Bazin I think essentially was engaged in hand-waving rather than
analysis and argument, which is fine for his purposes. The intuition of
the specialness photography goes back to the beginning days. Actually
even before that with the proposal that some icons were mad without
human mediation (not to mention Veronica's veil and the shroud of Turin
and the like) seems to suggest that certain types of pre-photographic
images aspired to the special status of photography. I think Walton
buttresses up the intuition philosophically.

Btw, a good intro into the analytic writing on photography, including
Walton's transparency article, is Scott Walden's anthology The Pencil of
Nature.

j

On 10/26/10 9:07 AM, Frank, Michael wrote:
> i have to admit [am ashamed to admit?] that i don't at all know the work o=
> f kendall walton . . . but i find myself wondering -- on the basis for the =
> representation of it -- whether it adds anything to the bazin position, and=
> if so what??
>
> m
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Film-Philosophy [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of =
> John Matturri
> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 7:22 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 24 Oct 2010 (#2010-283)
>
> The argument about the ontology of photography that has most defined the=20
> issue in recent decades hasn't come up in this discussion: Kendall=20
> Walton's notion of the transparency of photography, the notion that=20
> because of its direct causal relationship with the depicted object the=20
> photograph is more akin to, say, a mirror image than to a handmade=20
> painting. He thus claims that it is appropriate to say that when we see=20
> a picture of a dead grandparent we are actually seeing that picture, in=20
> an analogous way that we say that say that we are seeing a long-gone=20
> galaxy through a telescope. (My hunch is that the paradoxical nature of=20
> the claim derives in part from pushing ordinary language into unordinary=20
> territory, though I suggest that it does help explain the at times=20
> uncanny power of photographs which from the start have been taken to be=20
> relic-like and were almost 'predicted' by the notion of miraculous=20
> non-handmade-icons.) But on the whole Walton seems about right.
>
> There is a sense in which photographs are non-intention informational=20
> carriers, perhaps a bit like fossils. Of course in making photographs=20
> photographers do make decisions about framing, exposure, film/sensor,=20
> etc. and these get expanded for cinematographers, but the=20
> counterfactuals keep these factors under control: if an unmanned camera=20
> with the same settings were tripped by a cosmic ray it would still in=20
> some sense be a representation of the object, though with the=20
> photographer-made version we could make interpretations based on=20
> assumptions about why the decisions were made. In the background here is=20
> the previously raised distinction between Grice's natural signs and the=20
> intention-based signs he associates with semantic meaning. (I once asked=20
> Walton about the influence of Grice on the claim and he said that he had=20
> Grice's article in mind but didn't reread it when writing the=20
> transparency article and seemed surprised when I told him that Grice had=20
> used photography as a prime example of a natural sign.)
>
> I think a lot of the complexities of photographs have to do with their=20
> hybrid nature: at once Gricean signs because of their causal=20
> connections, but also something of intentional objects, along with=20
> having a lot in common with demonstratives (with photography seen as a=20
> particular form of pointing). If this is right, sorting out the=20
> interplay of these factor would be a complicated job.
>
> j
>
> On 10/26/10 6:03 AM, Damian Sutton wrote:
>> Mike and everyone,
>>
>> I am interested in this discussion of photography, and a lot of it sugges=
> ts=3D
>> that we struggle to advance beyond a quais-Bazinian reading of photogra=
> phy=3D
>> . I think there is still great sense in acknowledging that photographs st=
> il=3D
>> l provide a sense of the object that was there (passe Sontag and Bazin) a=
> nd=3D
>> several scholars have taken pains to say that we can never really conte=
> st =3D
>> this (Batchen, Green et al). However, there is a growing critical debate =
> on=3D
>> the ontology of the photographic image which refuses to assign a phenom=
> eno=3D
>> logical innocence, or independence, to the photograph. What this means is=
> t=3D
>> hat it should not be axiomatic to say that the =3D91photo shows nothing m=
> ore =3D
>> than it shows=3D92, since the image is invested culturally, no matter how=
> thi=3D
>> n, fleeting or evanescent that cultural imprint. I think the smuggling in=
> o=3D
>> f cultural codes within the science of photography is akin to the Latouri=
> an=3D
>> view of science, but I=3D92d have to go back and look.
>>
>> (Also I am not sure I have used =3D91phenomenological=3D92 correctly. It =
> is a c=3D
>> oncept (like =3D91transcendental empiricism=3D92) that I simply can=3D92t=
> get rig=3D
>> ht.
>> Best
>> Damian
>>
>>
>>
>> On 25/10/2010 14:30, "Frank, Michael"<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> photographs lie only when you assume that they are SAYING something as op=
> po=3D
>> sed to SHOWING something . . . a photograph understood as simply showing =
> so=3D
>> mething cannot lie, it only shows what it shows . . . the idea that what =
> it=3D
>> shows corresponds to something else not in the photograph is an idea [m=
> ayb=3D
>> e a linguistic idea] and cannot be blamed on the photograph itself -- for=
> t=3D
>> he poor photo does nothing more than show what it shows . . . which is a=
> xi=3D
>> omatic
>>
>> mike
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Film-Philosophy [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf O=
> f =3D
>> Don Handelman
>> Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 9:12 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 24 Oct 2010 (#2010-283)
>>
>>> Regarding truth claims of the visual, a line from the 1990 noir
>>> thriller, Blindside:
>> "Photographs lie; diagrams tell the truth."
>>
>> DH
>>
>>
>>
>>> Topics of the week:
>>>
>>> 1. Yet Another New Thread)
>>>
>>> *
>>> *
>>> Film-Philosophy
>>> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message
>>> you are replying to
>>> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
> a=3D
>> c.uk
>>> Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
>>> For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon
>>> *
>>> Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
>>> Contact: [log in to unmask]
>>> **
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 09:59:27 +1100
>>> From: Ross Macleay<[log in to unmask]>
>>> Subject: Re: Yet Another New Thread)
>>>
>>> John& Mike both raise points that are important. We are not far
>>> apart.
>>> I am not sure though that my contention that a shot is used to make a
>>> truth claim is only terminological. It follows from the fact that
>>> shots
>>> have a truth value that we can have a logic of film: true or false
>>> propositions, entailment relations, valid arguments etc. Without such
>>> logical means film could make narrative arguments.
>>>
>>> My reply to John is that a shot is used as an intentional (or
>>> non-natural) sign with, if you like, all the nesting of intentions
>>> that
>>> Grice identifies in his theory of meaning. A shot is used with the
>>> intention of making a truth claim. (I also a agree that a shot is a
>>> bit
>>> of non-intentional stuff that has a causal relation to whatever it's
>>> actual footage of.)
>>>
>>> To Mike: Not only evidence or illustration but truth claim. I agree
>>> that
>>> a shot is embedded in discourse - historically all shots are embedded
>>> in a world of linguistic (and other) propositions - but this is
>>> precisely how truth is defined in its sense as 'coherence with other
>>> truths'.
>>>
>>> As for 'specific referential relationship' actual footage is the
>>> epitome
>>> of truth defined as 'correspondence between proposition and the
>>> world'.
>>>
>>> Maybe none of these things is inherent in the shot itself, but what
>>> is
>>> inherent in a sentence?
>>>
>>> Ross
>>>
>> *
>> *
>> Film-Philosophy
>> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you ar=
> e =3D
>> replying to
>> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
> c.=3D
>> uk
>> Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
>> For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon
>> *
>> Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
>> Contact: [log in to unmask]
>> **
>> * * Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon After hitting 'reply' please a=
> lw=3D
>> ays delete the text of the message you are replying to To leave, send the=
> m=3D
>> essage: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] Or visit: http:=
> //=3D
>> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html For technical help email: h=
> el=3D
>> [log in to unmask], not the salon * Film-Philosophy online: http://www.=
> fi=3D
>> lm-philosophy.com Contact: [log in to unmask] **
>>
>> --
>> Dr Damian Sutton
>> Reader in Photography
>>
>> Department of Art and Design
>> School of Arts and Education
>> Middlesex University
>> Cat Hill Campus
>> Chase Side
>> Barnet, Herts.
>> EN4 8HT
>>
>> Tel. (0)208 411 6827
>> Homepage: http://damiansutton.wordpress.com
>>
>> *
>> *
>> Film-Philosophy
>> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you ar=
> e replying to
>> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
> c.uk
>> Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
>> For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon
>> *
>> Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
>> Contact: [log in to unmask]
>> **
>>
> *
> *
> Film-Philosophy
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are =
> replying to
> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
> uk
> Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
> For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon
> *
> Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
> Contact: [log in to unmask]
> **
>
> *
> *
> Film-Philosophy
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to
> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
> Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
> For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon
> *
> Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
> Contact: [log in to unmask]
> **
>

*
*
Film-Philosophy
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon
*
Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**