The very nature of photography implies an equivocal relation to the photographer as auteur and the bigger and more varied the work done by a talented photographer, the more it seems to acquire a kind of corporate rather than individual authorship.
It makes sense that a painting is signed but a photograph is not (or it seems in bad taste if it is). photographs have their power as images (or copies) of the world, not of an individual artist’s consciousness. The deepest penetration seems to occur in the following passages: First, then, we have to remove the point of Sontag’s book from the wound it has made in its subject matter.
Susan Sontag’s On Photography might have been called Off Photography, for “offing,” in the ’60s sense of committing murder, is what the book really intends to do. Susan Sontag, On Photography (New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1977), 207 pages.
0 kommentar(er)
