But the point is that on some basic level photography is mediated quite 
directly by the laws of physics. Well, like everything else, so are 
paintings. So maybe best to characterized it by saying the laws of 
physics minus the mediation of whatever physical processes are involved 
in what are presumably the intentional/representational capacities of 
brains, which function as a lingering echo of the Cartesian ghost even 
for some diehard physicalists.

But of course photographers use the resources available to them in 
photography for expressive, including culturally expressive, purposes. 
That's not in dispute, though I'm skeptical of the notion of code here 
(pragmatics could I guess be characterized that part of meaning that 
demands interpretation that goes beyond simple decoding. And among those 
resources is an ability to make use of the audience's awareness of the 
special nature of the photographic process, which I've sometimes called 
folk transparency, the basic intuition without the pedantic bells and 
whistles. (I think this has a good deal in common with Michael Frank's 
Martian case.) That's why a photo of a kid set on fire with napalm has a 
different impact than an visually very similar painting even I think one 
has testimonial trust in the painter. Consider Cartier-Bresson's "Behind 
the Gare S. Lazare"
http://www.afterimagegallery.com/bressonbehind.htm
A painter could easily paint a scene which contained all of the 
mirrorings and the like but it just would not be the same as the 
physical evidence the photograph provides the physical evidence that the 
configuration actually came together for an instant in the world. Of 
course, also involved is the testimonial trust that the shot wasn't a 
set up.

Sorry to shift to still examples but I think the underlying issue is 
photographic rather than filmic.

j


On 10/28/10 11:21 AM, Damian Sutton wrote:
> Hello John,
>
> I think we are stalling on terms such as "mediation", "encoding" etc. here.
> What I mean is: there is no such thing as an unmediated photograph because
> photography itself is a mediation.
>
> Put another way, there is no such thing as a photograph which is not a part
> of a system of codes - scientific or artistic, they are still cultural code=
> s
> - to which mediation is applied.
>
> Put yet another way, there is no experiment which can be performed in which
> one can set up a photographic act which is not in some way intentional. Eve=
> n
> to set up an unintentional photographic act is by its nature an intention,
> and that intention has parameters that are part of a system or code.
>
> I have used "encoding" in relation to the work of Vil=E9m Flusser. For him,
> the creation of a photograph is far, far from an arbitrary or na=EFve proce=
> ss,
> since the very nature of conversion from light to image requires a system o=
> f
> codes. This is why he argues that colour photography hides this code better
> than black-and-white. B&W images convert colours into a scale of tones
> (which themselves can be altered in processing) which are matched in
> picture-making to what we saw or would expect to see. However, meaning can
> alter dramatically in B&W photography in relation to quite slight and
> seemingly imperceptible changes in contrast for example, which might be
> otherwise invisible to the trained eye. Nevertheless, for Flusser, in B&W
> photography this coding is always directly observable and we know a
> translation has taken place. (we do not see in black and white, and even if
> we did, we understand the world to be empirically in colour).
>
> Colour photography, on the other hand, is a similar coding but is even less
> perceptible as such. The image still has to be processed, so a judgement ha=
> s
> to be made on whether the colours match what one photographed or one would
> expect to see. This is still a judgement, nevertheless, whether carried out
> by the individual photographer or by the industry more widely to correspond
> to cultural and/or explicitly consumer expectations. For example, for many
> years, Kodachrome and Ektachrome have been well known for their saturated
> colours (deep blue skies etc.) and professionals and amateurs have traded o=
> n
> this. On the other hand, Fuji film is known for its vivid, brilliant colour=
> s
> (brilliant here means high amounts of white, or a lighter appearance) and s=
> o
> forth. Even now, textile designers carry swatches of cloth with them when
> looking at photographs, because lighting, processing (and especially
> digital, screen-based processing) is incredibly variable.
>
> A fantastic example of this is to spend any time looking through glossy
> magazines from the 1970s. The colours are often vivid, lurid by comparison
> with magazines now, because tastes and cultural expectations change.
> Sometimes, this is affected by the capabilities of film but film is often
> more stable than one might imagine. The same effect can be observed watchin=
> g
> movies from the 1970s, especially when switching between studio and outdoor
> filming. Try watching Quiller Memorandum and Funeral in Berlin together -
> they are both set in Berlin, in the same genre, in the same year, yet
> differences in lighting styles and film stock make them look distinct from
> each other, and distinct from films now (such as Bourne Supremacy).
>
> So we're not talking about a code as if it a specific language or learned o=
> r
> self-conscious behaviour, but a system of collective recognition within
> which we all partake across time, and to which we are enculturated.
>
> So where does that leave us with transparency? The difficulty I have is tha=
> t
> transparency is used to explain us seeing through the photographic process,
> but in a manner which excuses aspects of the image which are clear
> indicators of the process as being one of mediation. In actual fact, there
> is no aspect of the process which is not a mediation. One can still look
> "through" it, but we're still talking about mediation as if it is something
> that happens to the photographic image, which is wrong, I think.
>
> So, you're right, the lack of contrast in Talbot's image was unlikely to be
> intentional (as I recall they were partly poor chemicals and partly exposur=
> e
> to UV light in museums etc.) but that is not the same thing as saying that
> Talbot's intentions were not artistic. Everything we know about Talbot,
> including his own accounts, suggest that Talbot was after an automatic
> drawing process in order to fix images he imagined he could put together
> through his knowledge of painting. I cannot think of any of those involved
> in invention who were not driven by an aesthetic desire. Even Daguerre, the
> most commercial exponent, was similarly motivated.
>
> Gotta go.
> Damian
>
>
> On 28/10/2010 15:12, "John Matturri"<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>
>> On 10/28/10 6:50 AM, Damian Sutton wrote:
>>> Sorry Mike, but I feel bound to take this up, as I feel it gets to very =
> cor=3D
>>> e of the problem that visual studies (film, media, photography studies) =
> has=3D
>>>    with notions of transparency.
>>>
>>> There simply isn=3D92t, and has never been, a photographic image which i=
> s =3D93=3D
>>> unretouched and unprocessed=3D94. This is firstly by virtue of the fact =
> that =3D
>>>    the photographic image itself is a translation or encoding of the mate=
> rial=3D
>>> , even at its most basic chemical or digital level, and that code has to=
>   ha=3D
>>> ve a system in order to be made intelligible. This encoding relies upon =
> pre=3D
>>> set parameters which are defined by the culture which discovered or inve=
> nte=3D
>>> d photography, and which has put it to use  =3D96 firstly to be able to =
> judge=3D
>>>    the success of the process, and then its intellectual value.
>> Not sure what you mean by encoding. There is a many-to-one
>> systematically mechanical chemical/optical values from the source to the
>> film. It is true that different films will have different mappings (e.g.
>> high or low contrast) and that the optical characteristics of the lens
>> used would also affect the geometry of the mapping. Not sure how much
>> choice there was about the first: just getting the physics and chemistry
>> in place was hard enough. I doubt, for example, that Talbot was making a
>> cultural choice for some of the low contrast images he got. In any
>> event, transparency isn't affected by such variables, whether chosen or
>> imposed by technological factors because once the initial parameters of
>> the image the causal relation to the source remains unmediated by human
>> intentionality.
>>
>> The choices -- of film, framing, exposure, etc. -- themselves are of
>> course intentional but, on my way of dealing with this (not sure of
>> Walton's), this is handled by the counterfactuals. In a way unlike any
>> non-highly-systematic handmade image the photographer generated
>> depiction would be identical to an image (say of Obama) generated
>> generated by non-intentionally by a camera somehow non-intentionally set
>> to the same parameters (and aimed identically, etc.). Compare this to a
>> case where there is an explosion in a paint factory and by an amazing
>> coincidence a canvas gets covered with a perfect copy of a
>> representational painting of Obama. In the case of the accidental
>> photograph it would still represent Obama in a way analogous to the
>> fossil's still representing the animal that was causally implicated in
>> its production; but because Obama played no causal role, mechanical or
>> intentionally-mediated, in the painting it is in fact not a
>> representation of Obama (although I guess a secondary intentional act
>> could appropriate it to have such a function).
>>
>> True that early pictorialist photographers adopted stylistic conventions
>> -- chiaroscuro lighting, soft focus, etc. -- that mimicked (not very
>> well: the sort of soft focus you get from a camera lens or by kicking
>> the tripod seems specifically photographic rather than painterly) but
>> those include matters of parameter choosing of the sort mentioned above.
>> The transparency claim does not suggest that produced photographs are
>> impersonal. About ten years ago I gave a paper at a little conference on
>> philosophy and photography in Newfoundland organized by Scott Walden
>> that included Walton, Lopes and others in that tradition and found that
>> the local photographic community were livid because they interpreted the
>> transparency claim as suggesting that photography left no room for
>> creativity. It was hard to convince them that there was no such
>> implication. Whether the image is left circular or cropped by film or
>> sensor into a rectangle, the causal mapping of physical values remains a
>> physical process rather than application of a human mediated code
>> (though a systematic coding procedure applied consistently enough could
>> be as much a reliable information conduit as a photograph even if,
>> because of recognizability issues, it ceased to be depictive. Along with
>> fossils you might think of photographs as akin to gas guages,
>> altimeters, the sort of information conveyors that Dretske discusses.
>>
>> I wonder whether some assumption of the conventionality of depictive
>> images is at play here? But hey, pigeons are said to be able to
>> recognize some images and I don't think that they master any pictorial
>> conventions. Not denying that there aren't conventional stylistic
>> variants in depiction just that they need to work within the parameters
>> established by the brain's recognitional capacities. Bring a kid around
>> a very encyclopedic museum and she'll pick on what stuff is depicted
>> without having to master a new convention in every room. But that's a
>> whole other can of worms.
>>
>> j
>>> Photography was a new medium like any other; it was defined by, rather t=
> han=3D
>>>    adopted, the desires of its host culture. I say defined because I disa=
> gree=3D
>>>    with Bolter/Grusin on this. Hence early photography was judged by rule=
> s of=3D
>>>    composition, framing, selection, detail and practical use developed ar=
> ound=3D
>>>    the cameo portrait, Rembrandt and Corot (or possibly Lorraine). We sti=
> ll h=3D
>>> ave some of those today with the rectangular frame in film and photograp=
> hy =3D
>>> (the real image is, of course, circular, as were the first Kodak images)=
> , a=3D
>>> mongst other cultural parameters drawn from the wider visual, non-photog=
> rap=3D
>>> hic arts. So even a =3D93rotten disposable camera=3D94 is culturally sha=
> ped, ev=3D
>>> en if that cultural inscription seems outwardly to be feint or remote.  =
> Of =3D
>>> course, this inscription continues with =3D93smile-finder=3D94 software =
> and ons=3D
>>> creen guides to taking good (i.e. Cultural acceptable) pictures. What we=
>   mi=3D
>>> ght ordinarily see as a marker of plain or unprocessed may actually be t=
> he =3D
>>> product of a complex transhistorical process of inscription onto the mat=
> eri=3D
>>> al of the camera and other apparatus. Not least because the marker is ju=
> st =3D
>>> that =3D96 a signifier.
>>>
>>> Historically, since the 1800s there is almost no precedent for a photogr=
> aph=3D
>>> ic process being anything other than a tool for the picturesque (I say a=
> lmo=3D
>>> st because some examples exist of Talbot and others using photography fo=
> r i=3D
>>> nventory, though this was likely considered after the practicality of th=
> e p=3D
>>> rocess was assured =3D96 it was nevertheless desired as an automatic met=
> hod o=3D
>>> f inscribing the selectivity of the artist=3D92s eye). Even more recent =
> proce=3D
>>> sses which are used only for measurement in the natural sciences, and ar=
> e n=3D
>>> ot expected to have an image appreciable by the public at large, still r=
> equ=3D
>>> ire a system within which they become intelligible and usable.
>>>
>>> So what we are really dealing with, I think, is how the practical use of=
>   te=3D
>>> rms such as =3D93transparency=3D94, =3D93actual=3D94, =3D93record=3D94 (=
> or, dare I say =3D
>>> it, the real), is affected by this. For example we might argue that comm=
> on =3D
>>> sense suggests that the cultural determinants of photography and the pic=
> tur=3D
>>> esque are so feint that no one would realistically connect the disposabl=
> e c=3D
>>> amera with the =3D93picturesque=3D94 anyway. Most people would accept a =
> simple =3D
>>> snapshot to be =3D93real=3D94, even if this is really based on a princip=
> le of =3D
>>> =3D93naivety=3D94, rather than objectivity. So we can create a comfortab=
> le area=3D
>>>    within which we can discuss, say, the rhetoric of documentary filmmaki=
> ng, =3D
>>> or the appearance of the real in digital cinema.
>>>
>>> However, when we are discussing the ontological or phenomenological I do=
> n=3D
>>> =3D92t think we are in such a safe place at all. No matter how groundbre=
> aking=3D
>>>    or influential Walton=3D92s article is (and I think it is great), it r=
> elies =3D
>>> upon the safe place of discourse to try to explain the unsafe universal =
> in =3D
>>> photography. This is an interesting point in relation to John=3D92s: I t=
> hink =3D
>>> the incisive quality of Chuck Close=3D92s work is not that it demonstrat=
> es th=3D
>>> at transparency exists no matter how much physical labour is involved in=
>   th=3D
>>> e transcription (Close methodically transcribes the photograph onto the =
> can=3D
>>> vas), but that there is no such thing as transparency =3D96 Close=3D92s =
> overt p=3D
>>> hysical labour points to the whole process of photography is physical en=
> cod=3D
>>> ing, no matter how light or easy the labour appears to be. The same can =
> be =3D
>>> said for some paintings by Richter.
>>>
>>> For those following this thread, you can see more about Close at the Hou=
> sto=3D
>>> n site: http://www.chuckclose.coe.uh.edu/life/index.html. Walton was wri=
> tin=3D
>>> g about his photo-realistic transcriptions of the 1960s and 1970s, parti=
> cul=3D
>>> arly his self-portrait (1967-68).
>>>
>>> Oh balls, this is really long now, you wanted a rant, didn=3D92t you?
>>>
>>> Best
>>> Damian
>>>
>>> On 28/10/2010 04:44, "Frank, Michael"<[log in to unmask]>   wrote:
>>>
>>> if i might intrude here =3D96 i suspect the issue at stake is the degree=
>   to w=3D
>>> hich an object [any object] is a record of some actual historical event =
> or =3D
>>> person . . . it=3D92s the quality of the object as evidence that matters=
>   most=3D
>>>    . . . for this reason photographs =3D96 at least entirely unretouched =
> and un=3D
>>> processed photographs =3D96 are ontologically transparent, in that you c=
> an se=3D
>>> e through them to some other thing that of which they are a record  . . =
> . a=3D
>>> nd this is true, no matter the visual quality of the photograph
>>>
>>> put it differently:  a brilliant oil portrait of X might show you exactl=
> y w=3D
>>> hat X looked like, but you could only know that if you already knew what=
>   X =3D
>>> looked like; otherwise you=3D92d have no way of knowing whether the port=
> rait =3D
>>> was accurate . . . OTOH even a rotten disposal camera shot of X would pr=
> ovi=3D
>>> de real evidence of what X looked like; it would be visually poor but wh=
> at =3D
>>> it did reveal would have an ontological transparency completely unavaila=
> ble=3D
>>>    to the painting
>>>
>>> m
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Film-Philosophy [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf =
> Of =3D
>>> Dan Barnett
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 11:04 PM
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 27 Oct 2010 to 28 Oct 2010 - Speci=
> al =3D
>>> issue (#2010-295)
>>>
>>> John writes:
>>> Transparency here really doesn't have anything to do with perceiving the
>>> screen/frame as phenomenal window or to any kind of looking-like
>>> relationship between image and object (except maybe to the extent some
>>> notion of looking-like might be involved in being a picture at all).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry John, I just don't get it. What exactly do you (Walton) mean when =
> you=3D
>>>    claim that the transparency is ontological?
>>>
>>> The causal relationship with the sensor isn't really that different than
>>> the relationship with film (though maybe the use of Bayer arrays makes
>>> digi images that use them a bit harder to describe). I'd think that
>>> post=3D3Dprocessing of selections, whether through analog dodging and
>>> burning or digital curve adjustments the like, compromises transparency,
>>> though I don't think global adjustments do (for the same reason that
>>> exposure, framing, etc. do not). Actually I think Walton has claimed
>>> that mechanical systematic painting procedures, somewhat like that used
>>> by Chuck Close, would maintain transparency.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here I just simply disagree. Any pixel can be replaced and everybody kno=
> ws =3D
>>> it. It's not a matter of complexity of description, it's a matter of the=
>   fu=3D
>>> ndamental nature of the image.
>>> Cultural conventions change. And the conventions around the digital imag=
> e h=3D
>>> ave made the transparency suspect.
>>> db
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> * * Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon After hitting 'reply' please =
> alw=3D
>>> ays delete the text of the message you are replying to To leave, send th=
> e 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: =
> hel=3D
>>> [log in to unmask], not the salon * Film-Philosophy online: http://www=
> .fi=3D
>>> lm-philosophy.com Contact: [log in to unmask] **
>>> * * Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon After hitting 'reply' please =
> alw=3D
>>> ays delete the text of the message you are replying to To leave, send th=
> e 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: =
> hel=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 a=
> re
>>> replying to
>>> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
> ac.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 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]
>> **
> --
> 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]
> **
>

*
*
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]
**