The myth of objectivity (part 2)

Exercise 6 – the myth of objectivity

Write a 250-word reflective commentary on the quotes (below) by Andre Bazin and Allan Sekula; briefly compare their respective positions and record your own view on the issue of photographic objectivity.

André Bazin, quote from ‘The Ontology of the Photographic Image’ (published ~1945)

“For the first time, between the originating object and its reproduction there intervenes only the instrumentality of a non-living agent. For the first time an image of the world is formed automatically, without the creative intervention of man…in spite of any objections our critical spirit may offer, we are forced to accept as real the existence of the object reproduced, actually, re-presented…"

Allan Sekula, quote from ‘On the Invention of Photographic Meaning’ (published ~1975)

“If we accept the fundamental premise that information is the outcome of a culturally determined relationship, then we can no longer ascribe an intrinsic or universal meaning to the photographic image"

So finally, my reflections on the myth of photographic objectivity.

Let’s position Bazin by quoting further from this article:

“Photography and the cinema […] are discoveries that satisfy, once and for all and in its very essence, our obsession with realism. No matter how skillful the painter, his work is always in fee to an inescapable subjectivity. The essential factor in the transition to photography […] is the psychological fact that [the image is created by means of] a mechanical reproduction, the making of which [is real because] man plays no part.”

Similarly, let’s use Sekula’s article further:

“All photographic communication seems to take place within the conditions of a kind of binary folklore, […] there is a ‘symbolist’ folk-myth and a ‘realist’folk-myth.”

Sekula summarises this as the perceived divide of photography into two art-camps–high-art verses documentary; the first is done for ones-self (the artist), the second is done for the good of community. Sekula does not fully subscribe to this divide, believing that high-art and documentary are two ends of the same spectrum and that any time during its existence (and depending upon the associated knowledge) the photograph can ‘slide’ up and down this scale. Accepting this philosophy, I find myself supporting Sekula's view that the photographer has complete subjective control over the image.

Obviously, Bazin holds the opposing view, hence his article and the age-old debate he created about objectivity. Crucial to understanding Bazin’s position is the date of the article, written approximately 30 years before Sekula’s and as such a world of development and understanding apart. If Bazin was alive today, I believe he would have a very different view regarding objectivity, but not about the ability of photography “in its power to lay bare the realities” of the scene.