A Window On the World
Much has been written about photography's power of representation, in a fragmented culture where information can be obtained from multiple sources and the Meta-narrative is all but dead, is there still room for traditional still photography? If so what is its role?
To establish the future role of photography it is first, important to reflect on the impact photography has played on life until now. It is hard, in a world filled with visual imagery, sensationalist media and an
unquenchable thirst for information, to disseminate just how important this aspect of our society remains. Historical references are necessary to fully understand this role that photography
fulfills and to determine if that role is still justified and also to examine how it has changed in today's energetic media fray.
In its inception, photography began as a artist's tool, an aid in drawing and painting - instruments such as the camera lucida, were used to assist the layman and competent artist alike in the accurate and efficacious copying of nature. It was a useful tool and became popular very soon after its invention in 1807. Working by projecting an image onto a piece of paper or canvas, the artist could then trace a likeness of the surrounding area. It was only a matter of time before human curiosity
invoked examination into just how to fix this image straight onto the material. This process was started, in this country at least by William Fox Talbot. Talbot wished to draw and sketch but did not find he was naturally gifted in this area, he was more of a scientist than a
sculptor and he made it his mission to obtain just how to correctly fix the image in the camera lucida, onto a light-responsive material.
So in the very
initial processes, Photography was used to instill visual
success, using it an image could quickly be captured, fixed and then shared - the extent to which this capture-sharing process would ascend was, i imagine not fully considered by the founding fathers.
The capacity of photography to astound and in some cases alarm, created a paradigm shift for many of those who encountered it. The art world
reeled in shock when photographs first became advanced enough to give a true interpretation of nature. In a world where a 'likeness' was achieved by commissioning a painter, the idea of a machine that could create a near instant likeness, was fearful indeed.
Of public approval there was no doubt, as early as 1859, when the first crude photographic exhibition was held in France, people commented on the photographs as a
like-ness??????/, bestowing on them the same praise previously given to painting. The painters feared the loss of work, some even suggesting it would mark the end of painting and sculpture, Charles Baudelaire wrote passionately about the exhibition at the time:
'Thus the industry that could give us a result identical with nature would be the absolute form of art. A vengeful God has granted the wishes of this multitude. Daguerre was his messiah. And now the public says to itself: 'Since photography gives us all the guarantees of exactitude that we could wish (they believe that, the idiots!), then photography and art are the same thing.' From that moment squalid society, like a single Narcissus, hurled itself upon the metal, to contemplate its trivial image.' (1)
'I am convinced that the ill-applied progress of photography has contributed much, as do indeed all purely modern advances, to the impoverishment of French artistic
genius already so rare.' (2)
Bitter though his words fall, Baudelaire was rational in his fear. Photography, for some time at least, became a
prominent part of the art world and much work was taken from painters and sketchers as the public
favoured the more modern approach to portraiture.
Fortunately painting and photography have managed to co-exist peacefully, each satisfying different and varied needs within the imaging world.
Of course the power of photography is massively altered by its ability to be reproduced, by its very nature the photograph offers itself to a much wider audience than the classic painting, it is transportable and perfectly re-printable making it a
accessible form of media for the whole world. In some ways it is more suitable to the society we live in, photography being a mechanical process and
mechanics improving all the time in light of
digital advances and mans never ending quest to do better.
In just a few years, photography had made its way from the hands of rich technicians who had time to develop, produce and show an image, to the hands of the general public. Suddenly Brownies and Polaroids were abundant, photographs were being produced by the second and all at once photography became a necessary part of home life. Susan Sontag briefly remarks on the subject;
'that age when taking photographs required a cumbersome and expensive contraption - the toy of the clever, the wealthy and obsessed - seems remote indeed from the era of sleek pocket cameras that invite anyone to take pictures.' (3)
Suddenly the artistic ability needed to take a photograph diminished, a 'likeness' could be produced instantly by just about anyone. Had photography's only power been in the
ability to reproduce, the art side may well have died out and become
obsolete, photography could have been confined to the record status of family events and
Children lives, a fate perhaps, more disarming than
devastating, as Roland Barthes ponders in Camera Lucida, a photograph is a wonderful way of recapturing memories
'there i was, alone in the apartment where she had died, looking at the pictures of my mother, one by one, under the lamp, gradually moving back in time with her, looking for the truth of the face i had loved. And i found it.' (4)
He speaks deep with grief, painfully forcing himself to look back through these
swarthes ?????????????????? of photos - consoling himself with the pain he felt at her death. But his thoughts are
mallable?????????????? with many forms of emotion and feeling, a picture of a loved one who has passed will be certainly painful and perhaps even hard to view for a time, but it would still be treasured by those who remember the soul of the person. A picture of a child who has long since matured will be viewed fondly by the couple who tended to her as she grew, and this, in reality is what we wish to achieve with our photos, a moment in time that encapsulates the mood, theme or emotion being felt at the time of exposure. Each parent will have a favourite photo of their child, the image that exemplifies the mannerisms, characteristics and attitudes of that little person they loved so dear. In documentary photography at least, the aim is much the same, to offer a nostalgic glance into a past time, a accurate snapshot of how life has been.
However as any photographer will tell you, the power of photography lies in the power of illusion, as much, if not more so, than its powers of reproduction. Its
abilities to offer a honed, artistic impression of an event or
occasion is where its epic powers can really be seen. For how many photojournalists can take two photos on the same day, to express two totally different sides of an argument? I would think any photographer who had studied his art would find himself able to capture just about any feeling, from any situation, creating his
interpretation of the events as much as reporting on the facts at hand. For example, a photographer may well work to a brief and create a scene amplifying that which is already theorised on, therefore strengthening a political point or argument for the sake of a newspaper or pre-narrative text. Such pictures are used as a visual summary, a eye-catching taster of what is to be read about beneath,
solely they may be used for many different purposes it is their sub text that gives them extended merit.
In the early 20th century, photography became a part of every day life, its inclusion in magazines and newspapers a powerful incentive to buyers. This marketing tool first became obvious in the late 18th century but it was a few years later, after the printing press had advanced enough to allow photographs to be published easily, that it began to grab the attention of the population. The sensationalist relationship between the public and the papers in the 1920s is no secret, it is hard to picture that period in time without the mind conjuring images of reporters in wide brimmed hats and tall collars, of large elaborate flash bulbs and of the showcase theatrics of the cabaret.
Regrettably during that time an increasing amount of importance was placed upon financial gain , this was often often to the detriment of truthful and unbiased reporting of the news. Front page images were printed alongside conspicuous, sensationalist headlines so designed to lure the common man into feeling a sincere empathy with the story and its players. This acted as a huge catalyst, created an embarrassing tabloid war, straying far from the
necessity of reporting news and instead creating excessive fabrications to get the next big scoop or sensational cover story. Images were used out of context, given ridiculous subtext and used to justify even the most inane articles, William Taft commented on the subject:
'Such prodigious and free use of photographs in picture newspapers and magazines has in a measure defeated their own object, presumably that of disseminating news...' (5)
'...These criticisms and abuses the pictoral press must meet and correct if it is to command the respect of intelligent people.' (6)
It is possible to partially blame this
abhorrent lack of conduct displayed by the newspapers, as a direct result of the attitudes of the public at the time, previously, photographs had remained a
rarity, access perhaps would have been granted in the form of some prized family photo, or perhaps viewed at some city art gallery, but it is naive to assume that much of the public found themselves familiar with photography before it made its way into national media, Susan Sontag who researched much of the joint history of American and Photography, comments in 1971:
'The photographs of ill-clad, skeletal prisoners held at Andersonville inflamed Northern public opinion - against the South. (the effect of the Andersonville photographs must have been partly due to the very novelty, at that time, of seeing the photographs.' (7)
Here we can see a new angle on the effects of viewing photographs, Sontag is elaborating on the diminishing effects of photographs, how in order for new images to create the same level of shock and awe, they must delve even further into the grossest and most elaborate elements of human nature.
Initially this was not the case and photography gripped the nation with its realistic
interpretation of life.
When it became a daily part of life, the reaction was overwhelming, people could not get enough of the daily story and bought fervently into whichever scoop gripped them most. The newspaper executives knew an investment when they saw one and went to great lengths to
fulfill the public need for more drama, more excitement and of course, more photographs. It is worth noting that this was long before television, long before internet or any sort of mass media fray, the mere symbology of reading the same news as people hundreds of miles away must have been
extraordinary, not least when
accompanied by an
impassioned image, a glimpse into the supposed 'reality' of the situation, a real snapshot into the lives of the subjects, giving strength and authenticity to the reports.
The second world war bought new opportunity for both news and photography, imagery and reports were demanded from distant parts of the world and newspapers and wireless transported information into the homes of worried nations. This not only brought cultural obscurities and distant peoples right into the homes of the general western public, it also accelerated the technology of photography, as better images and smaller cameras were necessary to offer the best world wide coverage.
Photographs now created new emotions in the minds of the public, photography had a new reputation, one of respect and appreciation, the tabloid nonsense continued, but a new breed of photographic culture had appeared alongside it, in magazines and newspapers alike - the idea of a
definitive photo, one that expressed clearly the emotions, reactions or importance of the occasion being covered was revered. Karin E Becker discusses:
'Several specific elements of this photojournalism continue to be seen as meriting the insitutionalised culture's stamp of value: the formal structural properties of the ideal photo essay; the determination of the single photograph as an idealised moment - fetishised as 'the decisive moment' either alone or at the
center of the essay; and the reconstruction of the photojournalist as an artist.' (8)
Here we can see a clear shift in the reputation of photography, its operators suddenly invoking reactions profound enough to offer great praise for
definitive, published images. This 'decisive moment' is absolutely vital in the understanding of photography, in any photographic classification it is necessary to achieve that 'superlative' image. The idea of trying to sell a product using an image is a massive part of the photographers market. Be it pictures of a product for the skin or enticing food to eat, the photographer will always be striving to create the paramount image.
Photography has long been used as a selling aid, be
it a story, person, product or brand. Many have commented on this phenomenon, remarking on the
ability of photography to offer truth, meaning and familiarity to a written story, proposal or sales pitch. None is more obvious than the use of photography in
political campaigns, originally sketched in newspapers,
politicians saw the benefits of using a likeness to increase their voting potential. Roland Barnes commented on the subject of
politicians using photography to win votes in an electoral campaign:
'Needless to say the use of electoral photography presupposes a kind of complicity: a photograph is a mirror, what we are asked to read is the familiar, the known: it offers to the voter his own likeness, but clarified,
exalted, superbly elevated into a type.' - Roland Barthes, mythologies (9)
He is discussing the familiarity of photographs, commenting on how the viewer, or voter in this case, will be drawn into an image showing a professional person, looking sophisticated and
suaveyet relaxing in a comparatively similar living space to that in which they might sit with their own families. It gives the illusion of truth - surely if this figure can remain as cool, charming and collected at home as he does during
political addresses, the words he speaks must be true. It also
alludes to the idea of compatibility - this man has a family and children and perhaps therefore he will understand my situation and circumstance.' Of course it quickly became apparent that the image of a public figure was just as important as the ideals they stood for. People will put a wealth of trust into how someone looks, and can we really blame them? Considering that the eye was one of the first of mankind tools to give him warning of coming attack and to feed himself and his family, it is understandable that this basic human function will be given much reverence in our judgment and understanding of the world. Of course now we have learnt to establish other ways of judging situations around us with more intelligence and compassion offering us far more varied and broad opinions. Some may say photography has played a part in that evolution of understanding, offering us images from around the world that assist us in feeling
compassionate and empathetic towards our fellow man.
Of course in this society, there is no hiding from imagery, it fills our days, from billboards with their enormous eyecatching adverts, to the tattered photo of a loved one kept in a wallet, pictures have become such an
intrinsic part of our world is it really possible to judge how powerful they truly are? In today's world of fast paced moving pictures and with the strength of the internet, it is clear that photography still has an important role to play, not least due to ongoing evolution in these new digital elements of life. Photography may perhaps have struggled had it been contained on film or negative, but with digital photography comes new power of sharing, new ease of reproduction and an even wider, broader audience to share that knowledge with, that key moment that can be captured with a single image, could this still be considered traditional photography? From an application dedicated to mechanical advancement, seeking
continuously to improve speed of photographic capture, rapidness of delivery and endless reproducing capacity, some would say that digital photography is an evolution of that traditional style, rather than an art form growing
in spite of it. Photography has made its place by adjusting to the needs of the world, and will continue to do so as different styles, method and ideas grow within wake of new and exciting developments. Of darkrooms and developer the future is uncertain, but of photography, its role is as clear now as it has ever been.
Liz Wells comments on the subject:
'In Recent years, developments in computer-based image production and the possibilities of digitalisation and
reworking of the photographic image have increasingly called into question the idea of documentary realism. The authority attributed to the photograph is at stake. That this has led to a reopening of debates about 'photographic truth' in itself shows that, in everyday parlance, photographs are still viewed as realistic.'
She discussed the futility of
condemning advances without the benefits of hindsight and points out that for such arguments to exist, some level of
validity must still be
available.
People look now at the cracked images of old with a nostalgic air of what mechanisms and processes were used to create the image, even the crudest of photos are praised for their part in the great rise of photography, perhaps the same will be bestowed on the earliest digital images long in the future. And with this who is to say what is traditional? Are we here to judge what advantages lie before us, or to make best use of the tools
available?
In Summary, photography remains
ambiguous, still allowing room for viewer objectivity offering an illusion of truth and purity to all that it touches. Its role and processes may have altered
noticeably from its original form, but the stories it can tell are as firm as ever. In reality, it is not photography which must preserve its chronicles, but the artists who chose it as a medium.
I just used a spell checker and ran a vague eye over the grammar but I study engineering not english
kinda amazed that you've written a intelligent essay but haven't spell checked it I mean wtf (not feeling as intelligent and reasoned today)
its just over four pages but quite spaced and has quotes too 
