Mike and everyone,
I am interested in this discussion of photography, and a lot of it suggests that we struggle to advance beyond a quais-Bazinian reading of photography. I think there is still great sense in acknowledging that photographs still provide a sense of the object that was there (passe Sontag and Bazin) and several scholars have taken pains to say that we can never really contest this (Batchen, Green et al). However, there is a growing critical debate on the ontology of the photographic image which refuses to assign a phenomenological innocence, or independence, to the photograph. What this means is that it should not be axiomatic to say that the ‘photo shows nothing more than it shows’, since the image is invested culturally, no matter how thin, fleeting or evanescent that cultural imprint. I think the smuggling in of cultural codes within the science of photography is akin to the Latourian view of science, but I’d have to go back and look.
(Also I am not sure I have used ‘phenomenological’ correctly. It is a concept (like ‘transcendental empiricism’) that I simply can’t get right.
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 opposed to SHOWING something . . . a photograph understood as simply showing something cannot lie, it only shows what it shows . . . the idea that what it shows corresponds to something else not in the photograph is an idea [maybe a linguistic idea] and cannot be blamed on the photograph itself -- for the poor photo does nothing more than show what it shows . . . which is axiomatic
mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Film-Philosophy [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of 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]
> 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 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 Email Discussion Salon 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] **
--
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 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]
**
|