What is "Mimesis?" Why, for Maimon, does it fail to apply to the medium of photography? What is an index? Why does Maimon argue against the "evidentiary" or forensic import of photography in the mid to late 19th C? With Mimesis in mind, why does Baudelaire (symbolist poet, art critic, champion of an emergent avant-garde in his committed support of the painter Edouard Manet), writing in 1859, say that "in this country, the natural painter, like the natural poet, is almost a monster....our taste for the true ... smothers our taste for the beautiful." Why is this statement relevant to the newly emergent medium of photography? Consider (and try to paraphrase) the following passage (page 86-87 in Trachtenberg) with the image by Oscar Rejlander entitled "The Two Ways of Life" in mind:
"In these deplorable time, a new industry has developed, which has helped in no small way to confirm fools in their faith, and to ruin what vestige of the divine might still have remained in the French mind. Naturally, this idolatrous multitude was calling for an ideal worthy of itself and in keeping with its own nature.....An avenging God has heard the prayers of the this multitude; Daguerre was his messiah. And then they said to themselves: 'Since photography provides us with every desirable guarantee of exactitude (they believe that the poor madmen!) art is photography.' From that moment forward our loathsome society rushed, like Narcissus, to contemplate its trivial image on the metallic plate. A form of lunacy, an extraordinary fanaticism, took hold of these new sun worshippers. Strange abominations manifested themselves. By bringing together and and posing a pack of rascals, male and female, dressed up like carnival time butchers and washerwomen, and in persuading these 'heroes' to 'hold' their improvised grimaces for as long as the photographic process required, people really believed they could represent the tragic and charming scenes of ancient history..."
And yet, in the early 1860s, Baudelaire stood for a portrait, (top image). Is Baudelaire merely exposing hypocrisy? Is he an elitist snob? How might you reconcile this SEEMING contradiction? What, exactly, is Baudelaire's problem with the medium as practiced in France in the 1860s and as evidenced by Rejlander. Pay special attention to his terms "industry," "nature..." etc.
Mimesis in art is an imitative representation of the nature. It is an action of pure imitating or copying, which takes place with a strong purpose; a procedure that is supposed to be under certain control, without any accidental chance involves. The outcome of the photography although seems as a copy or a reproduction of the captured source, just as how a work of mimesis is an imitation of its source, photography, however, allows the occurrence of accidents during its procedure, actively or passively. Talbot’s works, entitled “Articles of China” and “A Scene in A Library”, both bring up the discourse upon the evidentiary of photography. In both cases, photographs can work as index since “the status of the photograph as a document therefore hinges on its ontology as a direct trace of nature,” which is just like how photographs are often described as a scene of the crime; however, a scene is a scene, a photograph is just a photograph. Photograph as index, which is a direct link to the nature or to its source, can only serves as evidence through its visual merit by revealing only the evidence of what is visually seen, but nothing beyond the surface. The above-mentioned characteristics keep photography in its mechanical nature. However, beyond this nature, photograph still gets another fascinating characteristic of allowing the viewers’ imagination, the unseen’s to involve and further to tell the story, which is what Maimon trying to push further. Although each photograph itself might only be considered as a product of the mechanism, it is inevitable for the viewers to put the photograph under certain context, and this would be the moment for photography to transcend its mechanical nature as a mute document. Photograph becomes an object, which needs to be decoded to transform its form of knowledge, and to work as a sufficient testimony or to prove its forensic import.
ReplyDeleteWhile Mimesis tended to bring photography into the world of art from its mechanical nature, Baudelaire actually thoroughly criticize on how photography’s mechanical characteristic played up to those already corrupted and misled French mind of the public and would rapidly destroy the merit of the beautiful arts. Baudelaire separated photography from arts by focusing on the pursuit and the accomplishment of the true of the nature. It is easy to understand Baudelaire’s worry towards this newly emergent medium of photography, since he mentioned in his writing “beauty always contains an element of wonder”. Wonder, which is lacking in photography, according to Baudelaire, due to its accuracy of reproducing the nature, happens with the company of either the artist’s and the viewer’s imagination and subjective view. For me, it actually echoes with Rejlander’s image entitled “The Two Ways of Life”. Art and photography seem to be the two ways of pursuing the nature. While photography reveals the true of the nature with its chemical procedures, arts on the other hand expresses the nature with the artist’s subjective view.
Following the thread, I don’t think Baudelaire’s action for taking a portrait contradicts to his argument at all. His personal pursuit of a portrait should be discussed. Since the notion of wonder is missing in photography, photographed portrait, different from painted portrait due to the lack of the artist’s subjective view, would be left to him only as a reproduction of his own image, a record.
The word mimesis is Greek and means "imitation" (though in the sense of "re-presentation" rather than of "copying"). Plato and Aristotle spoke of mimesis as the re-presentation of nature. With that in mind Baudelaire comments about the 'industry' of photography stating that photography and Art are separate entities residing on opposite sides of the water so to speak. I believe Baudelaire like many others of his time,(and our own) have fallen victim to the myth of the artist genius. What i mean by that is the notion that art is a 'god' given talent that the artist really has no control over. this notion is rampant throughout the art world. To be a genius such as Picasso, Pollock, or a Gogh one must first of all and most important be a man, then of course have some sort of mental weakness rather its the Gothic notion of a haunted man (usually addicted to drugs) such as Toulouse-Lautrec & Poe or the Van Gogh myth where the man is just to intense for anyone to handle and spent many years seeking sanctuary from the cruel world in a mental asylum. Just too talented to live in the 'real' world a man who's genius drives him insane. So with this in mind it becomes clear to me that Baudelaire's ideas on what Fine Art was and where it came from most likely was influenced by the wide spread 'Artist Genius myth' He seems to be disgusted by the ease his peers could obtain a portrait of themselves and the industry itself that evolved out of the desire of his contemporaries for their likeness, yet he himself chose to have his portrait taken...why? I believe his desire for a photograph is similar to our modern phenomena of social websites such as facebook or myspace. To create a site for oneself is to make yourself known and remembered in the world of the web, its like staking a claim to yourself in a way a claim for your future as well as the past. Its comparable to the statement that 'I am here, I was here, I will be here, and when i die then my words and images will outlast me. Baudelaire seems to have been rather elitist in his opinion of 'Fine Art' and his ideas of himself, therefore it makes total sense that he would not leave this world without making an imprint on it with his words and his face. We are photographed to be remembered weather we are a French poet, art critic or a bread maker the passing of time, makes dust of us all then we are photographs.
ReplyDeleteAttepmpting to reproduce a nuturally occuring object through a medium such as paint in an effort to create an exact replica is know as mimesis, and up until Manet's Olympia was the desire by artist's. the ability to perfectly represent that which they saw through their art was the highest possible achieviement. The application of the camera allowed this reproduction to take place without any skill, this ease with wich mimesis was able to be achieved outraged Baudelaire prompting him to call natural painters monsterous. Natural painters through the use of mechanical means have bacome able to exactly recreate nature, the art has left the process. The photograph does have a place in the world, it offers an index or authentic copy. Maimon argued against the evidenciary of photography because photography does offer exact mimesis it also reproduces details that were not desired such as dust infront of the lens or impurities in the silvered plate. The notion that photography itself was the perfection of art made baudelaire cringe the use of mechanical means took the art out of the image which nolonger required the artist to use his minds eye. The use of the photograph to reproduce scenes of history is laughable and against art and actors according to Baudelaire. depicting history with a medium that is ment to capture the now goes against everything the camera and the ideal of mimesis strives for. the ability to reproduce history then calls into question the exactitude of the image and the ability to call the image an index. Baudelaire steps infront of the cameras lens to be caputred in memorium forever to be known. Baudelaire did so forone of two reasons, either he was engaging in hypocricy or he was using the photograph as an index knowing that the index is not always truthful. using the photo as an index Baudelaire would have written his being in all its exacting detail into the pages of history, paper disolves, words are forgotten, names change, but the chemicaly altered silvered photographic plate remains.
ReplyDeleteHe stands upright. His shoulders are relaxed and his hands rest defiantly in his pockets. He stares at the photographer, not the camera, with an averse look on his face. He sees what's about to happen. He is not a hypocrite as much as he is proving the simplicity and effortlessness of the photograph. Everything about that picture feels defiant, yet it is anti-climactic as if nothing particularly interesting is happening or could happen within the realm of the photograph.
ReplyDeletePainting requires seeing. Every element in the picture is observed and either included or dismissed on the final product. It required an understanding of color and gravity. What painting required of an artist was quite different than what photography required. The photograph required the camera to function properly and the image to be exposed correctly. The 'seeing' that was performed was in grids and rectangles. What was never seen or noticed by the eye was captured in the camera. Though just as the paintbrush became an extension of the hand, the camera became an extension of the eye. Intention 'seemed' to be missing from photography. The painter intended everything that was in the picture and everything that was not. I imagine it was an aesthetic choice to eliminate that, which was not pleasing or 'beautiful' to the eye. The photograph did not create what could be, but rather what is. In a world of normative claims, it became descriptive. There was no “should be” or “ought to be” placed on it’s subjects. The photograph stated what was. "The Two Ways of Life" shows just that. Painting is the wholesome and clothed individuals, hiding their bodies and their true nature…only to be exposed to God. Photography, of course, is represented as the “other”. The photographer is the naked "sinful" individual who is repeated in various bodies and genders draped carelessly around the space with no sense of order or intention. They confess themselves openly. What should be hidden is not. Photography exposed (quite literally) the truth about the proportions of the face the body and nature.
With posing for his own portrait Baudelaire is taking the elitist hierarchy and looking down upon the photographer as a peasant who is far too lazy to do or be anyone but a photographer. Photography holds no dignity in his mind as a form that is worthy of study as an art; the medium is for a man who is unwilling to put in the time or effort in study and practice to become a greater painter or thinker, or to be a greater contributor to society. There is no talent in merely exercising one’s interest in merely capturing nature and calling it art.
ReplyDelete“I believe that art is, and can only be, the exact reproduction of nature. Thus if an industrial process could give us a result identical to nature, that would be absolute art.”
The lazy man can now be an artist. So just like today where photography has become an art form it is the same. The digital camera and digital editing programs have now taken away the same honour of photography that painting had once before photography itself took away its hierarchy. With digital cameras and programs the average Joe can now stop by any store of multiple resources and purchase for himself the basic tools and kits of being an artist. Who now is a photographer? Is it the person who has spent extensive study with the myriad outlets of what photography as a form and science is. Or is it the person with the limited digital knowledge who has the capacity to take several images, cut and paste, and collage together images or unworldly places that somehow encourage the viewer to look beyond their own realm of existence? Who am I, or who are we to say we make art?
“And yet it is happiness to dream and it used to be an honour to express what one dreamed: but can one believe that the painter still knows that happiness?”
Do we as photographers still know what happiness is?
Our Taste for the true smothers our taste for the beautiful is relevant because emerging photography is always changing and looking at things in so many different ways and isn't always seeing what is true. Things aren't always true anymore. Now when looking at a photograph you wonder if things were staged or manipulated. Some have trouble looking at images that aren't showing the truest of things. What is beautiful isn't always the truth sometimes its what has been created to look as though it is the truth. The image at the top of the page is a good example because Baudelaire looks as though he is smirking but you do not know. this image is not all truth. His expression says there is more to this then what the camera has captured. The only truth is that physical appearance. Just merely looking at the image he has an elitist appearance with a look that he is looking down at the photographer.
ReplyDeletewho is really Stephanie said...
ReplyDeleteMimesis can best be described as realistic representation. Reality, in mimesis, is transposed through a medium into something that claims reality but is no longer what is once was. The viewer often dialectically suspends and confirms his/her own reality through mimetic objects (ie; the comment on mimesis in ceci n'est pas une pipe, where it is a pipe, but can you smoke it?). Mimesis claims itself as truth. Maimon is arguing that the document of Talbot, which I understood as the photograph, "intends to 'reenact the past' in a way that both acknowledges its inherent 'otherness' [temporal distance] and, at the same time, tries to transcend it through empathy" (318).An index is physically and causally linked to its source (ie; an imprint). Maimon brings about the issue of muteness ("the structural effect of a historiographical discourse....formed out of a division between present and past...which needs to be decoded" (320)). He then argues that this muteness when viewed in a specific time, as opposed to empty time, becomes part of all time (before, after, and between). This discrepancy leads to a conflict in the scientistic, black-and-white realm of "evidentiary" or "forensic". Baudelaire points out that the "fools" truth is a lie disguised as a truth (where "a posing pack of rascals" are dressed up and required to be still, something rarely found in human life, in order to "represent" history. When, in fact, history was anything but unmoving). Baudelair, in my reading, believes in art as seeing something, at the very least, different to what we optically see. And to create a machine/process to imitate how we see would hardly be categorized, with this thinking, as art but more as memory or visual recitation. This is how I reconcile Baudelaire's contradiction of standing for a portrait. He sees himself as temporal, one day he will die and soon after his physicality will have been forgotten. In a photograph his temporality is far extended, and, with reproduction, is nearly obsolete. Here he uses photograph as memory and not something of innovation.
What is "Mimesis?" Mimeisthai -- deponent verb; infinitive middle of imitate -- (would) ...imitate
ReplyDeleteWhy, for Maimon, does it fail to apply to the medium of photography? Short answer: empathy. Because the photograph [is a] document, and “is related to procedures of evidence that comea from a specific literary antiquarianism which intends to ‘reenact the
past’ in a way that both acknowledges its inherent ‘otherness’ or temporal
distance and, at the same time, tries to transcend it through empathy. His [Talbot’s] idea
of the document is inseparable from Romantic historicism in both its popular
and intellectual literary forms. A document is therefore an inherently ‘open’
and multi-layered literary artefact, ‘a tangled web’ of overlapping temporalities,
geographies, and meanings.”
What is an index? Etymology: Latin indic-, index, from indicare, to indicate: Etymology: Latin indicatus, past participle of indicare, from in- + dicare to proclaim, dedicate —
1 a : to point out or point to b : to be a sign, symptom, or index of.
Why does Maimon argue against the "evidentiary" or forensic import of photography in the mid to late 19th C?
“For Talbot, monuments (and by extension ‘original’ documents and texts) do not ‘authenticate’ the past as part of a demand for ‘irrefutable evidence’;
rather they point to the radical difference and inherent dispersal of the past and
therefore to the impossibility of grounding knowledge on any form of evidence.
Within these recurring divisions between past and present, old and new,
muteness is constituted as a necessary condition for discourse, for commentary
and engagement. It is precisely what provokes the desire for intelligibility and
what simultaneously indicates its limits. Thus once the photograph is extracted
from the time of the present in which the camera ‘depicts all at once’, and
becomes a part of the past, of a ‘before’, its conditions of intelligibility change
in a way which necessitates a discourse. It is therefore not as a trace of ‘Nature’
that the photograph can become a form of evidence, but as a document which
inevitably manifests heterogeneous and sometimes conflicting forms of
intelligibility. By the same token, it is not the tautological evidentiary structure
of positivism that determines the intelligibility of the photograph as a
document, but the discontinuous temporal form of historical discourse which
turns the photograph into an open document, which more than it simply
presents ‘evidence’, evokes the desire for the grounding of knowledge which
cannot be fulfilled… For Talbot in The Pencil of Nature, the status of the photograph as a
document and testimony oscillates between its capacity to copy, to accurately
depict everything the camera sees (like a ‘legal’ or archival document), and its
capacity to evoke the imagination by introducing unexpected ‘trivial’ details and
therefore variety into what is often described by Talbot as a visually
homogeneous surface… That is, for Talbot, the value of the photograph as
a form of evidence does not simply hinge on its explicit visual nature or on its
status as a direct ‘emanation from the referent’. The problem is not to prove
‘what has been’,52 but how to make, through well selected and arranged images,
the past alive and intimate: the reenactment of the past not its authentication.”
Is Baudelaire merely exposing hypocrisy? Is he an elitist snob? No. He was posing, in spite of himself. His own self-portrait oxidizes the “idolatry of the multitude.”
"A perfect historian must possess an imagination sufficiently powerful to make his narrative affecting and picturesque." Reminds me of Daniel Defoe's “A Journal of the Plague Year,” an historical, yet fictious, account of The Great Plague.
ReplyDeleteAll,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your responses, many of which are illuminated by moments of tremendous perspicacity and creativity. Kim's distinction between re-presentation vs copying is important in this context, as is Ellen's use of the term "a mute document." Elizabeth's claim that "painting requires seeing" is both cogent and tremendously provocative.
But these readings are all over the place and do not really address the key problems in Baudelaire's text, nor do you attempt to "translate" his position, which is pretty opaque and worth our understanding.
I have enjoyed your posts a great deal. But it has become clear to me that we collectively need to become good readers (of texts) just as I expect many of you are of photographs.
JM