The Photographic Image

I enjoyed the class led seminars today.  The Generation Y photographic images project was interesting, it reminded me of a Roland Barthes reading I remember doing for a Media, Ethics & Law subject.  The Barthes reading was about how the photographic image is always 'framed' by the photographer.  Even as the photographer tries to capture 'reality' as such, it is always framed in some way.  The photographer chooses what is to be included and discluded, the angle, the light, the emphasis.  The simple fact that this image and not some other image has been chosen to photograph raises the significance of the said subject matter, immediately emphasising it from its banal daily existence thus creating a distortion.  The photographer always looks for something interesting and out of the ordinary within the banal to photograph, or something he/she perceives as 'representing' the real.  At once the representation is more real, then the real is more real.

And what of the subject?  Does the subject have the 'pose' and then the 'non-pose' or the 'real me' portrayal of themselves for the camera?  Then there's the photograph of the completely 'unaware' subject, these photographs meet with privacy issues, but in this instance the unaware subject is 'in' the real while the observer perceives them as unaware.  The camera seems to eternally search for the real, just as our words do.  Any effort to 'capture' the real can only ever be a representation of the real.  To know and accept this aspect of ourselves and to realise that our desires often defy logic is the knowledge which enables us to progress with compassion.  I think this is quite possibly the difference between what is 'seen' as the simulacra and then what enables us to perceive the simulacra as hyperreal.

 

 

So if we look at the combination of the photographer and the photographed subject, we can rationalise two separate levels of distortion from the real in the instances of both the 'posed' image and the 'non-pose'.  In these two instances, both the photographer and the subject contribute to the outcome, but in the case of the unaware subject only the photographer contributes to the production of the message.  Privacy issues at once safeguard the real while also ensure the privacy of the individual, privacy issues keep the two distinct and separate.  On top of all of this, the photograph is yet further 'interpreted' by the viewer, depending upon the manner in which the photograph has been communicated by the 'author' eg. magazine, art gallery etc. and the individual interpretation of the viewer themselves.

 

The unaware subject 'in' the real is powerless within the paradigm of the image and the 'image producer' is in control.  While the poser and the non-poser are a dialectic of transparent and obfuscated aspects of a feigned authenticity, the relationship between the unaware subject and the photographer is a dichotomy of reality and power.  The subject is immersed 'in' reality and yet is powerless to the image, while the photographer can only 'watch' or observe reality yet wields ultimate power in the world of representation.  The unaware observer 'in' the real, however, depends upon the image to capture moments in time, while the photographer depends upon the real to regenerate desire and to fulfill meaning.  Meanwhile, the 'viewer' observes these four positions as he/she gazes upon the 'photograph'.

 

Yet could we also look at the human eye as a lens, an image, a photograph, always 'framing' reality?  In this way, the photographer is always already observing through two lenses and the unaware subject is always already also 'observing' as he/she is observed.  In this way, none of us actually 'sees' reality, we just sense it!  But in order to 'see' or oberserve reality, through our 'minds eye' even, we need to 'step back' so to speak.  So in order to 'experience' reality we need to 'observe' it from a distance.  So how then is the unware subject any different to the photographer observing from the outside?  They must be in different worlds, not the same world.  Each individual is in their own world and perceives themselves to be 'in' reality while at the same time searching for reality.  Our worlds must overlap or interconnect with each other so that we can play a role in the world of others while at the same time others play a role in our world.  So even the unaware subject who is 'in' reality is only 'in' reality from the perspective of the photographer.  But from the subjects own perspective they perceive themselves as observing their own reality from a distance while at the same time they perceive others as imagining themselves 'in' reality.  So we can be both 'inside' and 'outside' at the same time but not from our perspective alone, this is from both our own perspective and from the perspective of how we imagine others to perceive the world.  Is searching for reality then the actual reality ie. reality is the 'search' itself?