What do you think?
Rate this book
Burden Of Representation: Essays on Photographies and Histories
Burden of Representation( Essays on Photographies and Histories) <> Paperback <> JohnTagg <> UniversityofMinnesotaPress
256 pages, Paperback
First published July 18, 1988
17 people are currently reading
282 people want to read
About the author
John Tagg
20 books4 followersohn Tagg is Professor of Art History and Comparative Literature at Binghamton University. His books, which often focus on the relationship between photography and power, include The Burden of Representation: Essays of Photographies and Histories, Grounds of Dispute: Art History, Cultural Politics and the Discursive Field, and The Disciplinary Frame: Photographic Regimens and the Capture of Meaning.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
September 29, 2014
My friend Eric sent me the course on visual sociology that he teaches - well, the texts that he uses anyway. Some of them I will eventually get around to reviewing on my blog - but that might take a while. Anyway, two of the readings he uses are from this book and he also suggested I get my hands on the actual book - so, I did. Eric proving to be one of those providing road signs along the way down the path to my new life.
Except this book starts with an introduction and it is so hard. Not just hard, but aggressive so. This is an introduction designed to stop you reading — and that would be an infinite shame. Being rather fond of bullshit psychology, here is my explanation for the introduction. Once upon a time this guy was a Marxist. Then he read some Foucault. Now, while this isn't always a mistake, sometimes it can be exactly that. The problem with Marxism isn't so much Marx, as it is the Marxists. Christianity suffers much the same fate. But Marx did see the main game as being the class struggle and I do understand that women and non-whites might just think, 'stuff you, I'm not waiting till you guys sort yourselves out before I get my freedom'. But, as something else I've been reading lately says, the difference between the women's movement and the Black Power movement and the class struggle is that the class struggle is the only one that wants to resolve things by getting rid of the 'Other'. Too often ex-Marxists who read Foucault understand that things can't be reduced to the class struggle, but can't see how things can then be 'post-modern' either. How can you ever have a positive outcome if all is just one power game after another? Marx would have just quoted Hegel - but unfortunately, no one reads Hegel anymore. It's all a matter of concrete universals. The way class is a subset of all of these other relationships and therefore changing that one ought to change all others too. Not that that ever proved to be the case when tried, unfortunately.
So, the introduction is almost unreadable. He is desperately seeking a way out, but rather than cutting through the maze, he just builds more chambers.
I finished this book on the plane on the way to my conference. I'm in London at the moment, as part of the PhD they send you to one international conference - and this is it. Visual sociology, here we come. Once the introduction of this book is over it becomes what the intro isn't - clear, beautifully written, smart and stunningly good. The first chapter is about how photographs became the middle class version of oil portraits. The early portrait photographs even look like portraits that the upper classes would have paid 'proper artists' to paint for them. It is amazing how often old art forms inform new ones. He quotes figures of how many photographs from the early years of photography where portraits - and it turns out that it was often nearly ALL of them.
This book starts getting incredibly interesting at Chapter 3. This is where he starts talking about Foucault's idea of surveillance. You know, as a society we like to think that what defines us is our desire towards increasing freedom. But really what we seem to increasingly choose is to be more and more watched over. There are security cameras everywhere here in London - it is actually a bit of a joke - even if a not terribly funny one. This chapter is straight Foucault. It didn't take long for people to work out that cameras were pretty good at documenting people. Police files obviously wouldn't be complete without a photograph — 'recognise this man?'. But this was also the age of Eugenics in medicine and so photographs could also be used to help define which physical features were related to which antisocial dysfunction. We needed photographs of criminals, the insane, the sick, the poor — all to help us understand why these people were like that. But more than that - we needed to be able to make sure these people are kept 'safe' - either safely away from the rest of us or encouraged (forced?) to find ways to regulate their own illnesses - of which poverty was just yet another such illness and likewise the fault of the individual. Capitalism is the great standardiser. It standardises production and it standardises people to meet the needs of production. Photos came along just at a time when they could help with precisely that need. Providing photos to explain if you were sick, photos to check how you were working, photos to decide what you had learnt and what still needed to be learnt to ensure everybody was behaving properly.
He makes the point that power isn't just a matter of something that suppresses people in society, but rather, power creates spaces that allow certain types of people to become inevitable. Power isn't always negative - it serves a very positive role in creating what we can be. Power creates these roles by deciding what will be worthwhile as knowledge - there is a very close relationship between what is knowledge and what is power; they both inform each other. Both are used to suppress or encourage certain behaviours and attitudes.
But the most interesting part of this book is how the author applies these ideas in practice by looking at what particular groups of photos do and mean. He wants to move away from the idea that semiotics can provide all the answers — and by semiotics he means universally applicable rules for decoding meaning. The problem is that photographs don't just mean all on their own. Like children, then can't be explained in their own terms, but rather they take a village to help us understand them. To understand a single photograph, you need to understand how it stands in relation to the society that produced it — what it was created for and by whom. To understand a photograph you need to understand why it was produced and how those who might read the photograph might have understood it. This isn't in the least bit easy or obvious. It isn't obvious because it is almost impossible for us to understand or believe that photos aren't just stolen slices of time — unproblematically capturing reality. Photographic images are constructed by us - even when we are unaware of the fact we are setting about constructing them. We take photographs according to our wants and needs and those wants and needs are pre-informed by the society we live in.
There is a fantastic part of this book where he talks of the slum clearances in Leeds. How the taking of photographs and how people were encouraged to read them proved essential to deciding to clear certain slum areas. Look, if all you read of this book is this one chapter the book would still be worth getting your hands on.
The other brilliant part was the last chapter from about page 187 through to about 200. Maybe I was just ready to hear this stuff now, as it probably is just a quick summary of what is said in the introduction - but this part was utterly inspired.
If you think there is an unproblematic relationship between the reality that is 'out there' and photographs we take of the world 'out there' then you really need to read this book. Like so much else in life, the truth is both much more complex and interesting.
(my advice would be to read the introduction last)
Except this book starts with an introduction and it is so hard. Not just hard, but aggressive so. This is an introduction designed to stop you reading — and that would be an infinite shame. Being rather fond of bullshit psychology, here is my explanation for the introduction. Once upon a time this guy was a Marxist. Then he read some Foucault. Now, while this isn't always a mistake, sometimes it can be exactly that. The problem with Marxism isn't so much Marx, as it is the Marxists. Christianity suffers much the same fate. But Marx did see the main game as being the class struggle and I do understand that women and non-whites might just think, 'stuff you, I'm not waiting till you guys sort yourselves out before I get my freedom'. But, as something else I've been reading lately says, the difference between the women's movement and the Black Power movement and the class struggle is that the class struggle is the only one that wants to resolve things by getting rid of the 'Other'. Too often ex-Marxists who read Foucault understand that things can't be reduced to the class struggle, but can't see how things can then be 'post-modern' either. How can you ever have a positive outcome if all is just one power game after another? Marx would have just quoted Hegel - but unfortunately, no one reads Hegel anymore. It's all a matter of concrete universals. The way class is a subset of all of these other relationships and therefore changing that one ought to change all others too. Not that that ever proved to be the case when tried, unfortunately.
So, the introduction is almost unreadable. He is desperately seeking a way out, but rather than cutting through the maze, he just builds more chambers.
I finished this book on the plane on the way to my conference. I'm in London at the moment, as part of the PhD they send you to one international conference - and this is it. Visual sociology, here we come. Once the introduction of this book is over it becomes what the intro isn't - clear, beautifully written, smart and stunningly good. The first chapter is about how photographs became the middle class version of oil portraits. The early portrait photographs even look like portraits that the upper classes would have paid 'proper artists' to paint for them. It is amazing how often old art forms inform new ones. He quotes figures of how many photographs from the early years of photography where portraits - and it turns out that it was often nearly ALL of them.
This book starts getting incredibly interesting at Chapter 3. This is where he starts talking about Foucault's idea of surveillance. You know, as a society we like to think that what defines us is our desire towards increasing freedom. But really what we seem to increasingly choose is to be more and more watched over. There are security cameras everywhere here in London - it is actually a bit of a joke - even if a not terribly funny one. This chapter is straight Foucault. It didn't take long for people to work out that cameras were pretty good at documenting people. Police files obviously wouldn't be complete without a photograph — 'recognise this man?'. But this was also the age of Eugenics in medicine and so photographs could also be used to help define which physical features were related to which antisocial dysfunction. We needed photographs of criminals, the insane, the sick, the poor — all to help us understand why these people were like that. But more than that - we needed to be able to make sure these people are kept 'safe' - either safely away from the rest of us or encouraged (forced?) to find ways to regulate their own illnesses - of which poverty was just yet another such illness and likewise the fault of the individual. Capitalism is the great standardiser. It standardises production and it standardises people to meet the needs of production. Photos came along just at a time when they could help with precisely that need. Providing photos to explain if you were sick, photos to check how you were working, photos to decide what you had learnt and what still needed to be learnt to ensure everybody was behaving properly.
He makes the point that power isn't just a matter of something that suppresses people in society, but rather, power creates spaces that allow certain types of people to become inevitable. Power isn't always negative - it serves a very positive role in creating what we can be. Power creates these roles by deciding what will be worthwhile as knowledge - there is a very close relationship between what is knowledge and what is power; they both inform each other. Both are used to suppress or encourage certain behaviours and attitudes.
But the most interesting part of this book is how the author applies these ideas in practice by looking at what particular groups of photos do and mean. He wants to move away from the idea that semiotics can provide all the answers — and by semiotics he means universally applicable rules for decoding meaning. The problem is that photographs don't just mean all on their own. Like children, then can't be explained in their own terms, but rather they take a village to help us understand them. To understand a single photograph, you need to understand how it stands in relation to the society that produced it — what it was created for and by whom. To understand a photograph you need to understand why it was produced and how those who might read the photograph might have understood it. This isn't in the least bit easy or obvious. It isn't obvious because it is almost impossible for us to understand or believe that photos aren't just stolen slices of time — unproblematically capturing reality. Photographic images are constructed by us - even when we are unaware of the fact we are setting about constructing them. We take photographs according to our wants and needs and those wants and needs are pre-informed by the society we live in.
There is a fantastic part of this book where he talks of the slum clearances in Leeds. How the taking of photographs and how people were encouraged to read them proved essential to deciding to clear certain slum areas. Look, if all you read of this book is this one chapter the book would still be worth getting your hands on.
The other brilliant part was the last chapter from about page 187 through to about 200. Maybe I was just ready to hear this stuff now, as it probably is just a quick summary of what is said in the introduction - but this part was utterly inspired.
If you think there is an unproblematic relationship between the reality that is 'out there' and photographs we take of the world 'out there' then you really need to read this book. Like so much else in life, the truth is both much more complex and interesting.
(my advice would be to read the introduction last)
September 8, 2020
Tagg’s book is a classic in the history of photography, though it turns out to be so heavily laden with theory that it can hardly fulfill any historical function at all: it is historical inasmuch as it claims that any understanding of photography must be acquired through a close attention to its (institutional) historical setting, rather than in attempting an account of this setting and its evolution. So for starters: do not come to Tagg hoping for an overview of functional (as opposed to artistic) photography, for despite the blurb that is not what is here at issue—and least of all, do not come to Tagg hoping for a general history of the medium. Henceforth I will then discuss his theory.
The author reacts against what we could call photographic exceptionalism, the surprisingly widespread claim that photography, by virtue of its mechanical process, has a privileged access to the real. Thus for Barthes the photograph, as object, attests to the absence of ‘the necessarily real thing which has been placed before the lens’ (quoted p. 1). Against such realism, Tagg claims that ‘every photograph is the result of specific and, in every sense, significant distortions’ (2). The photograph’s relation to the real ‘is therefore highly complex, irreversible, and can guarantee nothing at the level of meaning’ (3).
What Tagg’s ‘historical materialist’ historiography (actually Foucaldian) lacks is further relativisation: yes, the photograph is indeed ‘constructed,’ and includes intentional and unconscious distortions, those of the photographer and those of the smattering of technicians involved in producing and maintaining the apparatus. Yes, it is subject to social determinations mediated by the institutions and agents involved. But it is also subject to material determinations, and those are more stringent in photography than, say, in lithography. (Or, perhaps, the material determinations in photography happen to act upon the content as much as the form, where in non- or less-mechanical medias, they act mostly upon the form, leaving content to conventions). Those material determinations can be ‘selected’ or ‘arranged’—as they are in framing or in the studio—but only to a given extent, an extent more limited in photography than in other medium, which is what makes photography more indexical and ‘realist’ than drawing or poetry.
The book expends great energy to eloquently argue for the need to expand history and critique beyond the self-contained photograph. For Tagg this means accounting for the institutions which produce conventions and meaning, which in this particular case ascertain and vouch for its ‘exceptionality’ – its privileged relationship to the real: mapping ‘the topography of existing apparatuses and institutions, in a concrete analysis of the uneven terrain which the struggles must be waged’ (205).
It is surprising that an author who frames his ‘realism’ in terms of institutional topography would ignore the necessary determinations of the material topography on the photograph, and write instead that photography is ‘the production of a new and specific reality . . . which cannot refer or be referred to a prephotographic reality as to a truth’ (3). Perhaps in 1988, the struggle against naïve realism was still uphill. Perhaps also there is a sense of prophetic self-importance in declaring that, henceforth, social conventions will replace natural laws.
At any rate this is a successful though very general (and painfully wordy) account of the institutional setting of photography. As such anyone serious about the history of photography should read it. As a theoretical account of photography however it is incomplete:
When J. H. Schulze happened perchance upon the photogram, his understanding of the process was indeed mediated by existing institutions–those of chemistry for its meaning, those of economy for its possible functions—but this understanding was also determined by the laws that dictate the relations of silver and aquafortis, which no amount of institutions could have changed.
The author reacts against what we could call photographic exceptionalism, the surprisingly widespread claim that photography, by virtue of its mechanical process, has a privileged access to the real. Thus for Barthes the photograph, as object, attests to the absence of ‘the necessarily real thing which has been placed before the lens’ (quoted p. 1). Against such realism, Tagg claims that ‘every photograph is the result of specific and, in every sense, significant distortions’ (2). The photograph’s relation to the real ‘is therefore highly complex, irreversible, and can guarantee nothing at the level of meaning’ (3).
What Tagg’s ‘historical materialist’ historiography (actually Foucaldian) lacks is further relativisation: yes, the photograph is indeed ‘constructed,’ and includes intentional and unconscious distortions, those of the photographer and those of the smattering of technicians involved in producing and maintaining the apparatus. Yes, it is subject to social determinations mediated by the institutions and agents involved. But it is also subject to material determinations, and those are more stringent in photography than, say, in lithography. (Or, perhaps, the material determinations in photography happen to act upon the content as much as the form, where in non- or less-mechanical medias, they act mostly upon the form, leaving content to conventions). Those material determinations can be ‘selected’ or ‘arranged’—as they are in framing or in the studio—but only to a given extent, an extent more limited in photography than in other medium, which is what makes photography more indexical and ‘realist’ than drawing or poetry.
The book expends great energy to eloquently argue for the need to expand history and critique beyond the self-contained photograph. For Tagg this means accounting for the institutions which produce conventions and meaning, which in this particular case ascertain and vouch for its ‘exceptionality’ – its privileged relationship to the real: mapping ‘the topography of existing apparatuses and institutions, in a concrete analysis of the uneven terrain which the struggles must be waged’ (205).
It is surprising that an author who frames his ‘realism’ in terms of institutional topography would ignore the necessary determinations of the material topography on the photograph, and write instead that photography is ‘the production of a new and specific reality . . . which cannot refer or be referred to a prephotographic reality as to a truth’ (3). Perhaps in 1988, the struggle against naïve realism was still uphill. Perhaps also there is a sense of prophetic self-importance in declaring that, henceforth, social conventions will replace natural laws.
At any rate this is a successful though very general (and painfully wordy) account of the institutional setting of photography. As such anyone serious about the history of photography should read it. As a theoretical account of photography however it is incomplete:
When J. H. Schulze happened perchance upon the photogram, his understanding of the process was indeed mediated by existing institutions–those of chemistry for its meaning, those of economy for its possible functions—but this understanding was also determined by the laws that dictate the relations of silver and aquafortis, which no amount of institutions could have changed.
January 24, 2024
Ще під час навчання в університеті мені цікаво було досліджувати фотографію, її метод, місце черед інших модерних видів мистецтва. Бо фотографія хоче бути репрезентацією реальності, документальним підтвердженням життя, на противагу сконструйованому живопису чи ефемерній музиці. Однак, фотографія так само працює з панівним дискурсом та створюю зображення, яке піддається втручанню: світло, ракурс, постановка, кадр, монтаж, технічний засіб, який знімає. Вона відображає те, що зараз є ідеологічно правильним й можливим. Тому автор зосереджується на історії створенні фотографії, як вона увірвалась у життя людей й стала мас-продуктом, про який каже культуролог Вільям Беньямін "втратила свою мистецьку ауру". Також, він аналізує, як фотографія піддається впливу ідеології і ніколи не є документальною.
Протягом читання було відчуття повернення в університет, бо словник автора доволі складний для розуміння: гегемонія, ідеологічні державні апарати, дисциплінарні практики, тотальність, політична економія виробництва дискурсу. Однак, це важливі терміни для розуміння капіталістичної ідеології та нашої реальності, яка конструюється соціальними мережами й мас-медіа.
Протягом читання було відчуття повернення в університет, бо словник автора доволі складний для розуміння: гегемонія, ідеологічні державні апарати, дисциплінарні практики, тотальність, політична економія виробництва дискурсу. Однак, це важливі терміни для розуміння капіталістичної ідеології та нашої реальності, яка конструюється соціальними мережами й мас-медіа.
June 30, 2020
"Ми сновигаємо від одного зображення до другого як покупці старих книг."
Не смотря на то, что автору рецензии свойственно обращаться к фотографии и фотосъёмке, он продолжает поддерживать в рассудке состояние (нездорового) подозрения по отношению к фотографическим практикам вообще и портретной съёмке в частности.
Что служит причиной\оправданием такого рода отношению?
Во-первых, значительная роль "уподобления" в работах фотографов - если они и не берут пример, тем не менее, результат оказывается до отчаяния напоминающим о том, что было уже рассмотрено прежде. Отчасти это можно объяснить и "ограниченной системой представлений, свойственных роду деятельности, о том, какой вклад может быть полезным для развития как рода, так бизнеса и индивидуального подхода - но почему редко кто задаётся вопросом, "откуда ноги растут" у любой ограниченности, а особенно у той, что входила одно время в поле непосредственного интереса властных структур?
"..насправді в нас немає вибору, і що довше ми чекаємо, то більше починає здаватися, що зображення дивиться на нас, втягуючи нас у свій простір, тримаючи нас у ньому, занурюючи нас у сумнівну насолоду, віддаючи нас на поталу небезпечній "невичерпності мистецтва".
Во-вторых, взаимоотношения отдельно взятой психики и фотографического снимка - "многообразие" этих отношений, скрывающее, чаще всего, один и тот же "стержень" - ностальгическое переживание того, что могло и не быть прожитым, но так или иначе расцененное зрителем (свидетелем экспозиции, потребителем сообщения, но не оригинального события), плодородная почва для всевозможных мистификаций - начиная обнаруживаемыми на фотографиях фантомными очертаниями, далеко не заканчивая неисчислимыми инсинуациями культуры и цивилизации в противоестественности избираемых путей развития человечества.
"..як показав П'єр Машре, "вивчати ідеологію суспільства не означає аналізувати систему ідей, думок і репрезентацій.. Це означає вивчати матеріальне функціонування ідеологічних апаратів, якому відповідає певний набір специфічних практик."
В-третьих, использование фотографии не столько для передачи определённой (сформулированной в тексте) идеи, но как единственного доказательства того, что имело место в жизни человека и\или социального института. Таким образом "осмысленность" приобретает мистический "невербальный" характер - всё ещё остаётся возможность прибегнуть к слову, описать, например, снимок лишённому возможности видеть (или уделять должное внимание) - но в то же время, из числа "присяжных" тот же слепец будет исключён, потеряет привилегию влиять на судебный процесс. Проще говоря, фотоснимок слишком на многое претендует и чересчур легко обнаруживает поддержку (и отклик) в мироощущении рядового и неискушённого (или имитирующего, по запросам Рынка, неискушённость) пользователя технологических новинок.
"Умберто Еко писав: якщо і прирівнювати фотографію до сприйняття, то не тому, що перше є "природним" процесом, а тому, що останнє - також закодоване."
В-четвёртых (поскольку автор рассчитывал на пять цитат с пробелами в виде собственного текста), мнимое противостояние восприятия и получающегося снимка системой социализации опыта неизменно склоняется в сторону последнего - предположение о том, какой урон может в таких условиях испытывать адаптирующийся организм может звучать фантастично, однако принципы внушения и влияние идеологического (маркетингового) аппарата остаются актуальными: иначе говоря, человек, не видя (ошибки), может верить в то, что ему таки доступно "невидимое" - во многом благодаря пропагандируемой "прозрачности" отношений.
"..знання, від якого я змушений відмовитися: цей знімок людей, які йдуть, сам є нерухомим."
(translation by Anna Hvyl, Justina Kravchuk, for ukrainian publishers RODOVID, year 2019)
Не смотря на то, что автору рецензии свойственно обращаться к фотографии и фотосъёмке, он продолжает поддерживать в рассудке состояние (нездорового) подозрения по отношению к фотографическим практикам вообще и портретной съёмке в частности.
Что служит причиной\оправданием такого рода отношению?
Во-первых, значительная роль "уподобления" в работах фотографов - если они и не берут пример, тем не менее, результат оказывается до отчаяния напоминающим о том, что было уже рассмотрено прежде. Отчасти это можно объяснить и "ограниченной системой представлений, свойственных роду деятельности, о том, какой вклад может быть полезным для развития как рода, так бизнеса и индивидуального подхода - но почему редко кто задаётся вопросом, "откуда ноги растут" у любой ограниченности, а особенно у той, что входила одно время в поле непосредственного интереса властных структур?
"..насправді в нас немає вибору, і що довше ми чекаємо, то більше починає здаватися, що зображення дивиться на нас, втягуючи нас у свій простір, тримаючи нас у ньому, занурюючи нас у сумнівну насолоду, віддаючи нас на поталу небезпечній "невичерпності мистецтва".
Во-вторых, взаимоотношения отдельно взятой психики и фотографического снимка - "многообразие" этих отношений, скрывающее, чаще всего, один и тот же "стержень" - ностальгическое переживание того, что могло и не быть прожитым, но так или иначе расцененное зрителем (свидетелем экспозиции, потребителем сообщения, но не оригинального события), плодородная почва для всевозможных мистификаций - начиная обнаруживаемыми на фотографиях фантомными очертаниями, далеко не заканчивая неисчислимыми инсинуациями культуры и цивилизации в противоестественности избираемых путей развития человечества.
"..як показав П'єр Машре, "вивчати ідеологію суспільства не означає аналізувати систему ідей, думок і репрезентацій.. Це означає вивчати матеріальне функціонування ідеологічних апаратів, якому відповідає певний набір специфічних практик."
В-третьих, использование фотографии не столько для передачи определённой (сформулированной в тексте) идеи, но как единственного доказательства того, что имело место в жизни человека и\или социального института. Таким образом "осмысленность" приобретает мистический "невербальный" характер - всё ещё остаётся возможность прибегнуть к слову, описать, например, снимок лишённому возможности видеть (или уделять должное внимание) - но в то же время, из числа "присяжных" тот же слепец будет исключён, потеряет привилегию влиять на судебный процесс. Проще говоря, фотоснимок слишком на многое претендует и чересчур легко обнаруживает поддержку (и отклик) в мироощущении рядового и неискушённого (или имитирующего, по запросам Рынка, неискушённость) пользователя технологических новинок.
"Умберто Еко писав: якщо і прирівнювати фотографію до сприйняття, то не тому, що перше є "природним" процесом, а тому, що останнє - також закодоване."
В-четвёртых (поскольку автор рассчитывал на пять цитат с пробелами в виде собственного текста), мнимое противостояние восприятия и получающегося снимка системой социализации опыта неизменно склоняется в сторону последнего - предположение о том, какой урон может в таких условиях испытывать адаптирующийся организм может звучать фантастично, однако принципы внушения и влияние идеологического (маркетингового) аппарата остаются актуальными: иначе говоря, человек, не видя (ошибки), может верить в то, что ему таки доступно "невидимое" - во многом благодаря пропагандируемой "прозрачности" отношений.
"..знання, від якого я змушений відмовитися: цей знімок людей, які йдуть, сам є нерухомим."
(translation by Anna Hvyl, Justina Kravchuk, for ukrainian publishers RODOVID, year 2019)
November 27, 2017
“Every photograph is the result of specific and, in every sense, significant distortions which render its relation to any prior reality deeply problematic.” I read this book for my grad thesis on photography and my husband works in law enforcement and regularly uses a body camera-this book challenges you and makes you think about the consequences of this technology. Not to mention the significance this concept has in today’s selfie taking society where everyone can snap pics on their phones.
April 3, 2024
Really good Foucaultian analysis of the power-knowledge structure through representational photography. The discuss of the Leeds slums was my fav part. I wonder if writing on disease and modern urban architecture came out of his work.
August 27, 2025
I found this to be a really compelling historical materialist approach to photography and its role within ideological apparatuses, looking predominantly at Britain, France, and US.
February 1, 2009
A foucauldian approach to the state-survey photo
Read
March 21, 2017Kirja ei täysin lunasta odotuksia. Johdanto maalailee, että kirjan luettuaan tietää, miten valokuvia alettiin käyttää todisteena ja miten ne ovat Foucault'a ja Althusseria mukaillen osa ideologista koneistoa. Vaikka valokuvan historiaa käydään välillä hyvinkin pikkutarkasti läpi (ja ihan muuten vain historiaa!), niin valokuvan ja todistamisen suhteen historia jää aika raakileeksi valokuvan ideologisuudesta puhumattakaan.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews