Given the changes in the technology of the camera between the time of Sontag’s writing and now, what are the questions you would pose for Sontag today? Why are these questions important, and what do they tell us about visual rhetoric?
I am going to “steal” a bit from myself here and my last SRR since I actually used that space to start turning around the issue of new technology and its affect on Sontag’s ideas. However, I was interested more in the technology of dissemination and the internet rather than the camera. I am borrowing mostly because I would love to hear what ya'll think about this. In short: what happens to Sontag’s notion of photographer as detached “tourist” when the photographer is (an obsessed) Facebook denizen?
Sontag repeats over and over that we have a compulsion to photograph things in our lives, to give them significance, to provide evidence to others of our lives. In the process we start to see the world and our activities in it as nothing more than photo opportunities. I think this is only magnified with Facebook. We have all been at a party where we hear someone squeal “oh that’s a Facebook shot,” “oh, wait let me get that so we can post it up,” or “wow, now that is a profile shot.” This is the epitome of being a “tourist in one’s life,” to use Sontag’s language. My generation of peers actually has a lens for reality titled “Facebook photo.” “We” see our lives as opportunities of images to post, as fragments that show off our adventures to friends, family, and online strangers. You know you have become acquainted with “that one girl” at the event or party that lives behind her camera. She snaps left and right, working to take in as much of the party as possible—not for herself, but to prove that fun was had to the audience on Facebook. I cannot help but wonder if she feels like a tourist or how much of the party she actually participated in? In an effort to capture her life she becomes detached from it, no?
Pushing even farther, what about the activities not just documented for Facebook but actually undertaken just for the Facebook photo op? Two of my female students admitted that the only reason they partook in filling the fountain with bubbles was so they could get a profile picture out of the experience. They found the ordeal dirty, slippery, and bothersome, but in the end they had a profile photo similar to the ones their sorority sisters had. Here, photos become a way to construct an identity online that may not even align with the one you have in “real life.” These girls are not “fountain swimmers;” they simply want to appear to be. They simply want to create the identity of “cool sorority girl” through the fragments of photo on Facebook (regardless of whether they legitimately took part in those activities or liked doing so—as their smiles suggested). Do they become “fake tourist” in their own lives then? This is a fascinating phenomenon to me, and I cannot help but think that it actually proves Sonntag’s notion of fragmented tourism and consumptive reality. Rather than “complicating” Sontag, it appears as though our new technologies only confirm her theories.
If Sontag were alive and privy to the ways we use cameras (incessantly) in the 21st century, I’d wonder how confident she would be about some of the claims she posits. For instance, would she still believe that photographs “furnish evidence” (5), and if so, to what extent? We still rely heavily on the photograph as evidence in matters of legality—isn’t that what CSIs (real and the faux CBS-kind) do when they take photos, gather evidence? I’m also thinking about insurance-related issues, such as how, as KY said in class, she’d photograph her car following an accident. We use the photograph as evidence in other arenas as well; for example, in providing virtual tours of apartments/houses, in corroborating news, and in capturing special moments (e.g., a birthday party, a trip to an exotic or famous destination, etc.).
However, although we still use the photograph to provide evidence, we are becoming increasingly incredulous in accepting that evidence as “truth.” Instead of trusting the virtual tour, we feel more comfortable taking an actual tour. Although the photo is disseminated in different news outlets, we wonder if it’s been doctored. Worth noting is that our skepticism isn’t borne out of paranoia; we have a history of using photos insidiously. Because many people believe that “the camera doesn’t lie” (or whatever other cliché you want to throw in, like “seeing is believing”), people historically have exploited our trust of photographs by manipulating them to perpetuate false information and/or distort our sense of reality. The difference between now and the time in which Sontag was writing is that we’ve become more knowledgeable about the ways people use photos to deceive. We’ve signed a lease based on the virtual tour only to be disappointed when we actually “see” the living space. We’ve had doctored photos brought to our attention (e.g., Stephen’s example with the missiles). The photograph, in one way or another, has duped us all. In fact, in some venues, altered photos have become the norm: look at a magazine cover recently? Airbrush anyone?
It seems as though the photo is now akin to words and numbers: we’ve fostered a healthy fear of each. We understand how all three can be epistemic, but we also realize how all three can mislead, can generate false knowledge.
The reason for all of this is not so much advances in the camera but rather advances in technologies that allow us to edit more cleanly the photos we’ve taken. Need an African American student added to the cover of your University’s application pamphlet? No biggie. (See: http://www.11points.com/images/blackphotoshop/wisconsin.jpg).
The camera is ubiquitous now as well, meaning everything is photogenic. Perhaps Sontag’s claim that “taking photographs has set up a chronic voyeuristic relation to the world which levels the meaning of all events” (11) has a little more weight. Hell, taking a picture of your new haircut and posting in Facebook is bound to elicit more comments than posting a picture you’ve taken of, say, Mount Rushmore. The mundane is now anything but, and I wonder what Sontag would say are the implications of this. She already saw the world as photographable, and boy do we take that to heart in the 21st century.
Lastly, for those interested in a good laugh, here’s a fun video from the Onion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BjXcAT4Gpk&p=F5E7895146C9BCBF&playnext=1&index=23
Interesting ideas, Natalie and Rory. What about the technology of the camera itself? Is there a difference between Polaroids--anyone remember those?--and Brownie cameras (around since 1900), digital cameras, and phones that think they are cameras? What questions do those differences raise, and why are they important? And what do those questions tell us about visual rhetoric today?
Dear Ms. Sontag, After brainstorming with my fellow colleagues, I have some questions to pose to you. Before, I ask you these important questions that argue for the change of photography in the past thirty years, I would like to share with you two perspectives. I am not an addict like some people are to the “machine gun” as many people in the twenty-first century are. Usually in a group of people (specifically my groups) there is usually one person taking photos, and that person is not myself; therefore, I am not a tacky tourist for my life. However I do enjoy participating in social networking, but the photo side is not one of the max concerns for me. Excuse my bird walk, getting back on track, these people who take photos are my best friend Kelly (in my friends group) or my sister (in my family group). I interviewed these two ladies to get a better understanding of photography in modern times. Kelly is an amateur photographer who enjoys taking pictures for pleasure; whereas, Chrissy, my sister, teaches photography at the high school level as an elective at the local school back home. The importance of sharing photos like you have stated are for “documenting or for expression” (118). Even today photography is about documenting and expression; however, the main point of photography today is based on the idea of sharing. Like Natalie stated, this generation uses facebook for a means of social networking. We enjoy photography for the immediacy of recapturing the memories that were captured while enjoying an event. Taking photos today is about who can upload, share the quickest, and then comment on the memories of the event. On the internet, especially news websites are constantly being updated with new photographs of current news from around the world. If there was a hurricane than we would be able to get satellite images every few minutes. Another point is how we share the photos. We usually will upload them to a website; however, we use to print pictures. Now, thanks to digitalization there is a lack of need to print and save pictures. A key is that with a digital camera we are likely to delete a photo if we think it is “bad”. In the past photographers would save files of film with all of the pictures that they took. Where is the paper trace? What if the internet goes down? Will we still have the ability to recount what has happened in history? Or is this a form banning intellectual freedom. This week is banned book week, and I question if photos will become banded because of content or messages represented? What about how the speed of photography has changed? Take camera phones for example. Now phones have the ability to take photos. Chrissy said that she does not like to have her students use their phones to take pictures. However, she noted that the quality of pictures being taken from phones has increased. The practical and useful aspect of camera phones is that anyone can click and send. It does not take an expert photographer to take a quick picture. Another aspect is that everyone is attached to their phones. Sending a picture text is quicker than having to upload pictures to facebook or to a website. The receiver instantly can be connected to the sender, and the sender can receive instant feedback for the receiver. This exchange is all based on being “connected”.
Photography is still a strong medium for persuasion: journalism and political messages. As Rory stated, we are more likely to trust an image than a text. However, Kelly brought up the point that the fun part of photography is that even if the photographer did not receive the best shot, then they could take the piece home and doctor the image to look and express what they want it too. So can we truly trust photos? Can we really trust anything that we do not see happen with our own eyes? Sincerely, Jessica Todd Visual Rhetorician
There are a number of issues to which I would bring Sontag's attention if we were working together on a new edition of her book. The first, I would think, has to be the internet (as Rory and Natalie have already discussed). What does the instant attainability of interesting and even artful images via Google and Flickr do to a society that once relied on museums and print books to be exposed to 'quality' photography? The technology of dissemination is changing, and the technology of reproduction is changing as well.
Sontag makes a distinction between negative images (which in theory can be reproduced an infinite number of times) and the Polaroids that provided a single artifact image. Of course, they had photocopiers back then, and I suppose a negative image could be taken of the Polaroid image, but now our immediate feedback is not provided by a two-minute chemical process but by 2.5" LCD screens, the results of which can be transmitted immediately over WiFi with a transmitting SD card right to your computer, which you can set up to immediately upload these images to a website like Flickr. (Don't believe me? http://www.eye.fi/) The immediacy and transmittability (just go with it) of photographs has to be reckoned with in any discussion of photography and its effects on society. Then you've got film scanners that can be used to digitize those negatives from the old cameras that could have otherwise become obsolete in the digital world.
Finally, I would ask Sontag to address the even more solidified ubiquity of the camera, the innumerable recording eyes to which we have adjusted ourselves. Sontag talks about how people have a certain reverence for the camera, how people respectfully continue what they are doing when approached by a camera, neither denying the photograph's being taken nor posing. With FB and YouTube, people, governments, and institutions have started changing their stances toward being photographed. There a few states in which it is a crime to take a picture of police. Here is a site that is fighting back against this: http://carlosmiller.com/
What would Sontag make of all this? I'm not terribly certain. But I know she would have something to say.
I though that this might be a good way to start: computer scientists at the University of Washington have recreated images of buildings in Rome from Flickr users’ photos:
She writes: “Through being photographed, something becomes part of a system of information, fitted into schemes of classification and storage. . . Reality as such is redefined—as an item for exhibition, as a record for scrutiny, as a target for surveillance”(156). She also notes that “a photograph is not only like its subject, a homage to the subject. It is part of, an extension of that subject; and a potent means of acquiring it, of gaining control over it”(155). So I wonder: what happens when we reconstruct a three dimensional image composed of a tremendous number of people’s photographs? In a literal sense, this project is involved in the conversion of a subject into systems of information—but what is interesting here is that the raw data is the image itself. Here, the image reconstructs a new reality based upon what people see. In doing this, are we losing contact with the real? Or are we highlighting human experience (in this case what people see) and, thus, elaborating on a different or more accurate real?
This brings me to what I find most dramatic about the changes in how the image is produced, displayed, circulated, discussed: how it is connected to actual material spaces in ways that Sontag could never imagine. In On Photography, Sontag writes that the whole world becomes material for the photographer—I wonder about what she would say about geotagging? Flickr notes that, this month, 4.6 million items were geotagged on their site. Since image is more and more becoming connected to a physical place (at least, via geospatial data) what might this mean in terms of the relationship between image, space and control?
Of course, Baudrillard’s work comes to mind with these questions, and Sontag’s critiques often echo his, but I wonder if we could take it from another (less bitter, cynical?) angle—doesn’t this tremendous influx of images offer us an opportunity for extending our ways of being/seeing/knowing (a heuristic?), of proposing alternatives to seeing? What about agency, Susan? And doesn't the heightened connection between location and photo help us articulate a reality that has the potential to counter the alternatives to spectacle/surveillance? For example:
Reading through On Photography, I kept thinking about flickr, and another question has to do with the forums in which images are displayed. She writes: “museums do not so much arbitrate what photographs are good or bad as offer new conditions for looking at all photographs. . .the museum is undermining the very idea of normative taste. Its role is to show that there are no fixed standards of evaluation, that there is no canonical tradition of work”(141). She also writes that, when photographs are viewed in museum or gallery space, “photographs cease to be ‘about’ their subjects in the same direct or primary way; they become studies in the possibilities of photography” (133). I wonder what the role of image hosting sites such as flickr might play in this phenomenon—are such websites the contemporary version of the museum or gallery? If such sites are the museum 2.0, what are the “conditions for looking” in these new venues? Since flickr is a site which claims to store “4 billion photos” and involves innumerable users, is there such thing as an auteur anymore? And if there isn't, so what?
I am under the influence of a great deal of cold medicine, so hopefully this is coherent.
It seems that every gadget my students bring into class with them can take a picture. I would go so far as to argue that this is a generation that sees the world visually. Every moment is an opportunity for a photography. And with a technology that makes it so easy to snap a picture (no thought required), I wonder about the consequences of circulating so much photography that has no thought besides the current moment, no purpose besides the obvious.
I taught a visual rhetoric unit each semester at UD, and I was always frustrated that students that grew up surrounded by images and equipped to take photographs at any moment with any number of devices were almost indifferent to the visual and had absolutely no idea what to do with it. They lacked a verbal language and the visual training to know what to do with a photograph. All answers were literal: "It is a picture of two girls." Photographs that I brought it because they are provocative or disturbing yielded little to no reaction. Even a photograph paired with a short story (something students are used to analyzing) was a difficult activity.
I know Sontag addresses the viewer becoming desensitized when viewing graphic/violent images, but what about our current generation becoming almost blind to the power/influence of the visual? In spite of technology that would have us believe the ability to take a photograph in every moment is important, what about students whose eyes are tired and no longer shocked or even interested in what they're seeing? Isn't there a danger in the photograph becoming superficial and indiscriminate instead of thoughtful, artful, or argumentative?
I'm curious about how Sontag might reflect on digital photo frames, that can store, rotate, and set to music 100+ images. She claims "to photograph is to confer importance" (28) and power and control are recurring motifs in her writing. Does an image placed in a digital frame lose power? Is it devalued? Sontag also writes, "Photographic images are pieces of evidence in an ongoing biography or history. And one photograph, unlike one painting, implies that there will be others" (166). Does the development of displaying photographs in a digital frame take this implication into the space of actuality? What is the digital frames (usual small and not a centralized focus of an event) relationship with the classic slideshow (usually large projections demanding attention)?
As I read Sontag's discussion of ways those confined to indoor spaces have come to rely on photographs (162), I became very curious on how Sontag might revise this section as it could relate to the internet. "Photograph collections can be used to make a substitute world, keyed to exalting or consoling or tantalizing images" (162). A key word from this important thought seems to be "images." With the super-amazing technological stuff that makes it possible to create photo-realistic images without the photographic process, has photography's role changed in developing substitute worlds? How foundational is photography to web design/game design/program design that aims to draw people in to a substitute world?
Finally, like Josh, I wondered about what Sontag might offer about the internet photo forum and the brick & mortar museum relationship. Does the internet's capacity to *publish* all photos have an effect on photography in museums? Has enough time passed that museum photography adheres to canonical categorization?
This passage from the last chapter of On Photography, “The Image World,” really threw me for a loop. Sontag describes the outraged Chinese response to Antonioni’s film, Chung Kuo, as “the characteristic visual taste of those at the first stage of camera culture, when the image is defined as something that can be stolen from its owner; thus Antonioni was reproached for ‘forcibly taking shots against people’s wishes,’ like ‘a thief’” (171). Sontag goes on to say that “the good manners of a camera culture [presumably such as the U.S. in the 1970s] dictate that one is supposed to pretend not to notice when one is being photographed by a stranger a public place as long as the photographer stays at a discreet distance – that is, one is supposed neither to forbid the picture-taking nor to start posing” (171). Besides the obvious question this inspires – i.e., WTF? – I would like to ask Sontag the following: How would she describe contemporary camera etiquette (assuming she would still ascribe to a developmental stage theory of camera culture) in light of the exponential increase in access to cameras and means for disseminating photographs? How does she think camera etiquette relates to contemporary notions of identity and reality?
Throughout On Photography Sontag describes the way photographs interrupt, distort, and frame our consciousness of experience, our perception of reality, and (as the Chinese response to Antonioni’s film highlights) our understanding of our identity. In her conclusion to “The Image-World,” Sontag writes “The powers of photography have in effect de-Platonized our understanding of reality, making it less and less plausible to reflect upon our experience according to the distinction between images and things, between copies and originals” (179). With the confluence of Facebook and other photo-sharing sites, and the ability to take and post infinite photos at no cost, I would also like to ask Sontag: In an image saturated culture where people are conscious of constantly being photographed, and accustomed to thinking about images (literal and figurative) of ourselves, how does she see images functioning in our construction of reality and identity? Do they still interrupt, frame, and distort, or are they so ubiquitous as to have become seamlessly integrated?
Wow most of you are more verbose than I was planning on being... I'll resist the urge to follow the crowd.
There was a part in the book that I would revise because when I read it I immediately thought of Facebook and Flickr. It's the part where she writes, "A way of certifying experience, taking photographs is also a way of refusing it - by limiting experience to a search for the photogenic, by converting experience into an image, a souvenir" (9). People have very little control of their image now and I think that this understanding of the "tourist" mentality might need revision considering the marketplace of taste. That is to say, what is "objectively photogenic" isn't the only thing being put on display, and is often the last thing. Because of technological innovations, people take photos all the time without a second thought paid to the quality or quantity of images being taken. Whereas there was at least some economic and practical barrier in the past to taking frivolous photos - film at least cost something and took time to develop - now people take pictures of anything and everything to the point where Microsoft can credibly pitch their idea of the "interactive world": an image and information compiler which would allow users to look see anything in the whole world and stitch together the millions of images into a 3D representation of the Earth.
What would it mean to Sontag that, through the internet and the mass culture of images, we can effectively take a picture of the entire planet?
These questions that we pose are important because photography—the photograph—is a vehicle for visual rhetoric, especially today. The advancement of technology has allowed “snapshot-takers” to embrace a loftier title: amateur photographers. And as Natalie and Stephen pointed out, Facebook and Flickr are our galleries. But what are we to make of these galleries? How would Sontag comment on them? The photos that we take with our camera phones, how would we classify them?
I recently stumbled upon an interesting website Accidental Mysteries (http://www.accidentalmysteries.com/home.html). John Foster, the creator of the site, is an avid photo collector. He seeks out garage sales and antique shops in search of vernacular photos that “transcend the ordinary.” He states, “When you look at the idea of enjoying art that's made by people without formal art education, you can easily make the jump to snapshots. Everyone takes photographs.”
I pose to Sontag: Can our amateur Facebook mobile uploads be considered art—are they transcending the ordinary—or are they merely snapshots of fleeting moments of fun? Can they be both?
Leigh posits some thought-provoking questions regarding her UD students, one of which asks, “Isn't there a danger in the photograph becoming superficial and indiscriminate instead of thoughtful, artful, or argumentative?” I think students sometimes think of photos the way Sontag describes them in her first chapter: “Photographs will offer indisputable evidence that the trip was made, that the program was carried out, that fun was had” (9). Photographs, in this scenario, are documentation. The parody that Rory posted from the Onion reinforces this idea of documentation and the obsession with it. The photos used as evidence are in fact these “social-networking photos” that we all keep referring to. Like Leigh, I think it’s imperative that our students understand how to interpret the visual because whether or not the photo is transcending the ordinary, it’s still making meaning.
Hi everyone-- Didn't think I'd ever say it, but I've missed this!
Here goes...Jessica T. I have the same inclination that you express here. Sontag makes no apologies for her sweeping generalizations and she certainly borders on contradiction. The photo is passive; yet it power is its agression(7). Photos are also capable of altering and enlarging our notions of what is worth looking at.
I think Sontag's use of the personal essay to frame her discussion of the photo is symbolic or maybe metaphorical is the better word. She gives this snapshot of HER VIEW and does not clutter what she sees with citations :) We see must see photography through the lens of her thoughts and while we can argue over the grammar and assumptions, we cannot change the picture that she paints. We can only interpret.
I would like to ask Sontag about the photograph's inability to rape or kill. I want to know how you describe the image with such powerful words yet render it as "only an image" that cannot be responsible for those actions. Yes, during wartime people die. But would we say people don't die because of wartime, they die because people use war as a reason to kill? I want to know what you think of the result of actions taken based on an altered reality. For instance, you mention disappointment on the faces of travelers who upon seeing the "real thing" of something they've only engaged through photo. With the photo as the compelling image that led to the action, what does that say about photography's passivity and vulnerability?
Visual Rhetoric is powerful and can--as Sontag states--lead to many . . . feelings. She focuses on eroticism yet I believe she drops the responsibility ball when the discussion hinges on cause and effect. If a compelling speech can make you act, can't a compelling photograph?
I am going to “steal” a bit from myself here and my last SRR since I actually used that space to start turning around the issue of new technology and its affect on Sontag’s ideas. However, I was interested more in the technology of dissemination and the internet rather than the camera. I am borrowing mostly because I would love to hear what ya'll think about this. In short: what happens to Sontag’s notion of photographer as detached “tourist” when the photographer is (an obsessed) Facebook denizen?
ReplyDeleteSontag repeats over and over that we have a compulsion to photograph things in our lives, to give them significance, to provide evidence to others of our lives. In the process we start to see the world and our activities in it as nothing more than photo opportunities. I think this is only magnified with Facebook. We have all been at a party where we hear someone squeal “oh that’s a Facebook shot,” “oh, wait let me get that so we can post it up,” or “wow, now that is a profile shot.” This is the epitome of being a “tourist in one’s life,” to use Sontag’s language. My generation of peers actually has a lens for reality titled “Facebook photo.” “We” see our lives as opportunities of images to post, as fragments that show off our adventures to friends, family, and online strangers. You know you have become acquainted with “that one girl” at the event or party that lives behind her camera. She snaps left and right, working to take in as much of the party as possible—not for herself, but to prove that fun was had to the audience on Facebook. I cannot help but wonder if she feels like a tourist or how much of the party she actually participated in? In an effort to capture her life she becomes detached from it, no?
Pushing even farther, what about the activities not just documented for Facebook but actually undertaken just for the Facebook photo op? Two of my female students admitted that the only reason they partook in filling the fountain with bubbles was so they could get a profile picture out of the experience. They found the ordeal dirty, slippery, and bothersome, but in the end they had a profile photo similar to the ones their sorority sisters had. Here, photos become a way to construct an identity online that may not even align with the one you have in “real life.” These girls are not “fountain swimmers;” they simply want to appear to be. They simply want to create the identity of “cool sorority girl” through the fragments of photo on Facebook (regardless of whether they legitimately took part in those activities or liked doing so—as their smiles suggested). Do they become “fake tourist” in their own lives then? This is a fascinating phenomenon to me, and I cannot help but think that it actually proves Sonntag’s notion of fragmented tourism and consumptive reality. Rather than “complicating” Sontag, it appears as though our new technologies only confirm her theories.
If Sontag were alive and privy to the ways we use cameras (incessantly) in the 21st century, I’d wonder how confident she would be about some of the claims she posits. For instance, would she still believe that photographs “furnish evidence” (5), and if so, to what extent? We still rely heavily on the photograph as evidence in matters of legality—isn’t that what CSIs (real and the faux CBS-kind) do when they take photos, gather evidence? I’m also thinking about insurance-related issues, such as how, as KY said in class, she’d photograph her car following an accident. We use the photograph as evidence in other arenas as well; for example, in providing virtual tours of apartments/houses, in corroborating news, and in capturing special moments (e.g., a birthday party, a trip to an exotic or famous destination, etc.).
ReplyDeleteHowever, although we still use the photograph to provide evidence, we are becoming increasingly incredulous in accepting that evidence as “truth.” Instead of trusting the virtual tour, we feel more comfortable taking an actual tour. Although the photo is disseminated in different news outlets, we wonder if it’s been doctored. Worth noting is that our skepticism isn’t borne out of paranoia; we have a history of using photos insidiously. Because many people believe that “the camera doesn’t lie” (or whatever other cliché you want to throw in, like “seeing is believing”), people historically have exploited our trust of photographs by manipulating them to perpetuate false information and/or distort our sense of reality. The difference between now and the time in which Sontag was writing is that we’ve become more knowledgeable about the ways people use photos to deceive. We’ve signed a lease based on the virtual tour only to be disappointed when we actually “see” the living space. We’ve had doctored photos brought to our attention (e.g., Stephen’s example with the missiles). The photograph, in one way or another, has duped us all. In fact, in some venues, altered photos have become the norm: look at a magazine cover recently? Airbrush anyone?
It seems as though the photo is now akin to words and numbers: we’ve fostered a healthy fear of each. We understand how all three can be epistemic, but we also realize how all three can mislead, can generate false knowledge.
The reason for all of this is not so much advances in the camera but rather advances in technologies that allow us to edit more cleanly the photos we’ve taken. Need an African American student added to the cover of your University’s application pamphlet? No biggie. (See: http://www.11points.com/images/blackphotoshop/wisconsin.jpg).
The camera is ubiquitous now as well, meaning everything is photogenic. Perhaps Sontag’s claim that “taking photographs has set up a chronic voyeuristic relation to the world which levels the meaning of all events” (11) has a little more weight. Hell, taking a picture of your new haircut and posting in Facebook is bound to elicit more comments than posting a picture you’ve taken of, say, Mount Rushmore. The mundane is now anything but, and I wonder what Sontag would say are the implications of this. She already saw the world as photographable, and boy do we take that to heart in the 21st century.
Lastly, for those interested in a good laugh, here’s a fun video from the Onion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BjXcAT4Gpk&p=F5E7895146C9BCBF&playnext=1&index=23
Interesting ideas, Natalie and Rory. What about the technology of the camera itself? Is there a difference between Polaroids--anyone remember those?--and Brownie cameras (around since 1900), digital cameras, and phones that think they are cameras? What questions do those differences raise, and why are they important? And what do those questions tell us about visual rhetoric today?
ReplyDeleteDear Ms. Sontag,
ReplyDeleteAfter brainstorming with my fellow colleagues, I have some questions to pose to you. Before, I ask you these important questions that argue for the change of photography in the past thirty years, I would like to share with you two perspectives. I am not an addict like some people are to the “machine gun” as many people in the twenty-first century are. Usually in a group of people (specifically my groups) there is usually one person taking photos, and that person is not myself; therefore, I am not a tacky tourist for my life. However I do enjoy participating in social networking, but the photo side is not one of the max concerns for me. Excuse my bird walk, getting back on track, these people who take photos are my best friend Kelly (in my friends group) or my sister (in my family group). I interviewed these two ladies to get a better understanding of photography in modern times. Kelly is an amateur photographer who enjoys taking pictures for pleasure; whereas, Chrissy, my sister, teaches photography at the high school level as an elective at the local school back home.
The importance of sharing photos like you have stated are for “documenting or for expression” (118). Even today photography is about documenting and expression; however, the main point of photography today is based on the idea of sharing. Like Natalie stated, this generation uses facebook for a means of social networking. We enjoy photography for the immediacy of recapturing the memories that were captured while enjoying an event. Taking photos today is about who can upload, share the quickest, and then comment on the memories of the event. On the internet, especially news websites are constantly being updated with new photographs of current news from around the world. If there was a hurricane than we would be able to get satellite images every few minutes.
Another point is how we share the photos. We usually will upload them to a website; however, we use to print pictures. Now, thanks to digitalization there is a lack of need to print and save pictures. A key is that with a digital camera we are likely to delete a photo if we think it is “bad”. In the past photographers would save files of film with all of the pictures that they took. Where is the paper trace? What if the internet goes down? Will we still have the ability to recount what has happened in history? Or is this a form banning intellectual freedom. This week is banned book week, and I question if photos will become banded because of content or messages represented?
What about how the speed of photography has changed? Take camera phones for example. Now phones have the ability to take photos. Chrissy said that she does not like to have her students use their phones to take pictures. However, she noted that the quality of pictures being taken from phones has increased. The practical and useful aspect of camera phones is that anyone can click and send. It does not take an expert photographer to take a quick picture. Another aspect is that everyone is attached to their phones. Sending a picture text is quicker than having to upload pictures to facebook or to a website. The receiver instantly can be connected to the sender, and the sender can receive instant feedback for the receiver. This exchange is all based on being “connected”.
Photography is still a strong medium for persuasion: journalism and political messages. As Rory stated, we are more likely to trust an image than a text. However, Kelly brought up the point that the fun part of photography is that even if the photographer did not receive the best shot, then they could take the piece home and doctor the image to look and express what they want it too. So can we truly trust photos? Can we really trust anything that we do not see happen with our own eyes?
Sincerely,
Jessica Todd
Visual Rhetorician
There are a number of issues to which I would bring Sontag's attention if we were working together on a new edition of her book. The first, I would think, has to be the internet (as Rory and Natalie have already discussed). What does the instant attainability of interesting and even artful images via Google and Flickr do to a society that once relied on museums and print books to be exposed to 'quality' photography? The technology of dissemination is changing, and the technology of reproduction is changing as well.
ReplyDeleteSontag makes a distinction between negative images (which in theory can be reproduced an infinite number of times) and the Polaroids that provided a single artifact image. Of course, they had photocopiers back then, and I suppose a negative image could be taken of the Polaroid image, but now our immediate feedback is not provided by a two-minute chemical process but by 2.5" LCD screens, the results of which can be transmitted immediately over WiFi with a transmitting SD card right to your computer, which you can set up to immediately upload these images to a website like Flickr. (Don't believe me? http://www.eye.fi/) The immediacy and transmittability (just go with it) of photographs has to be reckoned with in any discussion of photography and its effects on society. Then you've got film scanners that can be used to digitize those negatives from the old cameras that could have otherwise become obsolete in the digital world.
Finally, I would ask Sontag to address the even more solidified ubiquity of the camera, the innumerable recording eyes to which we have adjusted ourselves. Sontag talks about how people have a certain reverence for the camera, how people respectfully continue what they are doing when approached by a camera, neither denying the photograph's being taken nor posing. With FB and YouTube, people, governments, and institutions have started changing their stances toward being photographed. There a few states in which it is a crime to take a picture of police. Here is a site that is fighting back against this: http://carlosmiller.com/
What would Sontag make of all this? I'm not terribly certain. But I know she would have something to say.
I though that this might be a good way to start: computer scientists at the University of Washington have recreated images of buildings in Rome from Flickr users’ photos:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/6213848/3D-Rome-created-from-150000-Flickr-photos.html
What might this mean, Dr. Sontag?
She writes: “Through being photographed, something becomes part of a system of information, fitted into schemes of classification and storage. . . Reality as such is redefined—as an item for exhibition, as a record for scrutiny, as a target for surveillance”(156). She also notes that “a photograph is not only like its subject, a homage to the subject. It is part of, an extension of that subject; and a potent means of acquiring it, of gaining control over it”(155). So I wonder: what happens when we reconstruct a three dimensional image composed of a tremendous number of people’s photographs? In a literal sense, this project is involved in the conversion of a subject into systems of information—but what is interesting here is that the raw data is the image itself. Here, the image reconstructs a new reality based upon what people see. In doing this, are we losing contact with the real? Or are we highlighting human experience (in this case what people see) and, thus, elaborating on a different or more accurate real?
This brings me to what I find most dramatic about the changes in how the image is produced, displayed, circulated, discussed: how it is connected to actual material spaces in ways that Sontag could never imagine. In On Photography, Sontag writes that the whole world becomes material for the photographer—I wonder about what she would say about geotagging? Flickr notes that, this month, 4.6 million items were geotagged on their site. Since image is more and more becoming connected to a physical place (at least, via geospatial data) what might this mean in terms of the relationship between image, space and control?
Of course, Baudrillard’s work comes to mind with these questions, and Sontag’s critiques often echo his, but I wonder if we could take it from another (less bitter, cynical?) angle—doesn’t this tremendous influx of images offer us an opportunity for extending our ways of being/seeing/knowing (a heuristic?), of proposing alternatives to seeing? What about agency, Susan? And doesn't the heightened connection between location and photo help us articulate a reality that has the potential to counter the alternatives to spectacle/surveillance? For example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/51260381@N05/4713938131/#/
Reading through On Photography, I kept thinking about flickr, and another question has to do with the forums in which images are displayed. She writes: “museums do not so much arbitrate what photographs are good or bad as offer new conditions for looking at all photographs. . .the museum is undermining the very idea of normative taste. Its role is to show that there are no fixed standards of evaluation, that there is no canonical tradition of work”(141). She also writes that, when photographs are viewed in museum or gallery space, “photographs cease to be ‘about’ their subjects in the same direct or primary way; they become studies in the possibilities of photography” (133). I wonder what the role of image hosting sites such as flickr might play in this phenomenon—are such websites the contemporary version of the museum or gallery? If such sites are the museum 2.0, what are the “conditions for looking” in these new venues? Since flickr is a site which claims to store “4 billion photos” and involves innumerable users, is there such thing as an auteur anymore? And if there isn't, so what?
I am under the influence of a great deal of cold medicine, so hopefully this is coherent.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that every gadget my students bring into class with them can take a picture. I would go so far as to argue that this is a generation that sees the world visually. Every moment is an opportunity for a photography. And with a technology that makes it so easy to snap a picture (no thought required), I wonder about the consequences of circulating so much photography that has no thought besides the current moment, no purpose besides the obvious.
I taught a visual rhetoric unit each semester at UD, and I was always
frustrated that students that grew up surrounded by images and equipped to take photographs at any moment with any number of devices were almost indifferent to the visual and had absolutely no idea what to do with it. They lacked a verbal language and the visual training to know what to do with a photograph. All answers were literal: "It is a picture of two girls." Photographs that I brought it because they are provocative or disturbing yielded little to no reaction. Even a photograph paired with a short story (something students are used to analyzing) was a difficult activity.
I know Sontag addresses the viewer becoming desensitized when viewing graphic/violent images, but what about our current generation becoming almost blind to the power/influence of the visual? In spite of technology that would have us believe the ability to take a photograph in every moment is important, what about students whose eyes are tired and no longer shocked or even interested in what they're seeing? Isn't there a danger in the photograph becoming superficial and indiscriminate instead of thoughtful, artful, or argumentative?
I'm curious about how Sontag might reflect on digital photo frames, that can store, rotate, and set to music 100+ images. She claims "to photograph is to confer importance" (28) and power and control are recurring motifs in her writing. Does an image placed in a digital frame lose power? Is it devalued? Sontag also writes, "Photographic images are pieces of evidence in an ongoing biography or history. And one photograph, unlike one painting, implies that there will be others" (166). Does the development of displaying photographs in a digital frame take this implication into the space of actuality? What is the digital frames (usual small and not a centralized focus of an event) relationship with the classic slideshow (usually large projections demanding attention)?
ReplyDeleteAs I read Sontag's discussion of ways those confined to indoor spaces have come to rely on photographs (162), I became very curious on how Sontag might revise this section as it could relate to the internet. "Photograph collections can be used to make a substitute world, keyed to exalting or consoling or tantalizing images" (162). A key word from this important thought seems to be "images." With the super-amazing technological stuff that makes it possible to create photo-realistic images without the photographic process, has photography's role changed in developing substitute worlds? How foundational is photography to web design/game design/program design that aims to draw people in to a substitute world?
Finally, like Josh, I wondered about what Sontag might offer about the internet photo forum and the brick & mortar museum relationship. Does the internet's capacity to *publish* all photos have an effect on photography in museums? Has enough time passed that museum photography adheres to canonical categorization?
This passage from the last chapter of On Photography, “The Image World,” really threw me for a loop. Sontag describes the outraged Chinese response to Antonioni’s film, Chung Kuo, as “the characteristic visual taste of those at the first stage of camera culture, when the image is defined as something that can be stolen from its owner; thus Antonioni was reproached for ‘forcibly taking shots against people’s wishes,’ like ‘a thief’” (171). Sontag goes on to say that “the good manners of a camera culture [presumably such as the U.S. in the 1970s] dictate that one is supposed to pretend not to notice when one is being photographed by a stranger a public place as long as the photographer stays at a discreet distance – that is, one is supposed neither to forbid the picture-taking nor to start posing” (171). Besides the obvious question this inspires – i.e., WTF? – I would like to ask Sontag the following: How would she describe contemporary camera etiquette (assuming she would still ascribe to a developmental stage theory of camera culture) in light of the exponential increase in access to cameras and means for disseminating photographs? How does she think camera etiquette relates to contemporary notions of identity and reality?
ReplyDeleteThroughout On Photography Sontag describes the way photographs interrupt, distort, and frame our consciousness of experience, our perception of reality, and (as the Chinese response to Antonioni’s film highlights) our understanding of our identity. In her conclusion to “The Image-World,” Sontag writes “The powers of photography have in effect de-Platonized our understanding of reality, making it less and less plausible to reflect upon our experience according to the distinction between images and things, between copies and originals” (179). With the confluence of Facebook and other photo-sharing sites, and the ability to take and post infinite photos at no cost, I would also like to ask Sontag: In an image saturated culture where people are conscious of constantly being photographed, and accustomed to thinking about images (literal and figurative) of ourselves, how does she see images functioning in our construction of reality and identity? Do they still interrupt, frame, and distort, or are they so ubiquitous as to have become seamlessly integrated?
Wow most of you are more verbose than I was planning on being... I'll resist the urge to follow the crowd.
ReplyDeleteThere was a part in the book that I would revise because when I read it I immediately thought of Facebook and Flickr. It's the part where she writes, "A way of certifying experience, taking photographs is also a way of refusing it - by limiting experience to a search for the photogenic, by converting experience into an image, a souvenir" (9). People have very little control of their image now and I think that this understanding of the "tourist" mentality might need revision considering the marketplace of taste. That is to say, what is "objectively photogenic" isn't the only thing being put on display, and is often the last thing. Because of technological innovations, people take photos all the time without a second thought paid to the quality or quantity of images being taken. Whereas there was at least some economic and practical barrier in the past to taking frivolous photos - film at least cost something and took time to develop - now people take pictures of anything and everything to the point where Microsoft can credibly pitch their idea of the "interactive world": an image and information compiler which would allow users to look see anything in the whole world and stitch together the millions of images into a 3D representation of the Earth.
What would it mean to Sontag that, through the internet and the mass culture of images, we can effectively take a picture of the entire planet?
These questions that we pose are important because photography—the photograph—is a vehicle for visual rhetoric, especially today. The advancement of technology has allowed “snapshot-takers” to embrace a loftier title: amateur photographers. And as Natalie and Stephen pointed out, Facebook and Flickr are our galleries. But what are we to make of these galleries? How would Sontag comment on them? The photos that we take with our camera phones, how would we classify them?
ReplyDeleteI recently stumbled upon an interesting website Accidental Mysteries (http://www.accidentalmysteries.com/home.html). John Foster, the creator of the site, is an avid photo collector. He seeks out garage sales and antique shops in search of vernacular photos that “transcend the ordinary.” He states, “When you look at the idea of enjoying art that's made by people without formal art education, you can easily make the jump to snapshots. Everyone takes photographs.”
I pose to Sontag: Can our amateur Facebook mobile uploads be considered art—are they transcending the ordinary—or are they merely snapshots of fleeting moments of fun? Can they be both?
Leigh posits some thought-provoking questions regarding her UD students, one of which asks, “Isn't there a danger in the photograph becoming superficial and indiscriminate instead of thoughtful, artful, or argumentative?” I think students sometimes think of photos the way Sontag describes them in her first chapter: “Photographs will offer indisputable evidence that the trip was made, that the program was carried out, that fun was had” (9). Photographs, in this scenario, are documentation. The parody that Rory posted from the Onion reinforces this idea of documentation and the obsession with it. The photos used as evidence are in fact these “social-networking photos” that we all keep referring to. Like Leigh, I think it’s imperative that our students understand how to interpret the visual because whether or not the photo is transcending the ordinary, it’s still making meaning.
Hi everyone-- Didn't think I'd ever say it, but I've missed this!
ReplyDeleteHere goes...Jessica T. I have the same inclination that you express here. Sontag makes no apologies for her sweeping generalizations and she certainly borders on contradiction. The photo is passive; yet it power is its agression(7). Photos are also capable of altering and enlarging our notions of what is worth looking at.
I think Sontag's use of the personal essay to frame her discussion of the photo is symbolic or maybe metaphorical is the better word. She gives this snapshot of HER VIEW and does not clutter what she sees with citations :) We see must see photography through the lens of her thoughts and while we can argue over the grammar and assumptions, we cannot change the picture that she paints. We can only interpret.
I would like to ask Sontag about the photograph's inability to rape or kill. I want to know how you describe the image with such powerful words yet render it as "only an image" that cannot be responsible for those actions. Yes, during wartime people die. But would we say people don't die because of wartime, they die because people use war as a reason to kill? I want to know what you think of the result of actions taken based on an altered reality. For instance, you mention disappointment on the faces of travelers who upon seeing the "real thing" of something they've only engaged through photo. With the photo as the compelling image that led to the action, what does that say about photography's passivity and vulnerability?
Visual Rhetoric is powerful and can--as Sontag states--lead to many . . . feelings. She focuses on eroticism yet I believe she drops the responsibility ball when the discussion hinges on cause and effect. If a compelling speech can make you act, can't a compelling photograph?