I was thinking..
"Many books are just too superficial in my opinion. They do not feel “necessary” other than seemingly to fill a void in some person’s ego or desire to be noticed. A lot of photographers – and this is not limited by any means to the younger ones — seem to have a few interesting photos under their belt and then think they’ll make a book, so they just repeat themselves 47 more times and there you have it."
I was thinking..
"Now, none of these photographs, all too skillful, touches us. This is because, as we look at them, we are in each case dispossessed of our judgment; someone has shuddered for us, reflected for us, judged for us; the photographer has left us nothing –– except a simple right of intellectual acquiescence… . We can no longer inventour own reception of this synthetic nourishment, already perfectly assimilated by its creator." R. Barthes "Mythologies"
I guess that’s the main reason why I dislike most of the photoblogs. Actually, most of the photographs. It is skillful, reasonable and well made, and that’s the problem, because it’s just boring. But I would say the same about most of my own photos (even though some of them I really like). I’d say ok, if this kind of photography would be interesting only for those who are producing it (because of the personal relation), but it does look like many people are enjoying it. Is it because of physical reasons (how body reacts to images) or does it depend on social reality/visual culture?
I was thinking..
"The medium is not under the control of the photographer, any more than what “was there” is. The image that appears on photographic paper is never simply reducible to a man-made image, but is an irreversible recording of what “was there” before the camera, what is nonnegotiable, what in itself and by itself has impressed its stamp upon the emulsion. The object of photography, present in the world of experience, imprints an image on the emulsion that –– although the hand of the photographer certainly interferes by adjusting the lens, opening/closing the shutter, setting the frame, and so on –– always contains an element that exceeds the world of experience, thus exceeding any interference. What we see in the photo was made by someone from a particular viewpoint. It is the outcome of focus, excision, and framing. Yet the image maintains a direct connection with the depicted object, because it was written by the object’s own reflected light, by its aura. The secularization of photography, therefore, was accompanied by the creation of its transcendent standing." A. Azoulay in "The Civil Contract of Photography"
I believe it would be true it there were no digital photography. Post production is a tool that enables to change, distort, skew and transform that “reflected light/aura” into anything (pixel doesn’t care about the representation). The act of transforming depends on photographer or retoucher. In that case he/she is fully responsible for the “was there” fact. You could add additional player to the civil contract of photography (in addition to phorographer, viewer and the photographed-one), but contract doesn’t work there unless he/she imposes it. It doesn’t work because it is impossible to agree upon litimations of technology which is a matter of taste/ideology/style. Retouching is not part of common agreement, it “belongs” to the individual. Of course, individuals are retouching according to common practice, skills or programs, but there are new ways that are always searched for to transform that pixel. And there is one more reason, why I doubt the contract: retouching doesn’t depend on that time and space of the act of photogtaphy, it means the photographed-one can not know when and where the photograph is going to be retouched, and the retoucher can not-knowingly retouch an image from any place and any time.
Alchemija LXII. Humanitarinė taika
[Lithuanian only] Alchemija tai Ryčio Zemkausko laida, šįkart apie propagandą. Lengvam žiūrėjimui arba diskusijos pradžiai, nes nuklysti nuo išsakytų minčių yra kur.
Hito Steyerl | Politics of Post-Representation
I didn’t read anything written by Hito Steyerl, but this article encourages me to. Mainly because the topics are related to technology, identity, power and representation. Somehow I think that these are the things you have to grasp if you want to feel comfortable in future reality.
Light Leaked: "What’s going on with Photography" By Carl Gunhouse
"The art world has become so widely dispersed that there can no longer be a king maker, a namer of things like Clement Greenberg. Platforms to talk about and see art are so numerous and accessible it is no longer so much a back and forth of competing ideas as a number of people speaking at the same time, so it is nearly impossible for any one idea to gain traction, creating an environment where Ethridge and Soth never had to compete for the same wall space or even the same eyes."
Although it’s not news, but it illustrates perfectly the change that is currently revealing itself. Social reality borders are changing. It looks like it will be more dependent on different values, not on nationality, race, economics even rationality, time or space. If nowadays most of the people are living in more or less real social bubble (a place, where everybody are similar in one or other way), in the future these bubbles should be interest or values related, and i recon, internet will be very helpful in this case. hm, it sounds like a micro version of the notion of ideology..