Details van artikel 106 van 149 gevonden artikelen
Ljuger kameran?
Titel:
Ljuger kameran?
Auteur:
Edling, Marta
Verschenen in:
Konsthistorisk tidskrift
Paginering:
Jaargang 58 (1989) nr. 4 pagina's 166-172
Jaar:
1989
Inhoud:
Does the Camera Lie? The aim of this article is to criticize a belief in authenticity when describing and analysing a photograph from the point of view of art history. In brief, this belief implies that the photograph is presumed to be some sort of imprint of the object itself, and thus an authentic document. My aim is to draw the reader's attention to the fact that this is not a fruitful starting point for a researcher, although he may have become perfectly familiar with the belief due to the everyday use of photography. In this use we no dot see the picture as a visual configuration but as an opening, like a loop-hole, on reality. We accept it as being reliable as an eyewitness since we assume that it offers us an opportunity of seeing what we might have seen with our own eyes if we had been present. We often draw a metaphorical parallel between a visual image and a photograph by likening a camera and an eye to one another. In popular science we frequently come across descriptions in photographic terms of how an eye works, and such common expressions as 'the eye of the camera', 'what the camera saw', etc. also link eyesight and photography together. Anyone who studies art history must, however, be aware that this conception of photography is not based on fact but on a somewhat simple notion of what photographic technique actually involves. Neither photography nor vision gives us an open and direct channel to reality; both construct pictures, but on principles that are quite different and not comparable. We see with our brain, and every visual image is an interpretation based on a far greater number of factors than the visual stimuli that were presented. A photograph is not a direct imprint of the actual object either, but a record of the light it reflected. It stands in no relationship to the object whatsoever, only to light. Sensitivity to light is the property of photographic material that contradicts the idea that there must be a connection between picture and object which guarantees accurate depiction. The reason why, on a photograph, a lively street may look as though there are no people in it is that those objects that were in motion did not reflect enough light for them to register on the emulsion. Such a picture would be fully 'authentic' as a record of the light the lens admitted, but hardly faithful to the 'picture' visible in the view-finder of the camera when the exposure was made. We must always bear in mind that the appearance of a photograph is not dependent on what the object photographed looked like, but on how the light reflected from it was registered. Not even the presence of an object reflecting light is an essential requirement in photography. We can point a camera at nothing at all and still take a photograph that is a fully authentic record of the light from nothing. That is why Roland Barthes' description of photography as the record of an «emanation« and Susan Sontag's as «a material vestige of its subject« is misleading. Objects emit no light whatsoever, and neither is light linked to them in any way. It is impossible to speak of any relationship between the two, for, in photographic contexts, light owes nothing to the objects themselves. It is, after all, precisely because film is sensitive to light (and completely insensitive to objects) that the camera turns a blind eye to certain parts of a lively street at which it is pointed. What makes belief in authenticity even less fitting in the context of art-history is that it reduces photography to the level of literally making a copy of reality. It obscures the fact that a photograph is a visual configuration which is subject to the conventions that govern depiction and interpretation. Since a photograph is a figuration and not a reflection, it should be interpreted from a framework that permits it to be more than a shadow of a piece of reality. We can find an antidote to such a narrow approach in the etymological derivation of 'photography - writing with light'. A person is in a better position to interpret a photograph if he regards it as a 'sign' rather than an imprint; he then sees it in a broader perspective which takes into account that even the most faithful photographic record can be interpreted in several different ways and that its terms of reference are by no means given. Like any other picture, it can lie about 'what it really was like'. However, it may be more difficult than one first thinks to bear in mind the 'coded' and conventional character of photography, since this way of thinking conflicts with the principles we generally follow when we employ photographic pictures. That means that we have to overcome the resistance that everyday practice has built up in us and try to remember that in different contexts it is perfectly possible to choose alternative viewpoints. Although in many situations in daily life we use photographs as though they were authentic documents, that need not prevent us from regarding them as symbolic representations in art-historic contexts.
Uitgever:
Routledge
Bronbestand:
Elektronische Wetenschappelijke Tijdschriften
Details van artikel 106 van 149 gevonden artikelen
Tijdschrift beschrijving