MA Bibliography as of 10 April 2019

SEKULA, Allan. 1982. ‘On the Invention of Photographic Meaning’. In Victor BURGIN (ed.). Thinking Photography. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

TRACHTENBERG, Alan (ed.). 1980. Classic Essays on Photography. Sedgewick, ME: Leete’s Island Books, Inc.

DARWENT, Charles. 2007. ‘Weblet Importer’. [online]. Available at: http://danielgustavcramer.com/infotxt.html [accessed 1 Apr 2019].

PARISI, Chiara. 2010. ‘Essays and Interview with Daniel Gustav Cramer’. Klat Magazine #04 [online]. Available at: http://danielgustavcramer.com/infotxt.html [accessed 1 Apr 2019].

SUZUKI, Risaku. 2015. Stream of Consciousness. Tokyo: Edition Nord.

BARKER, Emma. 1999. ‘Introduction [IN] Contemporary Cultures of Display’. In Emma BARKER and Open UNIVERSITY (eds.). Contemporary Cultures of Display. New Haven: Yale University Press in association with the Open University, 8–21.

MURRAY, Matthew. 2017. ‘Saddleworth’. [online]. Available at: https://www.matthewmurray.co.uk/saddleworth [accessed 25 Mar 2019].

KEMPTON, Beth. 2018. Wabi Sabi – Japanese Wisdom for a Perfectly Imperfect Life. London: Piatkus.

SUZUKI, Risaku. 2017. Water Mirror. Tokyo: Case Publishing.

JUNIPER, Andrew. 2003. Wabi Sabi – the Japanese Art of Impermanance. First. North Clarendon, VT: Tuttle Publishing.

‘Saddleworth — Matthew Murray Photography’. 2019. [online]. Available at: https://www.matthewmurray.co.uk/saddleworth [accessed 25 Mar 2019].

SONTAG, Susan. 2004. ‘Regarding the Torture of Others’. The New York Times Magazine (23 May 2004), [online]. Available at: ttps://goo.gl/PwSVZ.

SOLNIT, Rebecca. 2001. Wanderlust: A History of Walking. London: Penguin Books.

ROSLER, Martha. 1982. In, Around and Afterthoughts on Documentary Photography in The Contest of Meaning (1992). Edited by Richard Bolton. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

EWING, William A. 2014. Landmark: The Fields of Landscape Photography. New York: Thames and Hudson.

‘Jane Austen Believed Beauty Could Come in Every Shape and Size. What Else Can She Teach Us about Wellness? – The Washington Post’. 2019. [online]. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/jane-austen-thought-every-body-was-beautiful-what-else-can-her-works-teach-us-about-wellness/2019/03/08/9787dbda-3eba-11e9-a0d3-1210e58a94cf_story.html?utm_term=.4a08d894ebcb [accessed 18 Mar 2019].

WELLS, Liz and Simon STANDING (eds.). 2009. Relic. First. Plymouth, UK: University of Plymouth Press.

BARRETT, Terry. 2000. Criticizing Photographs: An Introduction to Understanding Images. New York: McGraw Hill.

VARTANIAN, Ivan, Akihiro HATANAKA and Yutaka KAMBAYASHI. 2006. Setting Sun: Writings by Japanese Photographers. New York: Aperture.

RITCHIN, Fred. 2013. Bending the Frame: Photojournalism, Documentary, and the Citizen. New York: Aperture.

DUPRE, Ben. 2007. 50 Ideas You Really Need to Know- Philosophy. First. London: Quercus Editions, Ltd.

TRACHTENBERG, Alan (ed.). 1980. Classic Essays on Photography. Sedgwick, ME: Leet’s Island Books, Inc.

HEIFERMAN, Marvin. 2012. Photography Changes Everything. First. New York: Aperture.

RITCHIN, Fred. 2009. After Photography. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc.

BRIGHT, Deborah. n.d. The Machine in The Garden Revisited American Environmentalism and Photographic Aesthetics. Available at: http://www.deborahbright.net/PDF/Bright-Machine.pdf [accessed 14 Mar 2019].

‘Gaze | The Chicago School of Media Theory’. 2019. [online]. Available at: https://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/mediatheory/keywords/gaze/ [accessed 3 Mar 2019].

‘Pete Davis Tin Sheds of Wales’. 2019. [online]. Available at: http://www.pete-davis-photography.com/sheds.html [accessed 14 Feb 2019].

‘20+ Examples Of Media Manipulating The Truth That Will Make You Question The News’. 2019. [online]. Available at: http://news.shareably.net/20-examples-media-manipulating-the-truth/?utm_source=fb_ads&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=con-20-examples-media-manipulating-the-truth-43210373-1828482422&utm_identifier=61ebf249-eb13-ab34-dacb-1fb2315789e6 [accessed 14 Feb 2019].

‘Charlotte Cotton | 1000 Words’. 2019. [online]. Available at: http://www.1000wordsmag.com/charlotte-cotton/ [accessed 14 Feb 2019].

‘Francis Hodgson | 1000 Words’. 2019. [online]. Available at: http://www.1000wordsmag.com/francis-hodgson/ [accessed 14 Feb 2019].

‘Sean O’Hagan | 1000 Words’. 2019. [online]. Available at: http://www.1000wordsmag.com/sean-o-hagan/ [accessed 14 Feb 2019].

DAY, Andy. 2019. ‘Every Photograph You’ve Ever Taken Is a Lie: Steve McCurry, Tom Hunter, and the Problem With Visual Storytellers | Fstoppers’. Fstoppers [online]. Available at: https://fstoppers.com/documentary/every-photograph-youve-ever-taken-lie-steve-mccurry-tom-hunter-and-problem-334178 [accessed 13 Feb 2019].

BARTHES, Roland. 1977. Image Music Text. New York: Hill and Wang.

SNYDER, Joel and Neil Walsh ALLEN. n.d. ‘Photography, Vision and Representation’. Critical Inquiry 141–69.

HAND, Martin. 2012. Ubiquitous Photography. Cambridge: Polity Press.

SHORE, Stephen. 2007. The Nature of Photographs. 2018th edn. London and New York: Phaidon Press.

BENJAMIN, Walter. 1931. Selected Writings 2, Part 2 1931-1934. Edited by G. Eiland, H., Jennings, M.W., and Smith. Cambridge, MA and London: Belknap Press.

BARTHES, Roland. 1981. Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography. New York: Hill and Wang.

‘Matthew Murray — Elliott Halls Gallery’. 2019. [online]. Available at: https://www.elliotthalls.com/matthew-murray [accessed 4 Feb 2019].

MILLER, Johnny. 2019. ‘Unequal Scenes – Locations’. [online]. Available at: https://unequalscenes.com/projects [accessed 4 Feb 2019].

‘Layla Curtis’. 2019. [online]. Available at: http://www.laylacurtis.com/work/project/45 [accessed 4 Feb 2019].

‘Unequal Scenes – Locations’. 2019. [online]. Available at: https://unequalscenes.com/projects [accessed 31 Jan 2019].

‘Safety in Numbness: Some Remarks on the Problems of “Late Photography’’ – David Campany”’. 2019. [online]. Available at: https://davidcampany.com/safety-in-numbness/ [accessed 30 Jan 2019].

‘Aerographica – About’. 2019. [online]. Available at: http://aerographica.org/about/ [accessed 30 Jan 2019].

STERNFELD, Joel., Adam. GOPNIK, John R. STILGOE and FRIENDS OF THE HIGH LINE. 2009. Walking the High Line. Steidl.

STERNFELD, Joel. 1996. On This Site : Landscape in Memoriam. Chronicle Books.

SZARKOWSKI, John. 1966. The Photographer’s Eye. 7th printi. New York: The Museum of Modern Art.

‘Axel Hütte’. 2019. [online]. Available at: https://www.zingmagazine.com/zing3/reviews/034_hutte.html [accessed 11 Jan 2019].

‘Axel Hütte’. 2019. [online]. Available at: https://www.deutscheboersephotographyfoundation.org/en/collect/artists/axel-huette.php [accessed 11 Jan 2019].

‘Landscape Stories: 80/2014 Axel Hütte’. 2019. [online]. Available at: http://www.landscapestories.net/interviews/80-2014-axel-hutte?lang=en [accessed 10 Jan 2019].

‘Anthropocene Reveals the Scale of Earth’s Existential Crisis – NOW Magazine’. 2019. [online]. Available at: https://nowtoronto.com/culture/art-and-design/anthropocene-burtynsky-baichwal-ago/ [accessed 10 Jan 2019].

‘Aerial Photographs Convey Humanity’s Devastating Effects on Nature’. 2019. [online]. Available at: https://hyperallergic.com/474175/burtynsky-anthropocene-project/ [accessed 9 Jan 2019].

‘Anthropocene Art Show and Documentary Will Shock You with a View of Human Impact on the Planet – The Globe and Mail’. 2019. [online]. Available at: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/film/reviews/article-four-year-collaboration-project-looks-to-evangelize-the-term/ [accessed 9 Jan 2019].

‘Edward Burtynsky – The Anthropocene Project – Photo Review’. 2019. [online]. Available at: https://www.photoreview.com.au/stories/edward-burtynskys-anthropocene-project/ [accessed 9 Jan 2019].

‘Sprawling Anthropocene Project Shows Humanity’s Enormous Impact on the Planet | The Star’. 2019. [online]. Available at: https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/visualarts/review/2018/09/30/sprawling-anthropocene-project-shows-humanitys-enormous-impact-on-the-planet.html [accessed 9 Jan 2019].

‘The Anthropocene Project — Edward Burtynsky’. 2019. [online]. Available at: https://www.edwardburtynsky.com/projects/the-anthropocene-project/ [accessed 9 Jan 2019].

BURTYNSKY, Edward, Jennifer BAICHWAL and Nicholas DE PENCIER. 2018. Anthropocene. Gottingen: Steidl.

PAULI, Lori. 2003. Manufactured Landscapes: The Photographs of Edward Burtynsky. 7th (2014. Ottawa: National Gallery of Canada.

DURDEN, Mark (ed.). 2013. 50 Key Writers on Photography. First. Milton Park: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

DELEUZE, Gilles. 1997. Essays Critical and Clinical. University of Minnesota Press.

DELEUZE, Gilles. 1997. Negotiations. NYC: Columbia University Press.

DELEUZE, Gilles. 2002. Desert Islands: And Other Texts, 1953-1974. Los Angeles: Semiotexte.

ADAMS, Robert. 1994. Why People Photograph. 1st edn. New York: Aperture.

STANFORD UNIVERSITY. and CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF LANGUAGE AND INFORMATION (U.S.). 1997. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/deleuze/ [accessed 21 Dec 2018].

‘THE DETACHED GAZE | THOUGHTS AND SOURCES ON ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF SEEING’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://thedetachedgaze.com/ [accessed 16 Dec 2018].

‘Cindy Sherman: Me, Myself and I | Art and Design | The Guardian’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/jan/15/cindy-sherman-interview [accessed 14 Dec 2018].

‘Axel Hütte | Artnet’. 2018. [online]. Available at: http://www.artnet.com/artists/axel-hütte/ [accessed 3 Dec 2018].

‘Edward Burtynsky’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.edwardburtynsky.com/ [accessed 3 Dec 2018].

‘Biography — Edward Burtynsky’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.edwardburtynsky.com/about/biography/ [accessed 2 Dec 2018].

‘Coming-Soon–of-Love-War : Lynsey Addario, Photographer’. 2018. [online]. Available at: http://www.lynseyaddario.com/ [accessed 27 Nov 2018].

‘Work – Simon Roberts’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.simoncroberts.com/work/ [accessed 27 Nov 2018].

OORTHUYS, Cas. and Willem van. ZOETENDAAL. 1992. Cas Oorthuys, Guaranteed Real Dutch, Congo. Uitgeverij DUO/DUO. Available at: https://www.google.com/search?q=cas+oorthuys+photographer&rlz=1C1ZKTG_enUS685GB690&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj_pd7hrvPeAhUSSK0KHTqoBwIQiR56BAgBEBE&biw=1536&bih=723 [accessed 27 Nov 2018].

‘Edward Burtynsky’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.edwardburtynsky.com/ [accessed 24 Nov 2018].

‘Biography of Axel Hutte | Widewalls’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.widewalls.ch/artist/axel-hutte/ [accessed 24 Nov 2018].

‘Biography of Axel Hutte | Widewalls’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.widewalls.ch/artist/axel-hutte/ [accessed 20 Nov 2018].

‘History of Photography’. 2018. [online]. Available at: http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/photography/photo-history.htm [accessed 19 Nov 2018].

‘History of Art Timeline’. 2018. [online]. Available at: http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/history-of-art-timeline.htm [accessed 19 Nov 2018].

‘Learning from the Master • Inge Morath • Magnum Photos’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.magnumphotos.com/theory-and-practice/learning-from-the-master/ [accessed 27 Oct 2018].

‘Power and the Camera: Gregory Halpern Talks Intuition, Reflection and Representation • Magnum Photos’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.magnumphotos.com/theory-and-practice/gregory-halpern-profile-intuition-representation/ [accessed 27 Oct 2018].

HURN, David and Bill JAY. 2009. On Being a Photographer. Third. Anacortes, WA: LensWork Publishing.

JAY, Bill. n.d. Occam’s Razor: An Outside-In View of Contemporary Photography. Third. Tucson, AZ: Nazraeli Press.

POLANYI, Michael. 1966. The Tacit Dimension. 2009th edn. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

MUYBRIDGE, Eadweard. 1979. Muybridge’s Complete Human and Animal Locomotion, Volume III. New York: Dover Publications.

‘Paul Severn Golf Photographer /Golf Course Images/Golf Tournaments/Golf Picture Library’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.severnimages.com/index [accessed 22 Aug 2018].

‘11 Tips: How to Make Amazing Golf Course Photos – Golf Photography by Kaia Means’. 2018. [online]. Available at: http://golfvisuals.com/amazing-golf-course-photos/ [accessed 22 Aug 2018].

‘Golf Photography – Mark Alexander’. 2018. [online]. Available at: http://www.markalexandergolfphotography.com/golf-photography/ [accessed 22 Aug 2018].

‘Kevin Murray Golf Photography | Golf Photos | Top Golf Photographer’. 2018. [online]. Available at: http://kevinmurraygolfphotography.com/ [accessed 22 Aug 2018].

‘POWERS OF TEN AND THE RELATIVE SIZE OF THINGS IN THE UNIVERSE | Eames Office’. 2018. [online]. Available at: http://www.eamesoffice.com/the-work/powers-of-ten/ [accessed 20 Aug 2018].

‘The Dunes — Sophie Gerrard’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.sophiegerrard.com/work/the-dunes/ [accessed 17 Aug 2018].

‘Yann Arthus-Bertrand’. 2018. [online]. Available at: http://www.yannarthusbertrand.org/ [accessed 13 Aug 2018].

‘Marilyn Bridges Photography: Ancient and Contemporary Locations Worldwide, Prints and Books Available.’ 2018. [online]. Available at: https://marilynbridges.com/ [accessed 13 Aug 2018].

‘Alex MacLean, Aerial Photographer’. 2018. [online]. Available at: http://www.alexmaclean.com/ [accessed 13 Aug 2018].

SCHIEL, Skip. 2018. ‘What Is Social Landscape Photography? | Teeksa Photography—Skip Schiel’. [online]. Available at: https://skipschiel.wordpress.com/2016/11/29/what-is-social-landscape-photography/ [accessed 13 Aug 2018].

BARNES, Richard. 2018. ‘Civil War — Richard Barnes’. [online]. Available at: http://www.richardbarnes.net/civil-war-1/ [accessed 9 Aug 2018].

KLEON, Austin. 2012. Steal Like an Artist: 10 Things Nobody Told You about Being Creative. Steal Like an Artist, vol. 53. New York: Workman Publishing Company. Available at: https://books.google.com/books?id=NVZuUSJtpcQC.

KLEON, Austin. 2014. Show Your Work: 10 Ways to Share Your Creativity and Get Discovered. New York: Workman Publishing Company.

FLUSSER, Vilém. 1983. Towards a Philosophy of Photography. English. London: Reaktion Books Ltd.

‘Walead Beashty Cyanotypes – Google Search’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.google.com/search?q=walead+beashty+cyanotypes&client=firefox-b-ab&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjttqT3uJzcAhWU0aYKHbPUBMwQ_AUICigB&biw=1440&bih=733 [accessed 13 Jul 2018].

‘John Hallmén’. 2018. [online]. Available at: http://www.johnhallmen.se/2016/12/8/emus-hirtus-1 [accessed 10 Jul 2018].

‘John Hallmén’. 2018. [online]. Available at: http://www.johnhallmen.se/2016/4/25/morning-stretch [accessed 8 Jul 2018].

‘You Talking To Me? On Curating Group Shows That Give You a Chance to Join the Group :: What Makes a Great Exhibition?’ 2018. [online]. Available at: https://content.talisaspire.com/falmouth/bundles/59145899540a2631415f8494 [accessed 8 Jul 2018].

SONTAG, Susan. 1977. On Photography. Hammondsworth, UK: Penguin Books Ltd.

AZOULAY, Ariella. 2016. ‘Photography Consists of Collaboration: Susan Meiselas, Wendy Ewald, and Ariella Azoulay’. Camera Obscura: Feminism, Culture, and Media Studies 31(1 91), [online], 187–201. Available at: https://read.dukeupress.edu/camera-obscura/article/31/1 (91)/187-201/97593.

TAGG, John. 1988. The Burden of Representation: Essays on Photographies and Histories. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

BERGER, John. 1972. Ways of Seeing. Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin Books Ltd.

BEAR, Jordan and Kate Palmer ALBERS. 2017. Before-and-After Photography; Histories and Contexts. 1st edn. London; New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

BARTHES, Roland. 1981. ‘Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography’. New York Hill and Wang [online], 134. Available at: http://scholar.google.co.il/scholar?q=camera+lucida&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5#0.

DERGES, Susan. 2018. ‘Susan Derges’. [online]. Available at: http://susanderges.co.uk/ [accessed 6 Jul 2018].

GILL, Stephen. 2018. ‘Stephen Gill Portfolio’. [online]. Available at: https://www.stephengill.co.uk/portfolio/portfolio [accessed 6 Jul 2018].

‘Jenny Odell • Travel by Approximation’. 2018. [online]. Available at: http://www.jennyodell.com/tba.html [accessed 27 Jun 2018].

‘Highland Councillors Defy Their Officials by Voicing Unanimous Support for Coul Links Plans | Press and Journal’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/1491262/highland-councillors-defy-their-officials-by-voicing-unanimous-support-for-coul-links-plans/ [accessed 25 Jun 2018].

‘Coul Links Conservation Case | Our Work – The RSPB’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.rspb.org.uk/our-work/our-positions-and-casework/casework/cases/coul-links/ [accessed 25 Jun 2018].

‘Councillors Defer Decision on Coul Links Golf Course – BBC News’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-44371329 [accessed 25 Jun 2018].

‘Embo’s Coul Links Golf Course Backed by Councillors – BBC News’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-44537876 [accessed 25 Jun 2018].

‘Highland Fury as Trump Rival Drives Golf Course Plan Forward | UK News | The Guardian’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jun/23/highland-fury-trump-rival-drives-golf-course-plan [accessed 25 Jun 2018].

‘İki Deniz Arası – Between Two Seas – Home | Facebook’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://www.facebook.com/ikidenizarasi [accessed 24 Jun 2018].

‘The Collaborative Turn :: Taking the Matter into Common Hands; Contemporary Art and Collaborative Practices’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://content.talisaspire.com/falmouth/bundles/590c9d26540a2665d636d414 [accessed 22 Jun 2018].

‘The Social Turn: Collaboration and Its Discontents :: Artificial Hells; Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship’. 2018. [online]. Available at: https://content.talisaspire.com/falmouth/bundles/590c4a61646be007c630a054 [accessed 22 Jun 2018].

‘What Is Repeat Photography? – Exploring Land Cover Change Through Repeat Photography’. 2018. [online]. Available at: http://denalirepeatphotos.uaf.edu/index.php/about-the-project/what-is-repeat-photography/ [accessed 20 Jun 2018].

‘The Repeat Photography Project’. 2018. [online]. Available at: http://repeatphotography.org/intro/ [accessed 20 Jun 2018].

BEAR, Jordan and Kate PALMER ALBERS. 2017. Before-and-after Photography: Histories and Contexts. Bloomsbury. Available at: https://www.vlebooks.com/vleweb/Product/Index/959280 [accessed 20 Jun 2018].

BOERMA, Pauline. 2006. ‘Assessing Forest Cover Change in Eritrea—A Historical Perspective’. Mountain Research and Development.

ZIER, James L. and William L. BAKER. 2006. ‘A Century of Vegetation Change in the San Juan Mountains, Colorado: An Analysis Using Repeat Photography’. Forest Ecology and Management 228(1–3), [online], 251–62. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0378112706001770 [accessed 17 Jun 2018].

SONNENTAG, Oliver et al. 2012. ‘Digital Repeat Photography for Phenological Research in Forest Ecosystems’. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 152, [online], 159–77. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0168192311002851 [accessed 17 Jun 2018].

SMITH, Trudi. 2007. ‘Repeat Photography as a Method in Visual Anthropology’. Visual Anthropology 20(2–3), [online], 179–200. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08949460601152815 [accessed 17 Jun 2018].

BULLOCK, Stephen H., Nora E. MARTIJENA, Robert H. WEBB and Raymond M. TURNER. 2004. ‘Twentieth Century Demographic Changes in Cirio and Cardón in Baja California, México’. Journal of Biogeography 32(1), [online], 127–43. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2004.01152.x [accessed 17 Jun 2018].

HENDRICK, Laura E. and Carolyn A. COPENHEAVER. 2009. ‘Using Repeat Landscape Photography to Assess Vegetation Changes in Rural Communities of the Southern Appalachian Mountains in Virginia, USA’. Mountain Research and Development 29(1), [online], 21–9. Available at: http://www.bioone.org/doi/10.1659/mrd.1028 [accessed 17 Jun 2018].

BURTON, Christopher, Jerry T. MITCHELL and Susan L. CUTTER. 2011. ‘Evaluating Post-Katrina Recovery in Mississippi Using Repeat Photography’. Disasters 35(3), [online], 488–509. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2010.01227.x [accessed 17 Jun 2018].

‘The Repeat Photography Project’. 2018. [online]. Available at: http://repeatphotography.org/intro/ [accessed 17 Jun 2018].

GARNETT, Joy and Susan MEISELAS. n.d. ‘ON THE RIGHTS OF MOLOTOVMAN Appropriation and the Art of Context’ [online]. Available at: http://www.firstpulseprojects.com/On-the-Rights-of-Molotov-Man.pdf [accessed 15 Jun 2018].

JOHNSON P and G ROGERS. 2003. ‘Ephemeral Wetlands and Their Turfs.’ Science for Conservation 230.

SMILES, Sam. n.d. ‘Critical Contexts’. Available at: http://www.tate.org.uk/research/publications/in-focus/mousehold-heath-norwich-john-crome/critical-contexts [accessed 13 Apr 2018].

GERRARD, Sophie. n.d. ‘The Dunes’. [online]. Available at: https://www.sophiegerrard.com/work/the-dunes/.

BATE, David. 2016. Photography; The Key Concepts. 2nd edn. The Key Concepts. London and New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

WELLS, Liz. 2015. Photography: A Critical Introduction. Fifth. London ; New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

WEBB, Robert, Diane BOYER and Raymond TURNER. 2010. Repeat Photography: Methods and Applications in the Natural Sciences. Washington, DC: Island Press.

WELLS, Liz. 2011. Land Matters: Landscape Photography, Culture and Identity. London ; New York: I.B. Tauris.

KLETT, Mark. 2003. ‘Yosemite in Time’. [online]. Available at: http://www.markklettphotography.com/yosemite-in-time/.

KLETT, Mark. 1979. ‘Rephotographic Survey Project’. [online]. Available at: http://www.markklettphotography.com/rephotographic-survey-project/.

ARNOLD, Darrell. 2011. ‘Hegel and Ecologically Oriented System Theory’. Journal of Philosophy 7(16), [online], 0_3. Available at: http://ezproxy.falmouth.ac.uk/docview/1170929513?accountid=15894.

WALKER, John A. 1997. ‘ The Camerawork Essays: Context and Meaning in Photography ’. In Jessica EVANS (ed.). London: Rivers Oram, 52–63.

VON BERTALANFFY, Ludwig. 2008. ‘An Outline of General System Theory’. Emergence: Complexity & Organization 10(2), [online], 103–23. Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=34099391&site=ehost-live.

GERRARD, Sophie. n.d. ‘The Dunes’. [online]. Available at: https://www.sophiegerrard.com/work/the-dunes/.

KLETT, Mark. 2003. ‘Yosemite in Time’. [online]. Available at: http://www.markklettphotography.com/yosemite-in-time/.

KLETT, Mark. 1979. ‘Rephotographic Survey Project’. [online]. Available at: http://www.markklettphotography.com/rephotographic-survey-project/.

WEBB, Robert, Diane BOYER and Raymond TURNER. 2010. Repeat Photography:  Methods and Applications in the Natural Sciences. Washington, DC: Island Press.

WELLS, Liz. 2011. Land Matters: Landscape Photography, Culture and Identity. London ; New York: I.B. Tauris. Available at: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy1208/2011293251-b.html.

WELLS, Liz. 2015. Photography: A Critical Introduction. Fifth. London ; New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

BATE, David. 2016. Photography; The Key Concepts. 2nd edn. The Key Concepts. London and New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

WALKER, John A. 1997. ‘ The Camerawork Essays: Context and Meaning in Photography’. In Jessica EVANS (ed.). London: Rivers Oram, 52–63.

VON BERTALANFFY, Ludwig. 2008. ‘An Outline of General System Theory’. Emergence: Complexity & Organization 10(2), [online], 103–23. Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=34099391&site=ehost-live.

ARNOLD, Darrell. 2011. ‘Hegel and Ecologically Oriented System Theory’. Journal of Philosophy 7(16), [online], 0_3. Available at: http://ezproxy.falmouth.ac.uk/docview/1170929513?accountid=15894.

STICHWEH, Rudolf. n.d. ‘Systems Theory’ [online]. Available at: https://www.fiw.uni-bonn.de/demokratieforschung/personen/stichweh/pdfs/80_stw_systems-theory-international-encyclopedia-of-political-science_2.pdf [accessed 12 Apr 2018].

 

Week 8 – Additional Reading and Research

I have recently acquired a copy of Risaku Suzuki’s book Water Mirrors.  It is not only a beautifully constructed book physically, but the imagery is very much related to recent work I have been undertaking. There are no introductions to the book and no captions, just photo after photo.  At the end is an essay by art critic Yuri Mitsuda which I found equally interesting with regard to informing my work.

Mitsuda writes “What’s mirrored in the water are the trees surrounding lakes and marshes.  The relaxed density of the branches extending toward the lakes form something like a nest that surrounds and protects the quiet water.  Just as with a mirror, the trees are captured in the water that reflects them.  In water, the leaves are shown in utter verisimilitude, making it impossible to distinguish the reflections from the actual trees standing in the soil and air. The result is a simulacral mime that exists only within the photographs. These scenes would not exist without the intervention of the camera and the lens.”

“When the photographer tosses a rock into the water, the rock creates rifts and turns the water inside out, rustling the surrounding trees.  A fluid image resembling an abstract painting appears in the photograph…When the water surface is cut up by a fallen tree, moving water is juxtaposed against still water, bringing disparate temporalities of the material in contact with each other and producing details that fascinate endlessly.” (Suzuki, 2017)

Suzuki WM_653 2016
Suzuki WM-653 2016

While there is more that could be quoted, I think for now it is enough to show how my work has taken a similar turn.

072A0727
Rose Coul Glade 2019

Paul suggested I also look at the work of fellow Falmouth student Isabella Campbell and I discovered she too is pursuing similar subjects and aesthetics.  An example of her work shows the link between Suzuki and my recent work.

Campbell LANDINGS-11 2018
Campbell Landings -11 2018

I have also begun reading Setting Sun: Writings by Japanese Photographers and two different books on Wabi Sabi, one by Andrew Juniper (2003) and the other by Beth Kempton (2018).  I have long held an affinity for Japanese culture, philosophy and aesthetics and I am finding as I research more how much my work and the subjects I photograph resemble what I am reading in the writings and observing in the photographs.  I have mentioned before that the house I designed and built in 2006 contains a great deal of Japanese influence and features normally only found in Japanese houses. That influence runs strongly in everything I do.

Shigeo Gocho in his essay Photography as Another Reality, in Setting Sun writes: “Things that some people can see, other people cannot. Things that some people can hear, other people cannot.  I once wondered if such a thing was possible, but now I understand it as a matter of distance between reality and fantasy.  It is also a matter of how each specific person places himself in this temporal world, as the image of the world is dependent upon this relationship…No matter how much one might say that it presents pure fantasy or delusion, photography is about capturing an image of the outside world, which means that a photograph is only possible if it uses reality as a go-between.” (Vartanian, 2006: 52-53)

Setting Sun is filled with so many gems that absolutely find a home in my head and heart.  I have found myself needing through the course of this module to be far more introspective about my photography and the reasons for than ever before.  I truly never thought much about and just did what I did. Reading and researching has certainly provided a framework for examining what I do and why and while it is still evolving certain elements have begun to gel in my mind. I asked myself the question “Why do I photograph nature?”

Out amidst nature was always the place that I could go to be myself and exist without judgement.  I look at Nature and Nature looks back at me and says “welcome, we are.”  People on the other hand judge and seek to separate and categorise.  They look at me and say “you are X.”  All the people who have ever existed are a single mere speck of dust in geological time.  It is very likely humans will not endure as a species and Nature will reclaim them as geological time moves on.

I suppose that this is one of those areas of difference in Western and Eastern philosophies.  The West has long held a man versus nature philosophy where nature must be conquered and tamed. It for that matter extended to the idea that “civilised white” people were at the evolutionary pinnacle and anyone who did not fit in that box was just another animal to be conquered and tamed.  In contrast, the Eastern philosophies address the art of being in the world beginning with Tao and flowing with the watercourse way and evolving in to Zen which teaches we are part of everything we perceive.  There is something at my core that recognises the latter and that is part of what continually draws me away from most people and to the untamed places where I can best be my untamed self.

References:

VARTANIAN, Ivan, Akihiro HATANAKA and Yutaka KAMBAYASHI. 2006. Setting Sun: Writing by Japanese Photographers. New York: Aperture.

JUNIPER, Andrew. 2003. Wabi Sabi – the Japanese Art of Impermanance. First. North Clarendon, VT: Tuttle Publishing.

KEMPTON, Beth. 2018. Wabi Sabi – Japanese Wisdom for a Perfectly Imperfect Life. London: Piatkus.

SUZUKI, Risaku. 2017. Water Mirror. Tokyo: Case Publishing.

Week 8 – Responses and Responsibilities

Are we desensitised to images of conflict today?

Can imagery provoke change – can it be the catalyst between thought and action?

Desensitisation has resulted as much through censorship and editorial acquiescence to perceived ‘sensibilities’ as it has to saturation of images.  It is the rare photograph of the burning Jordanian pilot or the burned Iraqi soldier that makes publication. The outrage after 9/11 of the photo of the severed hand is an everyday occurrence in a conflict zone.  Landmines, IEDs, and cluster bombs are just some of the horror inducing factors that prey not only upon the combatants, but the innocent.  How often have you seen a disembowelment or a dismemberment other than in a Hollywood movie where we all know it is nothing but special effects and no one was harmed in the filming?  Well look around and see how many soldiers have come home missing limbs. We are shown the aftermath and we all feel sorry for the poor soldier, but we don’t really know and therefore do not really care about the actual event that tore limbs from that person’s body.  How many children have been destroyed by landmines left behind?  We don’t know because no one takes or will show those photos and so we don’t care because it is not in our back garden and we don’t have to worry about where we walk or dig to plant our flowers or tatties.

An article in the Washington Post from 14 Mar 2019 is a perfect example of the censorship that goes into keeping people from seeing what really goes on in conflict.

“The Marines don’t want you to see what happens when propaganda stops and combat begins”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/03/14/marines-dont-want-you-see-what-happens-when-propaganda-stops-combat-begins/

 

“The true horror of what is shown in the photographs cannot be separated from the horror that the photographs were taken.” (Sontag: 2004)

Perhaps the true horror is that photographs that should be taken or published are not seeing the light of day.  Perhaps we, particularly in Western society, have become too comfortable and complacent.  It is only when terror touches our lives directly that anyone sits up and takes notice, for a minute.  There are horrible things happening in every corner of the planet every day, example after example of man’s inhumanity to man, people suffering from overpopulation, disease, famine, lack of opportunity, social and racial oppression, war while we sit home and complain when our internet signal is too slow.  Yes, these are all big issues and they require political solutions on a massive scale such that no single one of us could buck that tide.  But if everyone buries their head in the sand there is no hope for anything but the status quo, while on the other hand if everyone went from a momentary “too bad for those poor people” to getting into the dialogue, then perhaps finally ‘thoughts and prayers’ could really become actions and results. And I am as guilty as the next person.

I suspect the question of whether a photograph can provoke action is actually a somewhat specious linkage of cause and effect.  Western societies have become increasingly egocentric in character, and while there are many even within these societies suffering, the inertia associated with comparatively comfortable lives is difficult to overcome.  My experience tells me that any stimulus, photograph or otherwise, is most often dismissed as “other” until the event in question directly touches the viewer.  Many of us live in cocoons of familiarity and believe there is more than enough to do to maintain the integrity of those cocoons, rather than reaching out to right wrongs we can see but can also easily ignore until they penetrate our cocoons.  And in fairness, the amount of strife, suffering and injustice is overwhelming.  Just thinking about it is enough to drag most people in the depths of despair and depression.  No one person can solve it all.  I don’t know how we motivate enough people to each do just a little bit to make a difference, but as much as I would like it to be so, I don’t think photographs, at least the ones allowed to go to print today, will do it.

The problem of malappropriation and the ability to reshape the meaning are equally significant problems inherent to the photograph.  Written essays are more difficult to reshape to a different purpose.

“The photographer’s intentions do not determine the meaning of the photograph, which will have its own career blown by the whims and loyalties of the diverse communities that have use for it.” (Sontag, 1977: 3)

The well documented example of the UKIP Brexit refugee photo is a perfect example, but also it is not difficult to see how the ISIS “execution” photo in this week’s course material could be used by someone of a different political persuasion to illustrate their point of view.  The fact that ISIS did not execute these people and their purpose was to make an argument they were not criminals (true or not) could certainly have been (and probably was) used to claim ISIS are savage by simply claiming the executions did take place.  Since no editor in the Western press would likely ever print a photo of 10 heads simultaneously spewing blood and brain tissue toward the camera, we are forced into ambiguity that can be easily manipulated to different purposes.

“In these last decades ‘concerned photography’ has done at least as much to deaden our conscience as to arouse it.” (Sontag, 1977: 21)

I would argue that photographic and editorial censorship and violence as entertainment have done far more to deaden our collective conscience than ‘concerned photography’.  How frequently have we heard the statement, war is okay until the public start seeing the body bags coming home?  How much effort has been put into shielding the public from the realities because the leaders are afraid of the political fallout?  Most of the US Congress have never served in the military and many of their children will not either, so there is little personal risk to them in sending someone else’s children into battle.

 

References:

SONTAG, Susan. 2004. ‘Regarding the Torture of Others’. The New York Times Magazine (23 May 2004), [online]. Available at: ttps://goo.gl/PwSVZ.

SONTAG, Susan. 1977. On Photography. Hammondsworth, UK: Penguin Books Ltd.

Week 5 Reflections – Labels and Gazes

I have been enjoying the journey of this MA course and how it has helped me to discover a new language for thinking about and talking about the world around me.  I have spent many hours reading the luminaries of photographic critical theory and trying to find relevance to my world and my work.  I have found myself far better able to examine others’ images and articulate something more than whether I liked it or not.

I have enjoyed the deconstruction of my own practice as I search for what things are essential to me and my work, though I have found this aspect perhaps the most difficult part of the course. And I think it is more difficult in part because it is a moving target and hopefully always will be to a degree.  Humans are transient beings in an ever-changing world.  I am an unfinished project that I hope is only completed when I take my last breath.  I seek to know myself and my place in the world well enough to recognise, appreciate and enjoy the subtle evolution and variations in myself and the world around me and greet them with joy.

I have been struck how these new tools in my kit bag have found their way in and out of other aspects of my life.  For example, I have written before and speak frequently about my aversion to labels.  The following scene from Season 2 Episode 2 of the Netflix production Sense8 seemed a perfect example.  I have edited it slightly for clarity.

“I just want to understand.” 

“No, you’re not trying to understand anything because labels are the opposite of understanding.

What does courage have to do with the colour of a man’s skin” 

“Who are you?“

“Who am I? – Do you mean – where I’m from? What I one day might become? What I do? What I’ve done? What I dream? Do you mean what you see? What I’ve seen? What I fear What I one day might become? Do you mean who I love? What I’ve lost? – Do you mean what I’ve lost? “ 

“Who am I?  I guess who I am is, exactly the same as who you are; not better than, not less than. Because there is no one who has been or will ever be exactly the same as either you or me.”

Sontag wrote:

“Photography implies that we know about the world if we accept it as the camera records it.  But this is the opposite of understanding, which starts from not accepting the world as it looks. (ed. Or as someone else has labelled it) All possibility of understanding is rooted in the ability to say no.  Strictly speaking, one never understands anything from a photograph.” (Sontag, 1977: 23)

When we choose to, or allow someone else to label a person, a photograph or a photographer using a broad brush we abdicate our responsibility to consider the worth of the person as an individual or the work on the specific merits of each piece.  There are not hard and fast lines and we cannot come to any real understanding if we continue to draw them or accept someone else’s drawing of them.

In another Sense8 scene from Season 2 Episode 1 illustrates the point that the reading of an image is not only largely in the hands (mind) of the viewer but serves as a window into the psyche of the viewer as his or her reading is greatly influenced by the filters, biases and cultural setting that viewer brings to the reading.

“Art is material. 

It is wed intractably to the real world, – bound by matter and matters.

– [phones beeping] – Art is political.

– [phone vibrates] Never more so than when insisting it is not.

Art is dialectic. 

It is enriched when shared and impoverished by ownership and commodification.

It is a language of seeing and being seen.[low chuckles, murmurs]

Uh, would someone care to fill me in on the joke here?

Yes.Totally.[laughter] Is this art, Mr. Fuentes? [low chuckles]

Is it art, Mr. Valles? What do you think? Why don’t you tell us what you see?

Looks like shit-packer porn.[low murmurs, chuckles]

“Shit-packer porn.” That is; That is very interesting. Yeah, because this is where the relationship between subject and object reverses. The proverbial shoe shifting to the other foot. And what was seen now reveals the seer. Because the eyes of the beholder find not just beauty where they want, but also shallowness, ugliness, confusion, prejudice. Which is to say the beholder will always see what they want to see, suggesting that what you, Mr. Valles, want to see is in fact shit-packer porn. [class chuckling] Whereas someone else, someone with a set of eyes capable of seeing beyond societal conventions, beyond their defining biases, such a beholder might see an image of two men caught in an act of pleasure. Erotic to be sure, but also vulnerable. Neither aware of the camera. Both of them connected to the moment, to each other. To love. And as I have suggested before in this class art is love made public.” 

While I have been unable to find the one definitive reference that I feel reasonably sure I have seen or heard somewhere, it is safe to say that before this course this scene would have passed me by with not a second thought.  There are elements of Foucault, Berger, Brazin, Lacan, Silverman’s Screen Theory and others that are alluded to in the prior scene.

I do subscribe to the concept of the triangle of between the Subject – Photographer – Viewer, but I also believe the balance of power dynamic between them shifts during the life cycle of a photograph and is greatly influenced by contextual clues found in accompanying text, or in where the work is seen.  I also believe the power shifts predominantly to the viewer once the photograph leaves the direct control of the photographer and that regardless of the context most viewers will see only what their cultural and personal conditioning will allow them to see.

References

SONTAG, Susan. 1977. On Photography. Hammondsworth, UK: Penguin Books Ltd.

Sense8, Season 2, Episodes 1 and 2. 2015. Netflix

 

Week 4 – Into the Image World: Reflections

I quite understand the use of advertising images to illustrate the points in this week’s material.  However, despite the fact that we are surrounded by these images daily, I found this rather difficult because for many years I have ignored them completely.  They have become noise to me.  I rarely watch them on the TV as I don’t watch much broadcast programming and it is only when I am in the market for something particular will I look for info on the product, and even then, I bypass the advert to look at the product itself in more detail.  I cannot say I am never swayed to look at something when I happen to see a clever ad, but it is quite rare.

Ads rarely capture my attention, but photos in an editorial context often do.  An example from the 21 February 2019 edition of the Wall Street Journal is below.  Self-admitted gearhead and former racing driver that I am and despite not generally being all that fond of Ferrari, this one stopped me in my tracks.

Ferrari Pista -WSJ 21Feb19

GIMME A BRAKE The flashy Pista can go from 0-62 mph in 2.85 seconds and return to a dead stop in 93.5 feet. Photo: Ferrari

And I find it an interesting photograph to try to analyse as part of this week’s exercise.  The denoted (signified) image is quite simple to discern.  The bright red image of a $450,000 super car with extraordinarily beautiful lines is rather impossible to miss on the tarmac.  Judging by the tire marks on the tarmac the car was repositioned at least a couple of times to get the angle of the light reflecting off the bodywork just right; the car was carefully posed. There is nothing to distract from this signifier and its placement along the diagonal further clarifies its dominance.

The connoted image is surprising more complex for such a visually simple and uncluttered image.  In concert with the caption it is clear this is very high-performance automobile borrowing aerodynamics and other design elements from F1 and GTP racing platforms.  There is surface beauty to be sure, but it is more than skin deep as this car is loaded with performance technology.  I suspect that the principal, though not exclusive, demographic Ferrari appeal to are men 30-55 with plenty of discretionary spending power.  This is a wealthy person’s toy, perhaps a symbol of status, and something that screams ‘look at me’ for the owner that wants to be noticed everywhere they go.

An oppositional view might be something along the lines of who needs a $450,000 car that can do 211 mph that hasn’t room in the boot for hardly an overnight bag.  It might be the red colour or the racing stripe that seem pretentious, or that Ferrari are notoriously difficult and expensive to maintain. Or it might be that a car such as this must use a tremendous amount of fuel and is therefore environmentally irresponsible.  It is absolutely not the car for someone who does not wish to advertise their wealth or someone in need of practical transportation.

I am a bit fuzzier on the negotiated view.  Perhaps it is along the lines of; it is a well-executed photograph of a beautiful, but altogether impractical and for most unattainable car.  In other words, wow that is nice, but…

 

Week 4 – Contextualising Work

Since the beginning of the MA course, the Cromarty Cohort has had a very active and useful WhatsApp group that has been a great source of support and discussion.  I have learned perhaps as much from the interactions with my cohort as I have from the formal coursework.  It has been a place of inspiration, mutual support, friendship and quite often sanity preserving humour.  I truly treasure these relationships.

Quite often, we have had extraordinary debates on wide ranging topics and just as often we lean on each other for advice, critique and the knowledge that comes with experience.  I have not been particularly good yet at critiquing my own work and I attribute that in part to not yet being entirely certain of what I want to do.  But the course, my independent reading, and the interactions with my peers has given me a new base of knowledge, a new vocabulary, and a basis for applying the critical thinking skills honed over 40 + years of working to begin better contextualising photographic work.

What follows is a discussion with Mick Yates about his work currently underway in Cambodia.  We had talked a length before the trip about his goals and concerns.  After his second day of shooting he posted a couple of photos from the day’s work on our WhatsApp forum.  With Mick’s permission I am posting the main bits of our ‘conversation’ which proved useful for us both I think.  I find it easier to have this discussion about someone else’s work than my own, but I know when it is time to talk about mine, I know my cohort will be there for me.  In the meantime, it was enlightening to talk about Mick’s challenges all the while realising I needed to be thinking, not the same things, but in the same way.

At the very outset there were a few comments by others in the cohort, and there were a few asides that were not directly relevant to the thread that have been edited to enhance clarity.  What follows though is the main conversation between Mick and me in its entirety.   The photographs are all Mick’s work taken with an infrared camera today in Cambodia.

[01:49, 2/16/2019] Yates, Mick: May they rest peacefully

Yates 2019 IR_01
Mick Yates Feb 2019

[01:49, 2/16/2019] Yates, Mick: Cheoung Ek, the Killing Fields

Yates 2019 IR_02
Mick Yates Feb 2019

[06:42, 2/16/2019] Yates, Mick: Too pretty?

[08:42, 2/16/2019] Ashley Rose: It depends on whether your story is about the genocide or really about the people who survived it and what Cambodia is today.  Are the Killing Fields sources of hope that horror can be overcome, or are they an ever present pall of death that no one in Cambodia can ever escape? These may not be the right questions, and they are certainly not the only questions, but I believe they may be the kind of questions you need to be asking before you exhaust yourself physically and emotionally taking photos that you that either do not meet your needs or actually work against them.

[08:43, 2/16/2019] Yates, Mick: Very fair

[08:44, 2/16/2019] Yates, Mick: I think it does depend on the audience. In Cambodia, it must be about hope. But in the West, whilst it is hope, it’s also fundamental education, with all the horror that entails

[08:54, 2/16/2019] Ashley Rose: It is hard to see horror in any of the landscapes you have taken.  Nature has taken it back, covered it up and erased it from the possibility of discovery by anyone who hasn’t been through what happened there.  There is horror inn the museums.  You would perhaps have to go Jo Hedwig Teeuwisseor or Sergey Larenkov to convey what happened there to Western audiences

[08:54, 2/16/2019] Yates, Mick: I don’t know them – will look. Thanks

[08:55, 2/16/2019] Yates, Mick: I really don’t like the Museum stuff

Yates 2019 IR_03
Mick Yates Feb 2019

[08:56, 2/16/2019] Yates, Mick: Boring ..

[08:56, 2/16/2019] Yates, Mick: Nature never gave it up so reclaiming is easy. Humans are just a temporary thing

[08:57, 2/16/2019] Ashley Rose: Agree and it has all been seen before.  Larenkov and Teeuwisseor both did Ghosts of WWII series superimposing old images on modern scenes to show what happened there

[08:57, 2/16/2019] Yates, Mick: Though interesting how IR takes out shades and details

[09:00, 2/16/2019] Yates, Mick: I think there may be more horror in the negatives

[09:00, 2/16/2019] Yates, Mick: The problem of aftermath

[09:07, 2/16/2019] Yates, Mick: Even Sophie Ristelhueber, who I love and who ‘invented’ aftermath is almost forensic. No emotion

[09:11, 2/16/2019] Ashley Rose: Yes, and that begs the question, where is Cambodia now, and where does what happened factor into today.  Every day people who were there are dying.  More and more of the population knows of it only second hand.  Is the point to get past it or is the point to hang on to it or is the point that there are forces that want to shackle the younger generations to their inescapable past? Is there something in the Cambodian psyche that suggests this could happen again at any moment or is this something that people think can never happen again?  Is there a shift in mindset between Sarath’s generation and his grandchildren’s? Is this an aftermath story that is far enough removed from the event that the horror can be treated lightly, almost in passing as you focus on Cambodia today, or are there dark forces still at work to whom the past is closely tied that are getting in the way of the current generations progress and escape from the past?  So many questions, but all key to framing the story and guiding your shooting.

[09:11, 2/16/2019] Yates, Mick: All good Qs, Ash. Very good

[09:14, 2/16/2019] Yates, Mick: I guess a similar logic might apply to the Holocaust. Maybe we should all just forget it?

[09:27, 2/16/2019] Ashley Rose: I did not mean to suggest the past should be forgotten, but in fact many have.  It begs the question of where is the balance between remembering the past and how it affected where we are today and dwelling in it? Does that balance shift over time?   I am not naïve enough to think genocide can’t happen again, but I would like also to think that it couldn’t go on for the length of time the Nazis did without the world knowing and reacting.

[09:28, 2/16/2019] Yates, Mick: Ironically, as I have discovered in reading, the world actually did know, but the UK and US governments chose not to believe the Soviet/Polish propaganda. Another story

[09:29, 2/16/2019] Yates, Mick: Your point stands, though

[09:30, 2/16/2019] Yates, Mick: One of the Cambodian challenges is that there was no ‘other’ so it was like the Chinese Cultural Revolution

[09:31, 2/16/2019] Yates, Mick: Self-Genocide in fact

[09:35, 2/16/2019] Ashley Rose: And I can’t imagine that isn’t a bit frightening at least to the older folk who experienced it.  The thought that your neighbour was involved in slaughtering thousands for no good reason.  Zealots and ideologues are scary people.  And that undercurrent is resurfacing in many places in the world.  Does this suggest a cautionary tale?  Does the current flavour of KR harbour any allusions of the past?

[09:37, 2/16/2019] Yates, Mick: Agree. The vast majority just want to move on. But as I have discovered time and again, a simple conversation leads to all kinds of memories and questions. Every day I am here

[09:38, 2/16/2019] Yates, Mick: Maybe I am the one that needs to let this go

[09:43, 2/16/2019] Ashley Rose: Is there an element of outsider gaze tied to your history that affects your current perceptions and has the fact that you had a wee break from the heavy involvement meant that you missed a subtle shift in where Cambodia is today compared to say 15 years ago?  Not meant to be in any way disrespectful, just a question.

[09:48, 2/16/2019] Yates, Mick: It’s a great question. I think that when we started this, 20 years ago, there was def an outsider gaze. I mean, we paid for schools that the country couldn’t afford. Imperial, what? But we never saw it that way ofc. We did try to learn and be part of the whole, though it was hard.

Now, I find myself deeper. When the people I am working with no longer know all the answers – and in fact find new things because of this activity, it’s become even more personal.

Is there a shift here? Sadly, no. This is all buried and has been for a long time. The closest parallel is China I think

[09:52, 2/16/2019] Ashley Rose: Is that parallel to China in some way an angle from which to approach the story?  And if so, why does that similarity exist? Is it political, deeper cultural similarities, etc?  Sorry if I am droning on too long.  I am sure you must be exhausted, and my day is only beginning.  Lots to do before I get on a plane Monday morning.

[09:55, 2/16/2019] Yates, Mick: The parallel is the Cultural Revolution – The KR executed it on steroids. The disconnect is that Deng Xiaoping saw that prosperity for all was key – and consigned the Gang of Four to the trash can of history. Neither have really happened here, so no release

[09:56, 2/16/2019] Yates, Mick: No closure and a very uncertain future in other words

[09:59, 2/16/2019] Ashley Rose: And that perhaps is the heart of the story and how today is affected by the past. That comparison to China may be useful as a foil to show how Cambodia has become mired.

[10:03, 2/16/2019] Yates, Mick: Well, yes, though this is an MA not a PhD

[10:03, 2/16/2019] Yates, Mick: Not making light of your comment – it’s totally right

[10:37, 2/16/2019] Ashley Rose: And it is a practical degree not a dissertation project.

[10:37, 2/16/2019] Yates, Mick: Also true

 

Thank you to Mick for the conversation, and for permission to post it and his work to my CRJ.  This is merely one example in a year’s worth of great conversations, debates, and discussion between us that has made my experience on the MA all the richer.

Week 3 Forum – Is Every Constructed Photograph a Lie?

Are photographs in general and constructed photographs in particular “lies.”  Perhaps it is instructive to begin with the dictionary definition of ‘lie’: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive: an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

As I wrote in a prior article, no photograph can present truth, but that does not make every photograph a lie.  A lie is predicated with intent and it does not follow that every photograph by every photographer was made with the intent to deceive.  In fact, I believe, for most the intent is exactly the opposite; that is, most desire to represent a reality as they see it.  Heavily constructed photographs quite often make it obvious that it is not intended to represent reality and therefore, in keeping with the notion of intent, it is not a lie any more than a painter creating a scene is lying.  There are inherent limitations in the medium that make it impossible to recreate exactly what was in front of the lens, but technology keeps pushing and 360-degree cameras and holography will begin to challenge traditional 2-dimensionality.  Where it gets problematic, is where the intention in capture or publication of the photograph is to deceive.

I think of heavily constructed photographs much in the same way I think of paintings.  They are intended to be artistic in many cases and they are creations from the imaginations of the photographers.  It seems that often, even though there may be a degree of indexicality, something in the photo clues the viewer to the fantasy, joke, mood, or paradox it posits, and we then treat it as an artistic expression rather than a documentary photograph. There seems in these cases to be no intent of deception. The following two photos, the first by Sherman and the second by Rosler are not photos that would fool anyone into thinking they were meant to be realistic and purely documentary.

Sherman1

Cindy Sherman

Rosler2

Martha Rosler – House Beautiful

Publications (traditionally respected and tabloid), social media and individuals and organisations have discovered it is possible to ‘weaponize’ photography to fit their desired narratives to influence their faithful and persecute their perceived enemies.  Divisive politics, tabloid journalism and an erosion of civility and humanity are both caused and furthered by the highly selective use of photographic weapons. In the example below, an editor made a conscious choice to use the top photograph which carries a very different and quite inaccurate depiction of ‘reality’ and it seems clear there was a deliberate intent to deceive. The photographs were taken as Prince William was leaving the hospital with the Duchess of Cambridge following the birth of their third child.  He is quite obviously, as shown from the perspective of the second frame, indicating the number 3, while the perspective chosen in the first frame would connote and entirely different message.  Was the first frame real?  Yes, from that photographer’s vantage point it was what was seen, but was its out of context use disingenuous, and deliberately deceptive?  I think that it was.

35-examples-of-media-manipulating-the-truth-1

Source Reuters

The problem here is not one inherent to the photographic medium, but rather the ethics of those who practice photography and users of photographs.  Photographs are just an inanimate thing.  They hold no special powers on their own. They are only useful, destructive, pleasing, horrifying when they are in the hands of humans and when they are presented in some context.  If the ethics of photographer, publisher or social media user are questionable then the photograph can be misused like any other tool. And like any other enterprise where power, money, or fame are in play photography is subject to abuse by those who would use it, or allow it to be used unethically.

Week 3 Reflections – Images as Constructions

I honestly do not know why I feel the need to argue this point.  Perhaps it is because I do not view myself as an “Art Photographer” and that I work very hard to capture the world around me as accurately and faithfully as I can minimising behind the camera manipulations.  Do I take the image (Sontag) or do I make the image?  It is possible to do both with photography and I think there is a difference.  A painter clearly makes their image and Cindy Sherman, Cecil Beaton elaborately create and stage the scene they are to photograph and so in that regard are much closer to a painter than a strict documentary photographer.  Martha Rosler begins with indexical photographs and then behind the camera heavily manipulates the original image to “construct” the political statement she wishes to convey.  She too is more like a painter.  These photographers create tableaus.

Every photographer makes choices, selections of what, where, how and when to photograph, but those selections are first and foremost from real things that are in front of the photographer’s camera.  One cannot photograph what is not there, or as Barthes put it “the necessarily real thing which has been placed before the lens, without which there would be no photograph.” (Barthes, 1981: 76) Certainly this is equally true for all photographers whether they come to the scene accepting it as it is, or if they choose to rearrange “what was there” before taking the photograph.  And this is where I feel the need to challenge the assertion that every photograph is a construction, or at least challenge the way the term is used.

Every photograph involves choice and selection, but I argue that is different than construction.  Just because I cast my gaze and that of my camera in a particular direction, I did not “construct” what is in front of me.  Only when I purposefully rearrange the scene by moving objects or posing people have I constructed the scene that will become my image.

To argue that the “camera” coverts the light from the four-dimensional scene into a two-dimensional representation of that scene and therefore the image is made, and while true, it is not something over which the photographer has direct control and is in my view a lazy argument.  By painting all photographs with that unnecessarily broad brush it fails to recognise the spectrum or continuum of photographic practice and creates a false equivalency between a Jeff Wall or Cindy Sherman and Edward Burtynsky or Lynsey Addario. While this spectrum has no distinct boundaries at any given point on the continuum, I think it useful to acknowledge that there are differences in practice without having to necessarily assign a label or pigeonhole any photographer.

I do believe it is valuable to consider the spectrum of photographies in more nuanced way.  Obviously, the grey areas in between are what create the difficulty and there are no hard and fast rules of distinction with regard to how much constitutes a truly constructed image versus one that is intended to be indexical.  It is usually the case that the most highly constructed images and studio portraits for example make no pretentions of being anything other than constructed and it is fairly obvious to even the most casual of observers.  With the advent of digital imaging, it is less obvious on the documentary end of the spectrum and there are plenty of documented cases of photographers and publications surreptitiously altering or intentionally choosing an out of context moment or vantage point to support a particular political or editorial point of view.

With the majority of my work out of doors and either landscape, wildlife, or action shots, I can with absolute certainty tell you the scenes in front of my camera that comprise my images are not constructed.  I acknowledge the argument that because the light that enters the cameras lens is transformed and ultimately results in something made there are those that would consider that a construction.  As well, any post processing is fundamentally an action that in some way alters that which the film or sensor captured and could be argued as constructive in nature. But I continue to hold that, as long as I am trying to remain faithful to that which was in front of my camera and not alter it in any substantive or significant way I am not constructing.  I am taking, with the tools at my disposal and all their inherent capabilities and limitations, a representation of what I saw, not making something that did not exist before I arrived or a representation of something that was not there. This to me is the essential distinction in what constitutes a truly “constructed” photograph.

The following image for instance involved me carrying 20kg kit several miles and sitting in the same place for about 5 hours observing the tens of thousands of nesting seabirds as well as predators like the ravens.  I took over 500 photos with 600mm and 840mm focal lengths.  I didn’t direct the pair of ravens to the Razorbill nest they raided, but my knowledge of bird behaviour and observational acuity allowed me to see the situation developing and record it in its entirety.  This is only one shot in a sequence.  Now I suppose one could argue the final product, since it was cropped slightly and minor adjustments to the tonal quality were made in Lightroom, was constructed, but again I don’t find that distinction nuanced enough, and it creates a false equivalency with staged or posed images.

Raven-5626

Raven Burglar – Ashley Rose

Another example would be the following photograph of a 9-day old colt out for its first run around the arena with its mother.  This photo required knowledge of how horses move and what positions are most telling about a horse’s innate ability and potential as a world class dressage horse.  This is an extraordinary example of an “uphill canter” and shows how well this young colt gets his rear legs under him and how light he is in the front.  Once again other than some minor cropping and tonal adjustment, nothing about this photo was constructed in my view.  Like the previous photo, planning, patience and a bit of luck were involved.

Falcon-6153

Falcon Caledonia at 9 days old – Ashley Rose

I know this notion of constructed versus not constructed is one that will continue to spark debate, probably for as long as photography exists.  It is complicated further by the ease in which digital photography can be manipulated and frankly weaponised.  And perhaps in the end the discussion is moot because photography has gone from the paragon of “objectivity”, to the perhaps the most suspect and mistrusted of the visual media.  Divisive politics, tabloid journalism and an erosion of civility and humanity caused and furthered by the highly selective use of photographic weapons taints the broader world of Photography.  It is an unfortunate reality of our time.

 

Week 2 Activity – Is it Really Real?

 

This week’s activity asked us to consider the following: 

  • Post a short response below that outlines your own position regarding the nature of the photograph as ‘really real’.
  • Reflect on whether photographs are so unlike other sorts of pictures that they require unique methods of interpretation and standards of evaluation.
  • Identify and respond to key ideas raised by Snyder and Allen (1975) and in the presentations.
  • Refer to writers, theorists, and practitioners to support your views.
  • Provide visual examples to illustrate your points.
  • Reflect on any aspects of the ‘peculiar’ nature of the photograph that are important for your work.

 

Is a photograph real?  This is of course a loaded question, perfect fodder for purely academic debate (and forgive the cynic in me that thinks it in the end so moot as to be of dubious import), and which must, as with most complex questions, be answered with the response, “it depends.”  It depends on what is actually being asked.  It depends whether beneath the veil of “real” are really questions of tangibility, accuracy (factual), reality (vs. fantasy), or truth. These terms are easily and often conflated.  It is obvious even before beginning this discussion that there can be no one universal answer that covers the breadth of photographic genres and indeed the range of photographs with any genre.

A photograph whether as a print in hand or on the screen is indeed real on a physical level in the case of a print, and a virtual level in the case of on-screen.  It exists, but it is not in fact the thing depicted, merely a 2-dimensional representation.

If the question is instead,” Is what is depicted in the photograph real?” Again, by virtue of the definition of a photograph, the image authenticates the presence of something that was in front of the lens from which light reflected and was subsequently captured on the film or sensor. But, further parsing of the question is required.  Are we asking about the reality of the subject?  The photographer’s intent and distribution channel will need to be considered. If it was an image of a news event published by a generally respected news outlet, there would be both an expectation and assumption that the image was a depiction of a real event.  If it is a highly constructed set with elements we know to be unlikely to have been in the same place at the same time and seen in an art publication or on a gallery wall, we are likely to correctly conclude that while the objects did stand in front of the lens, the scene is not ‘real’, that is not naturally occurring.  This question gets somewhat more complex when one asks, “Even if the scene is substantially ‘real’ (naturally occurring), has it been manipulated or altered?”

With analogue photography, this is somewhat less problematic because, while it is possible and certainly has been done, it is much more difficult to manipulate the image to add or subtract something from that which was present in the photographed scene.  Digital photography makes it far easier and more likely that something might be different than was actually in the scene photographed and then the question arises; “Was the alteration substantive?”  It makes a difference if someone cloned out a gravy stain on the tablecloth or replaced the Christmas turkey with a hippopotamus.  The latter would lead most people to conclude the photo was altered and represented some form of fantasy.

Then arises the question of accuracy.  To extend the example of Christmas dinner, if Grandma was in hospital and I put her in this year’s photo by using an image of her from the prior year at the table it is real, in that she sat at that table with the others albeit at a different time, but it is not accurate.  Another example arises with scene compression from a telephoto lens.  Consider the following photograph of the town of Dornoch taken with a long lens from a vantage point that suggests the statue of the Duke of Sutherland which sits atop Ben Bhraggie looms directly above the town when in fact it is at least 10 miles away.  Metaphorically, it was (and perhaps is) accurate.  This Duke was largely responsible for the Highland Clearances which reshaped the population of the Scottish Highlands and whose effect is still felt today.

 

IMG_0576

Dornoch Cathedral with Ben Bhraggie – Ashley Rose

Lastly comes the question of truth.  No photograph can ever represent truth.  Firstly, the camera with all the limitations of its lens, film/sensor, program and looking at a smaller segment of a scene than that available to the eye is trying to capture a 4-dimensional event which it then translates into a 2- dimensional entity.  I believe it is clear the photograph cannot be truth.  Furthermore, aside from a very few absolute truths, e.g. we are all going to die, all other truths are conditional.  They are subject to the limits of knowledge, personal and cultural perspectives none of which can be represented in a photograph.  Even “scientific truths” are conditional as we only know what we know.  For example, humans once believed truth was that the Sun revolved around the Earth and now, we accept as truth the opposite.  Each major religion holds its own version of truth.  So, truth in a photograph even in relative terms is always going to be a matter of perspective and therefore not really truth.

I have noticed some others referring to digitally created images as photographs.  While they may appear to be photographs and may even be printed as a photograph might be, they are not photographs. They are Computer Generated Images.  They were not created by the interaction of light with a photosensitive medium and they are therefore not by definition, photographs.

I am not convinced that in general photographs are so different that they require some completely unique form of criticism.  Of course, photographs bear traits which make them inherently different than paintings or CGI, principally that they carry a degree of indexicality that is a physical manifestation of the prerequisite of a photograph; captured reflected light.  Aside from that, they are of something, they contain some intent at meaning, they have a frame that includes and excludes, they include or represent a point in time, and they have a vantage point, so it seems Szarkowski’s five elements could be applied to virtually any form of visual representation.

“Even in the realm of serious and inventive photography there is no clear-cut break with older traditions of representation.” (Snyder and Allen, 1975: 165)

The seemingly endless quest for the silver-bullet of photographic uniqueness or critique is perhaps interesting to debate (for a while), but as it is ultimately moot, does it really do anything to advance photography?  As I wrote in a prior CRJ post, does it really matter whether Photography as an entirety is considered an art or not?  Are these distinctions important? To find anything close to a unifying theory would require a common language and commonality of culture and experience.  At the denotive level photography in many cases can overcome the language and cultural barriers to arrive at a somewhat common (but not universal) visual language.  However, at the connotative level, the meaning of any photograph is intractably bound to the language and cultural perspectives of the viewer and is therefore unresolvable in the universal.  As I sit writing this, I see out my window (in my language) a snow flurry.  If an Inuit were to see this (or a photograph of it) I have no doubt one of their 50 words for snow would be used to provide a far more nuanced description and meaning to the event I am witnessing.  I would likely have no idea what their version meant, and they would think my version to be crude and uninformed, yet we are looking at the same denoted scene.  A photograph of Daesh beheading someone is to me a horrifying and unspeakable act of human cruelty, while to them it is a triumph over an infidel enemy and worthy of celebration.

ISIS Beheading

ISIS Propaganda photo

These connotations will never be resolved no matter how many critical theory books are written or read except by saying the photographer does not have much control over how a photograph is viewed or judged.  What is trash to one person is treasure to the next.  So we as photographers are left to do the best we can to satisfy ourselves that we have achieved the intent we set out to achieve and then we can hope that someone appreciates it for what it was meant to be while at the same time hoping that it is not at the same time taken so out of context that it is used in a harmful or nefarious way.

Snyder and Allen’s writing seems to support these ideas.

“Thus, to formulate a set of critical principles for photography based on what is purely or uniquely or essentially photographic is as absurd and unprofitable as would be the adoption in its place of standards taken from a mummified canon of nineteenth-century painting.” (p 165)

 “The poverty of photographic criticism is well known. It stands out against the richness of photographic production and invention, the widespread use and enjoyment of photographs, and even the popularity of photography as a hobby. To end this poverty we do not need more philosophizing about photographs and reality, or yet another (this time definitive) definition of “photographic seeing,” or yet another distillation of photography’s essence or nature. The tools for making sense of photographs lie at hand, and we can invent more if and when we really need them.” (p 169)

Photography has the ability to be uniquely indexical even if it is not always used as such.  My practice, and I suppose my worldview are largely rooted in this approach.  I honestly believe there is enough wonder, horror, and interest in what exists around me that I feel no need in my practice to invent or construct something that does not exist.  I don’t use my photography to illustrate or overcome personal issues and while I know it is impossible to completely mask insights into me as a person, I want my camera to be far more of a window than a mirror.  I also generally don’t want to “look into the souls” of other humans because frankly, I am not very interested and often find myself at loss to read people the way an accomplished portrait photographer often can.  If my work is viewed, I want people to be focusing on the work and not on me.

References

SNYDER, Joel and Neil Walsh ALLEN. n.d. ‘Photography, Vision and Representation’. Critical Inquiry 141–169.

BARTHES, Roland. 1977. Image Music Text. New York: Hill and Wang.

BARTHES, Roland. 1981. Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography. New York: Hill and Wang.

SZARKOWSKI, John. 1966. The Photographer’s Eye. 7th printi. New York: The Museum of Modern Art.

 

Week 2- Forum: Representation or Authentication

Roland Barthes in Camera Lucida wrote “From a phenomenological standpoint, in the Photograph, the power of authentication exceeds the power of representation.”  (Barthes 1981: 89)

The questions posed for this week’s forum were:

  • What Roland Barthes means and whether or not you agree.
  • The difference between ‘authentication’ and ‘representation’.
  • How the context in which we view photographs potentially impacts upon notions of authentication and representation.
  • How this impacts your own practice.

Last week I wrote a fairly lengthy post on Barthes’ Camera Lucida  which can be found at https://chasingthewildlife.blog/2019/02/01/key-writers-roland-barthes-camera-lucida/

I agree with Barthes on this point.  First, Barthes explains;

“I call ‘photographic referent’ not the optionally real thing to which an image or sign refers but the necessarily real thing which has been placed before the lens, and without which there would be no photograph.” “…in Photography I can never deny that the thing has been there. There is a superimposition here: of reality and of the past. And since this constraint exists only for Photography, we must consider it, by reduction, as the very essence, the noeme of Photography. What I intentionalize in a photograph is neither Art nor Communication, it is Reference, which is the founding order of Photography.” “The name of Photography’s noeme will therefore be: ‘That-has-been,’ or again: the Intractable.” (Barthes 1981: 76-77)

 

I believe Barthes notion of ‘intractability’ refers to the authentication of the existence of what was once in front of the lens.  Whether it communicates or is judged to be artistic is in the power of the viewer not the photographer and that is the element of representation.

Flusser speaks of distribution channels and how they affect interpretation (representation).

“The essential thing is that the photograph, with each switch-over to another channel, takes on a new significance…  The distribution apparatuses impregnate the photograph with the decisive significance for its reception.” (Flusser, 1983: 54)

Sontag likewise points out that photographs are mere fragments, and the context in which they are viewed changes them. Each context “…suggests a different use for the photograph but none can secure their meaning- the meaning is the use…”  (Sontag: 1979: 106)

Szarkowski discusses the idea that photography is not successful at narrative and then goes on to refer to Matthew Brady’s work during the Civil War by saying: “The function of these pictures was not to make the story clear, it was to make it real.” (Szarkowski, 1966: 9)  I think this relates to the discussion arguing that these photographs authenticated the horrors of the war; they were in front of the lens and the photographs brought that validation to those who viewed them.  However, how those photos were interpreted, that is what did they represent, would likely be quite different depending on whether one was from the North or the South, whether one fought in the war, or whether someone close was killed in the conflict.

Each of these suggest that representation is conditional upon who is looking and where they are looking.  However, authentication, existence at one time of what was photographed does not change even though interpretations on the significance and meaning of what was photographed will vary with every viewer.

Again Barthes; “…it is not impossible to perceive the photographic signifier, but it requires a secondary action of knowledge or of reflection.” (Barthes, 1981: 5) and “…the Photograph’s essence is to ratify what it represents. … No writing can give me this certainty.  It is the misfortune…of language not to be able to authenticate itself. …but the Photograph is indifferent to all intermediaries: it does not invent; it is authentication itself;…” (Barthes 1981: 85-87)

I have come to terms with the reality that I cannot control how my photographs are ultimately interpreted or judged, especially any single photograph.  I can influence a reading of a body of work to a small degree by how I choose to edit and curate a collection of work and where it is shown, but again the ultimate power to determine what that work represents lies in the hands of each and every consumer.

I am in control of what I photograph and when I photograph.  I am in control over the choices I make during that process and I can only hope that what I think and feel when taking that photograph is somehow revealed in the product in a way that it elicits a similar reaction in a viewer, but those reactions are beyond my control and therefore beyond the bounds of that which I can or should worry over.

References:

FLUSSER, Vilém. 1983. Towards a Philosophy of Photography. English. London: Reaktion Books Ltd.

SONTAG, Susan. 1977. On Photography. Hammondsworth, UK: Penguin Books Ltd.

SZARKOWSKI, John. 1966. The Photographer’s Eye. 7th printi. New York: The Museum of Modern Art.

BARTHES, Roland. 1981. Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography. New York: Hill and Wang.