Research task: Reading an Archive: Photography between Labour and Capital (Sekula, 1999).
Read Allan Sekula’s essay ‘Reading an Archive: Photography between Labour and Capital’ in Evans & Hall (1999) Visual Culture: The Reader. In your learning log note down your response to this essay – and your thoughts on the discussion of globalisation above. (Boothroyd, 2020:36)
Here are my further thoughts on the globalisation discussion:
I’d not thought about the work such as Martin Parr’s tourism-based projects as globalism projects. Nor had it occurred to me to think of globalisation in terms of exchange of knowledge, or the role of art in this process.
Art is nowadays available across boundaries, physically and virtually. Ritchen suggests that sharing photography globally encourages visual similarities and strategies (Marien,2014:51), which it does. However, it has not resulted in homogenisation of cultural values across the world, despite much consumerism becoming international along with corporate identities and logos (Marien,2014 :395). In fact, globalisation has in some ways heightened awareness of local cultures.
Marien usefully suggests that in Art and photography, globalization is being differentiated from globalism (2014:503). Having sought definitions, it seems that globalisation is defined as a process by which businesses influence or operate on an international scale, whilst globalism is planning on a global basis.
This however didn’t give me clarity, so on further probing I now understand that globalism is an ideology of sharing across borders, whilst globalisation is the actual spreading of ideas, goods and services. Marian describes globalisation in art as a return to Modernism and its desire for universal values. It is possible though that after initial influences, some artists return to their original practices possibly defined by their cultures, whilst others might choose to move outside of this. The good thing undoubtedly is that we can share ideas and artwork globally and that it has the opportunity impact more widely.
The question is posed in the course material in relation to globalisation “who is really your audience? To whom do you want your work to speak?” (Boothroyd, 2020:36).
This is not an issue just of globalisation, but I think the starting point of any work. But I should also remember to ask myself particularly if my audience is not an exclusively local one, would my work be viewed differently in different parts of the world? There may be parallels with my work and another’s work from a completely different part of the world. I should also be aware whether my work might cause offensive to other of a different culture, but again this is not just an issue of globalisation but a general issue.
The idea of considering globalisation is interesting to me, as my work is based on observations of local community, and the above highlights to me the need for awareness that others may not be able to access ideas that I represent, though once again this is always a dilemma withing photographic work.
References:
Boothroyd, S (2020) Photography 3: Body of work coursebook. Open College of the Arts. Barnsley.
Marien, M. W. (2014) Photography: A Cultural History. (s.l.): Laurence King Publishing.
Sekula, A. (1999) ‘ Reading an Archive: Photography between Labour and Capital ‘ In: Evans, J.H. (ed.) Visual culture: The Reader. London: SAGE. pp.181–192. Marien, M. W. (2014) Photography: A Cultural History. (s.l.): Laurence King Publishing
Read ‘Photography’ (Chapter 2) in Howells, R. (2012) Visual Culture on the OCA student website. Note down your own response to Howells’ arguments. (Boothroyd, 2020:35)
Howells considers the relationship between photography and reality and how it can represent the world in its 2-D form. To this he sets out a brief history of photography, and its uses. But he then poses several questions:
-Due to ease of mechanical reproduction, can photography be considered an artist medium?
-Does authorship give this artistic creative achievement?
-Does subjectivity in photography and the creative potential of form over content render photography artistic?
My notes and responses:
– Howells considers the viewpoint set out by Roger Scruton, writer and philosopher that photography is simply a mechanical representation of a subject and can’t transcend that. He points out that there is more to a photograph than its subject matter as this is only conveyed by a photographer by using a number of creative and technical choices-firstly the aesthetic potential of a subject needs recognising, then in the developing and printing there are further choices made. Howell objects to the assertion that photography is only about subject matter choices.
– He asserts that we respond not to what a photograph shows, but to how it shows it,
“A photograph, after all, has formal properties that transcend its subject matter” (Howells, 2012:194), as photographers turn subjects into compositions.
– Howells gives examples of photographers who were photographing where form was more important than the subject matter, often everyday objects photographed in unusual ways, and the image is the focus not the subject, such as Paul Strand, Siskind and Edward Weston. He cites that Siskind believed that “the meaning should be in the photograph and not the subject photographed (Lyons, 1965:6-7). Howells points out that artists such as these transformed the ugly into the artistic, so it is untenable to suggest that photographs are not art.
– Howells does agree that Documentary photography is more likely to be a representation of how something looks, but caveats this with how you may still choose what’s in the frame. He goes on to show that a photographer is even making choices when he decides to photograph something – this is subjective, as is the intent of the documents.
– Howells discusses the theories of Andre Bazin and the ontology “essence” of photography. The acknowledgement of the physical relationship between the object photographed and the photograph, but the understanding that the photograph in turn frees the subject from this relationship of time and space. Bazin believed that photography could be greater that creative power, even surreal as the distinction between the imaginary and the real disappears (Howells, 2012:199).
– Howells concludes that photography is a medium that is neither wholly or imaginary, and that this is its strength.
– On the semiotics of photography, he notes that the literal meaning of an image may not be its complete meaning.
– He covers the key debates of Scruton previously mentioned, as well as William King’s challenge to these views that photographers have particular ways of seeing (Howells, 2012:203). Also, that Warburton’s assertions that individual style is what makes an artist work distinctive, but this is not possible within a single image. Howells concludes accepting Warburton’s assertions, that when we contextualise a photographer’s work with their work as a whole, stylistic features, and intentions emerge, then photography can embody aesthetic intentions. “In other words, the photograph can now be seen as a work of art” (Howell, :205).
My response:
I very much enjoyed reading this chapter; I found it a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between photography and reality, and it introduced me to, new for me, writers and philosophers. I found his style easy to read and therefore the content easy to assimilate,
Returning to 3 questions that he posed himself at the beginning of the chapter:
-Due to ease of mechanical reproduction, can photography be considered an artist medium?
-Does authorship give this artistic creative achievement?
-Does subjectivity in photography and the creative potential of form over content render photography artistic?
Howells has answered all of these. He has shown that photography is about much more than mechanical reproduction, in part, because we respond to the way subjects are shown in images.
He has also shown by example that authorship can bring artistic achievement. I was particularly interested that he uses as examples groups of photographers that I am leaning towards influencing my work, such as Weston; explicitly that it is the image in their work that is the art not the subject.
One of his arguments is nicely simple, that if an image can transform something ugly into something artistic, photography must be creative. His message is clear that photography is subjective, many choices are made when constructing an image and so it is a creative process. I also like his assertion that photography is neither wholly real or imaginative and look forward to playing with this in my work.
References:
Boothroyd, S (2020) Photography 3: Body of work coursebook. Open College of the Arts. Barnsley.
Howells, R. and Negreiros, J. (2012) Visual Culture. (s.l.): Polity.
Nathan Lyons (1965) Aaron Siskind, Photographer New York: George Eastman House, cited in Howell pp.195.
Read ‘Rhetoric of the Image’ by Roland Barthes in your course reader. (Boothroyd, 2020:32)
On rereading this text, I was reminded of, and compiled a summary of the text from previous readings:
Roland Barthes (1915–80) was the father of semiotics in the world of photography. Semiotics is the study of signs and language and through this Barthes provided us with terms and tools that can be helpful in interpreting photographs. In ‘Rhetoric of the Image’ (1964) the French literary theorist Barthes analyses an advertising text and then looks at how signs within it covey different messages.
Semiotics can be known as the ‘science of signs’. A semiotic analysis of an image quantifies how the meaning or message is constructed or communicated:
He identifies 3 different types of messages:
The linguistic message: The text -denoted (captions and labels) and connoted (inferred).
The literal message: Dennoted – this is obvious and uncoded message.
The symbolic coded message: Connoted by signifiers and the signified.
Sign is the first level of meaning, comprised of a signifier and a signified – or a denoted object (the actual thing depicted) and the connoted message (what the thing depicted communicates).
Myth is the second level of meaning, it considers the viewer’s existing contextual knowledge that informs a reading of the image. Though myth is not directly referred to in the essay Barthes refers to cultural stereo types and assumptions.
The denotation of an image helps to define the coded messages within an image, although the reading of an image is dependent on the viewer’s cultural background. The signifiers are the connotators; Barthes calls the connotators a rhetoric and says, “it is precisely the syntagm of the denoted message which naturalises the system of the connotated message” (Barthes, 1977: p51)
For Barthes the photograph is a sign that is made up of a signifier and a signified
SIGNIFIER = the actual picture, its formal and conceptual elements
SIGNIFIED = what we think of when we see the picture. This could be very straightforward, for example a picture of a dog signifying ‘dogness’. Or it could be metaphorical or conceptual, for example a crown signifying royalty or the union flag signifying Britishness.
SIGN = the overall effect of a photograph
The image above presented in the essay is read as an advert. The fact that the context is a magazine, and the pictorial emphasis on the product labels, influence how the overall picture is read. These signs are taken in together, Although the landscape doesn’t feature in this advert, it refers to the bounty of the countryside.
Denotation and connotation -We can interpret a photograph on two different levels:
• Denotation is an objective approach in line with ‘translation’ – looking at the elements present in the image. What’s there?
• Connotation is more in line with ‘interpretation’ and is to some extent subjective. What do the elements mean (or connote)?
Punctum and studium
Studium is the term Barthes uses to the photograph’s cultural, political or social meaning.
Punctum is an element within the picture that disrupts the rest of the narrative. It punctures the meaning and takes it off on a different tangent.
Barthes suggests that the linguistic message has 2 functions:
Anchorage: This is where images can be ascribed various meanings and the text is used to focus the viewer on a particular meaning. Barthes defines anchorage as directional titles that pin down their meaning, e.g., news photographs, Advertisements
Relay: Here the text and image work together and the text adds meaning. He defines relay as when the image and text combine together to give meaning. E.g., Comic strips, graphic novels and films.
Intertextuality
Barthes talks about the rich tapestry of meaning. – summed up by his term ‘intertextuality’. Each person comes with their own background, education, and experiences and all of these things contribute to how they interpret life and events. When interpreting photographs, it’s also good to draw on other readings, pictures, paintings and experiences you’ve had in order to bring the photograph to life even more.
It is also suggested I our course reader that we read Chandler’s book Semiotics: The basics (2002). Here Chandler explains that the semiotic idea of intertextuality is mainly associated with post structuralist theorists. Chandler writes that the semiotic idea of intertextuality was introduced by Kristeva, and it refers to links relationship between texts. He refers to two axes of shared codes, 1) connecting author and the reader of the text 2) connecting the text to other texts. Meaning is not transferred directly from writer to reader but is actually mediated through, or filtered by, “codes” picked up by the writer and reader from other texts.
Chandler explains that intertextuality refers to more than the influences of writers on each other and the subjective power of language. Barthes in Image-Music-Text says that “it is language which speaks, not the author; to write is …to reach the point where only language acts, “performs”, and not “me” (Barthes, 1977:143). Chandler underlines that when writing we are using existing concepts and conventions and therefore writing can’t be confined to the author’s intentions; we may actually communicate things that we are unaware of. Intertextuality takes account of more than is within the frame of an image.
The concept of intertextuality became common for the textual theories of postmodernism, where interaction between the text and sign context is fundamental condition for making meaning. Intertextuality is the influence of other texts that add layers of meaning to images.
We are asked, is there an example of imagery within your work that features signs that can be interpreted in different ways by different viewers?Post an annotated example of your intertextual analysis to your learning log. (Boothroyd, 2015:32)
A building containing white cylinders (Niki South, 2020)
At the first level of Barthe’s meaning, the linguistic, the text accompanying this image tells a viewer that there are cylinders behind glass. The literal message is that the white cylinders are arranged in a pyramid shape behind textured glass, set in a white frame; the glass is probably a window and part of a building.
There is no external context for this image, but the denoted elements above may be translated by using the connotators, the signifiers. There are no obvious handles on the cylinders, which otherwise could signify they are mugs. In this case the textured glass might signify that this is a room which needs some privacy.
Contextual knowledge, myth may lead some viewers to the idea that this is a bathroom window, and therefore that the objects behind the glass are in fact toilet rolls. Equally another’s experience may lead them to believe that these are actually till rolls in a pyramid. I would suggest that within our culture the way that these cylinders are neatly arranged they would be more likely to be toilet rolls.
The semiotic significance of these white cylinders was grounded in the shortage of toilet rolls at the beginning of the covid 19 pandemic, but without this context, it loses this meaning.
References:
Barthes, Roland (1977). Rhetoric of the image, music text. London: Fontana Press.
Boothroyd, S (2020) Photography 3: Body of work coursebook. Open College of the Arts. Barnsley.
Chandler, D. and Dr, D. C. (2002) Semiotics: The Basics. (s.l.): Routledge.
Kristeva, J (1980) Desire in language: A semiotic approach to literature and art. New York: Columbia University Press. Cited in Chandler, D. and Dr, D. C. (2002) Semiotics: The Basics. (s.l.): Routledge, pp 230.
Roland, B. (1977) ‘Image -Music-Text”. Cited in Chandler, D. and Dr, D. C. (2002) Semiotics: The Basics. (s.l.): Routledge, p 196.
Read Douglas Crimp’s essay ‘The Photographic Activity of Postmodernism’ on the oca student website. This essay was first published in October 15 (Winter 1980) and is also available in Crimp, D.
As with all the readings you’ll be asked to do for this course, make notes on what you’ve read – and its relevance to your practice (if any) – in your research folder. (Boothroyd, 2020:28)
The Photographic Activity of Postmodernism.
Douglas Crimp first presented 1980, He is an art critic and a professor of art history.
Crimp calls Postmodernism a breach of modernism, from the museum, art history and photography.
Photography. In his 1978 work “Pictures”, he used the term post modernism referring to exhibited art of some younger artists in New York. He explored their concern about the seventy’s performative art, moving towards art with a “presence”.
He goes on to describe the difference between a presence as being there, to a subject having a presence. Concluding that work can have a presence even as a reproduction at a distance from an original. Whilst Benjamin only conceded aura to a minority of art works, Crimp points out that photography has since had aura conferred to it. He suggests that photography can be authenticated by classifications such as rarity of age, and the vintage print, but more importantly the “subjectivization of photography” (Crimp, 1995:97), an appreciation of artist’s stlye, which collecting and exhibiting artwork enhances.
Within this essay he discusses statements of Sherrie Levine on representation. On AfterSherrieLevine.com (AfterSherrieLevine.com, 2021) she rephotographed Walker Evans’ photographs from the exhibition catalogue “First and Last”, which can be downloaded to print out with a certificate of authenticity for each image, thus making them accessible by anyone. Levine suggests that representation creates desire to see the original subject, which can never be fulfilled as it is the art, not the subject that is the original, and therefore photography is the artwork.
Crimp also gives as an example the work of Cindy Sherman where she creates, narrates, and acts in her images. In doing so Crimp says that she has reversed the terms art and autobiography. He also comments on the work of Richard Prince who uses commercial images and presents them as documentary. Crimp suggests that these images “acquired an aura, only now it is not a function of presence but of absence, severed from origin, from an originator, from authenticity” concluding that aura has translated into a presence or a ghost (Crimp,1995:100).
Crimp shows that mechanical reproduction reducing the importance of the original, was a sign that modernism, which valued originality and artistic expression was being supplanted by post modernism. He appreciated new approaches to photography in this emerging postmodern era which embraced more contemporary theories in photography, and the role that photography played in challenging the museums and galleries. At this point I’m not sure whether postmodernism will be relevant to my practice.
WALTER BENJAMIN “THE WORK OF ART IN THE AGE OF MECHANICAL REPRODUCTION”
Read Walter Benjamin’s essay ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ in Evans & Hall (1999) Visual Culture: The Reader. What do you think about Benjamin’s viewpoint? And Kracauer’s? Make some notes on your learning log. (Boothroyd, 2020:25).
Benjamin’s 1936 views on art, aura authenticity are put forward in his essay “The work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” (1999):
Though art has always been replicated photography could do this at speed.
Reproductions of art will always be lacking in the elements of time and space, its unique existence, and the original is proof of authenticity.
Photography as a process of reproduction is able to enhance aspects possibly unseen by the naked eye, as well as place the object into a place where it couldn’t be otherwise.
However, when art is mechanically reproduced and loses its physical existence in time, and the physical existence ends, then its transmissibility is gone; Benjamin calls this the loss of “aura”.
He says that destroying aura by reproduction and transferring its location extracts its uniqueness; Uniqueness is bedded in the fabric of tradition and uniqueness is not transmissible, and distance however close, destroys this.
Benjamin did however believe that reproductions which produced and circulated copies of images enabled more people to view images, increasing communication, viewing and interpretation, and therefore democracy in photography.
I have found it hard to access much about the German critic Siegfried Kracauer and have resorted to Wikipedia for some clarity. He was critical of mechanical reproduction, he thought that memory was under threat and was being challenged by modern technology, particularly photography as it replicates some of the tasks done by memory. His view was that photography fixes one moment in time, where memory draws from various instances; he suggested that photography removes and emotion, essence and meaning from an object, and stressed the ontological relation of the photograph to reality.
Benjamin brought to attention some of modifications he noticed mechanical reproduction brought about the destroying of the aura, but also highlighted the liberation it can bring. Whilst Benjamin connects aura with the presence of the original, and reproduction depreciates this he concluded that some photographed work does retain an aura. Kracauer however was less positive about the effect of technological change on art. Other critics in the 1970s such as Rosalind Krauss and Douglas Crimp focused on the demise of the original piece of art as a sign that the modernist movement was dying.
I believe that as long as reproductions are noted as such, and manipulations of artworks are also noted as such, then there are many positives about being able to share works of art in a wider sense. Being able to share art in an aesthetic of informative manner widely may be more important that authenticity.
References:
Benjamin, W (1969) “The work of art in the age of Mechanical Reproduction” In: Evans, H. (1999) Visual Culture: The Reader. (ed.): SAGE Publications. Pp 72-79 (Accessed 1.10.21)
Boothroyd, S (2020) Photography 3: Body of work coursebook. Open College of the Arts. Barnsley.
Marien, M. W. (2014) Photography: A Cultural History. (s.l.): Laurence King Publishing.
NIKI SOUTH 