Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
".... since the photographic medium has become digitized, a fixed definition of the term 'photography' has become impossible." - Alexander Gursky, 1998.
true?
1) why does photography need a definition?
2) if it does, why does it need to be fixed - why not change it to whatever suits your particular purpose? Do definitions matter? Better to create images.
3) the border between photography and non-photography always was blurred. Look at many artists who used photography (eg. Andy Warhol, quite apart from use of camera obscura etc.). The blurring has just become even more blurred because of the flexibility of digital processes. Does it matter?
I suppose it depends on how you define Photography. One definition that is used is:
"The art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces"
If that is an accepted definition, then I see no change in that fact that it is now digitized, as the sensor is still photo sensitive.
Quote: 1) why does photography need a definition?
It is helpful to have some ways of distinguishing human activities from one another - though thse can vary for different purposes.
Quote: 2) if it does, why does it need to be fixed - why not change it to whatever suits your particular purpose? Do definitions matter? Better to create images.
Yes, my initial reaction was also scepticism that the definition has ever been fixed as opposed to variable for different purposes - but see miptog post above.
Quote: 3) the border between photography and non-photography always was blurred. Look at many artists who used photography (eg. Andy Warhol, quite apart from use of camera obscura etc.). The blurring has just become even more blurred because of the flexibility of digital processes. Does it matter?
It might make a difference - and for Gursky it does - for how you think about the relationship of photography to art.
Quote: I suppose it depends on how you define Photography. One definition that is used is:
"The art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces"
If that is an accepted definition, then I see no change in that fact that it is now digitized, as the sensor is still photo sensitive.
That's very good - and setting aside some problems about intentionality (i.e., 'can photographs be produced without intentional action?' since this def would allow that) - works quite well but it is a technical def rather than an aesethetic def and I guess what Gursky has in mind is the slightly naive thought that with digitization the supposed privileged link between photography and reality has been definatively severed.
Quote: It is helpful to have some ways of distinguishing human activities from one another
I don't really see it's very necessary to go much beyond common sense - 'if you're taking pics with a camera, it's photography'. If whether you use, say, a photocopier - is it still photography - I don't see that that matters to many people beyond people paid to write dictionaries.
It's a bit like defining an elephant. Of interest perhaps to natural history professors, but a bit of a waste of time. You know one when you see one.
Quote: It might make a difference - and for Gursky it does - for how you think about the relationship of photography to art.
That's a bit like saying (sorry, another metaphor) defining what a pair of hands are will help with their relationship to the human body. Clearly they're an important part of the body. They're stuck on the end of your arms. But does it really help to argue about the definition? Better to spend valuable time doing something more useful with your hands...
"The art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces"
Well I am not so sure this works - if you try hard enough - for example would painting a picture on a photographic plate be a photograph (I recon by this definition it would) or a painting (which is possibly more appropriate).
However what about images that are produced in different ways such as mass spectrophotometers, electron microscopes or even MRI scanning. These images don't use photsensitive spec but rely largely on electro magnetic imaging. If these amazing camera type bits of kit were used to take images that were then hung in a gallery - would we think of them as photographs.
I think this is an endlessly interesting question probably without a definitive answer. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't ask or try to seek an answer.
Cheers
Robert
Quote: I think this is an endlessly interesting question probably without a definitive answer. But that doesn't mean that we should ask or seek an answer.
But why not equally take another medium - say watercolour. We could spend days, maybe even years, arguing about 'what exactly is a watercolour?' Academics could write theses about it - they probably already have. But in the end does it help anyone?
Quote: What is photography?
Photography is about the capture of a single moment in time - the photographic medium (film, digital et al) used to capture that moment is irrelevant IMO.
Quote: Quote:I think this is an endlessly interesting question probably without a definitive answer. But that doesn't mean that we should ask or seek an answer.
Quote: But why not equally take another medium - say watercolour. We could spend days, maybe even years, arguing about 'what exactly is a watercolour?' Academics could write theses about it - they probably already have. But in the end does it help anyone?
It can - sometimes reflecting on what it is that you think you are doing can lead you to see it in a new light. For example, I think that this:
Quote: "The art or process of producing images of objects on photosensitive surfaces"
Well I am not so sure this works - if you try hard enough - for example would painting a picture on a photographic plate be a photograph (I recon by this definition it would) or a painting (which is possibly more appropriate).
However what about images that are produced in different ways such as mass spectrophotometers, electron microscopes or even MRI scanning. These images don't use photsensitive spec but rely largely on electro magnetic imaging. If these amazing camera type bits of kit were used to take images that were then hung in a gallery - would we think of them as photographs.
raises interesting issues about how we circumscribe or adjus the field of photography in the light of new techniques and technologies. Of course, you are right that asking 'what is...' questions can be navel gazing but if we ask 'what is murder?', 'what is terrorism?' etc we don't normally take ourselves to be necessarily wasting time.
Quote: Quote:What is photography?Photography is about the capture of a single moment in time - the photographic medium (film, digital et al) used to capture that moment is irrelevant IMO.
... what is exactly is 'a moment' here - using my pinhole camera I may need exposure sof several hours so it looks like the notion of a moment can't be divorced from the technologies of capture which rather undemines the thought that the medium is irrelevant - doesn't it?
Quote: but if we ask 'what is murder?', 'what is terrorism?' etc we don't normally take ourselves to be necessarily wasting time
But that definition has a particular purpose, in that you send people to prison if they fall within it.
Mind you, society will soon be sending people to prison for being 'photographers', so maybe we do need to define them after all!
Quote: Quote:but if we ask 'what is murder?', 'what is terrorism?' etc we don't normally take ourselves to be necessarily wasting timeBut that definition has a particular purpose, in that you send people to prison if they fall within it.
Mind you, society will soon be sending people to prison for being 'photographers', so maybe we do need to define it after all!
Also copyright and other practical purposes for which def is useful - but one might be having a philosophical discuusion of 'what is terrorism?' that only has an indirect relation to the issue of law - I guess that I don't think that an discussion of def for aesethetic purposes is useless though I agree it can vary and also that as Robert said it is teh chase rather than the kill that is important.
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
Login or Join Now
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Related Content
Join Our Free Newsletter
Awards
Current Competitions
foliopic 'Movement' Competition
1st May 2012 - 31st May 2012
This month's competition theme is 'Movement' which can be interpreted in a number of ways. You could photograph an animal running, a person walking or a car speeding...Featured e2 Photo
Featured Directory Listing
May's Photo Month
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
Interact
Photography Gallery Photography Forums Recent Forum Activity Members' Meetings Members' BlogsSearch ePHOTOzine
Having trouble or would like to make a suggestion? Create a report
Calibrate your monitor so you can see 16 different shades.
ePHOTOzine © 2001 - 2012 Magezine Publishing | Contact Us | Site Map | Top