RE: [Leica] Suzy Q, again

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

Well Paul.....For what ever it's worth, allow me to wade into the SSontag
swamp for a bit....In anticipation of teaching a Documentary Photo course at
MIT in the fall< I have bitten the bullet and begun wading through
Sontag...It being "intellectual" and all that. While she is terribly
pedantic, "intellectual," and a royal pain in the ass who is no fun to read,
I hesitate to write off many of her observations of photography, for,
frankly, many of them are stunningly astute. Consider, for a moment, without
allowing your blood pressure to blast through the top of your skull, the
quotes Arthur has offered us, and remember that this was all written in the
early to mid-70s, and probably much of it was thought out in the even more
radical atmosphere of the 60s:

"There is an aggression implicit in every use of the Camera."

Okay, there's a bit of hyperbole...Certainly you're not being aggressive
when you photograph your child's birthday party....But what are PJs in a
pack, if not aggressive? And about that photographing of the child's
birthday party, of Christmas morning, etc. etc....How much of it becomes
aggressive - Stand over there! Smile! Stop fidgeting?  Certainly this
observation is at least worth considering.

"Recently, photography has become almost as widely practiced
an amusement as
sex and dancing..."

Well, THAT one is sure hard to argue with. There probably are more people
regularly taking photos than there are having sex and dancing. And,
obviously, this is simply her in-your-face way of noting how ubiquitous
photography had become when she wrote the book.

"A way of certifying experience, taking photographs is also a
way of refusing
it-- by limiting experience to a search for the photogenic, by converting
experience into an image, a souvenir."

Now THAT is really an interesting observation. For the camera most
definitely provides distance and protection in uncomfortable situations. It
distances the photographer from the action, even if he or she is in the
midst of it. I know that when I came back from Somalia in '93, and wrote a
"reporters notebook" column for Newsday about my experiences, one of the
things I wrote about was the phenomenon of observing the starvation and
abject poverty through my viewfinder, and therefore NOT having to truly
experience it, or respond to it on a direct, personal level.

"it would not be wrong to speak of people having a ' compulsion' to
photograph: to turn experience itself into a way of seeing."

Okay, not everyone. But some people? I don't know about you, but I don't go
anywhere without a camera. And if I'm at a party, or in a similar crowded,
noisy, social situation where my hearing aides crap out on me, having a
camera allows me to just drift around photographing, without having to
pretend I'm hearing people and having conversations I'm not really having.

"Needing to have reality confirmed and experienced enhanced by photographs
is an aesthetic consumerism to which everyone is now addicted."

Come on...This one is so obvious as to be a "Duh!" Why do  10s of millions
of tourists have their photo taken by 10s of millions of other tourists in
front of the Eiffel Tower and the Grand Canyon? To show that they were
there. Certainly their friends have seen - BETTER - photos of those places.
But the photo of Art and Alice in front of the tourist attraction allows
them to "consume" it and show it off.

Don't get me wrong - I don't agree with everything she writes, and think
some of it is downright horse shit. But I think that she is an extremely
bright, insightful intellectual prig who makes some brilliant observations
that she probably wouldn't have made were she a photographer.

B. D.

http://www.a-day-in-our-life.com
A Day In Our Life...
Documentary Photography
of American Families

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Paul
> Chefurka
> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 3:52 PM
> To: 'leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us'
> Subject: RE: [Leica] Suzy Q, again
>
>
> I hope you're snipping a lot of context, Arthur, because if these quotes
> accurately reflect Ms. Sontag's impressions of the art, I truly
> despair.  In
> fact I find the thoughts you have quoted to be facile, dismissive and
> contemptuous.  If they really reflect her outlook, I may in fact
> never read
> the whole book, because my blood pressure wouldn't take it.  Just
> these bits
> are more enraging than a week-long thread on watches.
>
> If this stuff showed up on a usenet newsgroup, I'd call the post a troll.
>
> Paul
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ARTHURWG@aol.com [mailto:ARTHURWG@aol.com]
> >Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2000 3:26 PM
> >To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> >Subject: Re: [Leica] Suzy Q, again
> >
> >
> >"There is an agression implicit in every use of the Camera."
> >
> >"Recently, photography has become almost as widely practiced
> >an amusement as
> >sex and dancing..."
> >
> >"A way of certifying experience, taking photographs is also a
> >way of refusing
> >it-- by limiting experience to a search for the photogenic, by
> >converting
> >experience into an image, a souvenir."
> >
> >"it would not be wrong to speak of people having a ' compulsion' to
> >photograph: to turn experience itself into a way of seeing."
> >
> >"Needing to have reality confirmed and experienced enhanced by
> >photographs is
> >an aesthetic consumerism to which everyone is now adicted."
> >
> >
> >--Susan Sontag
> >Arthur
> >
>