzarre.

 

[blansky]

Nice post David, some good insight there...I laughed a bit with the portion of your quote above....

Recently, I was at the summit of Haleakala on Maui for the sunrise...after witnessing the throngs of people at the summit, I moved further down to do my images...I was amazed at the number of people who were watching the sunrise through their phones display, instead of enjoying it simply by looking. It represented a disconnect to me...

Bizzarre.

I find that very humorous and see it all the time. At concerts, and other events.

It's like they were almost there. Very heady stuff.

 

[pdeeh]

Reminds me of Sontag's saying (in On Photography)that when people describe a dramatic/traumatic situation they were involved in, they say "It was like a movie" ... she suggests that this is because people are using the simile to emphasise how very real the situation was to them ... I think she was wrong about that, I think they are emphasising a dissociation from the scene at the time ... but given the last two posts, perhaps she was right ... ?

 

[blansky]

However, if one simply substitutes the phrase "credibility" for "value, interest or validity", then the statement is no longer absurd. The difference in credibility between talking about what it might be like to do something and actually doing it can be vast.

They have the right to say whatever they want to say. But they don't have the right to demand that everyone listening believes what they say. Credibility is an audience judgment call that is completely out of their hands.

I pose a question to two individuals standing before me. What is it like to be incarcerated in prison?

One of those individuals is an academic whose field of expertise is to study incarceration in prisons. He is considered an expert in his field, having devoted his life to researching the subject.

The other individual was just released after serving a 25-year sentence in a maximum security penitentiary, including several years in solitary confinement.

Listening to their respective observations, to whom would you afford the greater level of credibility?

Ken

I find this to be true.

Luckily on the subject of photography, the consequences aren't so dire.

In my opinion, people expressing, or writing their opinions on photography is a valuable resource whether they are inside or outside the medium. I believe that is true in critiquing individual work as well, which I started doing in the gallery, usually uninvited. Like a party crasher at a love in.

All opinions are in fact opinions. From different backgrounds, disciplines or vantage points. A picture of a massive Hitler rally circa 1937 could have been viewed as a source of great pride to some viewers and to horror to others. I want to hear both. I want to know what they are feeling and why.

Any opinion is valuable and it's up to the rest of us to evaluate the "credentials", the motivation and maybe the worldview of the critic and assimilate or discard the opinion.

Once when I was getting started in photography I shot a fashion looking shot of a model with her hand pressed against her head as fashion types did back in the 60s. I though it was great because I copied Scavullo. I showed my mother who knew less than nothing about art, photography, and life in general, (I thought at the time) and she said. "Very nice dear, but it looks like she has a splitting headache".

I realized that all the fashion pros were doing this shot and to the casual observer it was ridiculous. Now I refer it as the "not tonight, I have a headache" shot. And still see it sometimes.

And another thing expressing opinions does, when writing them down, is that they make the author reflect and even sometimes question or solidify those opinions. Because when we write opinions we are forced to confront them and defend them, which makes us evaluate them ourselves.

All opinions do matter.

 

[MattKing]

Clive's observation would be more appropriate if:

1) The title of the book had been "On being a Photographer"; or
2) It wasn't possible to observe the effect, scope, role and omniprescence of photography in society and on individuals without actually being a photographer.

 

[cliveh]

Clive's observation would be more appropriate if:

1) The title of the book had been "On being a Photographer"; or
2) It wasn't possible to observe the effect, scope, role and omniprescence of photography in society and on individuals without actually being a photographer.

Matt, that is probably correct and thanks for the correction.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Prison is a 'black box', photography is not. So your hypothesis is not perfect analogical thus faulty.

But you simply evaded the question. As did the poster to whom I originally addressed it. Presumably because the answer was obvious, illustrative, and not to either individual's liking.

We all judge, and we all assign varying levels of credibility based on judgments. We do this because we live within a deterministic existence. Things happen for reasons. And other things don't happen because alternative things happened for alternative reasons. If we find that one person's reasons imply more creditability than another's, we seek out that person's opinions before the other's.

I know of no one who knowingly seeks out the opinions of someone they judge to have less credibility over someone they feel to have more credibility. Unless, of course, they are intentionally playing the juvenile "look at me, look at me, I'm different" card.

If the best photographer to seek out for knowledge regarding chemistry technique is someone "who could not take a decent photograph to save his life", then you seek him out for his credibility on the topic of chemistry technique, not compositional technique. You do this because you have judged him to be the most qualified source on that topic available to you. You wouldn't seek out another photographer who knew little or nothing about chemistry technique.

So then, you have a brain tumor and are holding a scalpel. Standing before you are two doctors. Both know the mechanics of the procedure. One has written books and lectured extensively on the procedure you require, but has never performed the procedure. The other has never authored or lectured, but has successfully performed the procedure over a hundred times.

To whom to you hand the scalpel?

Ken

 

[MattKing]

And to whom do you look to when you wish to read about surgery?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

2) It wasn't possible to observe the effect, scope, role and omniprescence of photography in society and on individuals without actually being a photographer.

It's not that it isn't possible. It's that it carries less credibility than the observations of someone who is a photographer.

Ken

 

[cliveh]

So then, you have a brain tumor and are holding a scalpel. Standing before you are two doctors. Both know the mechanics of the procedure. One has written books and lectured extensively on the procedure you require, but has never performed the procedure. The other has never authored or lectured, but has successfully performed the procedure over a hundred times.

To whom to you hand the scalpel?

Ken

How true. Some years ago I read or heard (and don't know if this is true) that women have about 15% greater manual dexterity than men. For this reason alone I now have a female dentist.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

And to whom do you look to when you wish to read about surgery?

Of necessity to the individual who has written about surgery, but with the advanced perspective that what I am reading has compromised credibility because the author has never actually practiced surgery.

And if, due to that lesser credibility, I were to doubt something that had been written by that author, then I might seek out the person who had actually done that particular something with his own hands to verify what had been written.

Ken

 

[benjiboy]

How true. Some years ago I read or heard (and don't know if this is true) that women have about 15% greater manual dexterity than men. For this reason alone I now have a female dentist.

That's true Clive but it's also true they haver smaller brains they are 10% smaller, go figure.

 

[Xmas]

They didn't meet until 12 years after the books publication.

Ian

Hi Ian

Thanks I misread post #10 my fault.

So I've maligned poor Annie.

And wiki says Susan wrote and directed four films.

But I'm not going to try and read the rest of her book.

Noel

 

[Xmas]

That's true Clive but it's also true they haver smaller brains they are 10% smaller, go figure.

Size is not everything.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

How true. Some years ago I read or heard (and don't know if this is true) that women have about 15% greater manual dexterity than men. For this reason alone I now have a female dentist.

School bus drivers over here are overwhelmingly female. The most important reason is lower levels of testosterone, combined with a passenger list comprised of 50 or so young children, none of whom are by law wearing seatbelts.

Those reasons lend a high level of credibility to that policy, and those who chose to implement it.* That higher credibility makes those individuals a better source to seek out for opinions regarding safety in other similar forms of transportation.

Ken

* Because of the alternative (good) things that happened as a result of those reasons, instead of the other (bad) things that might have otherwise happened.

 

[RedG]

But you simply evaded the question. As did the poster to whom I originally addressed it. Presumably because the answer was obvious, illustrative, and not to either individual's liking.

We all judge, and we all assign varying levels of credibility based on judgments. We do this because we live within a deterministic existence. Things happen for reasons. And other things don't happen because alternative things happened for alternative reasons. If we find that one person's reasons imply more creditability than another's, we seek out that person's opinions before the other's.

I know of no one who knowingly seeks out the opinions of someone they judge to have less credibility over someone they feel to have more credibility. Unless, of course, they are intentionally playing the juvenile "look at me, look at me, I'm different" card.

If the best photographer to seek out for knowledge regarding chemistry technique is someone "who could not take a decent photograph to save his life", then you seek him out for his credibility on the topic of chemistry technique, not compositional technique. You do this because you have judged him to be the most qualified source on that topic available to you. You wouldn't seek out another photographer who knew little or nothing about chemistry technique.

So then, you have a brain tumor and are holding a scalpel. Standing before you are two doctors. Both know the mechanics of the procedure. One has written books and lectured extensively on the procedure you require, but has never performed the procedure. The other has never authored or lectured, but has successfully performed the procedure over a hundred times.

To whom to you hand the scalpel?

Ken

I did not evade the question, I simply told you that your example is wrong because you are comparing apples and oranges.
The thing is that the lecturer-doctor has lectured the other doctor, and will lecture all the other doctors following him. That doesn't make what he lectures wrong, he knows exactly what to do and why, but his hands are not experienced to perform the procedure. So if you want a book you will go to the lecturer, if you want an operation you will go to the experienced surgeon.
You can see why using these examples can be problematic...

Instead you avoided my question. Terry Richardson or Susan Sontag? Who would you choose to read on the philosophy of photography?
Why is Terry more capable than Suzan?

The thing is that the book is not about "how to take a photograph", where Susan Sontag would be obviously lacking, but is on "photography in general" in the philosophical sense.
In that aspect, the only prerequisite is to be a good thinker and to have seen the impact of photography in the society. Being a photographer does not mean you are capable of writing anything of value on the philosophy of photography.

 

[benjiboy]

Size is not everything.

True Noel, that's what I've been telling my wife for fifty years

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Terry Richardson or Susan Sontag? Who would you choose to read on the philosophy of photography?

On the topic of photography I would choose to read both. But I would assign greater credibility to the writings of the one who had actually practiced the topic about which they were philosophizing. In general, that person's insights will be deeper and more meaningful because they are closer to the actual topic itself.

Ken