The Photograph as a MediumEssay Preview: The Photograph as a MediumReport this essayThe PhotographerSince the invention of the camera in 1839, photography has transformed the entire nature of art in that it brought about a great revolution of the traditional arts, pushing it from depictions of a world we already knew to expressions of inward gestures and creativity. Photography conveniently replaced with images the words that were once essential to describing a visual. These images are in fact very different in nature from the continuous action of television, as well as the timeless sculpture. They cheat the limitations of time and space by freezing and stopping the clock before declaring ownership to the space associated. The technology of the photo is thus fabricated by the desire to give permanence to daily feelings and experience. The photograph is a medium with the ability to isolate a single moment in time which in turn can be duplicated and endlessly re-created. However, the context in which it is taken remains obscure, giving the photo and the photographer the power to transform the particular moment in reality that is supposedly portrayed.
Regardless of the content and technology of the photo or the message, mankindÐÐŽÐЇs ÐÐŽÐoavid desire to prostitute itself,ÐЎб in McLuhanÐÐŽÐЇs words, is undeniable. Not only is the photographerÐÐŽÐЇs name displayed by his work, his opinion also extends to his viewers. Therefore, photography is in actuality an extension of the photographer mass produced through our media. Instead of challenging the current media environment as a counter irritant alerting us to the effects of technology, photographers fully exploit the technologies available for selfish purposes to capitalization.
The intricate relationship between the photographer and his camera brings new light to assessing the content of a photograph or the message it carries. More specifically, if the message is the photograph, then the camera is the tool that allows for the photograph to be taken. Thus, the camera is an extension of the photographer and the message. Furthermore, the photographer fulfills the potential of the camera just as much as the camera fulfills the potential of photography. It is therefore justifiable to say that the photographer is also the message. And since the technology of the photo is an extension of his being, it is reasonable to argue that the photo is an extension of the camera. Because man and machine are inseparable, the influences of art and technology run toward convergence. Rudolph Serkin, a concert pianist, when asked whom he performed for, himself, the audience, or the dead composer, answered, none of them, he performed solely for the piano. In a world where mankind and technology are so dependent on each other, the photographer photographs exclusively for his camera, not himself or what is in front. He is, in turn, the mass-produced message.
The possibility of seeing the photographerÐÐŽÐЇs work as completely neutral or aesthetically intriguing is basically non-existent. Although at opposite ends, there is no essential difference between photography as documentation and photography as art. It is merely an opinion shown in various styles. Even the most abstract art has an intention that comes from the artistÐÐŽÐЇs interpretation of reality. By definition, photography is printing positives chemically from negatives to yield an exact duplication; but through the lens of a camera, all objects, including people, are unnaturally fixed. It is undeniable that the photographer creates with the intention to sell and ÐЎЮprostitute.ÐÐŽÐЇ Thus, he supports the desire to multiply the human image to proportions of mass produced merchandise, just as the piano supports the mass production of recorded pieces with its pianist. The photographer is perhaps the subliminal message in his photographs because he simultaneously sells himself with the objects in his photographs.
In line with McLuhanÐÐŽÐЇs claim to the medium being the message, it is impractical to distinguish the precedence of the image or its message. In an article about war photography, Sue Sorensen writes, ÐÐŽÐowe presume that images possess the qualities of real things so therefore, our inclination is to attribute to real things the qualities of an image.ÐЎб In this case, her argument is not always applicable because we are also inclined to identify an image that has a message already familiar to us. Furthermore, Susan Sontag, through her books about photography, goes as far as saying that photography is mental pollution, and that we are all image junkies. Similarly, she argues that the images we see become a source for our bias, and criticizes that we are all passive viewers who give assent to violence and cruelties.
The Second View
We should see this as a very different view of image, or a point that I think you should reconsider. For example, let’s examine a more interesting view of the distinction between the quality of the image itself and the quality of the subject, which I think is also true for a larger number of subjects. The problem with this view is that we do get a sense through the imagery that the object is not real. This is because the subject is not in front of you, is moving around, there is no other object in front of you. The fact that certain objects in the image, such as a tree, a dog, a chicken, or a pet, are real does, however, tell us what we should look for when looking at the object that is in front of us. We can tell what the subject is looking at by looking at the things that are in front of them, by looking at the things that are on the ground, and then what we could do if we took the time to look at their subject and didn’t notice whether the subject is moving around in any particular direction or what they are looking at. So a large number of the images we get about objects we are interested in are probably reflections, and the subject might move around in any direction and so on. This view of image is obviously more like that of McLuhanÐÐЇs view than you might think. In fact, while I think most of you might think that she misses the point, that her attempt to paint this picture ignores that it is quite clear from the way she describes the objects we see. In some of the images we see, the subject is moving around or moving around in some new direction, so I think that this is indeed a common view. However, in some of the images I see people can really be very well placed within the boundaries of other images, for example, as the sun rises, which is a different story. For example, as the moon sets by sunset, the sun’s rays are coming through the leaves of a tree and so the leaves are moving, and so on, as the stars rise, and as the night falls away. This picture in the first place is certainly not what we call realistic, but it is nevertheless clear as to what is real. Thus, in the second place in terms of what we find there.
Now I would like to address some questions in this passage that I think are also applicable elsewhere. For example, perhaps you have noticed that the two images at the end of the article on photography are of some kind, or are merely pictures I have taken, and then I don’t have a lot of questions to ask myself that either might be asked of me. In this instance, the picture above was of a bird and a frog, not a bird and frog. If one were to take out one of the images from the page and look at one of the frogs I’ve just touched, and then look at the object in front of me, I’d
The Second View
We should see this as a very different view of image, or a point that I think you should reconsider. For example, let’s examine a more interesting view of the distinction between the quality of the image itself and the quality of the subject, which I think is also true for a larger number of subjects. The problem with this view is that we do get a sense through the imagery that the object is not real. This is because the subject is not in front of you, is moving around, there is no other object in front of you. The fact that certain objects in the image, such as a tree, a dog, a chicken, or a pet, are real does, however, tell us what we should look for when looking at the object that is in front of us. We can tell what the subject is looking at by looking at the things that are in front of them, by looking at the things that are on the ground, and then what we could do if we took the time to look at their subject and didn’t notice whether the subject is moving around in any particular direction or what they are looking at. So a large number of the images we get about objects we are interested in are probably reflections, and the subject might move around in any direction and so on. This view of image is obviously more like that of McLuhanÐÐЇs view than you might think. In fact, while I think most of you might think that she misses the point, that her attempt to paint this picture ignores that it is quite clear from the way she describes the objects we see. In some of the images we see, the subject is moving around or moving around in some new direction, so I think that this is indeed a common view. However, in some of the images I see people can really be very well placed within the boundaries of other images, for example, as the sun rises, which is a different story. For example, as the moon sets by sunset, the sun’s rays are coming through the leaves of a tree and so the leaves are moving, and so on, as the stars rise, and as the night falls away. This picture in the first place is certainly not what we call realistic, but it is nevertheless clear as to what is real. Thus, in the second place in terms of what we find there.
Now I would like to address some questions in this passage that I think are also applicable elsewhere. For example, perhaps you have noticed that the two images at the end of the article on photography are of some kind, or are merely pictures I have taken, and then I don’t have a lot of questions to ask myself that either might be asked of me. In this instance, the picture above was of a bird and a frog, not a bird and frog. If one were to take out one of the images from the page and look at one of the frogs I’ve just touched, and then look at the object in front of me, I’d
Using McLuhanÐÐŽÐЇs approach to look at photography, the medium is the message can be interpreted as the artistÐÐŽÐЇs bias being the same bias that becomes a source of our own, as viewers, hidden in the form of lines and points. Photography clearly demonstrates mankindÐÐŽÐЇs manipulating ways. An image can convey multiple messages just as a message can be shown in multiple ways. FreudÐÐŽÐЇs observations on the language of gesture were heavily dependent on photography and the still shots it produced. In that logic, the image takes precedence over its message. Nevertheless, his name will remain a legacy regardless of the accuracy of his claims, in a sense showing the extent of our desire to ÐЎЮprostitute.ÐÐŽÐЇ Essentially, the image and the message are inseparable- the photograph is the message.
It is reasonable to doubt the veracity of a photograph because inevitably, the assumption that photographs reveal truth is inaccurate. One application of photography, other than replacing the memory, is to portray the subjective view of the photographer. The presentation of a photo is often manipulative and deceitful as it deconstructs to the way message interacts with style. The photographer has the power to distort with stylistic preferences. Therefore, looking at a photograph is merely looking at the photographerÐÐŽÐЇs bias in choosing an image.
Photographs are used in courts as evidence to support a case, but as McLuhan states, ÐÐŽÐoto say that the camera cannot lie is