Is Humanity Defined By Its Images?

Bythesea

Bythesea

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,133
Name
Brian
Edit My Images
No
Interesting interview about the role of photography. Rather long but definitely worth a read if you are interested in the philosophy behind photographs. Also some interesting comments by the participants. Came across it on Twitter and thought it would interest a few here at least.

"In this exclusive interview series, we speak to David Bailey CBE and Albert Watson (two of the world’s greatest photographers), HRH Prince Constantijn of the Netherlands (Patron of the World Press Photo Competition) and Professor Francis Hodgson (Co-Founder of the Pictet Prize). We discuss the powerful role of photography in culture, arts and communication; and examine the true nature of the photograph, the photographer and- in the process- ourselves."​

http://thoughteconomics.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/photography.html
 
I don't think humanity is defined by its images, but by its actions. Of course some of those actions are photographed.
 
Thanks for that. Should be interesting.

My current view is that that is a very restrictive question. Humanity is rather more than its images.

I do believe great insights can be revealed about aspects of humanity by looking at the use of imagery over time.

How images are created, why they are created, how they are consumed and why can tell us a great deal about a time and a culture.

In fact, historians and anthropologists have been doing it for years.
 
Defined by which images though? It can be defined by some, sure, but if we were to use the majority of images taken as a definition of the human race, it would indicate we're in real trouble, as the majority are probably pictures of cats, people's meals in restaurants or self portraits taken with a phone on a stick.


So maybe it can, yes. Here we are on a single planet with finite resources.. continuing to breed and increasing our population with seemingly carefree abandon as if it's our RIGHT to do so... we continue to chase money instead of ideals, and are controlled by a media that makes us feel we're only complete if we have more "things" than the next person... so yeah... maybe we are defined by our images - Not the ones held up as idealistic in that article, but the real, vernacular images that predominate in the cloud.
 
I agree with Simon that humanity is more than images and as you might expect that article is more than just it's headline. I've only had a quick skim but there is some interesting stuff in there.

I'm often struck by the biases that people pick up because of their life experiences and particularly their work, police seem to see every one as a criminal or victim, mathematicians see the world as defined by maths, and of course photographers tend to see the world as a photographs, it's Saxe's blind men and the elephant
 
If we're defined by the endless stream of pap from the likes of flickr*, then we're deeply, deeply screwed...




*which, I suppose - to my eternal shame, I contribute to... :coat:
 
Last edited:
TheBigYin said:
If we're defined by the endless stream of pap from the likes of flickr*, then we're deeply, deeply screwed...
Click to expand...


Surely the "endless stream of pap" on flickr and the like defines humanity far better than a few images by David Bailey or who ever?
 
sirch said:
Surely the "endless stream of pap" on flickr and the like defines humanity far better than a few images by David Bailey or who ever?
Click to expand...

yes, sadly, it does... which makes the second part of my comment all the more tragic.
 
Part way through but thanks for the link. Certainly one of the more interesting things posted on here today.
 
sirch said:
Surely the "endless stream of pap" on flickr and the like defines humanity far better than a few images by David Bailey or who ever?
Click to expand...


I agree. The vernacular has always been a measure of a society. That's why it's so fascinating.
 
Interesting article, bailey being bailey as always. The definition and examples of camera operators.

Isn't it too simplistic to say that humanity is defined by images? Maybe by it's art, after all what about music which is used in attempts to contact alien life, the architecture.

Images can define a culture, not sure about humanity as a whole
 
How absurd.
Fascinating? I don't think so.
Humanity is defined by its actions and deeds, not images.

I'm just being a Devil's Advocate :)
 
kendo1 said:
How absurd.
Fascinating? I don't think so.
Humanity is defined by its actions and deeds, not images.

I'm just being a Devil's Advocate :)
Click to expand...


What are images if not a record of those actions and deeds?
 
LOL.. no I'm not.

You can define humanity by it's media... all media... because that's what actually separates us from animals - abstract thinking, a sense of past and future, and the need to record things with language, images and sounds. Examining the media from any period of time (especially the vernacular) gives the measure of those times.

If not our media, what then do you measure us with? History? History IS media, and furthermore, accepted, published history is often crap. "History is written by the victors" - Churchill.
 
LOl :)
You could define humanity by its media- but it is not the only way to do so, and is it the main one?
Is media the only way we differ from animals? Is abstract thinking media.
We don't need to record images, sounds and writing, we choose to do so. Our existence does not depend on it.
Why single out History? why not present actions? - which become history...
I don't think history is crap (often), not least because it is written by the victors. Try telling that to IS :)
It can be taken with a pinch of salt, as anything can (including me).
 
kendo1 said:
We don't need to record images, sounds and writing, we choose to do so. Our existence does not depend on it.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, but without it we'd have no record of that existence, so we'd not be able to make any judgements about it.. so each generation would have to redefine themselves, and we'd have no historical measure of ourselves. It can also be argued that without our ability to record, we'd not actually have a civilisation at all.

kendo1 said:
Why single out History? why not present actions? - which become history...
Click to expand...


There you go....you've just answered your own question :)

kendo1 said:
I don't think history is crap (often), not least because it is written by the victors. Try telling that to IS :)
It can be taken with a pinch of salt, as anything can (including me).
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised at the different and subtle ways history is taught around the world. For example. Many Americans were brought up being taught that Word War II began in 1941. Not a massive difference in itself, but one that discounts a huge swathe of historical facts such as the German socialist party's rise to power, the annexing of Austria, and eventually Poland. The fact is there is no one history... instead, there are "histories". You think children in North Korea are taught the same history as you were?
 
Last edited:
Having read the debate between @Pookeyhead and @kendo1 I was stuck by the fact that I didn't understand the question. By "humanity" do we mean the human race (i.e. people) or do we mean the human condition (i.e. emotions, deeds, etc.) or do we mean some intersection of these things.

And, well, to probably get far to tied up in this, what does "defined by" mean. If someone climbs mount Everest they climbed it, whether or not there is a picture, however a lot of people would not believe it had been done unless there was some corroboration so do we tend to place greater weight on things we have seen and therefore pictures have greater weight in influencing people's views and so create some sort of definition?

I would say that writing in all it's forms is far more definitive and authoritative than images since all subjects from abstract art to psychology to physics need writing to record and convey them. Anyway Betteridge's law of headlines tells us that the answer is "no"! ;)
 
Pookeyhead said:
You'd be surprised at the different and subtle ways history is taught around the world.
Click to expand...
I doubt I would be surprised.
I've lived, not just visited, in several countries around the world, from here to Australia.
Thanks for taking part, Chris. I'll have to Google Betteridge :)
 
Betteridge law, any headline that ends with a question mark can be answered by the word no. Not sure where that come in
 
Imagine if all media was erased tomorrow. The huge number of things humanity would have to relearn from scratch. I don't think it's even questionable that society would struggle, civilisation as we know it would be in trouble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top