(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.