Transparent Pictures by Kendall L Walton (part 3)

Continuing on...

I believe Walton's ideas about transparency can be discussed using these two extracts:

1. "[...] photography is a supremely realistic medium [...]" 
2. "Dissenters note how unlike reality a photograph is and how unlikely we are to confused one with the other."

Simply, Walton theory is "because a photograph is created by a mechanical process, 'people' believe it tells the truth without skew or influence inferred by the photographer". Herein lies the lack of transparency misunderstood by the layperson. Adding weight to his theory, he introduces statements from photographers who understand how open to interpretation and influence photographs are and utilise this freedom to create their pictures.

To clarify, Walton accepts that art (painting) could be perceived to be very realistic but is understood by the viewer to be 'art' and therefore not expected to tell the 'truth' - it can legitimately be the artists 'take' on the truth.

Walton then pushes further claiming that because of the realism of photography; regardless of subject matter e.g. unicorns; the viewer is conned, confused and deluded into believing that they are seeing not a photograph, but the real thing.

So, as to my views...

I agree with Walton that there is a transparency 'issue' and a lack of understanding (generally) regarding the ability of a photograph/photographer to skew the truth. I also agree with Walton's claim that "we see, quite literally, our dead relatives themselves" in photographs.

However, I cannot subscribe to his philosophical debate about the confusion people suffer regarding seeing the object rather than the image of the object. When I look at my ancestors, I see a realistic likeness of my ancestors; similarly, when I see myself, I see my likeness. I do not believe that hold my ancestors, or myself, or my dog or my house in my hand. Nor do I believe that the photograph captured anything other than a fleeting moment in time - I don't believe that my ancestor is still sitting in the chair or that my dog is still on his walk.

I believe, Walton like many other philosophers, likes to manipulate and twist the words of others; and also stretch and modify the definition of words; to enable and create debate. QED: "Photographs are transparent. We see the world through them." Also see "Photographic Pictures" ref: Walton's comments on words used by Roger Scruton regarding photographs and representation.

Finally...

Attached is a photograph of my scribbled notes on my copy of Walton's paper about transparent pictures. My copy still looks like this, covered with blue ink and highlighted in green marker, however, it's no longer strewn across my desk, it's neatly collected and inserted into my OCA file. That's my OCA file, it's just to the left of the paper you can just make out the 'A', interestingly enough it's in exactly the same position now... Or is it?

My scribbled thoughts and questions about Walton's theories and questions.



Transparent Pictures by Kendall L Walton (part 2)

Continuing on...

What about Kendall L Walton the man?

Kendall Lewis Walton (1939) is an American philosopher, holding professorships in Philosophy at Charles Stevenson Collegiate and Art and Design at the University of Michigan.

Walton's significant contribution to philosophy is his theory of representation and is detailed in his book "Mimesis as Make-Believe: On the Foundations of the Representational Arts" first published in 1990. His theory, also known as the make-believe theory, looks to explain the nature and varieties of representation in the arts.

He has also written extensively about: photography as transparent; pictorial representation; fiction and aesthetics.

His CV is 13 pages long and makes for very interesting reading.

He was awarded an honorary degree 'Doctor of Letters' by the University of Nottingham, UK in 2005.

Transparent Pictures by Kendall L Walton (part 1)

Exercise 2 - read the first three sections of the essay "Transparent Picture: On the Nature of Photographic Realism" by Kendall L Walton and write a 200 word reflective commentary outlining your views about Walton's idea of photographic transparency.

I started reading the paper by Walton and I have to admit to being far from impressed. I think my scribbled notes at the end of section three sum it up - "total and utter unadulterated rubbish, academic piffle at its consummate best!" (This is the censored version for publication.)

In my defence I had 'trudged' all the way through these sections, getting more and more frustrated by the paragraph, then coming to his final comment "We now have uncovered a major source of the confusion which infects the writings about photography and film..."

Again from my scribbled notes "I dispute the use of the word 'uncovered'; I would respectfully suggest the sentence should read as follows: We now have deliberately created a major source of the confusion which infects the writings about photography and film... -  thus enabling philosophers and academics to waffle on about something for years.

At this point I decided the only way to approach this exercise was to systematically dissect the paper paragraph-by-paragraph in the hope that I could write something that was semi-balanced.

At the end of my dissection, I'd written over 2,500 words and in all honesty it wasn't that balanced! So, time to put the work away and go and do something else...

Miranda Gavin on documentary photograph

Exercise 1 - listen to Miranda Gavin (editor of HOTshoe Magazine) talking about documentary photography and write a 200 word reflective commentary setting out your reactions to Gavin's viewpoints.

My first reaction was surprise that there were so many categories, and subcategories, into which photography was divided. Picking out the salient divisions mentioned by Gavin, namely: photojournalism, documentary and reportage - I had to go away and actually think about what each word/area/division meant (if anything) to me.

 After a quick brainstorm, I came up with the following definitions:

Photojournalism: -

Ø         Immediate - get in, get the image, get out...

Ø         Focused on or specific to a particular event, or part thereof

Ø         Often sensationalised, biased and superficial

Ø         Potentially (frequently) untrue

Ø         Designed to sell a story as dictated by the editor.

Documentary: -

Ø         Extended, possibly ongoing, time frame - days, weeks, months...

Ø         More rounded (holistic) in the information presented about the event - including background and credible references

Ø         Creation of a balanced view (all sides and angles) of the event

Ø         An accurate account of the situation

Ø         Designed to tell the story using the voice of the people involved.

Reportage: -

Sits somewhere in between the first two - a bit more time and a bit more depth; less sensationalism and less bias; a little bit less the voice of the media and a little bit more the voice of the subjects...

Subsequent to some trawling of the web and discussions with 'colleagues' it would appear, that whilst I have a somewhat negative view of journalists, my basic definitions are correct.

So back to my reaction to Gavin's viewpoint:

I find it interesting, but unsurprising, that these 'historic' labels are becoming inadequate to describe the work currently being created by a new generation of artists. What I did find very surprising, was that emerging artists were choosing a label and thus pigeonhole themselves with these terms. Especially so because technology advances and photography as a digital medium, will and must continue to change, develop and adapt. We are already saturated with images of varying degrees of quality covering every conceivable topic; as a result photographers will have to modify their existing practises and style to stand out in this crowd.

As Gavin states in the interview, "these topics have been covered before, so people are having to look at new ways to show them" and the resultant images created overlap the boundaries of these definitions because "they are too rigid to reflect what's actually happening". The only way to describe it "is art merging into documentary merging into creative" and as such "we are having to renegotiate and having to probe these terms - consciously or subconsciously".

Extremely interesting was Gavin's concern re: the impact on the relationships between the photograph and the audience, as a result of the development of this new digital platform. Initially, how do you maintain the quality control of the image - viewed on countless uncalibrated monitors? Then subsequently, how do you ensure the correct distribution?

Welcome

This is the first post, in my new blog, about my fourth photography course with the OCA.

My intention is to use this blog to record my learning journey through this course. I anticipate that it will take approximately 18 months to complete and I hope to add to this blog on at least a weekly basis.

My course is (HE5): Photography 2: Documentary

Course overview summary:

In this unit you will explore historical and contemporary strategies (a combination of technical, visual and conceptual methodologies) in documentary photography.  

You will engage in critical debate and consider relevant social and cultural perspectives, including the ethics of representing conflict, suffering and other peoples and cultures.  

This unit fosters a documentary approach underpinned by the ideas of the documentary photographer as an author and documentary photography as a tool for communication.

For more information specific to this course click here.