,+1933.jpg)
(Top image David Octavius Hill and Robert Adamson, Fishwives of New Haven with Rev. James Fairbairn and Mr. Gall, 1845, (Calotype), below it, Marta Astfalck-Vietz, Self-Portrait, 1930 and Marta Astfalck-Vietz, Self-Portrait with Mask, 1930, below it, Andre Masson Automatic/Unconscious Drawng, 1930s)
(4th Image down: Brassai, Involuntary Sculpture, 1933)
(5th Image down, Marcel Duchamp and Man Ray, Dust Breeding, 1920)
Compare the following statements, both of them by Walter Benjamin, the first dating to 1931, the second to 1936: "In Photography, one encounters something strange and new: in that fishwife from New Haven who looks down at the ground with such relaxed and seductive shame something remains that does not testify merely to the art of the photographer Hill, something that is not to be silenced, something demanding the name of the person who had lived then, who EVEN NOW IS STILL REAL AND WILL NOT PERISH INTO ART.....In such a picture, the spark has, as it were, burned through the person in the picture with reality finding the indiscernible place in the condition of that long past minute where the future is nesting, even today, so eloquently that we looking back can discover it." (A Short History of Photography) Benjamin calls this spark "The Optical Unconscious."
This invests the photograph with intimacy as well as the capacity for illumination impossible for the naked eye alone. He does admonish, towards the end of the text, that this special condition can be exploited by capital for advertising purposes.
Several years later, however, he seems to argue that the instrumentalization of photography is part of its very condition. He celebrates the revolutionary political potential of this. "To an ever increasing degree, the work reproduced becomes the reproduction of a work designed for reproducibility." At the end of the essay, Benjamin concludes with one of the most oft quoted phrases in the history of visual culture, that this condition opens onto a leftist "politicizing of art." And yet, at the opening of the essay, he charges photography with the dissolution of authenticity, aura, and historical depth. The deracination of history and authenticity seems to contradict the intimacy and spark he had located in photography.
The question, how does the intimacy of the optical unconscious link to this political capacity? How does the photographer manage a practice that is not reducible to propaganda or advertising? Try to think in Benjamin's terms and paraphrase his language into your own.
Louise ORourke
ReplyDelete-Propaganda and advertising are already reproduced, when one is made its reprinted multiple times. Photography can reproduce an image or another work of art but through the lens something more can be seen that the naked eye can miss. Photography needs not to reduce itself to advertising and propaganda because when you see one you can be sure to turn the corner and see another. It is already reproduced imagery. There isn't much more that the lens needs to see. Photography captures things the eye may miss which propaganda and advertising are made for eye to see what the creator wants you to see. Your eye is being told what to see. They do not want you to miss anything, the message is in your face. There is special quality in a work of art, that work of art is only one. when captured through photography you know that there still lies only one work of art in the world. I can have a Picasso in a poster form, but I know that their is only one true one in the world. Propaganda and advertising create imagery, text and signage so that their is not only one. There are plenty and they are not reproduced through the means of photography. In printmaking if a printer makes 10 copies you know there are only 10 copies, wether a photograph captures them or not. But with propaganda they can make as many as they want with out stopping, which for takes away from the value that a work of art possesses.
Also considering the cult value whichkeeps works of art hidden because of the magic they possess, photography helps keeep these works alive because we know they exist. photography captures them even through knowing the magic is there is what keeps this reproduced work important.
- Creating multiples for the public eye is political or industrial. Creating more gives more. It allows people to see and also allows them to create themselves. Photography was viewed as a cash cow. It could reproduce anything and everyone wanted a piece. It also showed things in life that the eye would miss or couldn't even begin to see. As soon as it came to be the state made it public. Everyone could then begin to present themselves and preserve memories through photography.
the optical unconscious shows us things that the photographer may not have intended. Similar to Psychoanalysis because that studies the unconscious to then figure out meaning of things that lie there. Sitting in a position for along exposure tells something about the people in the image, its that optical unconscious.
Politicizing of art is dealing with the fact that the masses want art and the camera has a way of giving it to them through reproducibility. They also want a say, a part in the mater and through photography they can have that. they create a way to speak through this invention. The masses wanted a say in art and they have gotten it through reproducibility. They can express themselves.
The optical unconscious is first and foremost a scientific venture. The ability of the camera to capture minute details lends itself to psychoanalysis. The camera, through lapse photography allows the notation of subtleties in an individuals’ gait that the naked eye alone could not discern. Scientifically this allows for great advances in medicine, engineering, and the sciences. To Benjamin the shift from agrarian culture to an industrialized culture parallels the shift from painting to photography, with photography spearheading the politicalization of art through the demystification of the ritualized magical master painter. The Camera was to be the great equalizer, as an apparatus it would be able to handled by all people to change perception and eventually to change the politics. The link between the politicalization of art through photography and the optical unconscious is in industrialization; the Photograph can be used as a political weapon allowing for changes in politics as well as bearing advancements in the sciences to improve the health and lifestyles of the people attempting to institute change. Photographic “art is nothing other than- and can be nothing other than- the exact reproduction of nature”. Photography would be destined to be nothing more than a “servant girl to the sciences and the arts” if not for the inception of the caption. The caption allowed the photographer to “turn all the relations of life into literature” by communicating a message from the photographer to the viewer. The “Art” in photography is not in the image itself or the taking of the image but in the lighting of the subject and the ideas imparted onto the work by the photographer through a montage. In the end, the photographer can do everything in their power to create an “Art” image by means of lighting, caption, and montage, but, the viewer as Benjamin would assert having equal abilities as the photographer can always read the work as an advertisement or tool of propaganda.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe political capacity, which is being discussed, is the democratization of art and culture. It is the “politicizing of art”; it is the proletariat’s ability to excel or participate in the realms of life that before hand had been denied to them. Which in doing so it is Benjamin’s hope that with the proletariat’s ability to participate in culture, politics, and social activities that they themselves will be able to work towards revolution or change in their own status and proprietary rights. The way in which photography is to help this is in its own ability to capture the optical unconscious of the human being, of the proletariat.
ReplyDelete“The synthesis of expression, Orlick says, of the early photographs, like well drawn or painted likenesses, exercise a more penetrating, longer-lasting effect on the observer than photographs taken more recently.’ The procedure itself caused the models to live, not out of the instant, but into it: during the long exposure they grew, as it were, into the image.”
The optical unconscious, just described, is a way in which the hopes of photography’s abilities to capture these acute realizations could have been used to show the proletariats just exactly what was wrong or right with their own status in the world. For the optical unconscious is:
“That in place of a space consciously woven together by a man on the spot there enters a space held together unconsciously…Photography with its time lapses, enlargements, etc makes such knowledge possible.”
This ability to capture the true aura of what is at hand would have had the ability to disclose the separation of the classes and to encourage the masses to rise up and reclaim their own agency and position in the world. But, as Benjamin, concludes that even though photography has this ability to capture the optical unconscious it also has the ability to become a commodity. The idea of being able to capture the optical unconscious is commodified and as Benjamin points out the “cult of the movie star” is born. Instead of film being used to showcase the proletariat and to have them look into a mirror, so that they may recognize their own condition, the film is actually a way in which the proletariat is alienated and secularized even more. With this alienation, in itself self-alienation, the proletariat is broken up even more so, so that the ability to come together in hopes of fighting for change is undermined by counterrevolutionary purposes. For the representation of human beings in film is not a means of the apparatus capturing the optical unconscious of what it is to be human, but it is the means in which a controlled subject is put through its paces and is then recorded by the apparatus. The recording of the controlled actions is then edited and assembled into a manner in which the film is then transported into areas in which the masses will have the ability to view. The film is no longer a mirror in which the proletariat can see itself, it is a mirror in which its estrangement is now controlled and fed to the audience. Through this controlled exchange of entertainment the audience is imbedded with the class-consciousness that is desired by the class who is in power; or regime.
So through this desired effect of transporting the apparatus from a means of capturing the optical unconscious, to the means of commodifying it and controlling the masses is it possible for the photographer not to have work reduced to propaganda or advertising? Yes it is. It is possible because, as Benjamin states:
ReplyDelete“When it has emancipated itself from physiognomic, political, scientific interests- that is when it becomes ‘creative’.”
So when the photography has separated itself from the all juxtaposition it can be creative and it can be something more than just advertising or propaganda. But to do so photography has to be more in lines with the way fashion functions. Fashion is in one moment and out the next. Photography will then in essence have one moment to be creative, original, art, and then in the next it will be commodified and turned over to the gods of reproducibility. So the ability to not be advertising or propaganda lies in the optical unconscious of photography itself. It lies in the moment the photograph is being taking by the apparatus, the moment the latent images is being developed, and it is in the final moments of the photograph as it is being viewed by the photographer themselves. The photographer sees the photograph in it’s final moment of its true ability to reproduce reality and then the image, once it is shown to others, is then lost into the realm of its ability to be a reproduction of a reproduction and is then at the mercy of what could be used for distribution. So the optical unconscious, that is not actually being recorded, of the action of taking the photograph and seeing the photograph for the first time is the true ‘creativity’ that is far from the reaches of reproducibility and oppositions (advertising and propaganda). In which this comes full circle.
From the beginning of this response dealing with the capturing of the optical unconscious of the human being to now the optical unconscious of the actual process of photography, it is (in the end) that nothing is unique or creative except for the unconscious moments that go uncovered, or unrecorded. That the “space held together unconsciously” is truly the only space in which creativity dwells.
When Benjamin, writes of the 'spark' of the fishwife from New Haven what I believe he is saying is this; the fishwife is of the here and now, as he puts it she is "still real and will not perish into art". What he means is that the fishwife (identity) who she is, her actions, are her own which he describes as "relaxed and seductive shame" these are not 'read' by the viewer as a re-interpretation of a mythological character, a biblical character, or even of a god or goddess, but this 'shame' that Benjamin says refuses to be "silenced" is the essence of the fishwife, her image refuses to be mimesis. She is not a copy she is an original flesh being with a future and past. She is the embodiment of herself.
ReplyDeleteIn the second quote Benjamin is speaking of the potentiality of photography as a way to "Politicize art". Benjamin concludes that if photography unlike more traditional arts such as painting can create a space for this 'spark' or "Optical Unconscious" where we the viewer can connect with this fishwife not on some grandioso historical level where we are viewing a saint, martyr, or supernatural being, but a connection that lies in a commonality of existence I exist the same as the fishwife, she is of the here and now of the real in a way that Botticelli's "Birth of Venus", or even Manet's "Olympia" will never be, these characters exist because the artist created them (or recreated them in most of time), this character Benjamin is speaking of this fishwife exists whether a photograph is taken of her or not, her struggle her plight her 'shame' is immediate which makes it urgent. Its this sense of urgency witch makes photography a useful political tool. I digress for a moment to ask a question do you think that an amazing painting such as Gericault's "Raft of the Medusa" can compare on a (sheer emotional effect level) to the images of the people jumping to their deaths from the world trade center? My answer to this question proves Benjamin's point, no painting can make our emotions run wild like a photograph. Can we compare Goya's "The shootings of May 3rd in Madrid" to the videos online of beheadings in Iraq? Of course both are moving and can cause great emotional waves in the viewer but seeing those people real people not painted interoperations of people die makes the stakes higher for the work and viewer. The for lack of a better term 'realness' factor in photography makes it great for social and political agendas. It is equally effective in a positive light such as Hine's social interest in child labor, by showing the horrors and realities of child labor through the images he created from 'real' child laborers he was able to create a real social change. On a similar note the Nazi's used propaganda to the exact opposite means, where Hine was showing the humanistic vulnerable aspects of those children, the Nazi's were dehumanizing Jews to create a culture who remained indifferent to the attempted extinction of the German Jewish community. This brings me back to my main point Benjamin calls this connection the 'Aura' a connective tissue between time and place. This aura is what bridges the gap between the two Benjamin essays he is still speaking of the same subject just form two different perspectives. In the first quote he is exploring the qualities unique to photography whereas in the second quote he has a 'theory' of those qualities and begins to speculate how these qualities could be used to further the 'leftist political agenda' through advertising/propaganda.
"Material production is the driving force of history. The metaphor of base and superstructure is used by Marx and Engle’s in their argument that the economic forces of production and the economic relations of production, that is the material base, determines the forms of social consciousness in a society and the structure of the ruling order. This is one of the most important components of Marxist theory for cultural and literary studies especially as it relates to the theory of ideology and the role of art in the production of ideology...Traditional Marxist theorist interpreted base to mean specifically material reality and superstructure to mean something like a social and intellectual phenomenon." (Ron Strickland, web lectures)
ReplyDeleteMass production eliminated the ‘Aura’ of art, as well as its "time and place". If materials inform the social construct, then the introduction of mechanical reproducibility had a profound and lasting impact on culture and the access to it. Reproducibility resulted in the democratization of culture and of art. Considering the base as material reality, photography gained access to something that was lacking in painting. That which was lacking was "the real". The materials that were captured in a photograph, those that were not conscious to the eye, began to inform and shape culture. Since it is rare that the photograph is considered to be an object, but rather is something to look through it began to document the ‘material reality’. Not only did the photograph become a looking glass onto this ‘material reality’ but also it became a mirror for the ‘social and intellectual phenomenon’. It represented both the base and the superstructure and could be used to inform and shape culture and power. “It is important to see what is invisible to others.”
“I have a genuine distrust and ‘mefiance’ toward all group activities. Mass production of uninspired photojournalism and photography without thought becomes anonymous merchandise…When I first looked at Walker Evans’ photographs, I thought of something Malraux wrote: ‘To transform destiny into awareness.’ One is embarrassed to want so much for oneself. But, how else are you going to justify your failure and your effort?” (Robert Frank, Photography in Print).
These two excerpts from a statement by Robert Frank speak to my thoughts on reproducibility and appropriation. It is the integrity and intention of the photographer that binds itself to each photograph. The images that lay vulnerable to appropriation are the ones that were taken without intention or insight. This is not true in all cases, but a commitment to an artist’s work and photographer’s photographs must be implored in order to avoid works being turned into commodities. It is not to say that the best way to aestheticize politics is to simply use film, but rather to commit your images to the time and space that they exist in.
From Matthew Burne
ReplyDeleteFrom Benjamin's opening paragraph on Marx, as he's reminding us of Capitalism in
its inevitable future as a kind of prognosis) he reminds us that what could be
expected [from] Capitalism is "the creation of conditions that would make it
possible to abolish itself." And so, Marx (perhaps just as much of a prophet as
Benjamin) saw the inevitable {imploding} of Capitalism upon itself where it
would be responsible for creating it's own collapse. The photograph in the age
of technological reproducibility is part of "these conditions" of Capitalism, in
other words the mass reproduction and dissemination of the image will be partly
responsible for the collapse. Benjamin knew this, saw it happening. And so
Benjamin's dialectic of the photographic one one hand (a kind of
mystical/ghostly silent spark from the optical unconscious [authenticity in time
and space, culture, lineage, root, connectedness,], and the deracinated
photograph designed for reproducibility on the other hand is a dialectic of the
photographic condition itself, always dancing/dualing between the gods (that
mystical aura) and man and his/her social web of class relations. The
photographic is like a child being pulled on by the unknowable above and the
political crisis below, keeping it grounded in the world and political crisis.
Just maybe it is not that Capitalism turns ???objects into subjects.??? But rather,
due to its technology of systematic re-production, and its deracination of the
object, it actually strips the object of its inherent presence, its aura, its
ontological integrity in space and time. This is perhaps similar to Heidegger???s
dialectic of a thing???s "presence-at-hand" vs. its "readiness-to-hand"
(usefulness as tool or equipment). Is it the synthesis of these two that
photography finds its political (ethical) significance in the age of
technological reproducibility. In the age of technological reproducibility, the
irreducible ???presentness??? (the authenticity and aura) of the here and now image
(and the importance of it as ???actuality???) is subjected to the readiness-to-hand
of ???Fascism.??? And the consequences of this synthesis is tremendously important
in terms of the socio/political potential of mass communication, where
???pictorical reproduction can now keep pace with speech.??? It is as if the
photographic image is the new text, index, sign, Logos???the new ???eternal Word???
that due to the advent of the ???printing press,??? can be distributed to the
???masses??? so that all may here the ???good word.??? But what is this ???good word????
The gradual collapse/imploding of Capitalism, and the photographic image will
play [is playing] a paradoxical, albiet very important role in that collapse.
So then what about the integrity of the photograph, the roots and spark of it
that mass reproduction strips from it? Does this matter in a post-human
landscape where ???God is Dead???? ???Forget God, the photograph must Educate, must
Dismantle??? would be the motto-to-come.
Benjamin states "... photography opens up in this material the physiognomic aspects of the world of images, which reside in the smallest details, clear and yet hidden enough to have found shelter in daydreams" (203). This spark, The Optical Unconscious, resides in these small details, that surpass even imagination (daydreams) at times. For Benjamin, The Optical Unconscious goes beyond the imagination in such vivid clarity that even imagination can not compare to the reality captured by the lens, whether it be that of the eye or mind (unconscious) in comparison to the camera .
ReplyDeleteThis can work both positively and negatively, in relation to Benjamin's leftist political standing. By giving a common Optical Unconscious through an apparatus, the viewer (despite class) is leveled from independent identity and social class as a viewer among many viewers. The bourgeoisie views through the same camera lens as the proletariat. In the more negative campaign of the Optical Unconscious, and perhaps the more likely, the lens/apparatus has the ability to alienate and ostracize the viewer from a group identity. This for leftist policy negates the case in point: to join together as proletariats to change/revolutionize society for society's own benefit.
Photography must resist the temptation to enlighten, whether by information or realization of identity in a mass setting. When it is separated from quantitative interests it becomes something out of the field of propaganda or advertising and something that enters the realm of creativity.
Perhaps as an object/subject unto itself, as photography for photography, it holds its own creative roots and authenticity within its motivation of production.---> this is very much out of the box and said more of as a potential after than an actual contribution with support to proceed it.
photography must RESIST the temptation to enlighten?
ReplyDelete