Root signifiers of photography...

The post entitled "My Opinion" has been rendered impotent. We have

the usual provative willfully ignorant, the thoughtfull, and many

good places inbetween.

 

Beginning again - what do you take to be the fundamental qualities

of photography that distinguish it from other visual crafts/arts?

 

Mine is tha photography is unique by its fundamental place in the

moment and light of that moment.

 

The rest is content, possibly composition and other things COMMON to

the other crafts. Let us try to keep it to the unique nature of

photography, its signifers.

I dunno. The threads "my opinion," "artist vs. professional," and now this one have been

entertaining, but they've got me feeling nostalgic for good ole fashioned film vs. digital;

mac vs. dell; mccain vs. hillary debates. I've been spending time on No Words lately. It's

actually made me think about going out to take a picture.

 

But I'm halfway through a sixer so I'll take a whack at it.

 

I would argue that what's common between photography and other artistic endeavors is

what makes photography rise to the level of art--specifically content, composition, and

inspiration. Photography is unique and exciting in that it can tell a great story or capture

nature at its most magnificent in a fraction of a second, perhaps never to be captured

again.

 

But if I muff the exposure or have a utlility pole sprouting out of the subject's head, well,

that's a distinguishing thing about photography, too.

'Mine is that photography is unique by its fundamental place in the moment and light of that

moment.'

 

Hmmm, not sure if I understand you. Film, TV, Video - surely they too are in the moment and

the light of that moment. And painting. And drawing.

TV, film, painting, etc. do not have the same realtionship to the 'moment'. You know what a moment is, correct?

For three years I studed what is photography and how it works, and not enough.

By the most simple definition fundamental qualities of photography is, in short, that it is drawing produced using part of electromagnetic radiation called light, with both of its dual nature, corpuscular and wave nature. E.g. corpuscule defines exposure time and wave defines colors. (Away for the matter, corpuscular nature of light is also used in making light meters).

 

Painting is slow, difficult, rare, intended for important stuff (e.g. for rich and churchs), always in need for special knowledge and skill, while photography is oposite at all.

 

Going further it is media with 5 qualities: truthfulness, extreme exactness, blur (means appox. bokeh or out of focus), grain, tone fidelity no other media can even and imagine.

 

When comes to movie, video,... photography is static picture.

 

There are and hundreds more academic definitions (e.g. through sensitometry, history, perspective,...) that devide photography from any other media, but above are required and enough accurate for internet and in very clear way separate photography from any other media. If your image missing any of above qualities (including and all not mentioned here) you are out of photography. As my experince, many try to remove some parts of definition to expand photography to some other media. He he he he...

Excuse me. I was in the bathroom having "a moment."

 

Pico: Good job of attacking the messenger and not the message!

 

Daniel OB: Huh?

 

I know this is philosphy about photography and all, but maybe we could set aside some

bandwith for master's theses?

 

Update: Now 95 percent into the sixer and eyeing one of those 24 oz. cans of Bud.

<i>Going further it is media with 5 qualities: truthfulness, extreme exactness, blur (means appox. bokeh or out of focus), grain, tone fidelity no other media can even and imagine.</I><p>

 

Color negative film doesn't have grain.<p>

 

So much for the ridiculous definition contest.

"By the most simple definition fundamental qualities of photography is, in short, that it is drawing produced using part of electromagnetic radiation called light"

 

Not true. By definition, "light" is that part of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible to the human eye and which we depend upon for the sensation of vision (approximately 400 nm - 700 nm). (See the Focal Encyclopedia of Photography, Third Edition, pages 436-437)

 

I can take photographs using the infrared spectrum which is invisible to the human eye. This does, in fact render the invisible visible, but, nonetheless, infrared is not quantified as "light" - yet, I am producing a photograph using those energies invisible to the human eye.

 

"Going further it is media with 5 qualities: truthfulness, extreme exactness, blur (means appox. bokeh or out of focus), grain, tone fidelity no other media can even and imagine."

 

Hmm...only 5. Self limitation by self definition - and/or lack of imagination.

 

Please define truthfulness, as once again, you're wrong. I've seen too many photos (which you apparently choose to ignore), that have nothing to do with "truthfulness." This seems to be your own Quixotic fantasy that you refuse to examine further in light of thousands of examples to the contrary.

 

 

"As my experince, many try to remove some parts of definition to expand photography to some other media. He he he he..."

 

Then your experience is self-limited. Let's once again, go to the Focal Encyclopedia of Photography, Third Edition and ignore those sources (general dictionaries) which do not concern themselves with either definitions encompassing the latest technical developments, or choose proffer a general definition for an area of technical specialization.

 

The Focal Encyclopedia is edited by Richard Zakia and Leslie Stroebel. Both of these gentlemen have far more years in photgraphy, experience, and reputation than anyone who visits these websites. Neither Mr. Zakia nor Mr. Stroebel have any problem with including electronically generated or printed images as part of photography.

 

In fact, their definition of the word "photograph" ends with this sentence: "By extension, an image formed by an electronic imaging system (electronic photography)." (See page 560)

 

I'm sorry, but you and your self-defined paradigm of what constitutes a photograph is not shared by two of the world's experts in photography. When YOU edit the Focal Encyclopedia of Photography, Imaging Processes and Materials, Photographic Materials and Processes, or View Camera Technique - then I'll find you believable.

 

Until then, you have an opinion, and that's about it.

 

As for what makes a photograph unique, and distinguishes it from other visual arts.

 

First and foremost, it takes no talent to make a rudimentary image. Anyone with a camera and a little luck can make an engaging and even interesting photo. It takes no practice or concentrated effort to generate an image. This has been proven time and again by everything from small children to chimpanzees and blind people.

 

Consistently generating an interesting and relevant body of work is a completely different part of photography. Within that realm, photography becomes as difficult as any of the other visual arts.

 

The light and light of the moment have a bit to do with photography, but when you start looking at the entire breadth of what has been done throughout the history of photography - I'm not sure that's even relevant unless you restrict that quality to a definition of photography where 1 exposure = 1 image generated by a shutter speed of 1 second and faster exposure time.

 

Once you get outside of that constraint, moment and light of the moment become a bit ambiguous. How do you quantify hours long exposures as a moment? I guess in a geological scale, (or speed of a glacier) a 4 hour exposure is but a moment - but, within the context of photography - that's a long time.

 

Likewise, the light of that moment. What if I use painting with light or choose to make an extended range photo through several different exposures of the same image that I combine through printing.

 

Likewise, what if I choose to make an image with a stroboscope, or through multiple printing techniques? Now there is no singular moment or light of that moment.

 

By doing any of the above, I've totally blown away the moment, light of the moment - and, oh, by the way - truthfullness (as I've purposely chosen to distort reality - and by extension, the truth of a moment).

 

Beyond that, photography only gets into self motivation, individual seeing and interpretation, and creating the images you want to make. But, that's really not that much different than painting, print making, etc.

 

<<Going further it is media with 5 qualities: truthfulness, extreme exactness, blur (means appox. bokeh or out of focus), grain, tone fidelity no other media can even and imagine. <<

 

It's pretty easy for a good artist to draw an image more truthful and more exact image of an event than a lousy photographer can capture.

 

It's pretty easy for an artist to draw grain and blur, too. And artists have for centuries done a better job with tone fidelity (ie, mimicking how the eye/mind interprets the light entering the eye) than any camera has yet to do without a great amount of effort by the photographer. An artist can draw an interior with brilliant sunlight spilling through the window, yet capture the detail in deep shadows within the room--just as our eye/mind interprets it. But a camera can't do that without significant effort on the photographer's part, and even then, not as well as the artist.

 

I suppose that you're attempting to distinguish again between digital photography and film-based photography, but noise and grain are pictorially similar enough to be semantically identical.

As long as mankind is behind the camera, holding the paintbrush or directing the film the

difference will be only limited to the capacities of the given tecnologies. The content and

motivation will always be human based. I, for one, look forward to the day when animals and

insects, birds and fish weigh in with their perceptions and insights!

The earlier posit was that photography's fundamental characteristics were the moment and light of the moment.

 

It's been pointed out that 'moment' might be a weak qualifier. I agree. It might be better say Time. Whether it be a millisecond or a 365 day exposure, it is still unique time. The picture need not be obviously unique - Time and that light in time remains the photograph's fundamental characteristic.

 

I won't quibble with visible or nonvisible light, nor whether film or other is necessary. I'm sure you have seen how to make a photograph using a flower's pedals as the light sensitive medium. So be it. It's a photograph.

 

"Beyond that, photography only gets into self motivation, individual seeing and interpretation,"

 

That's drifting from the point at hand to the person, not the thing itself.

 

Are the shadows of persons imprinted on the walls of Hiroshima by the atom bomb negatives, photographs?

Hiroshima? Dead man's shadow? Those would be photo-GRAMs wouldn't

they...? There's some dark humor for you. I find your line of questioning a

bit wanting in the precision department. It seems you are looking for

several orders of 'quality' at the same time. When you refer to 'signifiers'

aren't you in fact referring (if i can assume here) to it's plastic qualities (see

greenberg's essays) - or it's conceptual qualities (see sontag's on

photography)? Or both...? If it's the latter - I wouldn't perhaps use 'signifier'

since these are not overt signs, but simply ideas which we all HAVE about

photography in general, according to it's ephemeral nature. A signifier is

usually an element of meaning which is immediately 'read' and is visually,

physically distinct from other visual and physical constructs. The one

QUALITY which photography as a MEDIUM possesses inherently is maybe it's

FREEDOM from signifiers - relative to other media, whose brushstrokes,

whose casting lines, whose typewritten words connect us with it's message

through a more complex machinery. Photography, on the other hand,

presents us with trained visual stimulus as if 'we were there'. And this is the

starting point for the construction of meaning in this medium (seems to me,

anyway). So - my question would be - "is this the point from which you'd

wanted to launch your investigation" - ?

I am going to try and avoid all the posts about what photography is or isn't as I don't find them helpful. This is also about the tenth time I have read Daniel's pronouncement about what photography is and the tenth time I have decided to silently disagree. (oh sweet rhetoric)

 

One thing that always held photography apart, and which I believe was one of the major arguments put forward against photography being accepted as an "Art Form" was that a photograph was an objective document of what was, and hence not art. It simply represented what was in front of the camera.

 

This very quality has since been exploited as "art" (Berndt & Hilla Becher spring to mind as very good examples of this), and as Elliot points out anyway, video etc also have this quality now.

 

Also, since the advent of digital, this no longer holds true. The veracity of Capa's photo of the dying militia man in the Spanish Civil War was wrongly questioned as having been a man slipping in training, not being killed in battle. Nowadays the question would be that it had been photoshopped [There was a New York Times (or similar paper?) photog sacked recently for using PS on a photo from Iraq that got printed]. So this quality of photography is no longer true across the board because images can now be so drastically altered.

 

A picture by Louis Daguerre and a picture by Andreas Gursky have in common that they are utilising the cutting edge of photographic technology available at the time.

 

I suppose that the single quality that a photograph has that can unequivically be said to separate it from other media today is the simple quality of it's being a photograph, which is unique to a photograph.

 

Be that a "digitally-altered photograph" an "ilfochrome" a "cyanotype" or whatever.....

 

In disagreeing with this, I think most of us would apprediate it if this dodn't get sidetracked into a debate about whether a digital print can truly be said to be a photograph or not.

 

 

Even more controversially - "A photograph is taken using a camera"

 

robert

 

 

[NB - canaletto used a camera to make paintings, I know I know. Also for purposes of this discussion, please assume that if someone has taken a photograph using a washing machine, then in my mind, the washing machine has beceom a camera for the duration of that process. Furthermore, I know that movies are shot on cameras, but for teh pruposes of this thread assume that I know this and that I know teh difference between a still and a movie, and that you do as well]

 

;o]

There is no doubt about the term "photography". Unlike many English words that have a deep etymological history with shifting meaning and usage over time "photography" is an invented word and we know who coined it, who defined it, when, and where. As I type this post I have in front of me a facsimile of the very first text instance of "photography". The handwriting is quite poor but the word is distinct and complete in its modern form.

 

The script is, of course, in the hand of Sir John F.W.Herschel on the occasion of his lecture to the Royal Society at Somerset House, London, delivered on the 14th of March, 1839. Page one of his 13 leaf lecture notes begins "Note on the use of Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,". The original page is preserved within the archives of the Royal Society.

 

The key concepts laid down are that photographs are generated by chemical changes occasioned by the impact of light and that photographs are pictures. This simple definition unambiguously separates photographs from all the other multifarous and wonderful ways of making pictures. All the works of W.H. Fox Talbot, Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Bill Brandt, Tony Ray-Jones and innumerable others over the years are cleanly photographs and separated from pictures that merely look like photographs.

 

A corollary of photography's light plus chemistry basis is the remarkable fact that the sole source of energy for a photograph is the subject matter. External energy sources are not required. Remember that photography was invented in and works perfectly in a world where there is no electrical power.

 

Another corollary of the nature of photography is that it is incapable of depicting subject matter that does not exist. Moreover the photograph and the subject must, at least momentarily, be in each others presence and to be physically connected by something that leaves the subject, travels through space, and imbeds itself in the photographic emulsion. Photography is utterly mute with regard to potential subject matter which may have existed in the past. The future is similarly closed to it.Photographs can be made only in the implacable present. No photograph can address imaginary subject matter, nor things dreamed, nor visions hallucinatory. Photography cannot even touch subjects which full well exist but are momentarily blocked from vision.

 

There are many ways of picture making that do not have the limitations of photography. At the most fundamental level these "unlimited" picture processes depend on fabricating a picture from a description. The description may be mental, verbal, or electronic. Easel paintings or ink-jet printouts are examples of pictures generated from descriptions. The wonderful opportunity here is that any thing that can be described can be pictured including unicorns and the Loch Ness monster. Photography cannot do this.

 

I still prefer photographs because of their boundary limitations not in spite of them. Photographs are, better than any other kind of picture, certificates for reality.

Thank you all. Jonathan Dewdney, you are correct; signifiers is not the word to use; I stand corrected. Maris Rusis' theorem and corollaries are exceptionally persuasive. Elliot, sorry for the 'dis' (is that right?) about 'moment'; your original point is well taken.

Maris, I guess that you had not seen my post when you posted that ? They seem to have been pretty simultaneous.

 

I like what you write and the way you write it as regards subject matter and so forth, but when you say photography can't address imaginary subject matter this seems to be ignorant of the Cottingley Fairies - http://www.randi.org/library/cottingley/ - Okay - the pictures were of drawings that existed, but were presented in a way that was untruthful, and did not get discovered for about 60 years.

 

Similarly there are many photos purporting to be of the Loch Ness Monster or UFOs that were "real" photographs.

 

The famous Iwo Jima photo of the marines lifting the flag is a fake. It is a "real" photo of 4 marines lifting a flag, sure enough, but it is not what it purports to be.

 

There is of course a distinction between how the photos were taken and what of and what they were said to be, and I think my examples would fit into your definition of photography, but you would perhaps argue that the way they were used was untruthful, which is a different kettle of fish. I am not so sure it is that different. Someone showing a picture of A and saying it is B is just as guilty of untruth than someone simply photoshopping a picture of B.

 

this is an interesting article, up to a point....

 

http://www.stanford.edu/class/history34q/readings/Mitchell/MitchellIntention.html

 

I think your definition is helpful up to the point where you deviate into the chemical definition part of it, where I feel it is just stubbornly outdated. I am really sorry, but I just find it quite ludicrous to try to claim that a photo taken with a Canon 1D is not a photograph because there was electronics involved. This has been argued at length elsewhere and is ultimately fruitless and unhelpful to anyone.

 

I will give you the photoshopped unicorns - and say they are "photomontage" - but I simply will not accept that there is a any word in the English language that is as immutable as you suggest photography is. The English language is a living thing. Indeed there will always be people who will deny that a definition is changing and who will deny that until you prise their 1923 dictionary from their cold dead hands. But the harsh reality is that the language moves on irrespective of these few and meaning shifts anyway. The strict "chemical" definition that Herschel originally coined *has already* shifted. It is an undeniable fact.

 

Ask an 8 year old to define what a photograph is and ask him again in 40 years time when she is ruling the world and we are old and grey, then ask yourself whether your definition really still holds.

 

robert

Maris

 

congrat...

 

It is one more definition from historical stand point. I would like to see some more valid qualities of photography. There are a lot more.

 

Today photography is free of many applications it filled in past, e.g. advertising, fashion, wedding,... and -nearly- all of other profesional practicing of photography in past. The guys that was easy to manipulate with cleared photography from stuff hardly belonged to photography. What remains is what always belonged to it: artwork and some kinds of personal (amateur) photography. Very hapy time for photography, thanks to God or Nikon and Nokia. He he he... Have a nice day.

<i>There is no doubt about the term "photography". Unlike many English words that have a deep etymological history with shifting meaning and usage over time "photography" is an invented word and we know who coined it, who defined it, when, and where...</i><p>

 

The idea that the definition of a word is static basically violates any understanding of etymology, history, and, yes, philosophy. Words evolve, change with history. The word "computer," for instance, was invented to mean "a person who computes or performs calculations." Now we don't use it in that narrow sense, over time it came to include mechanical devices and then electronic devices. <p>

 

Similarly, the word "photography" has evolved with history and, regardless of its origins, now means something broader. If we fix words in a given time, our language become useless. If we fix photography in a given time, our art becomes useless.

Jeff,

 

'If we fix photography in a given time'

 

Can you make definition what span of time we need after 'a given time' that we have to unfix photography definition.

 

In etimology dict word 'four' after a given time means six. You are making up definitions without any foundation. It is rare case that word change its meaning. It is more common that word expands its meaning. And you figure out that NOW is time to change or expand meaning of word photography, giving meaning to it that fits your need. At least good try. Well, we are advancing, it is progress,...

 

I recomend you 'the concise oxford dictionary of english etymology' where you will find word 'photograph'. Read it and come back, or give them a call with your proposal. But how about German etymology dict.

 

Also photography is not only english word (e.g. fotografie), and to change its meaning in etymology dictionary the change you talk about have to be accepted everywhere. And please stay with photography, away from that stupid comparisons.

 

And about your example with computer. What that is doing with photography. Or you use it push your main on higher energy level, before you start with photography.

 

If you fill qualified, make you definition what photography is, no one will crucify you if wrong.

daniel -

 

to clarify your words a bit, I have noticed that when you write "main" I think, but am not

sure, that you mean "mind".

 

"dict" i am afraid i have no idea what you word you mean to use.

 

>

 

That of of the way, you talk about jeff's post as if it is he who is deciding that the word

photography is changing, or expanding its meaning.

 

What is a Canon 1D if it is not a digital camera ?

What does it produce if not digital photography ?

 

To argue, as you continue to do, that people using digital cameras are not doing

photography, to me seems like straight out of a conversation from Alice in Wonderland.

 

You often talk about art. I can tell you that anyone seriously involved in the art world

would not give you time of day on this. Many artists use traditional methods, and many

use cutting edge. If you go to MOMA or TATE MODERN and they are showing the work of

Gursky and Jeff Wall, who use computers as an integral part of what they do.

 

To quote the introduction of a recent TATE book on photography:

 

"Like many contemporary artists, Wall uses computer technologies to montage a number

of discrete photographic elements...He is excited by the way in which digitally generated

photographs need no longer assert the ontological consistency ofthe world around us..."

 

[i suppose we need Thomas Gardner to tell us why Tate and MOMA have no real

standing ;o]

 

As a self-prfessed artist, I find it strange thatyou are so hostile to developments in

technology and that you do not embrace what these new tools could help you create. Why

do you get so boged down in a definition. Photography is a tool.

 

To quote Bill Brandt, who was a traditional photographer and an artist:

 

"Photography is not a sport. I believe there are no rules. A photographer is allowed to do

anything, anything, in order to improve his picture"

 

Robert

My god, you people certainly have a lot of time to kill, waste , what ever. Good luck to you.

 

Pico: do you want someone to agree with you/ Okay i agree with you.

 

Pico; do you want someone to disagree with you? Okay I disagree with you.

 

what do you mean by photograph/ Do you mean the material or mediu minin which the

image is recorded? The print made from that origianl depiction of what was infront of the

camera? or the perception of th iamge in either form as viewed by someone at a time

seperate from the moment of the images making? All photographs are opinions.

"The famous Iwo Jima photo of the marines lifting the flag is a fake. It is a "real" photo of 4 marines lifting a flag, sure enough, but it is not what it purports to be."

 

I take exception to that. Joe Rosenthal's photo is just as 'real' as the others taken at about the same time for the same reason.

 

No intention of getting into a contest on this Rosenthal issue, but it does point to the alleged veracity of photographs.

"All photographs are opinions."

 

Is that not pure relativism, therefore meaningless? Go to a high-stakes horse race and argue with the bookies that the photo-finish was just an opinion, and you differ.

 

Photographs are not opinions, nor are they facts.

<I>"...what do you take to be the fundamental qualities of photography that distinguish it from other visual crafts/arts?</I>"

<P>

The continuing belief of the "general public" that an image truthfully represents an actual instant of time and that it is somehow intrisincly free of bias or point of view of the creator. This is a false belief of course but it none the less still persisits.

<P>

IMHO

<P>

-stephen

Robert

 

read 'main' as 'mind', 'dict' as 'dictionary'. Sorry for misspell.