Alexandra Giroux

Photography has become a fixture in society. This process of recording pictures was invented in 1830 and has been developed more and more each day, from the daguerreotype and the collotype to the current digital file. The etymology of the word is “drawing with light”. At first sight, photographs seem to be an objective and neutral record of reality. But it is more: under the denotation – the non coded iconic message, we should consider the connotation – the coded iconic message, and the influence of photography on different groups. As Bolton (1992, p.XI) stresses, this medium contributes simultaneously to the domination and the liberation of the social life. But what is the power of photography? And did people destroyed its potential as an own medium? We will critically evaluate the state that the reception of both chemical and digital technology has been “bungled”. First we will point out the weaknesses of the reception of photography, arguing that it was a mess. Then, we will turn on the strengths of this technology, to show that finally, it was a success.

To begin, we can agree that in a way, the reception of both chemical and digital photographic technology has been messed up. According to Benjamin (1932), photography has been corrupted and ruined by generations. Before photography, the only means to reproduce nature was painting, unique artworks done by artists. Most of the time, the aim of theses paintings were to reproduce the reality, that is why some of them have used photography to achieve their goals much more easily. With the arrival of photography as a new medium, art was redefined because photography is not usurpation or a copy of painting. During the last few years, new forms of art have become more and more conceptual. But the danger is that art would become nothing more than ideas, signs, allusions or concepts. Baudrillard (1997, p.16) defends art, instead of the idea of art: “The bottle rack of Duchamp is an idea; the Campbell’s box by Warhol in an idea; Yves Klein selling air for a blank cheque in a gallery, this is an idea”. But the images, whatever they are, are neither the truth, nor the reality, as the story of Plato’s cave shows: shadows on a wall are not real. Karl Feuerbach states in The Essence of Christianity (1843, quoted in Sontag, 1979) that today, we prefer the image to the thing, the copy to the original, the representation to the reality, appearance to being.  It is only a representation of an idea and not the idea itself. The status of truth in photography is related to the problem of its realism and realism is a cultural convention. We decode photographs by having a look at what is present in the image itself, trying to locate its various signs and meanings. Photography does not always serve noble interests because sometimes, using it is only seen as a social rite, a defence against anxiety or a tool of power.

The technique of photography had also been spoiled through incompetence. Benjamin (1932) states that because of mechanical reproduction and ready made art, photography loses its aura – a religious word referring to the auratic qualities of icons. Lost in the flow of images, nothing impresses us anymore. Reproduction is really easy and becomes more and more thanks to digital photography. We make pictures, we consume them and we though need still more of it. Sontag (1979, p.24) explains: “Industrial societies turn their citizens into image-junkies – it is the mot irresistible form of mental pollution”. The more photography penetrates society, the less impact and value it has, according to Benjamin (1932). So, is photography a cheap object or can we confer to it some aura, some energy field? Aura may be related with time because when we see pictures of the time, we feel sometimes nostalgic. But do we really abolish beauty by generalizing it? And how can we trust what we see? One of the particularities of photography is indexicality, which is the traces which exist under the camera and is a part of the medium photography. But, as Büchler (2000, p.21) states, “to reflect is both to show and to hide”. Thanks to the chemical process of chemical photography, we can point to the negative but is it a proof that what we see is true? It is not complicated to deceive or to manipulate people and the fakery detection is difficult, moreover with the digital photography where each pixel can be easily changed. We should not trust all the images because trick effects utilize the special credibility of the photograph, “this [...] being simply its exceptional power of denotation” as stressed Roland Barthes (1993, p.200). Sometimes, fake photographs have been used to change the past, e.g. the photography of Lenin where Trotsky has been removed. It is also true today, for example when the photography of O.J. Simpson was manipulated on the cover of Time: the face of the men is darker and thus more mystic and scary.

Photography had sometimes morally acted ineptly, from blaspheme to propaganda. Its use could be considered as a chronic voyeuristic relation to the world and as an implicit aggression as show some documents: fashion, animal photography, advertisements, gutter press and so on. What about the photographers who decide to take a picture instead of helping the people, as we can see in some war photographs? We can as well highlight that pornography is the reflection of the male domination, as women are observed through men eyes. In our atomized society, where alienation prevails, human beings become commodities: we call that “objectification” or “reification”. The human labour is transformed in a commodity-labour. Because of commercial interests, photography has been degraded and ruined. As Law (2007) notices, “too often [...], the social and cultural reception of technology is ‘bungled’, distorted by the concentrated possession of material and intellectual resources in private hands”. When it is commercialised, it changes the nature of the picture. Everybody knows the face of Che Guevara because it has been printed on posters, t-shirts or cups. But who is able to talk about the Cuban revolution? Probably just a few people. So, does photography advance knowledge? What is the relationship between literacy and photography in the mass media? What should we think about the program “No comment”, on the channel Euronews, where images are displayed without any comment? In our visual culture, ideology is constructed. And sometimes, photography could lead to stereotypes. Edwards (2007, p.25) mentions a photography of a Malayan person, which could be seen as anthropologist but who finally generated a pseudo science of racism. Photography allows doing categories and categories can be dangerous clichés. So, this leaves the question of what we are supposed to believe: the truth claim or the scepticism.
On the other hand, we can state that the reception of photographic technology has been succeeded. First of all, photography was a great opportunity for a wide range of artists to express themselves. One of them, Man Ray, stated: “I photograph what I do not wish to paint and I paint what I cannot photograph”, pointing out that photography is an autonomous media, not a pale copy. Benjamin (1932, p.517), in his essay A Short History of Photography, refers to Recht’s metaphor of the music: “Drawing and colouring, for the painter, correspond to the violinists production of sound, the photographer, like the pianist, has the advantage of a mechanical device that is subject to restrictive laws, whilst the violinist is under no such restraint”. But does mechanical reproduction destroy the aura? Not necessary because it is more a qualitative than a quantitative issue. We can appreciate a photograph from the beginning of the century because it is nostalgic and we do not have in mind that it may have been reproduced a lot of times. Moreover, photography is a part of new forms of art: it allows immortalizing artworks such as Christo’s installations or Richard Long’s land art. If sometimes art photography is a bungle, it may more concern the content of the picture than the technical process. That is why education plays an important part in the construction of our gaze.

Then, photography, which is in part an objective record of reality, was a revolution in the production of documents. In his book Photography: A Very Short Introduction, Edwards points out the dichotomy between art and documentary modes of photographic practice. The value of documents is inestimable for meteorologists, coroners or archaeologists. It this helps to develop knowledge and understanding of the world and to create social order. Benjamin (1932) highlights the concept of optical consciousness: the hidden, the micro, the macro – all appear to human eye thanks to this new technology. Eadweard Muybridge, pioneer photographer of the moving image, brought a lot to scientific knowledge, by photographing each fraction of second of a running horse. Photography changes our perception of every day by showing things we had never seen before. Perfect reproduction has allowed scientific groups to understand how was moving the animal, something that has never been shown. Mass production helps the dissemination of the information and knowledge: this is simply called “democratisation”. More generally, photographs are reliable and objective documents which are really useful in scientific, historic or even social fields. Photography creates social bounds between people as well. Sometimes, people know each other and they share pictures because they are relatives or because they have the same passion for taking pictures. But sometimes, the photographer and the viewer do not know each other. This is the strength of photography. A picture from a newspaper or and poster can have an important effect on the crowd. It could for instance sensitize people to some social problems such as famine, poverty or illness. If people are more aware of how the others live, then we can attest that the reception of photography has been a success.

One of the other functions of the photography is also to record. Currently, the State uses photographs in a myriad ways, from ID card to passports, not to mention driving licenses. The aim of this record is to identify the people, to confirm that they are who they pretend to be and thus to be able to control them. Thanks to digital photography, the storage and the circulation are even easier. That was not the case when we only had paintings or memory as tools. Photographs are as well a way to build up a narrative story, the personal memory being part of the collective memory. Currently, our family albums are stocked on electronic devices. Even if these digital mounts are fragile, each of us is now able to cheat death, memorializing important events and every day life. Holmes (quoted in Edwards, 2007, 88) described photography as a “mirror with a memory”. The benefits for the future are not negligible. The fixed picture is a testimony of the past, a frozen reflexion in time, which establishes connection across time and space. But photography, instead of Greek statues, is perishable. Chemical photography grows old with time. Digital photography is not more reliable: we need a computer with a specific device if we want to read a picture stored on a floppy disk.

To sum up, even though it has often been argued that the reception of photography has been messed up, it has been a success as well. The link of photography with the paint, the appropriation of its technique of reproduction ant its moral consequences were sometimes problematic. Nevertheless, photography has allowed some people to express themselves through this medium, in art, and to share knowledge with others, by producing documents. This is the magic act of recording. Dealing with photography is considering the role of iconoclasts – the ones who destroy the images and are determined enemies of idol worship – and the role of iconolaters – the ones who worships images. We can consider that iconolaters have been stronger than iconoclasts, which is a testimony of the power of images. Today, it is hard to imagine our society without photography. This is a huge march because photography is a kind of democratisation, as experiences could be translated into images. Do we have to believe in technical determinism or in other words that social progress is driven by technological innovation? Even if we do not, we cannot forget that photography is the reflection of the society and helps to have a better understanding of it.

References:
Alvarado, Manuel; Buscombe, Edward; Collins, Richard; (2000); Representation and Photography: A screen education reader; Palgrave Macmillan
Barthes, Roland; (1993); A Roland Barthes Reader; Vintage edition
Benjamin, Walter; (1932); “A Short History of Photography”; in Selected Writings 2
Bolton, Richard; (1989); The Contest of Meaning: Critical Histories of Photography, Cambridge, Mass.; London: MIT Press
Büchler, Pavel(2000); Ghost Stories; Pavel Bücher and Proboscis
Edwards, Steve; (2007); Photography: A Very Short Introduction; Oxford University Press
Law, Alex; (2007); Digital Bungling: Realism in an Unreal World; [online]; Available from: http://www.variant.randomstate.org/30texts/ALaw.html [Accessed 28 October 2007]
Sontag, Susan; (1979); On Photography; Penguin Books
Zurbrugg Nicholas; (1997); Jean Baudrillard, art and artefact; Sage publications