books

Does anyone have book titles they can suggest dealing with the theory/

philosophy of photography?

Not how tos...

Its a bit dated, from the film era, (70's), but TIME-LIFE put out a whole series of books on Photography, covering a range of topics. I think a couple of these were focused on the non-technical side. You can find these in used book stores, thrift stores,and maybe your local Library. Or just Google "Time Life Photography series".

On Photography by Susan Sontag<BR>

Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography by Roland Barthes<BR>

The Nature of Photographs by Stephen Shore <BR>

The Photographer's Eye by John Szarkowski <BR>

Basic Critical Theory for Photographers by Ashley la Grange <BR>

Criticizing Photographs by Terry Barrett <BR>

Why People Photograph by Robert Adams<BR>

<BR>

To name a few...<BR>

 

- Randy

To Randy's list, I would add:

 

Crisis of the Real by Andy Grundberg

 

Light Reading by A.D. Coleman

 

Photography After Photography by Siemens Kulturprogramm et al

 

and I would recommend getting a good grounding in art history, which really helps make a lot of what you read about photography more clear.

You will get many and various suggestions - we all value different things

and different approaches. For that reason, I've stuck to a short list (below).</p>

<p>I presume that you are knew to this, or you wouldn't be asking (if I'm making

an unjustified presumption, my humble apologies) so here are five which I

recommend to my students.</p>

<p>To students completely new to any for of theoretic approach to imaging, I

recommend la Grange. After that, Wells. Both of them are good kicking off

points, with a range of selected material and suggestions for where you might

want to go next. Scharf is an "old school" view. Scott is for those who are

interested in the interaction of image and natural language, Flusser is the

nearest to hard core that most people want to bother with - both of them are

extended texts, not short samplers.</p>

<p>I would also recommend (despite the prevailing wind against her in here)

Susan Sontag's <i>On Photography</i>, for one possible cultural view; and

possibly Boland Barthes' <i>Camera Lucida</i> if you have a taste for critical

narrative.</p>

<ul>

<li>Flusser, V, <i>Towards a philosophy of photography</i>. 2000, London:

Reaktion.1861890761</li>

<li>la Grange, A, <i>Basic critical theory for photographers</i>. 2005,

Amsterdam ; London: Focal. 9780240516523</li>

<li>Scharf, A, <i>Art and photography</i>. 1968, London: Allen Lane The

Penguin Press.</li>

<li>Scott, C, <i>The spoken image : photography and language</i>. 1999,

London: Reaktion..186189032X</li>

<li>Wells, L, <i>The photography reader</i>. 2003, London: Routledge.

041524661X

Also added to Randy's list, I'd recommend:

John Szarkowski, <i>Looking at Photographs</i>

Reflections by Ralph Gibson

The Education of the Photographer, by Charles H Traub. It's not a light read, but it is interesting.

I think such matters are better addressed incidentally, accidentally, obliquely. Diversion to reading theoretical material is diversion away from the work.

 

As an illustration: Is it better to view a great deal of Picasso's work, or to read about it? The answer is obvious: devote time and money to traveling to and viewing much of Picasso's work, then emulate aspects of his life (hard work, wine, women, song). In general, ignore people who write about it.

 

Reading Edward Weston's Daybooks (which are not "about photography") or simply viewing great quantities of images by photographers you admire will teach infinitely more about the nature of photography than could ruminations of former/neo/non photographers.

 

Susan Sontag's most meaningful work was not "About Photography." If that's all one reads of her work, one will not understand "About Photography."

Incidentally, "hard work, wine, women, song" is a metaphor. Some may prefer other kinds of work, other substances, other genders, though I don't know alternatives to song...perhaps silence?

 

In any case, the road to enlightenment is paved with excess, or so I once read on the side of a VW Microbus.

I just read Camera Lucida by Barthes. I can only say "WOW" - terrific work, if (and this is a big if) you can get through it. It helps to have a background with metaphysics and philosophy before tackling this book.

 

For the best writing about pictures in general, I'd also recommend Szarkowski's Looking at Photographs.

 

For writing about "seeing" in general, check out John Berger's work titled Ways of Seeing.

 

Other than that, I find writing that tries to intellectualize and theorize photography a great bore.

 

Finally, Sontag's "On Photography" is just faux-intellectual, phony garbage.

<a href="http://www.bkpix.com/writing/bk.10musthave.php">10 must-read books for photographers.</a>

Sally Mann's <i>Immediate Family</i> is one of my all time favorites - glad to see it on the list. Her introduction is the best answer to any people who have issues with her work.

"Finally, Sontag's "On Photography" is just faux-intellectual, phony garbage." - S Rahman

 

..that's more than a bit adolescent.

 

And it's excessive for someone who cannot hint via website or P.N gallery that he actually is a photographer (two snaps of cacti with blue sky don't do that job).

 

I'm not a big Sontag fan, but she's addressed aspects of photography in unusual ways that interest or appeal to many accomplished photographers (as they demonstrate through P.N galleries or websites).

 

Standard issue right wingers generally dislike Sontag, but people with other perspectives tend to as well because she wasn't consistently on any "side"...to her credit. She evolved throughout her life, picked her battles...signs of rare courage, sanity and honesty.

Here's one I didn't see mentioned that is FANTASTIC:

 

"Dialogue with Photography: Interviews by Paul Hill and Thomas Cooper"

 

It's a series of transcripts of interviews with some of the biggest names in early to mid 20th century photography. I disagree that reading scholarly reviews and about the motives of the artists themselves isn't as useful as just looking at their work and emulating them. I would rather read about Picasso before going to see his work, and I don't see how drinking and chasing women does anything for my appreciation of his drawings or pottery for example.

 

In conjunction with seeing the work, reading criticism or biographies make the personal experience one has with a piece of art much fuller. I believe it takes an education (doesn't have to be from a school) to fully appreciate what one is looking at in Art, and for me, this is one of those books that will really flesh out your appreciation of a lot of the influencial photographers of the 20th century, and puts a very human face on them in some cases.

John,

 

You've made some valid points about Sontag in response to my admittedly overly harsh and simplistic critique of On Photography. But I am hardly the the first person to believe that this work reeks of pretentiousness and self-importance like much of Sontag's work, and even Sontag the person.

 

OK to criticize my response to Sontag - and I think your response was a good one until you took a shot at me personally. What does my criticism of On Photography have have to do with whether I have proven my worth as a photographer either on this P-Net or any other website, and in your opinion? Will posting 22 more photos than me, as you have, then qualify me to call myself a photographer?

 

What exactly, is the criteria I must meet that will then allow me criticize Sontag, someone who: 1) was never a photographer herself; 2) was very widely considered arrogant and elitist; and 3) very clearly had a personal agenda when she wrote this book, much of which she recants in later work?

 

Okay - faux-intellectual, phony garbage is perhaps too critical. I'll forego the garbage, but I'll stick to faux-intellectual and phony.

Ah, "scholarly" works... Where observation, interpretation and opinion are recorded for posterity... And self-promotion and personal profit, generally. Happens in all fields. From physics to photography...

 

The problem is, observations tend to be restricted, interpretations tend to be somewhat less than open-minded, and personal opinions are always debatable. (That Einstein bloke's included, naturally...)

 

Still, it's something to read, innit?

"It helps to have a background with metaphysics and philosophy before tackling this book."

 

Shudder...

 

Think I'll just stick to Google Image Search then... :)

I came across this quotation. I have no idea who the author is or if it is a correct attribution, but I agree with the implied sentiment:

 

"...almost all writing about photography in our times tends to begin with the alleged nature of the product rather than with its production and use." ~ Patrick Maynard

Since the photographer is creating a product (unless she is just out shooting photos

with no intention of processing and printing or digitizing them for view), and the product

is what gets shared by the photographer and the viewer, it makes sense to me that

that would be the focus of a fair amount of philosophical writing and discussion. That's

not to diminish process, which certainly Sontag and others address.

Fred, which theorist -- from among the many above listed or other -- has written about the use of photographs as expressions of political or social power -- the selction process at the MOMA, or Magnum, or the NYT, magazine cover photography, fashion etc? What do they have to say about the kinds of photographs that are not selected? How the selection process is determined by profit or status or career-building? The relationship between social power and aesthetics?

Don, this is not my area of expertise, but the following might be helpful. Levi Strauss

is the only one specifically related to photography. The first two more generally

discuss esthetics and politics.

<p><p>

(By the way, how did you make the move from theoretical writing being about the

product and the process to theoretical writings about social power and politics or the

politics of photograph selection at museums or magazines?)

<p><p>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Adorno">THEODOR ADORNO</a>

<p><p>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Benjamin">WALTER BENJAMIN</a>

<p><p>

<a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2479/is_5_31/ai_n6165216">DAVID

LEVI STRAUSS</a>

"(By the way, how did you make the move from theoretical writing being about the product and the process to theoretical writings about social power and politics or the politics of photograph selection at museums or magazines?)"

 

My understanding of the quoted "use" -- the use of the photograph. I've googled Patrick Maynard; this is the first hit, which is likely the source of the quotation:

 

http://publish.uwo.ca/~pmaynard/

 

I'm familiar with the Frankfurt School, although not well read in it. Thanks for the link to Strauss.

"I'll forego the garbage, but I'll stick to faux-intellectual and phony."

-Shawn R

 

Shawn, why not forego all three?

 

And yes, posting a collection of images DOES literally provide credibility, especially if skills of some sort, personal experiences, or meaning, are hinted at in the images. IMO.

 

This is a photo Forum after all.

 

As Sontag upsets you to an incredible degree, perhaps you should start a thread about her.

"I'll forego the garbage, but I'll stick to faux-intellectual and phony."

 

Heh, well, at least you're honest about it, mate... Classic stuff...

 

BTW, I was gonna ask why there are no books on the "Philosophy of Knitting", and other such hobbies... Why is photography so special...? Should've known better:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Knitting-Way-Guide-Spiritual-Discovery/dp/1594730792

 

"Knitting is an activity rich in spiritual possibility; it is not only a doorway to spiritual community, but also a means for knowing our souls. As a meditative practice, it can center and unburden the self, opening us to the divine."

 

The needle and the damage done, eh...?

 

It would be nice to think that, as photographers, we can try to avoid falling into the trap of taking things a little too seriously sometimes... At the end of the day, it's basically just about snapping stuff with a camera and showing off yer pics, after all.