‘ARM’ Philosophy as Method w/ Teemu 2/10/19
Today’s session was a poignant and interesting session at the ways in which we can look at photography philosophically and how and what philosophy in photography is. We began by looking at what philosophy actually is, and how it might present itself as a useful way to engage and approach both photography practice and the act of viewing an image.
Philosophy, at its core, is an activity in which one thinks about a system of beliefs, values and concepts in order to “rigorously” understand why something exists and the purpose or reason for its existence. As Teemu noted, philosophy deals in arguments and is the attempt to get to the root of reason behind the existence of something. Below is a list of some of the key areas that philosophy has been used in, in order to closely engage with the given subjects.
As is visible here, it is obvious to see the vast range of areas that philosophical debate has entered, and what is important to remember is that it looks at the ‘big picture’ so to speak, within each area. An example of this is in photography; in that it doesn’t just deal with one element of photography, rather it deals with the entirety of the photographic practice ranging from politics, ethics, history, sociological issues and so on.
Within the session Teemu introduced us to three specific areas where philosophy had entered into photography most prominently. These were: Ontology, Ethics and Aesthetics.
ONTOLOGY:
To look at photography through ontology is to ask oneself; What ISPhotography? and more definitively; What defines and makes it unique/different compared to other such mediums?
One example that came up in our discussion was the period of modernism. Modernism was arguably the era of photography, ontologically speaking. It was a time when pictorialism was left behind and the search for social functionality came to the fore. Major art theoretician Clement Greenberg argued that painting needs to find what is unique about its nature, where it can fit in to societal demands; the same went for photography.
One group who were part of this era was the f/64 group; who argued that photography’s uniqueness is (was) in its clarity and/or sharpness. This was not entirely accurate in that a lot of images contain blur, motion and therefore lack of detail and sharpness, but it was an example of how practitioners and theorists alike were attempting to find purpose and individuality in photography.
As part of this the notion of looking at photography in an indexical manner came in to play. In other words, is the idea that ‘cause and reaction’ (eg. something along the lines of a fever being the cause of an infection) in play in photography. Does an image (reaction) come from a cause? Below is a diagram which displays how this type of philosophical thinking might be visualised.
It also allowed for us to push on these ideas by asking does photography need to be indexical for it to be considered photography? Does it need to be realistic? Does it need to be truthful? And does it need to tell us exactly what is going on within its frames?
Broadly speaking the answer is NO.
David Campany (in a lecture from our first year) noted that we do not know what photography is yet and we don’t know what to do/use if for specifically. Therefore, we should use photography for anything we want.
This then brought us to:
ETHICS
Due to photography (ontologically speaking) showing us reality (or a version of it) we are faced with the important question of morality/ethics.
Importantly examined was that there are ethical questions the concerning photography of events that need to be looked at:
As Teemu noted, most ethical questions in photography are under applied ethics and a case by case approach is required.
An interesting example of this can be found in Sebastiao Salgado’s work (unfortunately I can't show this image as it goes against Tumblrs guidelines).
The argument that was levelled at this work was it was too aesthetic to get to the core of the reality of the image and that aestheticising tragedy was unethical.
This is something I have a huge issue with, in that to say something is not valid or unethical because it looks aestheticised is, to me, the easy way out or the easy way to engage with its contents, but I will write up a separate section on this on its own as I feel it is an important part of who I am as a person and photographer and therefore would like the dedicate some time to articulate it properly.
So, the question, philosophically, is whether or not it is correct/right or incorrect/wrong in aestheticising tragedy vs. not.
We then discussed that arguments in this realm often fall under the bracket of normative ethics or metaethics.
Consequentialism
Means the moral value of an act is based on the acts consequences. Meaning if the consequences are good then the act of photographing it was good.
Deontology
Looks at it from the view that it is your duty (deon - Greek for duty) to do the ‘right thing’, and the consequences of this act are not important.
AESTHETICS
To look at the philosophy behind aesthetics in photography, it is important to note that the notion of aesthetics predates the birth of photography by quite a large number of years (over a century). The history of art has dealt with aesthetic value long before photography was around.
A large argument that is levelled at photographic aesthetic as a philosophical value or perspective is that it is not intrinsic as a value to photography, meaning it is not unique. I spoke with Teemu at our short break and discussed this notion. I do not disagree with it, but what I will say is that to throw out aesthetic value because it is not an intrinsic value of photography is a ridiculous ideal. It would be like saying that one cannot make films of real events or narratives based on real stories because it wasn’t shot in real time or using the people who actually experienced it. Do we not get the same emotional and educational value and understanding of certain narratives, scenes and stories through cinema? To suggest that this is not as valuable as an approach to reality and philosophical understanding is somewhat cutting the legs off an invaluable outlook and perspective. We are humans and have emotions, therefore we respond to the emotionality and human experiences of events, and to rid us of that would be making the task of ‘understanding’ and engagement all the more difficult… Enough of my rant.
The session was an incredible and invaluable one. It is an area of great interest to me as it raises so many perspectives and insights into ways of seeing. I am considering approaching this set of ideas for my essay.
