Charlotte Cotton: Imaging Technologies and Narrative in Cultural Space

As part of the Expanded Photographies symposium Charlotte Cotton gave a discussion on how our attitudes to recent image making technologies impact upon the narratives and potential narratives of the photographic in cultural spaces. she focused on practice in the past five years with specific reference to practitioners who extend this discourse, providing initiatives signal the future of photography in the cultural realm, together with the hurdles for this to happen across cultural spaces.

As part of the discussion she mentioned a few photographers who are pushing new technologies and seem to be the future of photography.

Owen Kydd

Lucas Blalock 

Artie Vienkant 

I thought I would use this space to put my response to the discussion  and some of my concerns with this new direction of photography and its place within culture. To me, this emerging hybrid and "Photography as a theological object" leaves me apprehensive and uncertain. Is this really the future of photography, or are we still just trying to validate the medium as an art over compensating with avaunt garde  concepts? In the process of doing so excluding ourselves and becoming an inaccessible format, only relatable to the academic and the elitist?  

Photographic Icons, Fact, Fiction or Metaphor?

I recently be re-reading "Photography after frank, Essays by Phillip Gefter" When I came across the essay "Photographic Icons, Fact, Fiction or Metaphor? Originally published in Aperture Magazine, winter 2006. The essay discusses what value is lost in photojournalism when photographs are constructed or staged?

Death of a loyalist militiaman, Robert Capa  

"Truth- telling is the promise of a photograph- as if face resides itself in the optical precision with which the medium reflects our native perception. A photograph comes as close as we get to witnessing an authentic moment with our own eye while not actually being there. Think of all the Famous pictures that serve as both documentation and verification of historic events ...Lewis Hine's chronicle of industrial growth in America... aren't they proof of the facts in real time, moments of history brought to the present? Of course, just because a photograph reflects the world with perceptual accuracy doesn't mean it is proof of what spontaneously transpired. A photographic image might look like actual reality, but gradations of truth are measured in the circumstances that led up to the moment the picture was taken."

The most interesting question proposed by Gefter in this particular essay is "Just how much of the subject matter does the photographer have to change before fact becomes fiction, or a photography becomes metaphor?

I feel that we should interpret photographs as a "metaphorical" truth, surely this has more value than a cold factual image? It captures more than just an event in history, and that is what has truly made photography an art form. Perhaps we should stop looking for truth in photographs, in regards to photojournalism, we know these events are happening, so does a constructed image really decrease the value of what the the photograph is representing, and can photograph even create an accurate historical record? Perhaps our we need to re examine and redefine our notions of "truth".

Here is another interesting article written by Brian Appel that I would suggest reading: Contemporary photography: Truth and the burden of reality. http://www.iphotocentral.com/collecting/article_view.php/16/20/1

The fictional 1983 film "Under Fire" also plays on some of these themes and might be worth watching if you are interested "Nicaragua 1979: Star photographer Russel Price covers the civil war against president Somoza. Facing the cruel fighting - people versus army - it's often hard for him to stay neutral. When the Guerillas have him take a picture of the leader Rafael, who's believed to be dead, he gets drawn into the happenings. Together with his reporter friends Claire and Alex he has to hide from the army"

Is it all about Instagram?

The global phenomenon that has taken the world by storm, for those that aren't familiar, Instagram is an Iphone app which allows you to add digital filters to create a quirky vintage aesthetic then share across a platform of social media sites, including Facebook and Twitter. The app has been a huge success recently being brought for $1 Billion. The full article is here : http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/45215/facebook-buys-instagram-social-photos

Naturally this sparked a bit of a debate on my course, is there any real value in photography apps such as Instagram. Personally speaking I feel that Instagram is great, it has re-captured a lot of peoples interest in photography and inspired many people.

Many professional photographers may feel this over saturated mode of expression is degrading  however surely any mode of creativity is better than non at all? It's a mode of expression that is available to everyone ( as long as you own an I phone) and I think that is what has driven it's success. I feel that Instagram has resurfaced what Kodak did with Polaroid...capturing the imagination of the general public.

I feel that the debate of whether just purely adding filters adds value to a photograph that would be previously seen as mundane is irrelevant as it is not meant as a serious photographic tool, however there are exceptions to this as the are a lot of serious, "Instagram Photographers" who do create impressive work using the app.

Here are a few examples of breaking past "photographs of food"

Images: http://www.keepsy.com/gallery/koci

Does partially recreating an exisiting composition infringe copyright law?

There has been a ruling in court that a photographer who partial recreated an image using the same angle and some of the compositional elements has broken copy right law. What do you think?

Full story here: http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/-Landmark-ruling-to-be-challenged/25891

I feel that this example is far to clique to even begin a copy right debate, are they also suing countless tourists who have no doubt taken similar photographs with he same angle and compositional elements? As I previously mentioned on the discussion on digital photography, I feel that in our modern lives we are bombarded and over saturated in photographic imagery, I feel this has meant we can be influenced and inspired without even realizing it, we can have ideas without even being consciously aware we could be "stealing" them from something we have previously seen, so does this in fact mean that it is even possible to "steal" an idea?

I can sympathies with the original photographer, however photographing in such an iconic environment is going to led to a loss of originality, and who is to say that someone else did not take the same photograph before he did himself?

Does this law also mean that artists can no longer pay homage or pastiche to others? Will laws like these prevent people from creating images and using them publicly?

Has digital photography devalued the photograph?

The below quote comes from an interview with the photographer Ricky Adam about his forth coming book Destroying Everything. The Analogue V Digital argument is an ongoing one that may never be resolved satisfactorily.   

"What role does post production play?  Is there a difference between working with chemicals and working in a ‘Digital’ darkroom as far as the ‘Legitimacy’ of the final image?
So long as the image hasn’t been manipulated in any way a good photo is a good photo, regardless of what sort of camera was used to take it. You have to be a lot more resourceful when shooting film. For one you shoot fewer photos, but in doing so I think you learn a lot more about composition, lighting, etc. I often wonder how many more photos I would have if I could have shot digital when I first started out? Would I even have pursued photography? Possibly not… "

The whole interview can be found here:

http://digbmx.mpora.com/photo-ops/ricky-adam-destroying-everything/


This is my own response to the digital vs analogue debate 

Digital photography has enabled us to create an immense anthology documenting our world, and given birth to the visually dominated world we live in today , however I feel that the constant representation of who we are through photography and the disposable nature of our digital snapshot culture has destroyed authenticity and originality, leading to the decline of true spontaneous experiences, not just  devaluing the photograph but our contemporary lifestyles.

Walter Benjamin wrote “The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction” to examine revolutionary changes in the arts due to monumental advances in technology and the effects of modernity on the way we look at works of visual art. He argues that in the age of mechanical reproduction, art gradually loses its traditional and ritualistic value, causing it to lose its “aura” and “authenticity”. A painting has an aura and an original value whereas a photograph has not Now over eighty years later,I feel the digital camera has taken the place of the analogue camera, and the analogue camera has taken the place of a painting. In a sense traditional analogue photography, it could be argued, maintains the same relation between the artist and a painting in Benjamin’s era, whereas the digital photographer is as disconnected from his photographs as they do not go through the laborious physical process of creating that existed for the early pioneers of photography. However with the introduction of new forms of technology in art not just photography, I feel that Benjamin’s original concepts of “aura” and “authenticity” must be redefined.

I do feel that the digital revolution has devalued the photograph, we are constantly over saturated with photographic imagery possible due to the digital camera and other new platforms such as the internet and social media, desensitizing us to a true “authentic” experience of photography, we look at photographs, but are they really being seen?

Although I acknowledged analogue and digital possesses have their advantages as well as disadvantages , I personally feel that digital photography should be approached with the same traditional mindset, and the same careful consideration for each photograph, and the practices of photochemical methods need to be passed on to ensure that the art does not die out, as there is still a wealth of knowledge and expertise to offer to and inspire future generations.

Metaphors and Allegory

This week we were introduced to Metaphors and Allegory, they both express meaning but in different ways.Allegory is a device used in the arts to present an idea, principle or meaning. It communicates it's message through the use of symbolism. An allegory communicates much deeper meaning. A metaphor however is a figure of speech an implied comparison is made between two unlike things that actually have something in common, they both achieve their effect through association, comparison and resemblance.  

Sarah Lucas, "Self-Portrait with Fried Eggs" 1996

This self portrait by Sarah Lucas is an example of a metaphor. At first glance this portrait suggests a male presence, she presents herself in a slouched position with open legs. Her clothing is androgynous, bulky worn shoes and ripped jeans and even her short hair do not suggest femininity. Even her confrontational gaze seems very masculine. However the key metaphor her is the two fried eggs, it is clear that they are symbolizing breasts. It does not matter that she may look unfeminine she is still a woman. Another important metaphor is how eggs are typical a representation of fertility, however as the eggs are friend could this be a suggestion that she is infertile? Or does not want children?  The floor is also an important metaphor, it is typical of a kitchen which is also associated with femininity. This portrait challenges stereotypical representations of gender. 

Semiotics

Semiotics derived from the Greek word 'sēmeiōtikos' for "observant of signs", is the study of signs, how meaning is made and how reality is represented, through words, images, sounds, gestures and objects. The linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, implicated two things that were involved in utilising semiotics- The Signifier, and the Signified. The signifier is the form within the 'sign'- what is actually there. The Signified is the idea behind the 'sign' in question. To be a sign, these words, images, sounds, gestures and objects must carry meaning.

From an early age, without being taught, we learn to decode and interpret meaning from these signs. We use logic everyday to understand these signs, we define the signifier (the material aspect ) and the signified (the intellectual aspect, using learnt through our society and culture) When we analyse and image we recognize the denotations (the object present) and using a varied number of worldly influences (age, religion, race) we can find the connotation.

“Logic, in its general sense, is…only another name for semiotic…we observe the characters of such signs as we know, and...by a process which I will not object to naming abstraction, we are led to statements, eminently fallible, and therefore in one sense by no means necessary, as to what must be the characters of all signs used by scientific intelligence, that is to say, by an intelligence capable of learning by experience.”

Peirce, Collected Papers:Principles of Philosophy, 1931

John Berger Ways of Seeing

For this weeks seminar we discussed a pictorial chapter from the influential book, Ways of Seeing, John Berger. Whilst discussing the chapter we had 4 questions to keep in mind. I have included in this post, what I felt were the most interesting questions and discussion about the chapter. As preparation for this session I watched Berger's thought provoking four part BBC series Ways of seeing, which I would recommend everyone who is interested in any form of visual arts to watch. The whole series is available on YouTube.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnfB-pUm3eI

Consider why Berger has produced a chapter in a book based solely on images?

One of the things we discussed is that text can be used to manipulate the meaning of images to make them fit an authors point or argument. Having a solely pictorial chapter Berger allows the readers to focus on the images, without distraction and draw there own interpretation and opinions. We are not persuaded or manipulated into particular ways of thinking.This theory also relates to Walter Benjamin's "The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction" the problem is, with reproduced works of art is they loose original context and meaning "The cameraman, for example, intervenes with what we see in a way which a painting can never do. It directs the eye towards a specific place and a specific story; at the same time it is radical and revolutionary it is also totalitarian. It guides us to a particular side of a story and leaves other parts out. It dulls our perception towards the work of art and introduces distraction as a mode of reception." 

4. Following on from this how can the reading of these images change over time?

Our readings of images change with our culture, the context of the images are no longer dominant or relevant in our modern lives, we see them as history. Our experiences and advances in culture through the past change the way we view them.“During long periods of history, the mode of human sense perception changes with humanity’s entire mode of existence. The manner in which human sense perception is organized, the medium in which it is accomplished, is determined not only by nature but by historical circumstances as well” (Benjamin, 222).

This was a very interesting seminar and a great group discussion and I would recommend reading Ways of seeng . 


Quote sources: http://frankfurtschool.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/summary-the-work-of-art-in-the-age-of-mechanical-reproduction/