Szarkowski states,"Upon the movement of photography, it has not been unlinear and consecutive but a centrifugal. Photography and our understanding of it, has spread from centre by infusion has penetrated our consciousness. It is progressive discovery, that its history lies." For me, this sums up the development and progression of photography, centrifugal, as there are many genres, disciplines and indexicatlity of those. Choosing an ontological position, it becomes the photographer's truth of their perspective and interconnectedness.
The image above suggests that the subject was walking with the balloons alone, which is an untruth, there were a few others there. To emphasis the loneliness of grieving during lockdown restrictions, I choose to photograph her alone, as well as with the others. The balloons were released to mark one year of her daughter dying. A symbolic act, as I am certain it is a date that she is unable to forget. This image forms part of my project.
Upon reading Synder and Allen, I could align their views with historical period of which it was written, but with the invention of digital photography, I find myself arguing many of their viewpoints, which I shall touch upon. They wrote photography is a "practical realisation of general artistic ideals of objectivity and detachment". I see detachment as incorrect, the photographer cannot detach. The photographer chooses the camera, the angles, the camera settings, lenses, etc prior to post production of a digital image. It has been described that a photographer is a painter of light and in photography today, the screen becomes the artists canvas. Therefore, it must be subjective and not merely objective.
Photography, just as art can tell the truth or deceive the viewer. You see the photographer's intent, their point of view, interpretation of the facts. Berger wrote, "No painting or drawing, however naturalist, belongs to its subject in the way that the photograph does. I disagree. A landscape cannot be owned; land can be owned but not the view. Berger is also in conflict with copyright laws. A photograph of a person doesn't belong with the subject, just as a painting or drawing doesn't. I pose that the photography has a correlation with the photographer and subject, which paintings and drawings can also hold. As technology advances, the distinction and differences with artist and photographer merges.ges.es.s.
Photography, just as art can tell the truth or deceive the viewer. You see the photographer's intent, their point of view, interpretation of the facts. Berger wrote, "No painting or drawing, however naturalist, belongs to its subject in the way that the photograph does. I disagree. A landscape cannot be owned; land can be owned but not the view. Berger is also in conflict with copyright laws. A photograph of a person doesn't belong with the subject, just as a painting or drawing doesn't. I pose that the photography has a correlation with the photographer and subject, which paintings and drawings also hold. As technology advances, the distinction and differences with artist and photographer merges.
Sontag wrote "In deciding how a pictures should look, in preferring one exposure to another, photographers are always imposing standards on their subjects". I disagree, I believe photographers are imposing their preference on the viewer, not just the subject. In addition to this, it may be requested from the photographer to "make me look thinner/taller/get rid of my cellulite" whereby the subject imposing standards upon the photographer.
Just as in Barthes, “Photography never lies; or rather, it can lie as to the meaning of the thing, never to its existence” and here explores how photography and truth, whether doctored or undoctured was formed upon a truth and not from an artist's imagination. In contrast, Sontag wrote, "The news that the camera could lie made getting photographed much more popular". What is the attraction of seeing a lie to be made a truth, seem so appealing? Sontag mentions this happened from the birth of photography and it is not a new concept as we believe it is.
Szarkowski: The Photographer’s Eye. New York: The Museum of Modern Art.
Sontag: On Photography, Anchor Books,1977, p.6 & p.86
Barthes: Camera Lucinda, 1980, p87