Reading Response Post: Chapter 1

I have always found the struggle between photography as scientific or subjective an interesting dichotomy. While most people today recognize that photographs do not convey the simple truth, the way we use and talk about photographs suggest that we still trust images more than we might initially realize. On page 17, the author emphasizes the use of photographs as documents to prove something had occurred/ someone had been somewhere. Later Wells mentions our continued confidence in the medium perhaps stemming from the complex ways we interact with photographs.

I loved the section discussing the different realist theories. From page 28 – 30 Wells discusses the visual aids Sontag and Kozloff’s use to help the reader grasp the different ways we reading a photograph. Sontag’s idea of photographs “tracing” reality and Kozloff’s concept of “witnessing” leading to natural misinterpretations really clarify the confusing realm that photographs inhabit between art and science. I also thought Barthes use of semiotics to explain the photograph as “signifying reality” very interesting.

I am currently taking Modern European Art and it is interesting to see the affect photography had on the destabilization of art. As the author mentions on page 23, the concept of an ‘original’ vs. a copy’ is challenged, opening up questions about what art is and more specifically how does photography fit in to this definition? Furthermore, on page 61 the author challenges the reader to question how to interpret a photograph removed from its original context. Just by moving something from a newspaper to a gallery the viewer’s focus is drawn from the social context to the aesthetic. I think this point really emphasizes the author’s point that meaning is not static but organic and finding new relevance in changing social and political climates.

Discussion Questions:

Do you think that by putting a photograph in a museum, it looses its connection with other discourses i.e. evidence documentation etc. (pg 63)

What do you think the best method of compiling a comprehensive history of photography without perpetuating the idea of certain ‘genius’/ ‘master’ figures.