I learned very quickly that there are far more aspects to photography than I thought. Photography can be used very differently and it can be interpreted very differently. At first I agreed with Pinny and thought that it was impossible to know who people are by a photograph but the more I thought about it I felt otherwise. Spraque makes some very good points using the examples from the people in western Africa about how some photos have less truth than others. I found Crarys piece to be very confusing but I think it is important to have a base as far where photography comes from.
Crary gives us a deep analysis into vision and how it has an effect on photography. It discusses vision as is was understood from back in the 1820’s which makes it a little hard to follow. The concept of the observer is largely stressed and raises a good question as to how much the observer of the photograph matters to the photograph. Spraque talks about West Africans using photography to depict themselves the way they want to be depicted. Setting up the photo and posing for it. By doing this the photo isn’t a true glimpse of what these people are like, rather a depiction of how they want to be viewed. This does not give a very accurate view of the truth. Even though we can learn some about these people and their culture through these photographs, we still do not have an accurate idea of what life is like for them. Pinny goes into this idea of the truth being displayed in a photo. The piece talks about how we want a linguistic explanation on what the picture means. The picture alone is not enough. It is this urge that makes photography unable to be trusted. The interesting concept posed of how different a bunch of still shots from a movie look if one had not seen the movie. The idea of bringing up an actually memory rather than using the photo as the only info you have. One cannot make assumptions as to who someone is just based on their facial expression in a photo. But then again can you see what kind of person someone is through a photograph? How true are photographs? Can we use photographs as a way of gaining information or should they simply be left to just bring up memories?
15 comments:
I definitely think, in response to the lead post’s question, can we use photography as a way of gaining information, that all three of the articles we read for this week recognize the informative power of photography. However, depending on one’s culture and history, the type of information garnered is radically different and not always overtly displayed.
As Crary’s article illustrates, the idea of vision as a conduit of objective truth, as was once believed with the invention of the camera obscura, has been turned on its head through discoveries in the study of physiology. With the ‘doctrine of specific nerve enegries’, the concept of a “coherent system of meaning” was disrupted through the realization that vision, among other sensory apparatuses, may be affected by sensations with no “necessary link to a referent”, a property that served to redefine vision as “nonveridical”. Thus vision and following from that, photography, is still able to provide us with valuable information, as long as we are aware of how the workings of our visual system may distort the external world and thus our perception of reality as an objective truth.
I would say that Pinney’s article piggybacks off of Crary’s idea of the separation between the body and mind. For Pinney, the information that photographs display for the people of Nagda is purely an expression of one’s ‘physiogamy’ rather than their “interior character”. The idea that we cannot see into someone’s character or properly read their morality is tied closely for the people of Nagda, to the concept and contrast between the “evanescent body” and the “eternal soul”. While the people of Nagda may use photographs primarily for recollection, we can gather information about their perceptions of exterior vs. interior through their photographs, where objective reality is readily altered.
For the Yoruba population, there seems to be a strong connection between body and reality in photography. Yoruba pay close attention to the body’s situation in space, the way it is clothed, etc. in photos, as a way of expressing a distinct social class and virtue. Similarly, the body of a dead twin may be ‘created’ in a photograph, by having the living sibling pose as his or her lost brother or sister. However, similar to Nagda photography, the information gathered from observing these cultures’ photography is not necessarily a conscious exhibition of culture on the part of the people themselves. While both cultures may purport to use photos for ritualistic or memorial purposes, as Sprague says, they are however “coded” in the cultures from which they derive.
-Sarah Schulman
The question of the "truthfullness" of photographs is dependent upon the observers concept of truth, and preference for truth to be shown. For example in Nagda culture, people are aware that photographs are not meant to and in fact, cannot depict a "true" self. They simply capture "vyaktitva", or exterior surfaces of a person. A photo can never capture a person's "charitra" or internal moral character. Pinney writes, "Charitra reveals itself only through actions, through past history and future eventualities." Because this distinction is commonplace, people do not seek to find "truth", manifested as "charitra" in photos. This is exemplified in their use of doubles in a single picture; Photographers can capture several elements of "vyaktitva" at once, to "...represent bodies and faces as infinitely multiple and contingent." In Yoruba culture, photographed subjects are expected to have both of their eyes visible in their pictures. This lends an aspect of truth to the subject's identity, which they call "ifarahon". This is the extent to which they prefer individualistic truth, for the "traditional formal portrait" is conventionalized further to have everyone sit in the same position. They believe that "...work should... resemble the individual and at the same time embody all the ideal Yoruba characteristics..." Their idea of truth lies in the appearance of an individual, but the "truth" associated with individuality is lost. Neither of these articles mentioned candid photography, which is often considered the most truthful photography in Western culture. It seems as if these cultures would be leery of embracing candid photography, since it would undermine the importance of "trying" to represent a certain cultural aspect. The current prevalence of candid pictures is obviously based on new modern technologies where a photo studio is not a necessity. I wonder if these cultures will eventually take to more candid photography? If so, what will that mean for both their portrait studio industries and their photography culture?
Paulina makes an excellent point in that candid photography could be a more modern way to find the truth through photography. Although I would agree with many that the usage of a camera itself (a bulky, somewhat obtrusive object) will cause a change in a subject's behavior (take, for example, the almost-automatic reflex we have of putting on a fake smile when a camera is taken out). This is not necessarily something done on purpose, but it is something that occurs nevertheless.
It relates very closely to the article we read about Yoruba culture and the extent to which one's self-image was defined through the camera. The Yoruba population found it necessary to attempt to portray their own selves through the pictures they were in (for example, one's status was indicated by the objects and people that surrounded them in the picture). This is interesting when juxtaposed to the method that we (as Westerners) tend to take pictures: as I mentioned above, we try to portray a fake sense of happiness. I wonder what the driving force between the formation and existence of this cultural norm. This 'fake happiness' is the reason why I believe Paulina makes such a strong point that candid photography is much more likely to capture our 'truth' (we do not feel obliged to portray happiness).
I also found this interesting when compared to Crary's article on the evolution of vision and how it changed with the camera-- if our perception of vision itself has changed through time, why is it that candid photography still seems like a more accurate way to embody the truth?
While it is true that photographs can only depict vyaktitva in Nagda culture, I question that people are not seeking to find truth in this capacity. Maybe people from this culture do not actively seek to find truth, but how can we actually control or know if they do? Perhaps the truth offered by these types of photographs is not objective, but still valuable and relevant, as Sarah suggests. In other words, people who see pictures could instinctively accept that the subject of the photograph is real, true, and not manipulated. I feel I do that and often forget that subjects are posed and photoshopped – perhaps this is due to the Western emphasis on and acceptance of candid photography that Paulina presents. Paulina’s question about candid photography leads me to think similarly about the role of Photoshop. What are the implications of a distorted vyaktitva – the thing that a photograph is supposed to truthfully portray – and how would Photoshop influence cultures?
In my opinion, candid photography and Photoshop would have more implications on culture in general rather than culture specifically related to photography. In American culture, the norm of pictures in magazines is manipulated, enhanced images whereas the outliers are photographs with no “touch-ups”. This focus on technological enhancement has had lasting implications on cultural conceptions of beauty. A few years ago, there was a Dove “campaign” to educate girls on true beauty using this YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hibyAJOSW8U. While Americans are now used to pictures falsely representing people, I wonder what the implications of candid photographs and Photoshop would have on Nagda and Yoruba cultures – if these changes would be accepted or met with resistance, or if anything would change at all.
- Jillian Martynec
Although I agree with Paulina and Ian that candid photos have the greatest potential to show truth in photography, I believe it is still susceptible to misrepresentation just as equally as portraits or any other type of photo. This can be seen in the photo Professor Pandian showed the class of the couple that appeared to be having a romantic moment in the midst of a riot. Their position seemed to indicate that and they were clearly not aware of the photographer making it a candid photo. However, it was later shown through video that the man was simply trying to protect the woman beneath him. Our perception of the picture was incorrect. Crary describes this type idea that occurred with several people in the 1830’s about the unreliability of the senses when he says “the issue was not just how does one know what is real, but that new forms of the real were being fabricated and a new truth about the capacities of a human subject was being articulated in these terms.” This also reminded me of “The Matrix” that professor Pandian played a few weeks ago. It also got me to wonder how a video camera and photographic camera might differ in relation to one another. Does the presence of a video camera act similar to the way Paulina says a camera acts with people automatically smiling? Is there really any form of visual media that can be used to show the reality or “truth” of a culture?
-Kyle B
I agree with Mark in a few ways in that photography can be interpreted differently, depending on who is lookiing at the picture and what exactly the picture is. A good example of this is the one Pinny uses and I can relate to this in if I were to see a picture of someone on the internet for example, that person could look completely different in person, which supports Pinny's opinion.
I also found the fact that West Africans would only take pictures if they were set up and posed for them. It kind of makes one assume that they view pictures in some form of negative way because they wont take any pictures unless everything is perfectly set up and ready. If a negative picture were to be taken at some point and make its way into the public, it could be criticized and this group of people could then be seen more negatively than they were before. But in the same sense it could be the opposite and they could be seen in a better view.
I think that pictures can be used both to gather information on a certain someone of something but at the same time, they are perfect for bringing back old memories and storing them in a simple way where they can be kept and stored easily for years.
It is difficult to tackle the obstacle of truth in photography because in doing so, one also has to access identity, a complex and dynamic concept. Pinney referred to the charitra, one’s moral character and “story,” which are rarely portrayed in photos. In fact, Pinney remarked that in less that 2% of photographs the charitra is accurately displayed (through karma, the actions that depict one’s character). This got me to think of how exactly a photographer captures someone’s moral character and the role of candid photographs in doing so. For example, let’s say someone is incredibly kind and humble. If a photographer captures a candid picture of this kind person walking an elderly person across the street, does that taint the act? After all, if the person were truly humble, would they want to publicize their routine? How does a photographer capture and depict character without intrusion or manipulation?
It seems that photography is truly a relationship and interaction between the photographer and the subject (assuming the subject is human). The traditional formal portraits of the Yoruba exemplify this interaction well. The Yoruba displayed their social rank in photographs. While photographers worked to portray this through symmetry and dimension of the photograph, the subject’s body language and facial expression were also indicative of rank in society. Both the photographer and the subject are integral in articulating the charitra. The photographer works with the environment around the subject and perhaps directs subject behavior. The subject, aware of their ability to manipulate their self image, tries to construct the viewer’s perception of them, just the Yoruba displayed a dignified and upright body language. Ultimately, like many others, what was most interesting to me this week was the difficulty in understanding and capturing identity through photography.
-Kate Appel
I think the point that Kate makes about the elusiveness of moral character within photographs is an important one. While Nagda culture has holistically discredited the notion that the internal may be enlivened through the mechanisms of photography, noting “the aspects of vyaktitva which a photograph cannot capture might be described as general etiquette - whether a person is a noisy eater, whether they are prone to break wind in public. What photographs are nearly always completely unable to capture, however, is the internal moral character and biography of a sitter, his charitra” , this is certainly not the case with respect to the Yoruba. The preference for traditional portrait paradoxically retreats from the individual by placing him/her within an entirely staged arena devoid of any portrayal of spontaneity, yet allows for aspects of personal etiquette and biography to show through. It does so primarily through the use of symbolism and reference to traditional expectations memorializing an individual in “terms of how well he has embodied traditional Yoruba ideals and fulfilled his given position in society” Subscription to and display of Yoruban ideals motivates the choice to sit for a traditional portrait. Those whose achievements were in line with traditional roles or expectations chose traditional poses while those whose achievements deviated from the norm elected for a more contemporary styling with modern dress and casual positioning. Thus, in viewing a traditionally posed portrait in the Yoruban culture, though only capturing the externalities and hints of social positioning, the implicit submission to tradition indicates, by extremity, certain moral values or points of etiquette the individual possesses by virtue of the class positioning indicated symbolically in the photograph. Whether or not this exemplifies a “truthfulness” or “capturing” of the individual, which I am inclined to believe it does not, it certainly extends the rigid boundaries and negation of the possibility of encapsulating the internal which Pinney discusses.
I agree with Mark, you can tell an awful lot about a photograph. Although I do believe you can't tell everything about a person through a photo of them, but you can certainly learn about their interests, friends, possibly their loved ones. There are some exceptions to this. Zach made a good point about how seeing a photo of a person on the internet can make them look much different than they do in real life. Culture also plays a role in what you see in a photograph, as Sarah elluded to. Some photographs get censored by the government or some don't even get shown because it is not culturally acceptable.
I also thought it was interesting that the West Africans take photographs that depict themselves in a brighter light. People say that this is not the right way to photograph, but most people in America do the same exact thing. How many people upload photographs of them looking ugly on social network sites like Facebook? Everyone picks their favorite photos of themselves to show everyone that is willing to look.
The Yoruba's attention to detail to create what we perceive as false reality is very similar to Western culture's use of Photoshop and, what Ian and Paulina mentioned, candid photos. The Yoruba essentially create what they want others to think is their reality--much like what we do when we flash a brilliantly fake smile the moment we see a camera. Though Yoruba and Western culture are very different, both are ingrained to place trust in photos. This allows our imaginations to wander in looking at a picture. Specifically, we imagine personality traits based on a person's smile, the way they dress, or their pose. This somewhat contrasts the way the Nagda people view photographs, according to Pinney's "Visual Culture". He says that the "internal moral character" or "charitra" is only "revealed through actions" or "karma," not through pictures. Have they disregarded interior quality and accepted the fact that appearances come first no matter what? In our culture, though we do understand that appearance is everything, we still seem to overlook the emphasis placed on appearances and how much it affects our daily life--especially negatively. Like Jillian said, manipulated pictures are everywhere: in magazines and even photos in art galleries (the highly contrasting brightly colored background against the soft colors of the person in the foreground came from a tool called Photoshop!). Manipulated (and even non-manipulated) photographs lose their true "aura," as Benjamin would say, in the transition from reality (real life) to a time in which reality was frozen (a photo). In other words, some photographs do not depict real life.
I was also intrigued by how many different kind of photography there is, and how many ways it can be used. While I agree that it's impossible to know who people are through a photograph, people still THINK that they can perceive pieces of personality through photographs, which more simply, is the natural human tendency to judge people. When we look at a picture we take in certain features and cannot help but form opinions about what we see. This is why
i believe that "the observer" himself is very important to how that person sees a photograph. I personally liked the Spraque reading the best, and I think it's very interesting to think about how people decide to pose in pictures. Maybe they pull back their shoulders to look taller or more posed, and I now think of how many times I've smiled for a picture to appear like I'm having a good time, even when I'm not. This made me think of our projects and how we should try to be more discreet with our filming and photography equipment so we get the most "realistic" responses.
Still, I think that there is still some "truth" to a posed picture too, for this is the truth about how the subject wants to be seen, and shows how theyd like to be portrayed in society. This could give incite as to what is valued in society, what traits? what posture? what mood?
I think that although sometimes photography isn't used to convey the absolute truth, the final photograph and even the process of taking and/or modifying that photograph can be extremely telling in regards to what the society thinks or feels. For instance that photograph that was taken and used as the cover of National Geographic ("The Afghan Girl") may not (as someone mentioned in one of the posts) convey how the artist/photographer sees the situation but how the photographed person/object wishes to be perceived. Even though the photograph might not be able to capture a person's "charita", it can still capture what the photographer's perception of the subject's "charita" is. Henri Cartier-Bresson once said, "The most difficult thing for me is a portrait. You have to try and put your camera between the skin of a person and his shirt." I think this statement precisely conveys the message that Pinney may be trying to convey.
In response to the question of “truthfulness” of photographs, the concept of truth in photography is flawed from the start. The moment a photographer aims a camera they have framed only a portion of the image and taken it out of context to a certain degree. We cannot view a photograph from the same perspective as the photographer, which forces the observer to fill in the missing pieces from their own memories and experiences.
Everyday we are subject to the lies of photography: fashion models appearing glamorous, vacation hot spots are always pictured at their best, and food advertisements always appear more scrumptious than in reality. Tools like photo shop promote the dishonesty in pictures.
Pinney says it is impossible to know who people are by a photograph, and to an extent he correct. To agree with Paulina, candid photography does seem to be the ‘most’ truthful, but it is still flawed. The natural reaction to thrown on a fake smile at the hint of a photograph being taken shows how people do not want to be viewed in their most truthful and realistic state. We view the photographs of the people of western Africa to be dishonest when we do the same thing to a lesser extent. If we as individuals don’t even want to be portrayed truthfully in a photo, than how can we perceive the truth in a photograph of someone else? I think valuable information most certainly can come from a photograph, but knowing the definite truth about anything from one photograph is unlikely.
-kyle
I think the portrait, for example, does have an ability to capture some sort of "truth" that would be missed in another form of media. When a portrait effectively captures the someone in the right moment, it can show their whole essence. One of the powers of photography is its ability to capture a fleeting moment and creative a tangible image that pauses that time forever. This has an inherent dramatic quality, that coupled with the perfect moment, can show someone's "charitra". As Kate mentioned, this only happens rarely. Just as some candids are just throw aways, some moments of life are not as poignant as others. A picture of a woman eating dinner may not be as powerful as a picture of the woman mid-laugh or mid-cry. The rarity of this only adds to the power of a good photograph. Though in our time, as we all seem to see each moment of each other's lives to a greater degree, it seems that we are finding significance in even the previously thrown-away candids. For example, with mobile uploads of everyday occurrences, candid photos have a different power because of their instant circulation. A mobile upload of a mundane daily occurrence is powerful in its reliability; we can all think of our own equivalent moments, that are maybe happening at the exact same moment, and if we want to, we post them too.
But perhaps this is only thinking within a more Western culture. While we consider a beautiful photograph one that is candid, showing a person's inner most essence, other cultures define this differently. The formal portraits of Yoruba emphasize the class of a person, which is ultimately considered most important. It is necessary for a shot to be straight-on, so that one can see both eyes of the subject, for "clarity". While these photos seem quite unnatural compared to our modern, casual portraits, it poses the question of a culture difference in the definition of the "essence".
To expand upon John’s post, I would argue that much more than interests, friends, and loved ones can be inferred from a photo. For example, consider the poses that were analyzed in the Sprague paper on Yoruba photography. There were several other pieces of information that the author mentions can be gleaned from such photographs, such as the position in society based on pose and decorations. In the article, the important chiefs and diviners all wear their best customary clothing, and they pose in a traditional manner to indicate their societal status. In addition, the ‘squatting pose’ he refers to indicates the unusual hybridization of the girls’ traditional deference to superiors as well as the Westernized influenced ‘pin-up’ pose.
I thought one of the inferences that can be drawn from Yoruba photographs that had no real equivalent in the West is when a single child dresses up differently for multiple shoots, and then these photos are presented together. Sprague explains that if a child dies before his or her picture can be taken, this sort of photo manipulation happens to get a representation, in an abstract sense, of the deceased child. So there is indeed much more that can be gleaned from a photo than just interests, friends and loved ones.
On a unrelated note, it is interesting as to how disastrous the consequences of unsuccessful alteration of images can become. For example, there was recently a local government in China that released several clearly photoshopped images of officials inspecting a road. The images went viral on the internet, and within hours there was international ridicule of the blatant attempt at manipulation, as well as dozens of further altered images in humorous situations. A brief article and some example photoshops can be found here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2009957/Photoshop-picture-Chinese-officials-inspecting-road-ridiculed-world.html. I find it intriguing that we accept manipulated images everyday when we look at magazines, but when the alteration becomes so egregious that it cannot be ignored, it becomes the object of derision.
Post a Comment