PhotoPedagogy
  • Home
    • About
    • Contribute
  • Threshold Concepts
    • Threshold Concept #1
    • Threshold Concept #2
    • Threshold Concept #3
    • Threshold Concept #4
    • Threshold Concept #5
    • Threshold Concept #6
    • Threshold Concept #7
    • Threshold Concept #8
    • Threshold Concept #9
    • Threshold Concept #10
  • Resources
    • Teaching Resources >
      • KS3-4 Resources
      • Post 16 Resources
    • The RPS >
      • Squaring the Circles of Confusion
      • In Progress
      • Science and Photography
      • Exhibition Visit Activities
      • Sugar Paper Theories
      • Space Steps
      • Altered Ocean
    • Representing Homelessness
    • Blog
    • Class Photobooks
    • Starting a new course?
    • Photo Literacy
    • Photography writing
    • Articles
    • eNewsletters
    • Newspaper
    • Links
  • Shop
  • Contact

Blog

Very occasional musings about
photography education

Mute Witnesses

6/11/2015

0 Comments

 
Picture

"While photographs may not lie, liars may photograph."
-- Lewis Hine 
(1909)

The following guest blog post is by Jim Hamlyn, an artist and lecturer interested in contemporary art practice, philosophy and teaching. It was originally posted on his excellent blog Thought • Art • Representation. We are very grateful to Jim both for his insights on Threshold Concepts and the permission to publish this fascinating exploration of "the way images actually work":

A few days ago I presented a paper at a conference at the University of California Berkeley on the subject of the image. One of the other speakers gave a presentation beginning with the above quote from the early 20th Century social documentary photographer Lewis Hine. The quote reminded me of Picasso's famous remark: "Art is a lie that makes us realise the truth.” Like Picasso and Hein, many people hold the view that images — photographs in particular — are truth bearers, that they provide meaningful testimony and have what philosophers sometimes call "factive", as opposed to fictive, status. I aim to explain why such talk about images has the effect of misleadingly reducing them to linguistic tokens. Furthermore, doing so overlooks, misunderstands or worse still ignores, the essentially mute but nonetheless powerful effectiveness of images as substitutes for the things they represent.

As any linguist will confirm, all well formed sentences contain a subject and a predicate. Language is thus a system of procedures by which we ascribe attributes to things through the use of arbitrary symbols. Only the most intelligent creatures can do this because only the most intelligent creatures are capable of following the rules necessary to engage in practices of predication: of the socially negotiated attribution of abstract linguistic tokens to objects and states of affairs.

It should be clear to everyone that images are not linguistic entities, yet quite evidently it is not in the least clear. Almost all theories of representation refer to images as "signs" or "signifiers", as "readable" objects or "messages" that require "decoding", "deciphering" or "interpreting." In everyday use, we talk of how images "convey meaning", "have content" and are "about" the things to which they "refer." We also talk of what images "tell" us, what they "describe", "articulate", "suggest", "explain" and "imply."  And it is not impossible to find reference to images as oracles and chronicles or soothsayers or that they predict the future, commentate on the present and narrate the past. It might help to exemplify the absurdity of such thinking by noting that we can say the exactly same of tea leaves or the lines on one's hand. That we can do so, reveals far more about our infatuation with language than it does about the nature of images or the susceptibilities and skills that enable their use.

Any student wishing to understand the question of how images actually work (this was the title of my presentation at the conference by the way) will be met by an impenetrable thicket of confused and over complex theorisation about these profoundly simple but powerful tools. They will have to assimilate and understand numerous technical terms like "denotation", "connotation", "punctum", "studium", "icon", "index", "symbol", "sign", "referent", "veridicality", "verisimilitude" etc. And with each step along this path they will be no closer to the answer they seek. In fact, with each step, they will descend deeper into a convoluted labyrinth from which there is little hope of return.

Depictive images work because they can be mistaken for the things they represent in certain ways and in certain respects. It is as simple as that. There are ways to make images resemble the things they depict because there are ways and respects in which they can be made more or less indiscriminable from them, ways that fully exploit the potential for illusion. You simply cannot do this with words — words do not look anything like the things they stand in for.

So when we say that images "tell" "truths" or "lies" we ignore their essential nature and instead treat them as linguistic items. In ordinary usage this is fine, but strictly speaking (which is what we should require of all serious theories) lying and telling truths are the exclusive preserve of language users. Of course, images can depict things that never did, could or will ever happen. But nonverbal misrepresentation does not reduce to verbal misrepresentation: to lying. Images are not texts and the skills necessary to use them for communicative purposes are by no means reliant upon (although they are massively assisted by) our skills as language users.

There are two fundamental questions we can ask of any image: "What is it of?" and "What is it about?" The first is always more basic than the second because the second relies to a very significant degree on the first. If it were not a matter of some importance what images are actually of, then we could indeed replace them with abstractions, with symbolic tokens, with words. We can do this of course, but not without significant loss.

Recognising what an image is of, is usually effortless, whereas the answer to the question of what an image is about — what it means — is almost never so. In fact the answer to the question of meaning is about as straightforward as the answer to the question of the function of a length of string. If you do not know how to use a length of string, then it has no function. The same is true of meaning.

Images can neither lie nor tell the truth. They can be used in acts of lying and they can be used to corroborate truths, but just as a nonverbal human witness can point to the perpetrator of a crime with no recourse to language, so too do images gain their fundamental efficacy from factors that are entirely independent of linguistic competence. Images can be deceptive but they cannot deceive. They can mislead and misguide but they cannot cheat. They can be clear but they cannot be honest.  They can distort but they cannot feign. They can simulate but they cannot pretend.

Images are powerful because they trigger many of the same embodied responses as the things they represent — just as words do in fact. But, unlike language, they do not require elaborate skills in symbolic substitution and rule following to do this. So it is simply mistaken to suggest or conclude that images are bearers of truth, tellers of tales or descriptions of the world. If someone shows you a view through a window, they are not showing you a lie and nor are they showing you the truth. Likewise, a view of the moon through the distorting lens of a telescope is neither factive nor fictive. When we present evidence of the truth, the evidence does not constitute the truth. Truth is not something that can be perceived. When we say "I see the truth" we do not mean to suggest that the truth is something that can be seen. We mean that the truth is something that can be understood.

During the conference, another of the presenters mentioned something that struck me as relevant to this analysis. Apparently the root of the word "epiphany" is to be found in the Ancient Greek term: phanein, meaning "to show." Images show us things. It is what we do with images, and more specifically, the communicative practices within which images are integrated, that transforms them into such extraordinary and useful tools. Language enables us to use images in extraordinarily sophisticated ways, but language also significantly obscures our understanding of these essentially mute witnesses.

Jim Hamlyn
0 Comments

    Blog

    Guest blog posts by members of the photography teaching and learning community. 

    Archives

    August 2022
    June 2021
    January 2020
    February 2019
    January 2019
    November 2018
    October 2018
    July 2018
    February 2018
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015

    Categories

    All
    Advice
    Aesthetics
    Alevel
    Alexschady
    Annalucas
    Art
    Artanddesign
    Arthistory
    Assessment
    Audio
    Auschwitz
    Autographabp
    Books
    Bookshelf
    Bush
    Camera
    China
    Communication
    Concepts
    Conference
    Contemporary
    Course
    Cpd
    Cultures
    Curriculum
    Dafnatalmor
    Damoward
    Danielrose
    Democracy
    Design
    Desire
    Development
    Document
    Ebacc
    Editing
    Education
    Eggleston
    Elliottwilcox
    Enquiries
    Essay
    Ethics
    Event
    Eventbrite
    Examination
    Exchange
    Experiments
    Film
    Framing
    Frank
    Freedom
    Game
    Gcse
    Gertbiesta
    Guest
    Homework
    Howiseethings
    Identity
    Images
    Indeterminacy
    Instructions
    Internet
    Interview
    Kit
    Knowledge
    Language
    Learning
    Leiter
    Lies
    Linear
    Literacy
    Marysadowling
    Materials
    Memory
    Meyerowitz
    Notknowing
    Nsead
    Openness
    Padlet
    Pedagogy
    Pedgaogy
    Performance
    Philosophy
    Photobooks
    Photofilmpingpong
    Photographersgallery
    Photoliteracy
    Photopedagogy
    Photopingpong
    Photoworks
    Planning
    Pointing
    Practice
    Production
    Programme
    Projects
    Questioning
    Red
    Relationships
    Research
    Resistance
    Resources
    Review
    Risk
    Shore
    Skills
    Socialmedia
    Specifications
    Statement
    Steam
    Stem
    Stephenshore
    Street
    Study
    Subjectification
    Summerschool
    Tate
    Tateexchange
    Taxonomies
    Taylorwessing
    Teaching
    Text Exchange
    Theory
    Threshold
    Tickets
    Time
    TLR
    Traditions
    Training
    Truth
    Unhomework
    University
    Walkerevans
    Website
    Welcome
    Wessel
    Winogrand
    Workshop
    Writing
    Yashica
    Year13

    RSS Feed

Social

Contact

photopedagogy@gmail.com