This is the title to a journal article of the same name by Snyder and Allen. Since photography was invented there has been continuous enquiry in to what it is all about. I have my own view that this enquiry will never end. The key question that is posed is what is the relationship between photography, a photograph and reality? As reality is something we experience but has never been satisfactorily explained it is difficult to know if there can be any meaningful relationship with it. Philosophers gave up trying to explain reality, scientists have barely scratched the surface and for all it is now a language and ontological game that will never end. As such the discipline of Photography is a castle built on sand.
There needs to be a base from which we can all discuss our discipline. So exploring the question is valuable. At the start in 1889 Peter Henry Emerson ‘set down his prescriptions for photographers in a pamphlet entitled Naturalistic Photography for Students of Art.’ ‘Emerson assumes that photographs are first and foremost pictures, and that like other pictures they may serve to provide information”scientific division”) or to provide aesthetic pleasure (the “art division”). The aim of the artistic photographer is not different from the aim of the artist in other media such as oil painting or charcoal; for Emerson, this aim is “naturalistic” representation. By naturalism, Emerson meant the
artist in other media such as oil painting or charcoal; for Emerson, this aim is “naturalistic” representation. By naturalism, Emerson meant the
representation of a scene in such a way as to be, as much as possible, identical with the visual impression an observer would get at the actual
representation of a scene in such a way as to be, as much as possible, identical with the visual impression an observer would get at the actual
spot from which the photograph was made. Thus, much of his argument
identical with the visual impression an observer would get at the actual
spot from which the photograph was made.’ (Snyder/Allen, 144).
I am interested in the difficulty we as human beings have coping with ‘the whole’. This idea is too complex for us to grasp as is the idea of there being no beginning or no end. To simplify it we break it down in to manageable chunks and then get deeply stressed when the chunks do not fit together to represent the whole. So with Emerson science and art helps him understand the important distinctions in 1889.
Rudolf Arnhein in 1932 based his argument squarely on the “mechanical” origin of photographic images. “All I have said derives ultimately from the fundamental peculiarity of the photographic medium: the physical objects themselves print their image by means of the optical and chemical action of light” (p. 155). He goes on to say that the causal creation of the photographic image performed upon physical reality gives them ‘an authenticity from which painting is barred by birth.”
Snyder and Allen discuss the photofinish for a horse race as being ‘an accurate characterisation of the order in which the horses finish…but the way the picture is made has little to do with the way we normally interpret it…….what the photograph actually manifests is far from what we take ‘physical reality’ to be.’
Photography is continuously struggling to justify its place by reference to its difference to art. Snyder and Allen put it ‘negative definitions in order to establish what is peculiarly photographic about photography by contrast with what is truly artistic about art.’
As I read further I am interested in taking the starting hypothesis that photography is the process by which we have the best chance of capturing some form of what we think of as reality. Let’s get rid of art as a reference as it clearly is an interpretation of reality….iconic and symbolic but certainly not indexical. Then let us ask the question is there a better mechanism than photography. I think not.
Reference
Snyder, J./Allen, N. Photography, Vision and Representation.
Categories: Coursework IC, Informing Contexts