Following my tutorial with Dr. Cian Quayle, I started reading the book Towards a philosophy of photography as he recommended this text after discussing the images of the previous project. In this book, Flusser (2000) starts discussing what an image is. An image is an abstraction since we have to reduce all the information available in space and time into two dimensions. In addition, according to Flusser, images are ambiguous or connotative since they are open to interpretation. I found this conception very interesting as it links with my approach to photography since I aim to produce images that may bring different meanings to distinct viewers.
Flusser discusses the process of scanning which consists of reconstructing the image by the beholder. This reconstruction can potentially shape how the image is perceived as the viewer can bring past information as well as consider novel information every time they encounter the image. This process of reconstruction may be linked to the idea of context proposed by Susan Sontag. According to Sontag, depending on the situation a photograph might be interpreted differently. If I take the images I produced in the previous weeks based on stroboscopic photography, the beholder is exposed to a final image but they need to interpret that this final image is composed of many different shots that are captured in a single frame. This single frame shows the motion of an object creating an abstract pattern. This final outcome may potentially mean different things for distinct spectators depending on whether they are capable of perceiving the process. For example, if a beholder believes that the images have been generated in Photoshop this can affect their liking of the image. On the other hand, if the spectator is aware of how the image has been produced potentially they may value more the final outcome.
Flusser also discusses the relationship between text and image. On the one hand, the image can illustrate the text but on the other hand, the text can change how an image is interpreted. This idea resonates with my thought that potentially attributing titles to the images can shape how the beholder may see an image. That is why, I intentionally try to avoid as much as possible to label my images. In that way, they remain as open to interpretation as possible.
Since photographs are produced by cameras, Flusser calls them “technical images”. Flusser argues that technical images can be seen by some people as “windows” to the world as they potentially represent reality as it is. He argues that this is dangerous as images can be manipulated or the photographer can decide how to represent such reality. I agree that photographs cannot be seen as windows or mirrors of the “reality” but as subjective to what the photographer aims to represent. For example, I intend on purpose to create ambiguous or visually indeterminate images. Even when these images contain everyday objects they appear distorted or fragmented while other photographers may photograph them in a completely different manner. Hence, these technical images can be understood as reflecting the photographer’s view of the world.
Flusser argues that the process of creation is done mostly by the camera rather than the photographer. The camera allows capturing and generating the images. This can be regarded as especially true with digital cameras in which the final outcome is almost automatic after shooting as compared to analogue images in which one had to develop the film to get the final image. However, even if the process is automatic what is achieved will depend on the photographer. As I said before, I believe that what is represented really depends on each photographer so I do not think that the full process is taken by the camera itself. However, Flusser also argues that the process of creation continues when the photographer selects the final outcome among all the images taken. This selection is in fact intentional. When I analyse the process followed with each of my images, I like to include the contact sheet and explain why I have discarded some images. Most of the time, I make this decision based on technical aspects such as wrong lighting or composition. Hence, these conscious decisions shape what will constitute the final outcome.
Flusser also discusses something important for my practice; the use of black and white. I am colour blind and I really struggle in my practice with the use of colour. I tried to use it last year in some of the photographs but it did not turn out well. According to Flusser, the use of black and white is sometimes intentional so that the message of the image can be clearer. Flusser argues that black and white images are more concrete because they allow focusing in a more straightforward fashion than the colour images. The more symbolic elements the image has the more decoding the beholder will need to do to interpret the image.
According to Flusser, a good photographer is one in which the camera is subordinated to the photographer’s intention. In other words, a good photographer is one who knows how to use the camera to fulfill what they want to represent or show in their images. This does not mean that the process may be planned with a lot of level of detail but it needs to have some thought of what the photographer envisions. In my case, I try to be systematic in my approach. I use for example sketches to think about the composition of the image. This helps me to see what works and what does not. I agree with Flusser that knowing the photographic technique allows the photographer to represent his vision. For example, in my images, I need to apply the correct lighting techniques in order to achieve the effects I want when representing shadow casts. Without knowing how to light, this would be very difficult to achieve.
The distribution of images also shapes how photographs might be seen. According to Flusser different images (e.g., scientific vs artistic) may be distributed in different media. This process also shapes the experience of how beholders may interpret the image. For example, if I think about how to display my work it is not the same if I only show the final outcome printed and mounted in a frame than if I include a video or images of how the images were taken. This can change completely how the images might be valued by the beholders.
Although photographs are more accessible than ever, this does not necessarily mean that people know how to decode an image. This accessibility has also made photography less valued as compared to the past. Thinking about my work, I realize that when posting it on social media, people tend to value it more or like it better when more technical knowledge is displayed on the image. Otherwise, people might see it as something they can produce themselves and value it less.
Finally, Flusser finishes the book by discussing why we need a philosophy of photography. Flusser argues that the photographer should reflect on his work to embrace freedom. The photographer needs to reflect on what he wants to represent and whether they are following a predetermined program. Unless this is challenged, the photographer will not be able to be completely free in his practice. For example, if one decides to photograph what is trendy (e.g., empty spaces) instead of what one might be truly interested in, this will constrain one’s own true intentions. When the photographer consciously reflects on the topic, process, and intention the final image will acquire a true distinctive meaning which will not be subordinated to the camera.
Overall, reading this book has helped me to reflect on my own practice and how my images might be seen by others, and the factors that may shape this experience.
I continued my reading focusing on the intentionality in art. My practice in the previous weeks made me think about what is intentional vs what is accidental. One may argue that photography is intentional most of the time, especially studio photography. However, there are instances where photography can be more accidental (e.g., the decisive moment as suggested by Cartier Bresson). Is my work completely intentional? What is the role of the unexpected? In order to approach these questions, I went back to the philosophy of art to see how intentionality was discussed.
According to Best (1981) a work of art can produce an emotional experience that is particular to that specific piece. This response is so specific that it is sometimes even hard to describe with words. Best (1981) talks about intentionality in relation to such emotional experience. According to Best, spectators may not display an appropriate emotional response to a work of art because they lack the necessary knowledge to completely understand such a piece. I thought this observation was particularly interesting in relation to more abstract forms of art. For example, thinking about the research I undertook in previous weeks about abstract expressionism and Jackson Pollock’s work, in particular, this tends to be perceived as not very elaborated by the lay public. However, art experts may have a different opinion about it given that they may have further knowledge about the processes implied to arrive at the final outcome.
Kolak (1990) examines what constitutes a work of art. He confronts the artist’s intentions to specific features that would make something a piece of art. According to Kolak (1990) the artist’s intention might not be needed when such features are present. However, in his writing, he does not make clear what those features are. Kolak also mentions briefly the role of spectators in the perception of elements as pieces of art but it is not clear what elements may shape such perception (i.e., previous experiences, knowledge of art, etc.).
Jacquette (2014) argues that art consists of the expression of ideas. The expression of ideas should according to Jacquette consider the analysis undertaken by both artists and spectators. According to Jacquette, art is intentional since it is created with something in mind. The artist selects specific materials, follows a particular process, and tries to achieve a detailed outcome that they may have in mind. This made me reflect on my own practice as I tried to be really precise and plan everything before trying to execute my photographs. However, more recently, I am trying to add unexpected elements which may add uncertainty to the final outcome. Although these unexpected elements may not fall entirely in the category of intentionality, according to Jacquette, these are still intentional since I am selecting the precise elements I am adding to my practice even if I cannot predict how these will turn out in the photograph.
Frank- Witt (2020) discusses a very interesting concept that is the idea that intentionality is not static but it evolves with the artistic practice. For example, I may start with an initial sketch to plan for the final image. This would constitute my original intentionality but as I continue with practice and I experiment with materials my intentionality may change. I feel this is apparent most of the time in my practice if I compare my learning agreement in a set project with the reflective review. One can tell that the original intention changes most of the time.
When it comes to photography, the intentional and the unexpected can co-occur. This was discussed by Barthes (1981) in Camera Lucida when suggesting the distinction between the studium and the punctum, respectively. According to Mitcheson (2010) the aesthetical experience of an image is usually embedded in a tension between the intentional and the unexpected. Both, depend upon and enhance each other. Mitcheson points out something really interesting which is the intentionality of the unexpected. For example, in my own images, I can play with materials that can produce unexpected outcomes (e.g., water) but I am intentionally planning for the unexpected to happen. Hence, these two elements are not completely independent as one may initially think.
References
Barthes, R. (1981). Camera lucida: Reflections on photography. London: Macmillan.
Best, D. (1981). Intentionality and art. Philosophy, 56(217), 349-363.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819100050324
Frank-Witt, P. (2020). Intentionality in art: empirical exposure. Journal of Visual Art Practice, 19(4), 297-309. https://doi.org/10.1080/14702029.2020.1752514
Flusser, V. (2000). Towards a philosophy of photography. London: Reaktion Books.
Jacquette, D. (2014). Art, expression, perception and intentionality. Journal of Aesthetics and Phenomenology, 1(1), 63-90. https://doi.org/10.2752/20539339XX14005942183973
Kolak, D. (1990). Art and intentionality. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 48(2), 158-162. https://doi.org/10.2307/430907
Mitcheson, K. (2010). Allowing the accidental; The interplay between intentionality and realism in photographic art. Contemporary Aesthetics, 8(1), 14-29.
Alberto Gonzalez 