“Was not their mistake once more bred of the life of slavery that they had been living?—a life which was always looking upon everything, except mankind, animate and inanimate—‘nature,’ as people used to call it—as one thing, and mankind as another, it was natural to people thinking in this way, that they should try to make ‘nature’ their slave, since they thought ‘nature’ was something outside them” — William Morris

Friday, September 16, 2011

David Reid on Bogost Video

David Reid just wrote me this comment—it's my fault that he couldn't post it, and I think it warrants sharing:

Thanks Tim for posting the Ian Bogost video, a great start to thinking photography and OOO as the new academic year begins; and for myself as a photographer, very helpful to have this just as I have begun revisiting working in a Windogrand and William Klein mode but with an OO view out there on the street. Adding Ian's thought to the work of Paul Caplan and Robert Jackson we have a really interesting set of relations opening up between the worlds of photography and OOO. We are looking forward to continuing to contribute to this relationship at Nottingham Trent University this year.


the Internationale said...

I think David's right, well I would wouldn't I! Would be great to try and bring this concern with thinking about and practising object-oriented photography together. David's started the ball rolling with his recent conference in Nottingham. Maybe we need some sort of 'publication' - not another wordy journal but some sort of image(in)ings object. Happy to co-ordinate interest via @internationale

Robert Jackson said...

Too right - count me in. Fried will have to come too, but kicking and screaming his way out of High Modernism.

Thank you David for the very kind words.

Bill Benzon said...

Yes, a most interesting video. While my photographs are certainly VERY different from Winogrand's, I'm certainly interested in how things look in photographs. The photographs surprise. Some of the best are a complete surprise in that I don't even remember taking them. How to realize them (digitally) is sometimes routine, for I've got a standard routine that's the starting point for almost all my photos. But not always. Sometimes I've got to work hard to recover a photograph.

The realization is an act of construction, constructing an image starting from bits captured by the camera, which, I suspect, is rather different from constructing an image from traces left in a chemical emulsion. What then is the relationship between the realized photo and the originating scene? Given that one can create any number of realizations from the same pile of bits, and astonishingly easy to do so, one might be tempted to say that, however one realizes the bits, the bit pile is always and ever withdrawing from the photographer. But if we say that, what then of the originating scene? What of it's withdrawal. Has that been obliterated, replaced, by the pile of bits?

Is that a choice the photographer can make, to respect a connection between the originating scene and the realized photo or to obliterate that connection in favor of the pile of bits? If that IS a choice, how is it made? How does one know that one is, indeed, making that choice? What are the ethics of that choice? The aesthetics?