Julie asked:

I was just going through your website and was reading all the questions and answers people ask you!
So, I decided to ask you a question myself and get your expert advice.

I like photography and I have an interest for learning more philosophy. Through examining your
website I wanted to take a closer look into photography and philosophy, meaning looking at
photography using philosophy and analyze it a bit!

I was wondering about your thoughts on abstract objects in photography and whether or not you feel
photographs can depict Plato's forms? and whether or not they can depict abstract things of any
type?

I was also wondering if you felt photographs can be used to depict a photographers' subjective
impressions?

I have formed many opinions concerning this topic through photography and just wanted someone
else's point of view from the philosophy angle. I know these questions are not straight forward but I
thought I would just see a few of your views on the subject!

I would love to hear back from you concerning this topic. Thought it might give you something to think
about and wrap your mind around!

============

I must confess that I am no expert on the subject of photography; like many others I enjoy using my
camera, which is efficient and idiot-proof. I am, however, interested in art and spend some of my
spare time painting in acrylics.

There was for some time a general feeling amongst art lovers that the camera could never replace
the painter. In the beginning the box camera was nothing more than a gimmick for family
entertainment, also a photographer was thought of as someone who took family portraits, weddings
and school groups. However, developing quietly behind this banal facade was a highly efficient
medium for communication, in fact, it was fast becoming a specialised form of art which incorporated
not only a means of communication but was also a provider of instant records in time and space. Art,
of course, always had something to say, it was never just a case of painting a picture, it has been
used extensively in the past as a vehicle of politics and propaganda. Photography has proved that it
is not only just as capable of carrying forward this commitment but has, in my view, enhanced this
facet of the art world with its speed and accuracy.

All forms of art have always progressed hand in hand with developing technology, probably
photography, more than any other form, and by its very nature, depends on this development.
Perhaps where other forms of art pioneered the path of development by their demands on
technology, photography lay somewhat dormant waiting to follow the inspiration and motivation in the
developing technology. In other words, art said, "This is what we want, provide us with it." Whereas,
technology said to photography, "This is what we have got, learn how to use it." Though the means to
the end have been different both painter and photographer have achieved their objectives.

You ask if photographs can be used to depict a photographer's subjective impressions. I believe that
this can be achieved in photographs just as successfully as in any other expressive art. A
photographer, like a painter, will require to think about composition, both will have to decide on how to
present meaningful subject matter, both will have to exhibit creative flair, both, by the skillful use of
light and shadow will show that awareness of contrast and fine detail necessary to impart the
personal content which brings the work alive. In this way the character and feelings of the
photographer become the soul of the subject matter. A photograph, then, can contain the same form
and meaning as a painting and the photographer, just like the painter, is recognised by his/her style.
You will know more about the techniques of photography than I do, but I feel sure that other factors
intrinsic within those techniques will contribute to the subjective talents of the photographer. When a
painter is advised to paint what he/she actually sees, in a similar way the photographer must capture
what is seen. In this the photographer has a definite advantage over the painter, for where the latter
requires to remember how the scene was influenced by the light at the start, which could be some
hours before, the photographer captures the scene instantly, what is seen in that instant the
photographer secures.

Like a painter, then, a photographer can give a lot of him/ herself to the subject matter, and there is
no reason why those conversant with the work of different photographers would not be able to
recognise the style and individual talent embodied in the subject matter of a masterpiece.

A claim has always been made that a good artist can improve on nature by skillful use of artistic
licence, the question arises, Can a photographer achieve the same? Well, a photographer certainly
could not add an extra tree to a composition, or move a cathedral as Constable did. There would also
be some difficulty in trying to produce the 'impressionist' effects of Turner. You will, no doubt, hold
your own views on this, but, for what it is worth, I, personally, do not see any conflict here.
Photography is a different form of art; there is no doubt that rugby and cricket are both games, but to
suggest that cricketers are deprived of goal posts and could not, therefore, compete with rugby
players would be a spurious and stupid argument, cricketers do not need goal posts to play cricket.
Just as rugby and cricket are games within their own right and one is in no way reliant on the other,
so with painting and photography. That photography is an art form in its own right is now universally
accepted. Of course, public interest has itself increased with the availability of easy to use cameras
and higher grade films. However, above all, it is well understood that pictures speak louder than
words, and it is as a valuable communication medium that photography is unsurpassed, but the value
of that communication depends on the skill of the photographer to impart the feeling and emotion into
the subject to make it more than just a picture.

John Brandon

I was working at the library of the Viennese School of Photography and Graphic Design when I saw
your question. It indeed is "something to think about and wrap my mind around". The only problem is,
I do not know much about photography.

Probably the most frequently asked philosophical question concerning photography is, whether
photography is art or not. More than 150 years ago the French history painter Paul Delaroche
declared, "From today painting is dead." He saw it as a powerful new medium that could replace
painting in representing and documenting the world much more precisely and in much less time than
could be done with brush and pigments. This of course is a statement from a very "naturalistic" point
of view and perhaps the invention of photography is partly responsible for further development of arts
away from mere lifelike painting.

Nowadays Fine Arts and Photography don't seem to be in an "either ... or" relation any more, but in a
"both ... and ... " relation. Photography is used by many artists as either an aid (such as Chuck Close
who's work would be impossible without the aid of photography) or as actual artwork. Some artists
use it so they can go beyond the boundaries of painting/drawing/sculpting etc. Man Ray paints "what
he can't photograph, and photographs what he can't paint."

I think "photographs can be used to depict a photographers' subjective impressions", as there are
many possibilities to go beyond "click and process":

*Like a painter a photographer subjectively looks for the perfect scene and can arrange it before
depicting it

*Printing can be a long and intensive creative process if you wish to make your print 'perfect', and

*image manipulation by hand or computer requires a lot a time, effort and patience — similar to a lot
of artistic methods.

"To me it seems that a photograph of a pretty landscape simply is another natural phenomenon like a
landscape — a paper landscape or a fingerprint or footprint of a landscape.", I recently read in a
magazine. Can you feel the wind, can you smell the flowers or feel the real surface on this "paper
landscape"?

Still, most of us, me included, are fascinated by these paper landscapes. To me, looking at good
photographs is like putting myself in the photographer's position and therefore a good way of
travelling without actually being there.

Simone Klein

http://www.sophiasworld.at/

67