Analog vs Digital

Fred Ritchin examines the change from traditional analog photography into the digital age. He examines the emergence of consumerism with the need to have more images, faster reproductions, and an endless flow of flat representations that become the more important object instead of the photographed object itself. With these continuous desires that the analog did not offer effectively enough digital did. This digital medium allows its images a continuous altercation to the recorded image one that has no need to appear real or fabricated. This image does not need to follow any set guidelines because it is new; there is no accepted road for people to go by in order to use this medium. He argues that the analog representation is always one step removed from the initial object, but that the digital representation can in a way remove itself completely away from that of the original.  These digital representations are not mirror exposures but contextualized codes that create an image.

            Ritchin also examines the history in which mediums have switched through its predecessors; analog from painting and digital from analog. Through this continuous pattern the rotation from analog to digital was inevitable and that this will again occur with the next generation. This reference to the “real” is not, as Ritchin described, about the desire for a photograph to appear real, but instead to appear fake, a simple representation to be “immortal and less finite.” He describes the passage from Don DeLillo who tells of his understanding of the realism that photography has conceded into our reality. That by obtaining these countless numbers of images of objects and places that we no longer want to see the real object/place itself, but to leave that place and look back upon it through our images. Sontag describes this real as not in the image but of the scene phorographed. This real is now a connection of the two; the image and the earthly scene itself. That we cannot have the real if we have not seen both or at least the actual scene.

            From the packet by Jorge Ribalta he is not entirely discussing the death of the entire photographic process or either the traditional analog process, but that there is a death in the understanding of photography. It is not that analog is dead, but that it is changing face. Photography is reallocating itself onto a new broader sphere with connection to analog. Ribalta discusses the continuous influence of analog in the digital realm and discusses its importance by the fact that digital is still borrowing from its former self. By the statement that the photographic is born is referring the the molecular identity of digital. The digital process is similar to molecules in the way that a digital capture is the bonded codes that reconstruct the scene. Instead of the absorbed reaction that light creates when hitting the silver plane of film the digital file is a mass reaction of codes constructed electronically.

            There is one quote that I found to be Ribalta’s main focus in this essay, “photography without realism is irrelevant photography.” Ribalta discusses the document that is the photograph, a representation of realism of life. It is in this sense that the term documentary is not fully understood. Photography does not depict realism, but rather it is a representation of realism. This realism in it’s simplest essence is distinguished between the author of the photograph and the spectator. There has never been a true photograph that is realism, but that we have all always understood the photograph to be real. It is now in this digital age that we are starting to question this realism that never fully existed, and by understanding this non-realism in digital we are beginning to question the realism pre-understood with analog. Along with its brother, analog, digital photography is examining a mutual bond between the realism and anti-realism in its work. Through the changing of time this photographic process must change as well or will be lost in time. Ribalta seems interested in this combination of the appearing nature of the real and anti-real. He asks the viewer to reconsider the real. The traditional function and arena of photography has changed with civilization changing and with a new technological world we can reveal this world in a medium that matches it technologically and in a new way. Ribalta is examining the digital process as a way to reconsider the traditional photograph’s style and meaning.

            It is also in this new style that institutions are beginning to connect to this essence in a new way. For example the Barcelonian survey he describes wants to use photography as a stage for the people to see this more modern civilization in a unified way; unified between medium and civilization. This is just as we examined our nation through the survey by the FSA in the 1930’s. Another role that institutions are taking is the arena for photographs. Jo Spence discusses the move out of museum and into the living room. That the institutions are moving toward a more consumer identity than a public one.

            Marshall McLuhan is fairly similar to that of Ribalta’s in my opinion, in that he is discussing this marriage of the two. That through this digital process there still lays a desire to appear traditional. This is also explained by the arena in which digital is being projected as being the same to that of analog.  This digital arena, now a part of the Internet through blogs and sites like flicker, allows outsiders to give comment of the work in their own opinion. This digital process, described in reference to Kerry Skarbakka’s images, creates a realism of that of analog with people due to their comments of his work.

            All in all I would have to agree with McLuhan on most of his points in this transformation of mediums, but on the other hand there are plenty of analog works that go against this “realism-ness” of the medium. Take into consideration Jerry Uelsmann who compiles multiple negatives into his final prints that depict indubitable unrealism of our world. This is an obvious anti-realism but done within a considered realistic medium. It is my personal belief of the unimportance of meaning in a piece. To me this anti-realism has no affect of photography because if a piece is beautiful or aesthetically pleasing I will accept it. If one chooses to go down the digital road instead of the analog one it is that person’s choice, I prefer analog and that is mine. Each medium offers its own pros and cons to the medium, but both have the possibility to surpass the other depending on the account. There are certain instances when one will be a better decision than the other, and within this mindset I believe that photography should be completely understood before determining which route to go down. If digital destroys the analog and the future of photography is solely digital than those down the road will be at a loss by not understanding where their process originated and/or the power that it had.

Acknowledgement of Suffrage and Identity

Azoulay reiterates her connection of the subject, photographer, and viewer as being a reflection of identity between the three. Azoulay describes that the way Laub represents the subject as being just a person like herself and the viewer that they lose their citizenship of nationality and gain a worldlier, theoretical citizenship in the gallery or presentation space. The image of the Arab woman walking into the sea brings this point directly to the top. By allowing the figures to silhouette into darkness denies all affirmable citizenship due to the fact that we can not see who the figures are. Not only are we left with the unknowing reasons for her being in the water, where she is going, and what ethnicity she is we begin to bring ourselves into a closer connection with the people. They are no longer just subjects of a photograph they become everyone involved in process. When becoming absorbed into the image we lose all critical response to how we should perceive the people, we begin to accept them as ourselves and to want to help them. Our thoughts transform from reflectance to action.

            Laub continues her portrait series of suffrage with victims of near-death encounters and sexual assault. Here she relates these two forms of victims to those who were a part of the holocaust and other extreme atrocities. This brings the importance and meaning of her subject matter, instances we hear about each day, to that which will continue to haunt countless millions for eternity. Though there is no reflection as to one being more atrocious than the others. These portraits reaffirm the connection of the individual, photographer, and spectator a step past the basic identity among the three by giving the individuals a voice, literally, in the process. Laub allows the individuals to write text on where they live and how it is perceived. By this Laub not only displays their physical appearance, but also their perceived identities, as they believe they are seen by on looking eyes.  This process eliminates the possible disarray or destruction sometimes led on by the awkwardness of a title as it relates to the image.

            For me there is something fretful about Mark Reinhardt’s criticisms of suffrage. This first point will be short, possibly meaningless, but I am irritated at his desire to put down aesthetic interpretation. He mentions how the message of suffrage is lost when implemented with a form of aesthetic though his sub-chapter titles, in particular The Tale of Two Towers, is an adapted aesthetic interplay, a pun, of a well known literary novel and a devastating occurrence in our history. I just want to know how he can find reason to do what he claims is a failure in acknowledgement.

            Instead of the traditional approach of photographs being used to alert and inform people the images from Abu Ghraib were used for humiliation of it’s inmates. The photographs of inmates being tortured were intended to cast shame among those in the images. This brought forth a reaction also not familiar to the typical viewer; resentment instead of sympathy. The desired outcome had backfired on those who used the images, and those in the images who were intended to feel humiliated used these images as a way to reveal the atrocities they went through. Reinhardt emphasizes on the fact that in our media we presented these images to the public but never of a dead American soldier. He discusses his beliefs on the matter, which I completely disagree with. I don’t feel that the media is in any way responsible to present those dead to its widespread public. Though it is not proper to represent the enemy in this way either, but giving the families and the dignity of the dead soldiers to the humiliation that could occur this would be horrendous.

        

   

            The second theme Reinhardt talks about is the imagery after the 9-11 attacks. The two photographers discussed in this are Thomas Ruff and Joel Meyerowitz. Joel was the only photographer allowed to enter Ground Zero to photograph. This is possibly the only time Reinhardt is not aggressive with his distaste of aestheticism and suffrage. Joel uses the aesthetic properties to present his subject as being destroyed potentially in process of being rebuilt. There is a lapse in theoretical understanding of what is occurring, though it is obvious that through our understanding of the even that it is not in the process of being rebuilt. Joel reveals this building as that. There is no dead bodies or any identities of chaos that is occurring in the instance of the exposure. Though there is extreme amount of suffrage in the scene, visually it is left out. Ruff’s appropriated photograph of the towers after the hit of the planes examines the scene similar to Joel’s but that literally in the buildings, invisible to viewer, there are countless people dead or suffering.

Reinhardt discusses the acknowledgement that photographs require when dealing with themes such as suffrage rather than just knowledge. This acknowledgement of the individual photographed from the viewer means that the viewer knows and understands their new counterparts suffrage and problems. It brings to the face the concern that is being dealt with or that has been dealt with, timely speaking. This process also brings back Azoulays connection of the individual, photographer, and viewer. Through this acknowledgement the viewer is not just another “viewer,” but a potential enforcer of decisions that can occur from this connection of Azoulay’s connection of the three.

            In the selection of acknowledgement Reinhardt discusses the project of Alfredo Jaar’s The Eyes of Gutete Emerita. This series is a reflection of the Rwanda genocide of 1994. Reinhardt discusses the layout of the project being a triptych light box composed of rotating text and an image of the subject’s eyes. Along with this triptych is Jaar’s series of photographs in book form. Reinhardt is disappointed with Jaar’s decision of produce a book instead of presenting the images on the gallery walls. In my opinion Jaar’s decision was proper. By having the subject look through a book instead of images on a wall he requires the viewers to get up close and personal when glancing at the suffrage. Sometime when affronted from huge images people tend to back away, especially with sensitive subject matter as this, and not look upon the images as in-depth and with a personal connection. The book format allows the viewer to hold the individual presented to them, see them in a sensitive setting, and gives them a way to bring the suffering images outside the gallery and present them everywhere and anywhere.  

Richard Avedon

Richard Avedon

Robert Mapplethorpe

Cynics and Citizens

Both articles reveal the atrocities human kind has bestowed upon its fellow members. Susan Sontag remarks on the fact that the photographer’s intentions are irrelevant to the larger process. From all that Sontag has stated this is the phrase that I feel is most relevant to both her argument as well as Ariella Azoulay. It refers to the belief that even if the photographer does care for the future and present nature of the subject that through his personal capture of it, the fact remains, anyone who sees this representation of the subject will undoubtedly construct his or her own meaning. It does not, however, leave the photographer out of the message entirely. Azoulay discusses how even an image with a title telling the sitter exactly what is infront of them is not all there. Instead of looking at an image and simply accepting that which we are hearing or reading as evidence of what is presented we must “watch” the image, and in a way try to grasp what is given to us as a whole. 

Though Azoulay is discussing her point from a woman who has experiences the atrocities of the intifada with which we are unfamiliar. We may have been introduced to this historical point in the past and have read about it for this week’s blog but yet we still don’t know anything because we are spectators and have only been given a one-sided viewpoint. This is what the power of photography has. Azoulay describes in a way that a photographer, the photograph itself, its subject and its audience is a complete, unbiased community of unknowing citizens with each other. That through this art everyone and everything is united. They all have the same laws; there is not one subject that inevitably gets more perks than another. In the beginning Azoulay connects her understanding of instances she has not seen by what others have told her (i.e. when her mother told her that they don’t go to the beach on Fridays because that’s when the “clothed Arabs” are there.) Azoulay understands this as people swimming, uneasily and awkwardly, in the water wearing all their clothes. This is a point that Sontag discusses entirely through her passage that without these images telling us what is happening in the world we don’t fully understand anything. Even though we are only given a single view of what is happening with a photo we are still able to see the people, the colors, the atmosphere they are experiencing that cannot be explained in writing as influentially. 

Even though we are given the examples of the atrocities that are occurring around the world, we can see them and we can hear them on the TV, but we are still not there. The images are in our environments, yet we are separated by the fact that it is represented in a tiny format, a TV or a newspaper; something that we all notify as fictions. Jeff Wall’s image of Dead Troops Talking is a grand example of reiterating the fact that things are occurring. This large format print, if it were a believable situation of history, could in turn be the next stage of morbid presentation, a form of arena that gives people a personal perspective that is of realistic size. This is an issue Sontag states, at the start of her writings, that we as humans are constantly needing more and more to reiterate how to personify death as a atrocious habit. We don’t want to see continuous messages, but rather newer and more illustrative images and stories. For this reason I have come to believe that it is in fact not Sontag’s “reexamination” on her previous beliefs that photographs pose a neutral affect on us, but in a way a continuation of that fact adding further implements on the subject as well as opposing sides. This also is a part of Sontag’s relation to presentation of the images from the wall to books to newspaper and TV. No matter with what format in which we engage these images we still come to an end and tend to get loose the images when we leave gallery or close the book. Though for an instance we were “semi-a part” of this life we had just seen, but we get back into our own reality and continue along our own paths. Also the format of presentation gives the viewer a form of realism of the work. Work presented in the Fine Art realm seems staged and fictitious where as in a newspaper it can seem more realistic and informative. Nonetheless both are a part of our lives and as accurate as they will ever be: both can only be as informative as the viewer will allow.

The image of Hebron by Anat Saragusti as Azoulay presents is a portrait of a man whose show was broken into by government troops. One key feature most people affiliate with photography is that it exists in the past, what is being shown has already happened and over. But Azoulay expresses that this is not the case. That when dealing with a photograph is the subject not existing today, or at least in the minds of others. When we look at an image from previous times we are not only seeing what has happened but a glimpse of what can happen, even if it doesn’t it would still be a possibility. When confronted by this image of Hebron we see, literally, a man holding a broken lock. Plainly speaking this image is meaningless, but when one looks into the image as Azoulay wishes us to do, watching it rather, they are given the context and message that is present. We need to not only see an image as just that but also look for what else is there. Try to put ourselves into that occurrence and understand what they are going through. If the media has been good for one thing it is that they have taken away a sense of imagination by giving us, continuously throughout each and every day, their interpretation of subjects with no need to examine alternative perspectives.