Today everything exists to end in a photograph

A friend just sent me a quote by Susan Sontag, that she made in a book during the heyday of 35mm photography:

<p>

"Today everything exists to end in a photograph"

<p>

Any thoughts on this? Is that just as true now or has society changed so much that we can't photograph everything?

Todd, you should ask this in the <a

href="http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=Philosophy%

20of%20Photography">Philosophy of Photography Forum</a>.<p>

I don't agree with it, but that's another thing...

I'd say that it's pretty obvious that it's more true than ever.

Everything is about "image" today. We're just not limited to

photographs in newspapers and magazines anymore.

I selected this forum for the quotation since many of us find

ourselves doing (or trying to do) street photography or photography

in places where such activity might be restricted or frowned upon.

<p>

Part of my interest in this issue was in reading an article in a

current America Photo magazine about Henri-Cartier Bresson being

photographed by David Douglas Duncan, and Bresson's upset over the

photos being published. Bresson evidently was a man who believed in

photographing anyone anywhere, except himself...American Photo,

May/June 2001. There is also a beautiful photo of Bob Dylan and Joan

Baez backlit on a stage platform (page 56) by Daniel Kramer in the

same issue.

<p>

The Sontag quote made me think of this. If we go on the street and

roam around town looking for potential photographs, what restrictions

do we place on ourselves to photograph or not to photograph?

<p>

Often I find people in situations that would make an interesting

image or tell a story or whatever. Most often I refrain from taking

the photograph due to my respect for their privacy. With regard

specifically to People Photography, is every person a potential

photograph, and when do we say Yes and when do we say No to ourselves

to take or not to take that photograph.

<p>

I've been exploring how to deal with restrictions placed on us from

the outside regarding photography (by theaters, concert halls, night

clubs, public parks, and such). Now I am exploring what restrictions

we might place on ourselves regarding what we allow ourself to

photograph and what we reject...on this forum, specifically people.

<p>

Is learning when NOT TO SHOOT an important lesson?

<p>

I would be interested in hearing thoughts from street photographers

on this.

<p>

That's the reason for posting the quotation...it didn't seem to

arouse much interest. Sorry.

What Bill Gates would say if he were Susan Sontag:

"Today, Everyone exists to buy my software"

<p>

---

<p>

> I've been exploring how to deal with restrictions placed on us from

the outside

> regarding photography (by theaters, concert halls, night clubs,

public parks, and

> such). Now I am exploring what restrictions we might place on

> ourselves regarding what we allow ourself to photograph and what we

reject...on this

> forum, specifically people.

<p>

I think the issue is absolutely personal and has everything to do with

personal limits. However, personal limits are only issues when you

desire to be outside them.

<p>

For example, if one were to say, "Today, sex exists to end in a

photograph", then I'd say, no, it doesn't. Yet, Mr. Joe Chinese

Pornography photographer would say, "well, yes, I do agree with that

statement". No real surprise there.

<p>

However, if my burning desire was to photograph people having sex,

and, for some psychological reason, I was unable to do so (perhaps,

because I felt like I'd be offending the people participating) then

obviously there's something to be challenged there.

<p>

---

<p>

If your desire is to be "the best photographer you can be" and you

felt like having some philosophical backbone like Susan Sontag was the

best way to achieve that, then so be it. Susan's comment is and always

was completely false, but it's a statement of mere purpose and not of

reality.

<p>

Then again, many photographers can pursue their artistic goals without

having to have such a mean view of personal ambition.

<p>

---

<p>

There is no universal philosophy of photography. There is no universal

statement of purpose. I will probably never photograph a person who

has just had their limbs fused to their torsos from napalm strikes

(even given the opportunity), but obviously there are people out there

who did and there are people who will.

<p>

---

<p>

just my penny

I think the ethos of the street photographer that you are talking

about would really turn on the following question: Since the

act/person I am photographing is public, will this photograph make a

meaningful statement regardless of whether the subject approves? Of

course the answer will vary widely. At one end of the spectrum will

be the paparazzi, at the other photographers who only shoot with the

subject's explicit permission.

<p>

In today's society, however, we increasingly seek out publicity,

since we know it is the fast track to success (witness the absurdity

of everything from The Jerry Springer Show to the Survivor "celebs").

Fewer and fewer people today are concerned about privacy. All they

really worry about is who profits from the recording of their public

adventures.