Susan Sontag's "On Photography" - DPChallenge Forums

01/11/2006 10:04:44 PM · #1

Anyone else read this, or part of it?

I've read bits and pieces of this book - the first thirty or so pages, as well as a few other parts I opened the book to. I was expecting a series of insightful treatises, but wound up being somewhat underwhelmed. There is some good material in there, but I think it's mostly contained in the first two pages, and a few other worthy tidbits sprinkled here and there. Otherwise, lots of unsupported generalizations, not helped by the fact that the advent of digital photography changed the way people understand photography in a big way.

Some of the interesting tidbits, thought-provoking, if not well-developed:

"Humankind lingers unregenerately in Plato's cave, still reveling, its age-old habit, in mere images of the truth. . . . In teaching us a new visual code, photographs alter and enlarge our notions of what is worth looking at and what we have a right to observe. They are a grammar and, even more importantly, an ethics of seeing."

"To collect photographs is to collect the world . . . Photographs really are experience captured, and the camera is the ideal arm of consciousness in its acquisitive mood."

"To photograph is to appropriate the thing photographed. It means putting oneself into a certain relation to the world that feels like knowledge--and, therefore, like power."

"Although there is a sense in which the camera does indeed capture reality, not just interpret it, photographs are as much an interpretation of the world as paintings or drawings are."

Interesting stuff.
But on the other side of that are questionable proclamations like these:

"There is an aggression implicit in every use of the camera."

"Taking photographs has set up a chronic voyeuristic relation to the world which levels the meaning of all events."

"The omnipresence of cameras persuasively suggests that time consists of interesting events, events worth photographing. This, in turn, makes it easy to feel that any event, once underway, and whatever its moral character, should be allowed to complete itself--so that something else can be brought into the world, the photograph."

"To photograph people is to violate them[.]"

"All photographs are memento mori."

"Nobody demands that photography be literate. Nobody can imagine how it could be authoritative. Nobody understands how anything, least of all a photograph, could be transcendent."

--

With that latter group of quotations, I think Sontag is just plain wrong, and at the very least, utterly unsupported in her assertions.

Care to discuss or add anything, anyone?

Damon

eschelar

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

01/11/2006 10:17:51 PM · #2

This seriously sounds like a lot of words used merely for the purpose of using a lot of words.

When I read it, I honestly feel that it reads like a load of purposeless philosophical crap about someone's feelings about photographs and has extremely little to do with photography itself. There is a time and place for that, but she ruins it by using overblown wordiness to create the illusion that her opinion is more valuable than an opinion.

I might tolerate this kind of topic in a chat, but if someone talked with wordiness like this, it would be a very short conversation.

example 'ethics in seeing'

What the heck is that supposed to mean? Seeing is a passive act. It happens whether you are looking or not. There can be no more ethic in seeing than there can be in breathing or hearing or.... Sounds interesting. Means nothing.

She puffed up her feelings with words so plentiful that she has obscured whatever usefulness and meaning she originally had.

I liked "To photograph is to appreciate the thing being photographed."

Indeed, this is true. Photographing things with intent and design allows me personally to slow down and move myself (either down or up) to the level of the subject. To see it in ways that allows me to understand it with new sensitivity that will not be forgotten. Sadly, only a shadow of the depth of this experience carries through to the viewer for many images.

Message edited by author 2006-01-11 22:22:46.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

01/11/2006 10:27:14 PM · #3

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Susan Sontag, in this book, is full of hot air. I found the book to be abysmally bad. Circular reasoning, unsupported conclusions masquerading as revelations, the whole 9 yards. Many good sound bites, very little actual substance, is my opinion.

Robt.

pawdrix

Nikon D700

01/11/2006 10:38:48 PM · #4

Susan Sontag's "On Photography"

DNMC!!!
(kidding)

Good, bad or indifferent, everyone should read it for whatever it's worth.

mycelium

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

01/11/2006 11:02:45 PM · #5

Originally posted by eschelar:

This seriously sounds like a lot of words used merely for the purpose of using a lot of words.

I pretty much think you're right-

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Susan Sontag, in this book, is full of hot air. I found the book to be abysmally bad. Circular reasoning, unsupported conclusions masquerading as revelations, the whole 9 yards. Many good sound bites, very little actual substance, is my opinion.

I agree with you, too, Robert-

The one good thing about sound bites etc. is that they can be useful as a starting point for real discussion. But as for the book itself, like I said, I was underwhelmed.

Originally posted by eschelar:

example 'ethics in seeing'

What the heck is that supposed to mean? Seeing is a passive act. It happens whether you are looking or not. There can be no more ethic in seeing than there can be in breathing or hearing or.... Sounds interesting. Means nothing.

I actually think that Sontag was saying something interesting here. What I think she meant by saying that photography provides us with an "ethics of seeing" is that photography has changed both the way we view the world and what we think about what we see.

The crucial difference between seeing and breathing or hearing is that seeing (or looking) is deliberate; you are always breathing and passively listening, but what it is that you point your eyes toward is something for which you can be held accountable.

I can never find pictures on this website when I want them - but by way of an example, think of any of the pictures of very poor people (e.g., goodman's "breadwinner"), homeless people, or disfigured people. Generally these people are considered to be on the margins of society, but we view them differently after they've been captured by the camera.

It's as if we're permitted to look at them now, once they've been dignified through the lens, in a way that we couldn't do without the camera, not just because the picture wouldn't be there, but because it's rude (i.e., unethical) to stare at people less fortunate than yourself. But the rules change when you have a camera with you.

eschelar

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

01/11/2006 11:18:15 PM · #6

Originally posted by mycelium:

Originally posted by eschelar:
example 'ethics in seeing'

What the heck is that supposed to mean? Seeing is a passive act. It happens whether you are looking or not. There can be no more ethic in seeing than there can be in breathing or hearing or.... Sounds interesting. Means nothing.

I actually think that Sontag was saying something interesting here. What I think she meant by saying that photography provides us with an "ethics of seeing" is that photography has changed both the way we view the world and what we think about what we see.

The crucial difference between seeing and breathing or hearing is that seeing (or looking) is deliberate; you are always breathing and passively listening, but what it is that you point your eyes toward is something for which you can be held accountable.

I can never find pictures on this website when I want them - but by way of an example, think of any of the pictures of very poor people (e.g., goodman's "breadwinner"), homeless people, or disfigured people. Generally these people are considered to be on the margins of society, but we view them differently after they've been captured by the camera.

It's as if we're permitted to look at them now, once they've been dignified through the lens, in a way that we couldn't do without the camera, not just because the picture wouldn't be there, but because it's rude (i.e., unethical) to stare at people less fortunate than yourself. But the rules change when you have a camera with you.

Yeah, that's kinda what I meant. Seeing is passive. Looking is active. I like the point, but I don't like the way she presents it.

You presented it far better the way you said it.

pawdrix

Nikon D700

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

01/12/2006 12:08:52 AM · #7

It's over analytical, wind-baggish and it continually begs the question but within the inflated sophism there are some genuine pearls worth thinking about. She dissects some interesting stuff up close, like Arbus for example, and made complete sense of her style to me. In all, worth the price of the book alone. I do agree with many of her ideas but not all.

It can be tiresome but I enjoyed what she had to say and years later she retracted many statements�.for what it�s worth.

You have to sift through the book but there�s some right honorable, original thinking there.

undieyatch

Olympus E-10

01/12/2006 02:38:44 AM · #8

I have kept the book in my library. It is not easy to like. Every criticism given here, is valid to some extent, but also one might reason the primary flaw may be because Sontag repudiated it herself, at least parts of it. That aspect does not really mean much though, Chaucer did the same. It is an academic essay, and regardless of the author's celebrity, I don't think On Photography was ever written for entertainment or to be liked. Sontag's historical and social analysis is the point of it. It is her essay, her opinion. But more than that, the value may or may not be for us her given conclusions, but rather her exploration of the massive catalogue of ideas in photography that she presents. For this, the book has value for me.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/12/2006 03:09:38 AM · #9

Originally posted by pawdrix:

The high point of the book, for sure, (at least IMO) is he discussion of Arbus, one of my favorite photographers. And she does make many ineteresting, thought-provoking points. But what a torturous read, and what a bundle of logical inconsistencies...

R.

e301

01/12/2006 03:18:06 AM · #10

"There is an aggression implicit in every use of the camera."

>> We 'shoot', we 'take' photographs. Even simply in its moments of recording goofy expressions and nailing our worst fashion choices to the history book, photography definitely has a certain level of aggression.

"Taking photographs has set up a chronic voyeuristic relation to the world which levels the meaning of all events."

>> Ever seen groups of tourists around a world-famous monument?

"The omnipresence of cameras persuasively suggests that time consists of interesting events, events worth photographing. This, in turn, makes it easy to feel that any event, once underway, and whatever its moral character, should be allowed to complete itself--so that something else can be brought into the world, the photograph."

>> I think nyou're right to doubt this one ;-)

"To photograph people is to violate them[.]"

>> Ever tried photographing people in the street?

"All photographs are memento mori."

>> How can this not be true? It borders on the banal, but I don't see how you can contend with it.

"Nobody demands that photography be literate. Nobody can imagine how it could be authoritative. Nobody understands how anything, least of all a photograph, could be transcendent."

>> Don't forget when it was written. However, I think it's still the case that most people would not regard photography as any kind of 'art' in the museum sense. My personal take on that is that 'art' is so rapidly disappearing up its own backside that we should all be quite glad about that.

e

gloda

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/12/2006 03:51:41 AM · #11

I agree with bear_ that it was tiresome to read. Maybe that's due to my lack of experience with this kind of text, but I think the points she made were often circled around for too long.
Nonetheless, I liked the book for allowing me to see photography in a more critical way. And of course for giving me the possibility to say 'No, this is not at all how it is, this is purely subjective' regarding some of her conclusions.

mycelium

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

01/12/2006 05:21:38 AM · #12

Originally posted by e301:

Right, and you can also talk about the 'loading' of film and the 'firing' of the shutter, and so on - but that's just borrowed terminology.

I wouldn't argue with someone who said that photography can be aggressive - one need look no further than paparazzi for that - but I don't think it's always there. If I'm taking a picture of a beautiful landscape, I don't feel like I'm aggressing anyone or anything.

Originally posted by e301:

"Taking photographs has set up a chronic voyeuristic relation to the world which levels the meaning of all events."

>> Ever seen groups of tourists around a world-famous monument?

Sure, and I see your point here (as well as Sontag's) - that all the world can be reduced to things at which you can point your camera. The tourists are then a case in point, for whom the mentality frequently appears to be "reach destination - take picture - keep walking."

Again, I'm not sure why the claim is universal. This can happen, but I don't think it always does. Also, Sontag's phrasing suggests to me that she didn't mean to limit her claim to photographers actively photographing. Is this "chronical voyeuristic relation to the world" still present if the tourist leaves his camera at home?

Originally posted by e301:

"To photograph people is to violate them[.]"

>> Ever tried photographing people in the street?

I see your point, and within the scope of what you say, I agree. I just don't think this is a valid equation, where [photographing people] == [violating people]. Am I violating my parents if I take a picture of them at their request?

Originally posted by e301:

"All photographs are memento mori."

>> How can this not be true? It borders on the banal, but I don't see how you can contend with it.

My most specific contention with it is that it sounds hyperbolic to me. Somewhere nearby in her book, Sontag calls photography an elegiac mode of expression; I think this is nearer the mark. Photographs do "save things for later," and as such romanticize their subject matter, but to me this does not make all photographs reminders of mortality.

Pictures of myself when young, of my parents, of things long past: these are memento mori. That's not an exhaustive list, of course, though I think exceptions are easy enough to find. Are abstract photographs memento mori?

In any case, thank you (all) for the good discussion!

BobsterLobster

Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro

01/12/2006 05:23:39 AM · #13

Originally posted by eschelar:

She's an academic, and most other academics dealing with photography constantly refer to this book. Your post I quoted reminds me of what I feel about academia in general when it's applied to the arts. I can't stand it.

dahkota

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

01/12/2006 07:38:42 AM · #14

actually, its the other way around. Looking is passive and seeing is active. And as far as the quote goes, you choose what you see. You may look at everything, but you choose what to see (as in can't see the forest for the trees... ;))

At any rate, since I haven't read the book and only have the snippet "ethics of seeing" I can only give my best guess.

Your self, your identity, your experience, all limit your seeing. That is why some people notice things others don't. Just a fact of life, not good or bad.

A camera further controls what you see and how you see it. Nothing bad or good in that, just a fact.

Put the two together and you can come up with an "ethic of seeing." Ask any photojournalist.

As for the "aggression implicit in every use of the camera," I agree. You control what you take the moment you take it and even more when you edit it to be what you want. You pick and choose what is worthy of shooting, how it will look, what it will mean or represent. Photography is aggressive in that sense.

Man_Called_Horse

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

01/12/2006 07:46:14 AM · #15

Yeah, I have not read Ms. Sontags stuff, but there is one thing that I do agree with is that the camera is power.

In the industry that I am about to go to this very early morning, when on location, especially in small town America, the camera is truly powerful.

No, I don't mean that laser beams come out of it and whole communitys are leveled. What I mean is that when a company comes to town, and all the crew is doing their thing, the location that we are in, that town,place, area, section is ours.

We basically have cinematic immunity. We basically can do almost anything (except in LA). I can't tell you how many things I have bought at discount in a small town somewhere, just because I had my tool belt, radio, headset, and everyone knew I was on the film crew.

I feel quilty.

pawdrix

Nikon D700

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

01/12/2006 08:15:18 AM · #16

Even with all the negatives, very well stated in this thread, I still strongly believe it's a must read if you take pictures.

Not always a joy but she pokes around some interesting territory...philosophically, historically and technically.

Whether you agree with her or not it's without question, one of the most thought provoking reads on Photography around.

Message edited by author 2006-01-12 13:04:42.

gloda

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/12/2006 11:33:42 AM · #17

Originally posted by mycelium:

Pictures of myself when young, of my parents, of things long past: these are memento mori. That's not an exhaustive list, of course, though I think exceptions are easy enough to find. Are abstract photographs memento mori?

You're right about abstract photography. Could you give some examples of other realms of photography where the results are not memento moris, please?

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/12/2006 11:49:55 AM · #18

Memento mori is literally a "remidner of death", of mortality. In an artistic sense, the term most often refers to an aspect of the work of the great still-life painters of old; if you look closely, you will see that virtually every still life of the Dutch School, for example, includes at least one dead object. Classically, a memento mori in art is the inclusion of such a reminder within the larger image.

Sontag, clearly, is working on a larger definition. She's saying that "every photograph is a reminder of our own mortality". Speaking of portraits, for on example, I can see exactly what she means; you only need to be 60 years old looking at an image of yourself as a child, with your family perhaps, to get a frisson of impending, inevitable death. Especially if some of the group already are dead.

I'm not sure I'd agree with her in the sense that a classic landscape, say, is a memento mori. And to be fair, I'm not sure that was her point; she may be referring specifically to images of people, it's been some years since I read the book and my copy is in California.

Robt.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

01/12/2006 12:34:14 PM · #19

Originally posted by dahkota:

actually, its the other way around. Looking is passive and seeing is active. And as far as the quote goes, you choose what you see. You may look at everything, but you choose what to see (as in can't see the forest for the trees... ;)) ...

Your self, your identity, your experience, all limit your seeing. That is why some people notice things others don't. Just a fact of life, not good or bad.

A camera further controls what you see and how you see it. Nothing bad or good in that, just a fact.

Put the two together and you can come up with an "ethic of seeing." Ask any photojournalist.

As for the "aggression implicit in every use of the camera," I agree. You control what you take the moment you take it and even more when you edit it to be what you want. You pick and choose what is worthy of shooting, how it will look, what it will mean or represent. Photography is aggressive in that sense.

Yes, although...

I do not believe we can determine meaning. What is meaning? If it is that which exists through itself, it is simply that which we come away with at any one time, if then we do.

Except for the most obvious photojournalistic image, the gists and piths work in all manner of ways on all manner of people, singular or plural. Meaning, then, even for me or you remains subjected to time, space and circumstances out of our control.

And that, to me, is the beauty of it. It is an adaptable constant, despite and because of its changeability.

colema19

Canon EOS-20D

01/12/2006 01:43:48 PM · #20

Interesting...is this the same author that wrote Larry the Cable Guy's book?

eschelar

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

01/12/2006 02:04:12 PM · #21

Dahkota. I'm not trying to argue, but I really do think that seeing is a passive act in that whatever hits your eyes when they are open, you see. In fact, you can also be made to "see" things without seeing them at all. If I say "polar bears" and "Coca Cola", you probably "see" something in your mind's eye.

In that it is involuntary, it becomes passive.

Looking requires an action, like looking into a box, looking at someone. I can stare off into space and see someone walking around, but they won't feel that I am active unless I am looking at them.

Now having said that, I was actually thinking about that later.

We also use the word "see" in reference to a choice. However, choosing to see something is perhaps a different meaning than what is usually meant by the word see.

I see a woman in a red dress, another may see her shoes. You yourself may see something in her eyes. What do you really see?

This usage of "see" is defined by the choices you make. It is more closely related to "noticing" something. To notice something is to take particular interest in something (active). However, even though there is a choice here to "look" deeper at a subject, what you see compared to what I see in the above case of the woman in the red dress is actually describing a facet of the overall "seen" scene, a facet that takes your notice due to your mental inclination and perspective. This is passive because your attention is either led by the picture or by your personal circumstances and sensitivities. This may further cause you to look longer and closer.

You may not agree with that definition, and that's ok too.

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

01/12/2006 02:13:05 PM · #22

Originally posted by eschelar:

I'm with Dahkota, but it's a squirrely semantic debate. You "look" out the window, but what do you "see"? I may see that the grass needs mowing, you may see the bird in the tree at the edge of the lawn.

Richard Avedon said "The art of seeing is the beginning of art"; we can look at a thing all we want, but until we learn to see it we are captive to our preconceptions.

We both look at a rock; you see the rock, I see the light. In the artistic sense, which is how Sontag uses the word, seeing is a higher order of looking. In a more generic sense, we "see" all the time, and often passively, which is eschelar's point, until we choose to "look" more closely. But in the artist's world, people are divided between lookers and seers; the seer goes deeper than the looker does. To look is to direct one's attention, to see is to perceive the essence of what one's attention is directed at.

Robt.

Message edited by author 2006-01-12 14:14:27.

graphicfunk

Canon EOS-20D

01/12/2006 02:28:28 PM · #23

This very thread demonstrates the unsurmountable task of defining perception. We can only employ ours to evaluate or appreciate anything but even then we note internal changes and recalibration. What we did not see yesterdat we see today. More ephemeral than permanent.

Methinks I am exuding the same hot air as S. Sontag. lol

Message edited by author 2006-01-12 14:29:09.