Photography and Existentialism

Morca007 said:
I am currently writing my term paper in my Existentialism class on photography, so I figured I would post some of those ideas here.

-Photography is an art dependant upon "the other," in that all of the tools required to practice it are made by others. Even the film we use is produced by others, which determines the look of our output. Does this mean that photography cannot be considered authentic?

[...]

-Indeed, in any photography save for studio work of still life, where the photographer is in control of everything, is the photographer ever truly responsible for the entirety of their output?

Just a few things to ponder... ;)
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by "authentic" at all. whether your first statement works or not hinges on what you yourself define as authentic, and It'd be a legit strategy to limit yourself to proving a narrowed-down point. researching authenticity would also be a logical starting point.

Furthermore, the sole fact that someone else produces your film, paint, sensor or whatever does not determine the final look of your images.
i.e. all the stuff in my own gallery was shot with consumer gear, though it doesn't look like it. on the contrary, the images exploit technical and formal loopholes explicitly inserted into the canonical idea of how a photograph ought to look and feel. It is via these implicit breaking points that a sense of stability is produced. Heidegger realized this in his discussion of metaphysics and metaphor as related to architecture: the foundations are unstable, and this instability is a fuel.

As you can probably infer from my lines I am also deeply influenced by Derrida, though not because of a masturbatory lust, but because my discovering of his work clarified a lot of my own explorations after the fact.
yet, photography is metaphysics: it, like other arts, posits a reality that albeit it is related to a "realist/positivist" assumption of reality still delineates its own system.
What others in this discussion highlighted as contextualism is an important point: the assumed distance to the "others" moves them infinately closer; the known suddenly becomes "uncanny" as famously described by Freud in his discussion of the domestic.

In this sense, Existentialism is alienation from [ ]. If I were pressed to search for it in my own work,
[and I'm really sorry if I'm shamelessly plugging myself here (but this topic touches a raw nerve with me..)]
it is right there, as an absence, in the middle of it all, invisible.

sorry for the convoluted post - it was a long day.

max
 
Ok, I don't get it. I thought the forum (RFF as a whole) is urged to move towards actually taking pictures rather then talking about gears.

And now we have a sub-forum to "talk" about the Philosophy on Photography? ... as opposed to actually taking pictures???

Confused is an understatement for me at this moment.
 
shadowfox said:
Ok, I don't get it. I thought the forum (RFF as a whole) is urged to move towards actually taking pictures rather then talking about gears.

And now we have a sub-forum to "talk" about the Philosophy on Photography? ... as opposed to actually taking pictures???

Confused is an understatement for me at this moment.
Click to expand...

That which is not forbidden should be compulsory?
:D
 
I am very sleepy and so I have not read any of the response in this thread. However, I'd be inclined to use Sartre's concept of "the Look" and how a being-for-itself (subject) can never relate to another as a being-for-itself but rather must see the other as being-in-itself object. Sartre said that there is a constant conflict in our interactions where we are objectified by others and then we objectify them; that transcendance is transcended and back again. There is a really great passage about a man who is looking through a key-hole and then gets caught 'peeping' and is then objectified by the other. Look for that, if you've not already read it.

Sorry... I'm sleepy and it's been a while since I've taken up any existentialist literature. Good luck with your project.
 
Only in the act of creation ....

Only in the act of creation ....

"Art" is a construct to express our own existence .... only if we perceive that we have created what is sensed as "Art" have we created "Art". Perception by others of our creation as "Art" is not a requirement.

As for the "Other" requirement to perform photography, ... Absolutely. The sun has to create the photons used or the tungsten filament has to be heated by electrons chemically released in a reaction.... silver bromide is decomposed by the energetics of the photon ...etc.

Sensing is just another form of measurement and if we drill in too far, we run right up against Heisenberg (sp?) ... by sensing, we modify...
 
DrLeoB said:
"Art" is a construct to express our own existence .... only if we perceive that we have created what is sensed as "Art" have we created "Art". Perception by others of our creation as "Art" is not a requirement.

As for the "Other" requirement to perform photography, ... Absolutely. The sun has to create the photons used or the tungsten filament has to be heated by electrons chemically released in a reaction.... silver bromide is decomposed by the energetics of the photon ...etc.

Sensing is just another form of measurement and if we drill in too far, we run right up against Heisenberg (sp?) ... by sensing, we modify...
Click to expand...


I agree the artist is expressing himself by the creation of the art. But for the art to exist why must the artist put a label on it? in this context, it must simply be a physical entity, a picture.

The audience that subsequently view that picture are not constrained by the artist’s opinion of it; they are free to form their own views, therefore the Heisenberg principal is irrelevant in this case as the audience has already altered the work on a macro level simply by forming it’s opinions of it.

The Art itself exists in the gap between the photographer’s perception and his audience’s, separate in and of itself.

Art for art's sake?
 
Last edited:
I think Art is in the concept, the mind of man imagining anything. The rest is just the creation of artefact, movement, noise or whatever, the manifestation of the art; the craft part if you like.

I don’t know how you define traditional but yes by that definition it must be. It is only a personal expression by the artist not the audience
 
Sparrow said:
I think Art is in the concept, the mind of man imagining anything. The rest is just the creation of artefact, movement, noise or whatever, the manifestation of the art; the craft part if you like.

I don’t know how you define traditional but yes by that definition it must be. It is only a personal expression by the artist not the audience
Click to expand...

Then, IMHO, we are going to disagree on what art is. I think to narrow the definition of art to just what you want it to be and not start with what is art and then find the commonality is going about the problem backwards. Frank Boas in hie work Primative Art makes an interesting point that the tradition artist is confined to a particular form, but the artist can gain mastery where he or she can take the form beyond the confines of imitation and add something to make the work a masterpiece - quality if you like.

Having known and seen many traditional artists, I would find hard to say they are not artists just because they are not expressing themselves and adhering to set forms. This also makes actors and musicians simply crafts people as they may not be engaged in self expression.
 
Finder said:
Then, IMHO, we are going to disagree on what art is. I think to narrow the definition of art to just what you want it to be and not start with what is art and then find the commonality is going about the problem backwards. Frank Boas in hie work Primative Art makes an interesting point that the tradition artist is confined to a particular form, but the artist can gain mastery where he or she can take the form beyond the confines of imitation and add something to make the work a masterpiece - quality if you like.

Having known and seen many traditional artists, I would find hard to say they are not artists just because they are not expressing themselves and adhering to set forms. This also makes actors and musicians simply crafts people as they may not be engaged in self expression.
Click to expand...

With respect; I am not narrowing the field what I said was “I think Art is in the concept, the mind of man imagining anything”

Traditional art is clearly Art, it is absurd to exclude a form based Frank Boas’ opinion, art cannot be determined by a value judgment
 
Wow! Just spent the last 1 1/2hour reading through this and found it quite interesting. I don't know if it will make me a better photographer or not, but it certainly won't hurt.;) I did learn the meaning to a few new words. For that I thank you all. Reading through Rouge Designers post a bell went off in my head when I saw the word create. That is the true meaning to Art, simply to create. Can we create something out of nothing? No! To bring religion into the picture,(which is a word I don't really care for) I prefer the word Faith. But anyway, Only God could make something out of nothing. Genesis ch.1, if you believe the bible,...and God said..(lets not get into an argument please about evolution or whether the bible is right, I'm only stating this from what the bible actually says)Anyhow what i'm meaning is that we are not God & we are totally dependent on taking raw, chemical, or manmade materials and forming a work of art. So as long as a photograph is not copied, the creation of a photograph with the tools/materials given, then it is authenic. This also answers the street question "Are you taking my picture"? No sir, I am taking my picture! The copyright is mine, I am the creator. To answer the third question Matt, is a Yes & no! In a studio the photographer has complete control of everything even the light. On the outside we can't control the sun, so for that I say no. But we can control the exposure in whatever given situation of light we are dealing with. We can even wait for the right time I suppose for the light to be right, so for that I say yes.
 
Last edited:
Finder said:
What I mean is you seem to be starting with Existentialism is valid and can describe art. I would start with the art and then explore. But I am more in Ruben's camp that I am not really convinced philosophy can say anything worthwhile about art - sorry Ruben if I misunderstood you. For example, you and others have used the tern "language" with photography without really finding out if photography is a language - it has little if anything in common with languages, BTW. It seems most of what philosophy does is simply linguistic contortions without any real investigation into the subject it professes to describe, at least in terms of art. (Marc A, sorry!)

But I am happy you are asking questions.
Click to expand...

Bonjour Finder :) ,
As usual, your point is very interesting and very difficult to rebut. As we have already discussed this matter in another thread (can't remember where exactly) I begin to understand your point.
You have two different theses which you stick to:
1. Art is not a form of language, does not mean anything in a linguistic manner ...etc. (the "Anti-linguistic Argument")
2. Art does not express any personal intention, it has nothing to do with the artist personality ...etc. (the "Traditional Art Argument" TAA)
Those are powerful thesis.
(I don't think this helps Morca, because if he starts his essay by questionning the relevancy of the topic he has to deal with, I have no doubt about the mark he's going to get, that is D or E. In the French system, I would mark such an essay 6/20. That's why I didn't get into: is it relevant to hold an existentialist conception of photography? etc.)

Back to the definition of art.
1. That art is not a form of language seems a weak thesis for a very simple reason: it happens that (I don't need here the universal assertion: "it is always true that ..") art is a form of language or linguistic expression. It is obvious of literature/poetry unless you consider art is only pictorial; but it is also obvious when the artist intended to say something in his pictures - you cannot dismiss the explicit intention of the artist. That does not mean that the intention of the artist is personal, I mean the artist can express personal (modern Western conception, if you want, but I’m not sure) or impersonal/collective/social (Traditional conception if you prefer) meaning. For instance, religious art and traditional art (!) often use art as a representative means to express a conceptual content (theological relations, religious meaning). In Christian art, there's always a code to decipher the artistic representation - but maybe you don't consider Christian art as an art. Even in contemporary art, you need sometimes the code: Picasso himself said a lot of things in his painting by using Christian symbols (see the picture attached). Another example: Islamic art is likely to be the most “linguistic” art, for the only allowed representation is written verses of the Quran and abstract (geometrical) shapes. And what about Dürer’s engravings or other artist of this artistic movement. See E. Panofsky about aesthetical semiotics, though I guess you don’t like his theory.
Anyway, you can say there’s something else in art than linguistic meaning and I couldn’t disagree with you, but you cannot say art is not a language. To support this assertion, you would have to exclude a lot of artistic works.
2. Art is not a form of personal expression: here again, you can say that some artistic works are not about personal expression (the TAA is relevant here), but you just cannot say art is not about personal expression at all. Western practice of art since the Renaissance proves you wrong, unless you consider it is not art and only traditional art is art.

Now IMHO, taken together your theses are inconsistent:
1. You hold that art is not about, say, “linguistic content” expression, and obviously traditional/religious art is about it. The most problematic thing in this thesis is that you seem to adopt a cultural (Western) conception of art as “pure art”, not to say “l’art pour l’art”. That’s very strange because you use traditional art as a philosophical test for another Western conception of art as personal expression.
2. indeed, you hold that art is not about personal expression, hence the TAA. The TAA is relevant if you understand traditional art as a social practice that produce social/religious meanings. But if you accept that you cannot say that art is not a form of “linguistic content” expression. In traditional art, pictorial “creation” (in a non-promethean sense) is always related to a narrative/conceptual/theological content.
So the TAA refutes the first thesis, and in order to hold the latter you have to abandon the former.
Best,
Marc
 

Attachments

  • picassojesus.jpg
    picassojesus.jpg
    27.4 KB · Views: 0
Finder said:
I think the answer to these questions are in relationships to the work and not the work itself. I also think the artist's relationship to a work is not the same as a viewers.
Click to expand...

Absolutely; I agree with you.
 
Marc-A. said:
[...]
1. That art is not a form of language seems a weak thesis for a very simple reason: it happens that [...] art is a form of language or linguistic expression. It is obvious of literature/poetry unless you consider art is only pictorial; [...] For instance, religious art and traditional art (!) often use art as a representative means to express a conceptual content (theological relations, religious meaning). In Christian art, there's always a code to decipher the artistic representation - but maybe you don't consider Christian art as an art. Even in contemporary art, you need sometimes the code: Picasso himself said a lot of things in his painting by using Christian symbols (see the picture attached). Another example: Islamic art is likely to be the most “linguistic” art, for the only allowed representation is written verses of the Quran and abstract (geometrical) shapes. And what about Dürer’s engravings or other artist of this artistic movement. See E. Panofsky about aesthetical semiotics, though I guess you don’t like his theory. [...]
Click to expand...
In this paragraph you muddle the waters between linguistics and semiology. the former being a branch of the latter does not automatically encapsulate anything semiotic in the linguistic. In fact, an artwork does not "say" anything; fundamental linguistics merely occupied itself with the act of speaking, even disregarding the written word- though that is history.

An artwork does not speak in a linguistic sense, and it is not per se related to the linguistic system of langue and parole. Do not confuse symbols with words.

You might assign meaning or words to a given symbol after the fact, but there is no proof that the symbol ever actually "contained" your delayed attribution. As such, "content" is as arbitrary as language, which thrives on translatability and the universal interchangeability of words. there is only ever differences. the word does not contain the object, and vice versa. the relationship is arbitrary, yet socially regulated.

It is a fundamental paradox, though, that without language we could not discuss art, and thus tend to subjugate an artwork's intersubjectively defined "meaning" to language itself - an act of illegal analogy that also happens to aid in attributing "he said this or that through the work" to the artist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top