On display: January 7 - February 25, 2015 Hamilton Public Library, Central Branch, Gallery 4 Annex, Fourth Floor Photographs of violence and suffering are as old as the medium itself. But not all photographs of violence are violent photographs. Some have in them bits that are holdouts of hope or parts that carry messages of peace. While it is vitally important to recognize and acknowledge the atrocities that are represented photographically, looking towards the accidental, unintended bits on the margins or in the backgrounds of these pictures can be just as valuable. With photographic technology that has increased in simplicity (in terms of use and distribution) has come a marked increase in everyday encounters with a growing volume of photographs of cruelties and pain. Pictures of wars, terrorist attacks, rebellious insurgencies, along with photos of humans caught in typhoons, hurricanes, famines, epidemics are, frankly, ubiquitous. Criticisms and anxieties about displaying such pictures have also accompanied these pictures since their initial appearance (probably before that even, when pictures of horrors were painted or printed). Among them are arguments that these photographs are too graphic, and too realistic; that they are distressing and depressing for viewers. (Tellingly, no one ever mentions that the people in the photographs are recognizable in ways they aren't in painting or prints: what about the distress this causes them?) The concerns also include claims that the sheer intensity (quantity and quality) of these photos lead people to become numbed, or worse yet, bored by them. Of course where there are arguments, there are counter arguments. Among them are claims that atrocity photographs are in fact informative and necessary: they raise awareness of what suffering, what loss of supports, rights, and care, and what the extent to which humans go to hurt other humans looks like. Arguments aside, what comes out of these critiques is the fact that photography contains different information than can be described in even the most detailed report or most evocative text. Along with containing a unique level of detail, photographs are also oblique. Despite all the common post-modern complaints about media in general and photography in particular being too real to be real, hyper-manipulated, and corrupt, there is another way in which photography is slanted. Photographs also harbour information that is marginal, uncontrolled, and accidental, resulting in a plethora of different angles (points of view) to be taken by spectators. Roland Barthes, a French literary critic and philosopher, knew this about photography. For him, this aspect of photography was so stirringly important that he elevated it through the invention of a new term: punctum. Punctum is a detail that grabs the attention of the viewer away from the photo's coded (iconic, denotative or as Barthes contrastingly called it: stadium) or intended message. Photographs have a surface denotative meaning, something that is 'obvious' for spectators that are familiar with the cultural references. The photographer, editor, distributor try to control this framework of understanding through cropping, selection, editing, treatment, even by its placement within the publication or within a certain type of publication. But there are uncontrolled elements in photographs, Barthes described it as something that would 'prick' him. Long before me, visual theorists and photographic critics such as Barthes along with John Berger and Vilém Flusser pointed out photography's uniqueness compared to painting, drawing or print-making. Photography is not a medium like these others that are fully controlled by the artists; as a result, photos are more likely than not to include elements that are extraneous to the producers' intent. It is these parts, very often only small details, that have been known to attract spectators to look beyond the surface meaning of the pictures: this is the punctum, or what I am less jargon-y calling pieces or accidents. A special quality of punctum is, as Barthes said, that "a whole causality explains the presence of these details" (Camera Lucida: Section 18). With these little pieces, spectators can reach farther into the events of the photographs, go beyond its frame, trace its future and past, and delve into its deeper meanings.
3 Comments
|
Blogroll...Good sites....Categories
All
Archives
November 2023
|