Szarkowski

[jennifer_durand]

In photography we take a copy (photographic copy) of what can be seen through the lens.

We often then copy this copy onto our computers then print off sometimes many more

copies for friends and family. Let's say what was before the lens was a landscape.

 

Would the photographic copy of the landscape then give the viewer an experience

(however limited) of that landscape, enough for them not to want to experience it because

to them they have seen the image.?

 

Travel brochures are full of such imagery and we could also be referring to travel

documentaries on TV

[Norma Desmond]

In my opinion and the way I see photography is that the photographic copy doesn't give the

viewer "an experience of that landscape," it gives the viewer "my experience of that

landscape." So I should think, even once they have seen my photograph, they will still want to

experience it for themselves. They will probably stand in a different place than I did, they will

have more peripheral vision than my lens did, they will smell the grass and the earth, the

lighting will have changed, it might just have rained, they may not bring along the same

filters I did, and surely they'd prefer to experience the 3-dimensionality of it rather than the

2-deminsionality which my photo will provide.

[yankfan]

Jennifer Durand, Jun 22, 2007; 10:04 a.m.

 

Do you think that the photograph in some way reduces the value or the aura surrounding the object we photograph, for instance if we were to photograph a work of art or another photograph. Does this devalue the work of art or the orginal photograph when we duplicate them by photographing them?

 

On the contrary. If I show a picture of a work of art to a friend and he/she says "I must go see it myself", you're increasing the value of the object. Anytime you inspire (thru a photo) someone to make the trek themselves, you're increasing the value of said subject.

[don_e]

"In the Republic, Plato says that..."

 

Is what follows the above a quotation from the Republic? It doesn't read at all like Plato.

[Norma Desmond]

Don, it appears to be a quote from the link provided in Jennifer's post, which is an

anonymous internet page created by who knows, always a dangerous place to quote from.

Nevertheless, I think the first part of the quote adequately paraphrases what Plato's thinking

was on the subject. The basic idea that our perceptions are once removed from "reality" (the

forms) and art is twice removed is a pretty good quick summary of the matter as Plato saw it.

The final sentence quoted is the author taking Plato many steps beyond where he would have

gone.

[don_e]

Thanks, Fred. Plato can be confusing for moderns compared to Aristotle, who can seem contemporary sometimes. In Plato -- as translated into English, at least -- often the most common words have a meaning that is not immediately obvious.

 

I don't know if Plato made a distinction (or if he could) between a "copy" as reproduction and as replication or whether it matters or whether he would have found it interesting in relation to his concept of the forms. I would not mind it at all to have such a discussion with Plato's shade 8-)

 

I think you are on the right track comparing Plato to Aristotle's more 'contemporary' concept. It was Plato's concept, though, that dominated in the development of western art from the Renaissance forward until the modern era.

 

The Greeks regarding art often meant poetry and sometimes music (since they were performed together), with the visual arts trailing almost as an afterthought. In the same way, for much of the modern era a common reference to someone as an "artist" by occupation meant a "painter" rather than a poet or musician.

 

I think it can be argued that for the Greeks of Plato's time and Plato himself, once upon a time, artists were in direct contact with gods thus their art was 'true'...

 

"Sing, O goddess, the anger of Achilles son of Peleus, that brought countless ills upon the Achaeans."

 

...but the contemporary artist was not and therefore had to "feign" inspiration by working himself into a kind of madness.

 

It is altogether the notion of decline from a purer state, a golden age. The artist copies nature which is a copy of the form, as the word of the god declines to the forced inspiration of the poet, which declines to the mere imitation of divine poetic diction.

[Norma Desmond]

Don, I'd like to hear more about your distinction between reproduction and replication.

Could you elaborate? Feels like, as you are getting at, there are different meanings for

"copy" and I agree this distinction could lead to interesting considerations.

 

I was going to

comment on

Jennifer's last offering about copies. Certainly the

"copying" that we do from camera to computer, from one print to another, and what the

camera translates from the lens to what it stores is a very different matter than the way in

which a photograph itself might "copy" a landscape. I would maintain that, while there may

be some information lost, and perhaps some pixels and quality as well, from copy to copy,

from camera to computer, those "copies" maintain most of their integrity and would be

considered "copies" in the normal use of language. Whether or not a photo "copies" the

landscape that the photographer shot is another matter. It only gives a particular

perspective of the landscape (because the photographer had to be standing somewhere),

and captures only visual, two-dimensional aspects of the landscape, and only captures a

particular moment of it. I would hesitate to use the word "copy" when speaking of

photographs and their referents. Even a photographer who is objective about his/her

shooting and tries to keep him/herself out of it to a great extent is not, in my mind,

making a "copy" of what is being shot.

[don_e]

Fred, I hope to reply more fully later on, but I would refer to, for example, a 'xerox' of a drawing as a replication, but a copy, in the sense of reproduction, one that is drawn, like an art student or old time apprentice copying a master's drawing.

 

A photograph replicates, but a painting reproduces, the subject.

 

This is written with a broad stroke to indicate a nuance that may be worth discussion as it applies to Plato or on its own.

[Norma Desmond]

Also wanted to add something. I'd be more satisfied if Jennifer had used the word

"representation" (but maybe your usage of "reproduction" gets this as well) instead of

"copy" when referring to the relationship between a landscape and a photo of a landscape.

I agree with you in thinking there's a difference between the way a painting and a

photograph each relates to the object they are representing/reproducing/replicating. I

wouldn't

apply "replication" in your sense to what a photograph does. I don't see it as similar to

what a xerox machine does.

 

Back to Plato for a minute. I'm remembering that most of the translations I've read and

most of the academic discussions I've had utilize the word "imitation" to describe how

perceptions relate to reality and how art relates to perceptions. "Copy" may be tossed

around as well but I think "imitation" gets Plato's meaning across with more nuance.

 

I know Plato references Homer. Don't know that those are right at my fingertips, but if I

can find some, I'll share his thoughts on Homer with you.

 

I think you are right about his feelings about artists and their "speaking" truth. Those

would be good or true artists in his mind. Bad artists would be somewhat comparable to

the sophists, who he has Socrates mostly reacting against in many of the Dialogues. Both

sophists and unrespectable artists try to affect and, at worst, manipulate, people's

emotions instead of reasoning toward wisdom which is Plato's preferred path.

[don_e]

"Imitation" is closer to his meaning than "copy", I agree.

 

Replication implies duplication, a copy in the pure sense. Perhaps a dupe of a transparency is closer or cell division. Reproduction implies a repetition of the process that produced the original in order to produce a copy. It is closer to imitation. None of these terms seem to convey clearly what Plato meant.

 

Well, it has been a few years since I read the Phaedrus, and much longer since the Republic. So, I'm not about to make a great argument here. Whatever recollection occurs to me says I should reread the Phaedrus. The answer might be there, or at least a clue. Someone who has read them recently would have more to say.

 

The question is: Is a photograph "a copy of a copy of a Form and at worst a dangerous illusion."?

 

I think what Plato was interested in is the "illusion" or "self-delusion" of the artist and perhaps their public (and his peers). By that I mean, Plato did not believe that a work of art was a copy at all, but perhaps the artist and their public did and it was that lie, that 'feigning' he was on about. It may be a 'critique' and his writing about copy of this and that is simply the terms of the dispute. Not in Plato's philosophy, but in this instance, even the Forms may have been employed by him for rhetorical purposes.

 

As for replication and photography, it was an analogy that I won't follow up on, interesting as I think it is 8-) It makes an historical digression, and is not useful at this point. I do not believe the photograph is a copy of any sort.

[don_e]

I wish there were a quotation from Plato that makes the point rather than what we have.

 

Plato's comments on art and artists I do not think refer to visual arts. The painter, sculptor, architect he would classify as artisans rather than artists. By art he means poetry, by artist he means poet, or perhaps also musicians. Poetry was not read. It was performed with accompaniment.

 

Plato believed in divine inspiration, or what we might call intuition, a kind of madness. He regarded the spontaneous eruption of divine diction as true art, rather than repeating a speech or poem from memory or worse from reading a text. I think this explains the scripture-like appeal of the Iliad to the Greeks in which men converse with gods face-to-face. Homer begins "Sing, Goddess...". He is imploring the Muse to tell him the story of Achilles, which he repeats for his audience. Plato's man, Socrates, is portrayed as taken up in discourse with the divine. He has a daimon and his relation with it is similar to what we read in the Iliad.

 

To write out or to memorize a poem and then to perform it as if the poet were divinely inspired is a lie, feigning, an act, a mere imitation of the real thing. Photography would fall into the artisan category, manual labor, not intellectual work. I don't know if Plato had more to say about it. The artisan should be skilled and produce good work, satisfying his clientele. DaVinci is the first we know of to challenge this common-at-the-time opinion.

 

The Forms are the Real and nature -- the material world -- a shadow of the reality. The artisan necessarily copies from the shadow. Plato had no way of comprehending how an artisan could encounter the divine since it manifests itself in speech (or music), not images (which are by definition of the shadow). The divine is heard, not seen. None of the Muses were emblematic of visual representation.

 

How to consider the visual arts, specifically photography, in re Plato's philosophy? I'd want to read the "Cave" part of the Republic at least before attempting it.

[Norma Desmond]

Don, to be continued once I've reread a few bits of Plato and looked for some appropriate

references!

[jennifer_durand]

To copy something is to make something that has the same functions or appearance of

something else.

 

To imitate generally referes to behaviour where somebody copies someone's voice or

behaviour but can also refer to some one attempting to copy the style of something or

somebody else. When referring to art it refers to an artist making something in the style of

someone else.

 

I do believe that copy is the right terminology for what I meant. Architects copy Forms

from nature and transfer them into architecture ie they take an example from nature that

works then uses that Form in architecture.

 

The "Geometry of Nature", also known as the Golden Section or Rule and the geometric

designs of nature have been copied by architects for centuries and used in architecture.

Greek and Roman architecture has many examples of the Golden Section Rule in there

measurements and so have the Pyramids of Egypt.

 

We all recognise beauty and if one examines for instance a beautiful face one will find that

that face will be symmetrical and be very close to perfect proportions of the Golden

Section Rule.

 

Piet Mondrian's Transatlantic Paintings all follow the Golden Section Rule and that is why

they are so interesting and well loved. They are not random - they conform to the

"Rules of Nature" and Form. These Forms surround us and they are part of us.

http://www.artmuseums.harvard.edu/mondrian/

[mikep]

Having met and talked to Szarkowski a few times, I know many of his philosophies on photography. He is smart and learned. He has met and worked with some of the greatest photographers in the world. I differ with him on some points though.

I also think a photograph becomes a copy, so it can't be the thing itself, but an altogether different thing. That's a challenge of photographs, to convey a slice of life from a particular point of view or angle, by cramming as much (or as little) info into an area of usually 40 or 50 (or so) degrees (numbers differ, but you get the idea). It's becomes information, not the thing itself, for the thing is still the thing.

[jennifer_durand]

Mike Pobega, what you say is interesting and I do agree.

 

I would like to propose something else which is also important. If you show someone a

photograph of a chair and ask them the question " what is this" - most will answer that's a

chair. Very few will say that's a photograph of a chair or a photograph.

 

All of us are guilty of this type of reference to the photograph as "the thing itself" such as

the chair in my example. Perhaps on an unconcious level our brain is fooled a bit or we are

taking short-cuts. Whatever the reason its wrong to call a photograph of a chair - a chair.

 

I am sorry to hear of John Szarkowski's passing.