Philosophy & Photography

[distant.star]

.
Probably more than most folks want to wade through, but...

"In this newly commissioned essay, Daniel Rubinstein answers one of photography’s most complicated questions. In our contemporary image-world of computers and algorithms, what are the key philosophical questions proposed by the medium of photography today?"

"Dr. Daniel Rubinstein is the course leader of MA Photography at Central Saint Martins and editor of the Journal Philosophy of Photography."

http://thephotographersgalleryblog.org.uk/2015/07/03/what-is-21st-century-photography/

 

[Maximilian]

Probably more than most folks want to wade through, but...

... but thank you for sharing.

I found if quite interesting to read although it was not so easy to catch the information between the lines as I am no native English speaker. And it is really good to realize how the art side of photography is thinking about this medium. (I would consider myself more a documenting photographer, trying to catch the art in the moment)

 

[Vern]

Thanks for posting. Rather abstract for my simple scientific and physical rationalist philosophy, but an interesting perspective.

A few lines that caught my eye: "For that reason, it seems to me that if photography mainly concerns itself with representations of objects in space, it is losing its relevance in a world in which speed, acceleration, distribution and self-replication acquire a significance that overshadows the visual appearance of spaces. .... In short, 21st Century Photography is not the representation of the world, but the exploration of the labor practices that shape this world through mass-production, computation, self-replication and pattern recognition. .... In the 21st Century, photography is not a stale sight for sore eyes, but the inquiry into what makes something an image. As such, photography is the most essential task of art in the current time."

Reminds me of this: “The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it.” Bertrand Russell

I'm with Keats on this one: http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/173742

 

[chauncey]

In this newly commissioned essay

Pray tell, who commissioned the author to opine on this meaningless blather.
IMHO, photography exists only for ego gratification of quasi artists...period!

Granted that a limited few progress beyond the quasi aspect and that a few of us
take pictures purely for memories but, were you to remove all aspects of that ego
gratification, there would be no photography/art/or, other horse hockey.

On the other hand, as Maslow pointed out in his "hierarchy of needs"...mankind needs that blather.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

I looked over a selection of articles in the Philosophy of Photograph journal. Yikes there are some deep articles there! Not sure of the practicality of the articles, but from an intellectual viewpoint, some of those articles sound interesting.

 

[CanadianInvestor]

Thank you for bringing this article to this forum's attention.

I worked my way through it and found some jarring remarks one of which was, 'unimaginably large stream of data, constantly worked and reworked by algorithms that are written and re-written by invisible and unknown puppet masters – our real rulers' (my highlight). If this is the case, can algorithms be sufficient to create new levels of consciousness since as he states,' photography is the visual figuration of a new layer of consciousness'.

My usual reading material is business plans from start up entrepreneurs looking for venture capital and so this made for a refreshing change.

In summary, the author brings in Newtown's Laws, Kant and Ford but is unable, in my opinion, to succinctly bring the two (Philosophy and Photography) together.

Thanks, again.

 

[unfocused]

Thank you for bringing this article to this forum's attention.

I worked my way through it and found some jarring remarks one of which was, 'unimaginably large stream of data, constantly worked and reworked by algorithms that are written and re-written by invisible and unknown puppet masters – our real rulers' (my highlight). If this is the case, can algorithms be sufficient to create new levels of consciousness since as he states,' photography is the visual figuration of a new layer of consciousness'.

My usual reading material is business plans from start up entrepreneurs looking for venture capital and so this made for a refreshing change.

In summary, the author brings in Newtown's Laws, Kant and Ford but is unable, in my opinion, to succinctly bring the two (Philosophy and Photography) together.

Thanks, again.

I periodically try to wade through photocriticism. One thing I have noted is that many British and American critics shoehorn a political perspective into photography that reveals an almost comical adherence to Marxism. It's as though art departments remain the last refuge for those who continue to worship at the altar of communism even though the rest of the world (including all the formerly or nominally communist states) moved on.

 

[notapro]

I was curious as to how this thread would develop.

The essay was posted in early July of 2015, and the critical-theoretical apparatus is reminiscent of postmodern criticism (tremendously popular in the late 20th century, and seemingly omnipresent in doctoral dissertations in the arts/literature/humanities/etc.), with the matter of power distribution, power generally, the questioning of the idea of representation, and the formulation of photography (in this instance) in extra-artistic terms standing out in the text. The essay may be perceived as Rubinstein’s (or that of other like-minded individuals) perspective on the place and role of photography in society or culture more than of something attendant to photography per se, of photography qua photography, or of photography as art/an art. Indeed, a quick search reveals his approach to photography as not exclusively intra-artistic:

http://www.danielrubinstein.net/

 

[TominNJ]

Photography is a means of self expression and all photographs are attempts to convey a message. That message can be as simple as "I think this is beautiful", "look what a mess the world is in" or "look what happened yesterday". The messages are as varied as the photographers themselves. Any attempt to force some definition onto the activity is doomed to failure because of that variation.

Self expression will never go out of style. Will photography fade away as a means of self expression as it is replaced by something else? I doubt it. We as humans use our eyes more than any of our other senses and photography is the perfect medium to convey information through the use of that vision.