The article is about "photographic discourse" and the different interpretations, or contexts, that can be applied to any particular photographic image.
Sekula refutes the myth that the photograph is a universal and independent language or sign system, referencing Herskovits and the Bush woman, the woman who never having seen a photograph before is unable to relate to piece of paper and equally unable to make sense of the 'grey scale' and interpret it as a picture (likeness) of her son. Having said that, once the photograph has been explained she can then see her son. This is an extreme example to use to demonstrate the point that photography is not universal and is not independent.
In 2013, I would suggest that photography is more universal; I am remembering my holiday to Tunisia and a tour we made to the hills to see the troglodytes living in 'houses' carved out of the cliffs, all of these houses had satellite TV; and whilst I appreciate that not all locations on the planet have this level of exposure to digital media, I do believe that this type of communication is infinitely more universal today.
Referring back to the definition of 'discourse' utilised by Sekula as "a system of relations between parties engaged in communicative activity" and accepting that the photograph is now more universal in format and presentation, does it make this form of communication any more independent? If by 'independent' we mean easy to read and fully understand - especially in terms of context, then I would say that in the majority of situations the photograph will never be independent. Regardless of socio-economic background and familiarity to digital media, no single individual will ever be able to pick up every photograph and understand its meaning or context. Simply put, the contents of a photograph will only be understood by a person already familiar with that information; similarly, the context and meaning of a particular image will only be understood by a person already familiar with that information.
By way of explanation, Sekula references the crime photographs of Weegee ("primitive freelance journalist" for the Daily News, New York) the first murder victim is the most shocking to see, after a period of time one murder just blends into the next and the next and the next. Are these images easy to read? A dead body in the street, (possibly) blood on the pavement, police at the scene; therefore (probably) a violent death and probably murder. So easy to read - yes. Are these images easy to put into context? Without further information, it is just a picture is just a dead body, therefore, no the images are not easy to read and understand.
The crux of the matter is the myth that there is a clear cut distinction between symbolism and realism, or in photography terms - art photography and documentary photography. Sekula believes that any photograph, depending upon the knowledge relating to the photograph, can slide up and down the symbolic/realistic scale. The article documents the relationship between photography and high art. Here Sekula uses two specific images to debate this subject: -
Immigrants Going Down Gangplank by Lewis Hine
Hine used his images to drive, force changes in the law regarding child labour laws - his actions and behaviours were straight forward and clearly politically motivated. His photography was pivotal to the success of the reforms he championed. His images recorded the situation.
The Steerage by Alfred Stieglitz
Stieglitz was an introvert and much more reflective, more of an observer. His images were a metaphor for how he felt about himself (emotionally) and about his current situation. He related to the world via his art.
These two photographs are virtually identical in contents but the principle difference (accepting photographers style) is their reason for being, that is, political motivation versus art. Regardless of whatever other inferences have been made about the images then or since, any signs or symbolism present only the possibility of meaning, not actual meaning. Until the photographs are embedded in the appropriate 'concrete' discourse any number of meanings or 'texts' can be applied.
Sekula summaries his article with a list of comparisons in approach:
Photographer as seer v's Photographer as witness
Photographer as expression v's Photographer as reportage
Theories of imagination v's Theories of empirical truth
Affective value v's Informative value
Metaphoric signification v's Metonymic signification
No comments:
Post a Comment