On the subjectivity of photography

je ne regrette rien · January 7, 2014

An isolated sensation?

Julie H · January 8, 2014

"An isolated sensation?" Yes. I have no way of sharing your sensations.

Let me see if I can track the subjectivity strand out of the many that go into looking at a shared photograph.

The 'looking/seeing' can give only private personal pleasure (like a much smaller, non-religious version of St. Augustine's "seeing" God). But the "telling" that the picture does, the showing, the conveying, the communicating, the sharing, goes to narrative, even if simply a "See!" with pointing finger. This can't be done via sensations, which inhere to the private person.

However, there is still subjectivity in what is left out of the narrative proposal of the image, and I think a viewer is very aware of this. That the thing given, the picture has been selected, pruned, framed from ... and that "from" is the subjectivity of the "telling" of sharing. Not what's there, not the object that is a photograph, but what's not in the photograph. The structure of the selected presentation carries the subjectivity of the maker precisely because it is implicit, not explicit. The awareness of the subjectivity of the absent pressures what is present by the obvious awareness that it is different, it was chosen but it might not have been. As with narrative, the necessity provokes the interest.

Circling back to compare to advertising/commercial (non-art) photography, I would claim that there is a visceral difference in what we feel to have been left out (anything other than driving intent?) of such pictures as compared to art or even snapshot photography.

Ilia, we'll have to agree to disagree. To my mind, it seems you confuse means with ends. I agree that the means were often strictly delimited, but I think the ends to which those means were put in the minds of viewers were not targeted.

heri_rakotomalala · January 8, 2014

Isn't this the same for any kind of art? The same questions are asked in painting, cinematography, sculpture etc.

je ne regrette rien · January 13, 2014

After playing with thoughts, I would like to introduce a refinement in this line of reasoning. What I actually refer to is the

subjectivity of our relationship with photography.

Photography would not exist without people making it.

And it would probably not exist without somebody looking at it.

I do not know now if I should better say "a photograph" rather than "photography", but I would say that the concepts

overlap.

The photographer has a subjective relationship with the photographs, which involves many things including emotions.

The viewer develops a subjective relationship with the photograph seen, also including emotions. These might be the

same or different from the ones of the photographer.

There seems to be no other angle of view.

And, as far as I see, no argument supporting any objectivity in this relationship has come up.

Julie H · January 13, 2014

" ... no argument supporting any objectivity in this relationship has come up."

Objectivity is the necessary starting assumption. Otherwise, you and I would have nothing to talk about. (This does not ever exclude degrees of subjectivity.)

charleswood · January 13, 2014

Luca, photography wouldn't exist without people doing photography, probably wouldn't exist without viewers, the concepts photograph and photography overlap, a photographer has a subjective relationship to the photographs involving many things including emotion, a viewer has a subjective relationship with a photograph including emotion either the same or different from the photographer. Agreed.

However, an argument supporting any objectivity can begin with the following idea. When a photographer self-reflects, s/he is an object unto herself, treating herself as though her 'self' was like any other object, our own self capable of being observed objectively by our self just like any other objects that aren't our own self. When self-reflecting, we can compare our self to another's self, to both self's, one's own and another's, as objects. Likewise, when we view ourselves viewing a photograph, we are observing our own self just as much as we are observing the photograph. When we look at a photograph, we aren't looking at our self, we are looking at an object. When we view our own self as we view a photograph we are viewing an object, our self, as well. However, we can be just as subjective in our objective view of our self as we are with any other object. That subjectivity about how we objectively think of ourselves doesn't mean we aren't taking an objective view of our self, it means we can't really see our self as other's see us, try as we may, and we don't really know how close to an objective view we can achieve.

aplumpton · January 14, 2014

"we can't really see our self as other's see us, try as we may, and we don't really know how close to an objective view we can achieve."

</blockquote>

Charles, I didn't read your full argument carefully enough, but what you state makes sense, although I think I would prefer the following -

"we can't really see our self as we really are, try as we may, and therefore we don't really know how close to an objective view we can achieve."

That a number of others somehow possess the path to an objective view is not something I can readily accept. Everything has a certain degree of subjectivity. Objectivity is a word like truth. Approachable but not normally attainable, although the result can still be meaningful for us.

That may lead to other questions or comments, but I must take leave from the OP as I have buried myself in some subjective assignments at present. I am copying the OP for reading at a later time.

charleswood · January 14, 2014

Arthur - "Everything has a certain degree of subjectivity."

That's the rub.

je ne regrette rien · January 16, 2014

There is something related to the (subjective) perception, send reaction to, an image: the attraction threshold.

The major part of photos do not pass our attraction threshold. We are not induced to watch, watch again, study,

investigate, watch better, create our own understanding.

The creator of a picture has an easier task. The subjective bond of the photographer to the image is the bond of creativity:

this is related to the subject, the photographic process and all the contextual emotions, which come into play.

A non-systematic empirical analysis, still based on a continuous observation, shows me that, in a world where we are overexposed to images, there are

elements, which make a photo pass our attraction threshold. And they are all subjective.

- Pictures "peak" us because of the notoriety of the photographer;

- Because we know the photographer and our emotional bond to him/her (different from the previous one);

- Because of our bond to the subject of the photograph;

- Because the context presented by the photo moves us, be it for reasons relating to our personal sphere or reasons

belonging to some kind of "collective perception";

Each of us seems to have this type of threshold, which is subjective. This does not mean that there cannot be a collective

subjectivity, still a cluster of multifaceted individual perceptions.

And still it does not become objective.

It seems to me, very much in the line of Arthur's statement.

Julie H · January 16, 2014

Luca,

If I have a petri dish that contains two cultures and I apply the same antibiotic to both and one of the cultures dies because of that antibiotic while the other does not, what part of that different response is subjective?

That "you" are different from "me" does not make all of our differences necessarily subjective. Nor are you and I somehow discontinuous from what we perceive; we are continuous with the world, not separate from it. We are of it and it is of us; we are made of/from it and it is made of/from us -- so "subjectivity" itself is not subjective. : )

Perspective -- literal as well as from a life-history/condition "point-of-view" is, in many ways, 'objective,' even if you take it to mean all of the things listed in your most recent post (different "angles" of view on the same subject give different but nevertheless 'objective' readings).

I think that response becomes subjective when the 'place' in which your view puts you, mentally, overwhelms, takes over, what you're looking at (Proust; the cookie gets overwhelmed by the memory).

je ne regrette rien · January 16, 2014

The subjectivity of the response of the culture resides in the subjective immunity response to the antibiotic, to which one culture is resistant and the other not.

But we are no bacterial cultures, which are notoriously extremely simple living organisms, with yes/no responses.

I have never denied your "continuity" concept. On the contrary, I think that photography is one of the realms where continuity and blur of borders are most prominent.

The perspective becomes "objective" when observing from a "third" point of view, without a direct involvement in what we observe.

You have a point here, yes. So a viewer is objective when s/he remains emotionally detached from what s/he sees. I just wonder whether the creator of the photographer can be emotionally detached from the creation. The mere fact that a photographer's attention has been drawn to make a picture, isn't that already an involvement with a subjective connotation.

But the subjectivity of the viewer again kicks in when it comes to the connection of the viewer's background, whatever that means.

So most comments or reactions to photographs we read around are simply due to the fact that

<ul>

<li>either the viewer tends to overwhelm what s/he looks at, projecting all their views into the the viewed object;</li>

<li>or the viewer is plainly incapable to go beyond per personal "place" of their view?</li>

</ul>

Julie H · January 16, 2014

The more interesting thing, for me, is where/when/if the blurring prevents communication. I don't mind (or don't worry about) the "bonus" places that people find in images, but it would bother me very much if I came to believe that we can't "locate" the common source of our provocations, and therefore feel that we are each, to each other, developing our/their ability to see (broadening their perspective(s) by uniting or adding to them with our own).

[Luca, just in case your not sure, I'm not disagreeing with most of what you're saying.]

je ne regrette rien · January 19, 2014

When we view our own self as we view a photograph we are viewing an object, our self, as well. However, we can be just as subjective in our objective view of our self as we are with any other object. That subjectivity about how we objectively think of ourselves doesn't mean we aren't taking an objective view of our self, it means we can't really see our self as other's see us, try as we may, and we don't really know how close to an objective view we can achieve.

</blockquote>

Charles,

Ok, but i wonder whether there can be any objectivity in how we see ourselves, as others see us. i cannot be objective in how watch myself, I am not even objective in how I watch the photos I make.

Simply because a photo is a two-dimensional slice of reality at a certain point in time.

When I make a photograph, I start from a three-dimensional situation happening over time. I know the "before" and I know the "after". I know what is around, I know the scene as it evolves.

The viewer doesn't: s/he just sees the two-dimensional slice.

I am in advantage and also in disadvantage: because I know all about the photo, but also because I'm tied to it. As Julie has said before, the viewer is "objective" in respect to a photo when s/he has no emotional bond to it or to its subject.

But when does it happen?

Julie H · January 20, 2014

Luca,

Think of boats on the ocean, some in full sail, others at anchor; boats of all sizes and sail-configurations. There is a strong wind blowing. That each of the boats responds differently to that wind, whether it fills the sail(s) or drags at those which are moored, all of the boats can surely "know" that it is the wind which is affecting them. What configures their response (anchor, number of sails, boat design, etc. etc.) does not prevent a pretty good understanding/awareness of the qualities of the particular wind which is affecting them.

Note that common understanding of the common wind does not require any pre-consciousness of what generated that wind (as parallel to your comment about two-dimensional having devolved from three-dimensional; this may be useful but it does not change the wind which is present now -- it blows and buffets all the same).

je ne regrette rien · January 20, 2014

Julie,

According to your metaphor, the photograph is like the wind. And we do not ask how and where the wind comes from. But somehow I have the feeling that it does not fit completely. The wind is always the same, apart from the direction and the warmth or cold. It pushes and drags, but the effects of a photograph, it seems to me, go much beyond the mere pushing and dragging. Wind has a effect on the sails, but photos can have an effect on other elements than "sails". With the slice of time I mean something different: the amount of knowledge on a photograph.

charleswood · January 20, 2014

"But when does it happen?"

Maybe when I laugh at myself.

Norma Desmond · January 20, 2014

Might shed some light. Might not.

Sartre, from Existentialism is a Humanism:

"When we say that man is responsible for himself, we do not mean that man is responsible only for his own individuality, but that he is responsible for all men. . . . When we say that man chooses himself, we do mean that every one of us must choose himself; but by that we also mean that in choosing for himself he chooses for all men. For, in effect, all the actions a man may take in order to create himself as he wills to be, there is not one which is not creative at the same time, of an image of man such as he believes he ought to be. To choose between this or that is at the same time to affirm the value of that which is chosen. What we choose is always the better; and nothing can be better for us unless it is better for all. . . . Our responsibility is thus much greater than we had supposed, for it concerns mankind as a whole. . . . I am thus responsible for myself and for all men, and I am creating a certain image of man as I would have him to be. In fashioning myself I fashion man.

"The subjectivity which we thus postulate is no narrowly individual subjectivism. It is not only one's own self one discovers in the cogito, but those of others too. Contrary to the philosophy of Descartes, contrary to that of Kant, when we say "I think" we are attaining to ourselves in the presence of the other, and we are just as certain of the other as we are of ourselves. Thus the man who discovers himself directly in the cogito also discovers all the others, and discovers them as the condition of his own existence. He recognizes that he cannot be anything (in the sense in which one says one is witty, or that one is wicked or jealous) unless others recognize him as such. I cannot obtain any truth about myself, except through the mediation of another. The other is indispensable to my existence, and equally so to any knowledge I can have of myself. Under these conditions, the intimate discovery of myself is at the same time the revelation of the other as a freedom which confronts mine, and which cannot think or will without doing so either for or against me. Thus, at once, we find ourselves in a world which is, let us say, that of "inter-subjectivity." It is in this world that man has to decide what he is and what others are.

"Man is all the time outside of himself: it is in projecting and losing himself beyond himself that he makes man to exist; and it is by pursuing transcendent aims that he himself is able to exist. Since man is thus self-surpassing, and can grasp objects only in relation to his self-surpassing, he is himself the heart and center of his transcendence. . . . This relation of transcendence as constitutive of man (not in the sense that God is transcendent, but in the sense of self-surpassing) with subjectivity (in such a sense that man is not shut up in himself but forever present in a human universe)—it is this that we call existential humanism. . . . It is not by turning back upon himself, but always by seeking, beyond himself, an aim which is one of liberation, that man can realize himself as truly human."

Julie H · January 22, 2014

Luca, a question for you. Do you think that history is subjective? How does the communal narrative of a history mesh with your ideas of the subjectivity of perception?

je ne regrette rien · January 23, 2014

Julie,

it seems to me that history in itself cannot be considered subjective or objective. The narration/description of history ... subjective. The simple fact that the narrating historian singles out the (intrinsically objective) historical facts to present the overall picture makes the presentation of historical facts subjective.

I am recalling the negation theories of the holocaust, or the conspiracy theory of 9/11, and other.

How do you relate it to our topic?

Julie H · January 23, 2014

If we have a photograph of Desdemona (from Shakespeare's play), at the beginning of the tragedy, Othello looks at the picture and sees his beloved wife. Near the end, he looks at the picture and sees a whore. At the end, he sees his recently deceased beloved wife. Iago looks at the picture and sees a pawn in his power play. Historically, however, what is in the picture -- all that is in the picture -- is a woman, daughter of so-and-so, married to so-and-so, who was murdered, etc. etc.

The picture never changes; Othello's three versions and Iago's all originate from the sight of the face of a woman but those interpretations are off-camera; they are not "from" what is in the picture. Subjective interpretation of what is *in* the picture should be limited to interpretations of what *is* there such as facial characteristics (shape + form = beauty or not -- to you; as well as readings of body language). Subjective interpretations such as Proust's cookie = childhood are prompted or triggered by, are a different kind of subsequent/derivative personal reaction.

Othello's and Iago's conception of Desdemona are not historical -- and I think are not particularly related to "the" picture they are looking at (any/all pictures of her would have had the same response/interpretation). It seems to me that the kind of prior-knowledge subjectivity that you have brought up is like that; it's not to do with the picture but with any/every reminder of a given subject/event/object. Which seems to me to be just normal/necessary conscious processing of ... everything.

History tries to take that first level of what is there in the picture and carefully strip away the secondary off-camera associations. Historians will be the first to admit that this is ... difficult to do, but the difference between a justified claim attached to a picture and one that is a Proustian flight of memory can be sorted. I think most people can, if they have to, spot the difference (which is not to say that they think their interpretation is wrong; Othello killed Desdemona, after all).

je ne regrette rien · January 24, 2014

Fred,

a question: does subjectivism go hand in hand with being closed towards the outside? With sticking to one's position exclusively and the unwillingness to start with oneself and to go beyond oneself?

Norma Desmond · January 24, 2014

No. It doesn't. That's the point I tried to make for a little while much earlier in the thread. For me, subjectivism is problematic when viewed as "individual" and "personal", which is how you seem to approach it. I find it a much more workable concept as Sartre describes it.

So, for instance, I'd say the "negation theory of the holocaust" is wrong, not subjective. The collective memory of the concentration camps, the pictures, the artifacts, etc. make it so.

Again, though, I have no idea what the significance is of talking about one's opinion or whether one likes a photo as "subjective". Other than applying a word ("subjective") to those things, what are you getting at? You still have not answered that question.

If you, too, believe the subjective goes beyond the self and is not closed toward the outside, then we don't disagree. The problem is your idea of starting with the self, and your emphasis of the individual and personal. I don't think history, our opinions, or our knowledge of photography starts with ourselves. Not at all.

A lot starts with biology and inherited culture, long before we are a self. And a self is never a fixed thing. It is always becoming something else. It's very hard to pin it down.

Norma Desmond · January 24, 2014

Luca, what I'm asking is this. If subjectivism goes along with the outside and with a willingness to go beyond oneself, what difference does it make that photography is "subjective"? What does its subjectivity affect?

How does the subjectivity of photography affect a photo's being made?

How does it affect a photo's being viewed?

How does it affect symbolism in photos?

How does it affect communication about photos?

How does it affect what we might consider to be opinions as opposed to facts or truths?

In order to answer these coherently, I'd expect there to be a different answer to them if we considered photography "objective" rather than subjective. What would that difference be?

Example. You said this in the OP: "the interpretation is still bound to the individual and the subjective perception of the photographer"

If subjectivity doesn't disregard universal or at least culturally understood aesthetics and if it is not closed to the outside, what you're saying seems to be that (rephrased) "the interpretation is still bound to the individual and the personal and cultural, inside and outside, individual and social perception of the photographer. So, my question is, what has using the word "subjective" provided us?

je ne regrette rien · January 27, 2014

Provided that I have understood Sartre's position correctly, I am in complete agreement with the osmosis between the self and the external environment and of the collective impacts, and the collective responsibilities of individual choices.

And my position is that, yes, subjectivity goes beyond the self, and that yes, it is never a fixed thing.

Maybe the "subjective approach" is just the superficial reaction to an image, related to the incapability of a deeper articulation of the thoughts the picture evokes, and the incapability to place it into a more universal context, beyond the mere individual perception.

je ne regrette rien · January 27, 2014

"the interpretation is still bound to the individual and the personal and cultural, inside and outside, individual and social perception of the photographer"

</blockquote>

Yes.

My, maybe unconscious, attempt might have been an exhortation to go beyond the "individual" dimension when considering photography. Trying to go beyond boundaries, trying to open up.

Which is hard, which requires an effort to depart from the easy comfort zone of simply considering what one likes or dislikes.

Sign In

On the subjectivity of photography

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in