A friend just sent me a quote by Susan Sontag, that she made in a book during the heyday of 35mm photography:

"Today everything exists to end in a photograph"

Any thoughts on this? Is that just as true now or has society changed so much that we can't photograph everything?

-- Todd Frederick (fredrick@hotcity.com), July 07, 2001

Answers

Todd, you should ask this in the Philosophy of Photography Forum.

I don't agree with it, but that's another thing...

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), July 07, 2001.

I don't agree.

-- edward kang (ekang@cse.nd.edu), July 07, 2001.

I'd say that it's pretty obvious that it's more true than ever. Everything is about "image" today. We're just not limited to photographs in newspapers and magazines anymore.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), July 07, 2001.

I selected this forum for the quotation since many of us find ourselves doing (or trying to do) street photography or photography in places where such activity might be restricted or frowned upon.

Part of my interest in this issue was in reading an article in a current America Photo magazine about Henri-Cartier Bresson being photographed by David Douglas Duncan, and Bresson's upset over the photos being published. Bresson evidently was a man who believed in photographing anyone anywhere, except himself...American Photo, May/June 2001. There is also a beautiful photo of Bob Dylan and Joan Baez backlit on a stage platform (page 56) by Daniel Kramer in the same issue.

The Sontag quote made me think of this. If we go on the street and roam around town looking for potential photographs, what restrictions do we place on ourselves to photograph or not to photograph?

Often I find people in situations that would make an interesting image or tell a story or whatever. Most often I refrain from taking the photograph due to my respect for their privacy. With regard specifically to People Photography, is every person a potential photograph, and when do we say Yes and when do we say No to ourselves to take or not to take that photograph.

I've been exploring how to deal with restrictions placed on us from the outside regarding photography (by theaters, concert halls, night clubs, public parks, and such). Now I am exploring what restrictions we might place on ourselves regarding what we allow ourself to photograph and what we reject...on this forum, specifically people.

Is learning when NOT TO SHOOT an important lesson?

I would be interested in hearing thoughts from street photographers on this.

That's the reason for posting the quotation...it didn't seem to arouse much interest. Sorry.

-- Todd Frederick (fredrick@hotcity.com), July 07, 2001.

What Bill Gates would say if he were Susan Sontag: "Today, Everyone exists to buy my software"

---

> I've been exploring how to deal with restrictions placed on us from the outside > regarding photography (by theaters, concert halls, night clubs, public parks, and > such). Now I am exploring what restrictions we might place on > ourselves regarding what we allow ourself to photograph and what we reject...on this > forum, specifically people.

I think the issue is absolutely personal and has everything to do with personal limits. However, personal limits are only issues when you desire to be outside them.

For example, if one were to say, "Today, sex exists to end in a photograph", then I'd say, no, it doesn't. Yet, Mr. Joe Chinese Pornography photographer would say, "well, yes, I do agree with that statement". No real surprise there.

However, if my burning desire was to photograph people having sex, and, for some psychological reason, I was unable to do so (perhaps, because I felt like I'd be offending the people participating) then obviously there's something to be challenged there.

---

If your desire is to be "the best photographer you can be" and you felt like having some philosophical backbone like Susan Sontag was the best way to achieve that, then so be it. Susan's comment is and always was completely false, but it's a statement of mere purpose and not of reality.

Then again, many photographers can pursue their artistic goals without having to have such a mean view of personal ambition.

---

There is no universal philosophy of photography. There is no universal statement of purpose. I will probably never photograph a person who has just had their limbs fused to their torsos from napalm strikes (even given the opportunity), but obviously there are people out there who did and there are people who will.

---

just my penny

-- Edward Kang (ekang@cse.nd.edu), July 07, 2001.

I think the ethos of the street photographer that you are talking about would really turn on the following question: Since the act/person I am photographing is public, will this photograph make a meaningful statement regardless of whether the subject approves? Of course the answer will vary widely. At one end of the spectrum will be the paparazzi, at the other photographers who only shoot with the subject's explicit permission.

In today's society, however, we increasingly seek out publicity, since we know it is the fast track to success (witness the absurdity of everything from The Jerry Springer Show to the Survivor "celebs"). Fewer and fewer people today are concerned about privacy. All they really worry about is who profits from the recording of their public adventures.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), July 08, 2001.