At 20, when I was told to read one of the essays in this book as reading material for visual communications class, I never fully understood Sontag's erudite essay on photography and surrealism. Notwithstanding, it left enough of an indelible impression for me to think about it from time to time over the years, mentally categorised as one of the "books I will (remember to) read" in future.
Now, years later, having read the entire book, I must confess that I still do not entirely grasp Sontag's panoramic and thought-provoking discourse on photography. Though, for the things that I do understand, I must say that Sontag's views put forth in this volume carry a remarkable lucidity on the topic, making me "see" photography in many different lights.
"On Photography" (henceforth shortened to "OP") is not a book teaching you how to take better pictures, improve your technical knowledge of what goes into your camera etc. For
that, numerous volumes abound today in the market, and they have the advantage of currency over OP to boot.
Written in 1977, OP offered a different view of photography in the modern world that to a large extent still holds true today. Below are some that I remember (& understand).
Photography as an artIn one of OP's essays, Sontag discussed photography's claims as an art form vis-à-vis painting, how whether the word "art" should be applied to a product -- the "photograph". Painting, as the yardstick for this comparison, is most definitely reckoned "art", because each artist interprets the surroundings and renders them on canvas in a vision that is entirely his. Hence the question: a photograph, can it be considered art, if 2 different cameras apply the same setting in the same light condition, with identical range, shutter speed (etc) to capture the same landscape will give you almost-identical pictures? Sontag argues that it is art, because the choice of the object (when one presses the shutter) is in fact an interpretation, even if the interpretation is rendered into image form by virtue of a mechanical device, the camera.
Photography's uses: as a ritualistic activity, as an emotional shield
The advent of the camera and its subsequent accessibility gave rise to many observations about modern society. One pertained to the ritualistic act of taking photos. For the American family, photo taking became a regular "to-do" at family gatherings, weddings to mark the occasion, the resultant photographs occupying an important place in the recounting of family history with the passage of time. This may sound obvious, but then once has to reckon with the fact that before the ubiquity of cameras, each adult probably only has one or two images of himself in his lifetime!
Sontag also mentioned that for more regimented (???) societies such as Japan (if I remember correctly), the camera became an obsession during travel, a way of mechanically clicking at the world without having to juggle or manage one's reactions of the new sights/culture/people. The mantra literally becomes: take picture. Click. Move on to next object.
Inherent in photography's commoditisation is also the phenomenon of desensitisation/ trivialisation. Photography allowed one to view, at a distance, the unusual and the suffering. The full gamut of emotions is mediated, bringing to mind, McLuhan's famous dictum "The medium is the message". The reaction to images is therefore vicarious, lived second hand, and therefore muted.
Photography as representation of truth; photography in contextDoes a photograph speak true? Always? Many would think so, but stop and think, Sontag cautions. Remember the same photo that accompany news articles in the different newspapers, how different captions give a completely different take to the story?
Therein lies photography's paradox. While it can be used as a representation of truth -- think x-rays, photographic evidence at a crime scene -- it also dissembles, because a photograph can never capture the whole essence of the scene's ongoings at the exact moment the shutter was pressed. That unrecallable moment passed into history the instant the image was captured on film (or memory card as we are more accustomed these days).
Further, precisely because the act of photography focuses on an object, photographing it necessarily takes it out of context, thereby providing the occasion to ascribe whole new worlds of meaning to the photograph. The same photograph in a museum and in your photo album mean different things to you.
Paraphasing that famous phrase of Clinton, "it's the context, stupid".
If I have set down any of the above wrongly, pls correct me. I read the essays on public transport and must confess that it is not exactly the best place to read such heavy material!
For the breathtaking insights it gave me, I rate OP 4.5 out of 5 stars!
I remember what led me to my first Vonnegut book. I was at Kino (bookstore of choice) and was browsing the 'Recommended Titles' section when I saw Armageddon in Retrospect, Vonnegut's posthumous collection of stories. The picture on the back was an old man, a character who lived his life the way he wanted it to be. Someone who cared about the world, yet didn't give a fuck about many other things. That was my interpretation anyway. Take a look at the picture for yourself, then read his wiki page, and marvel at this whimsical man.
