Photography: History and Theory Introduction

The initial section of Jae Emerling's Photography: History and Theory begins with a discussion of the relationship between images and the notion of discourse. While the nature of photography does require and contain specific focuses, this does not mean that further discourse cannot be discovered or extracted from the established images we see. To me, it seems that Emerling attempts to convey that the seemingly still, repetitive, and restrictive images we consume simultaneously require the ability to examine the differences between the past and the present in order to continue the discourse that the photograph initiates.

"Discourse is the 'conceptual field within which and around which move various kinds of objects, activities, processes, ideas and theories, subcultures and movements, institutions and exhibition'" (Emerling, 2). 

"As in chess, there is a structure - a field or board, pieces with fixed movements - and yet each enactment, each play both reiterates the past and demands variation" (Emerling, 3).

The author also mentions the "postmodernist critique of the formalist position" and its emphasis on the importance of how meaning is derived from contextual factors of culture and institutions. This idea signals the often overlooked and underestimated potential that photography as an art form possesses, since it demonstrates that one stagnant image can affect individuals differently and can continue to do so as times change. For me, this is one of the most interesting concepts concerning photography because although it is a much less tactile and more accessible medium, it retains the ability to properly engage its observers in an unending and ever-changing dialogue that concerns topics as specific as the individual or as broad as the world around them.

By comparing the art of photography to a laboratory in which one studies the relationship between history and theory, Emerling once again draws attention to the consistently active nature of the form; its ability to not only incorporate its own growth and developments, but to also exhibit an appreciation and understanding for the conflicts within the field itself. Although photographs may often depict well-focused images, even the most naturalistic of these prints embody an abstraction that distinguish them from reality. This subtle, other-wordly presence that lingers in the final images concretely indicates the departure from an initial impression of unmoving, unchanging documentaries; in fact, their very status as photographs indicates that they have already partaken in a journey that will forever guarantee their metamorphoses. In terms of our semester long project, this concept will be extremely useful in reminding us of the infinite dialogues that our pieces will produce and the levels of interpretations that our every decision in making them will bring about.

At one point, Emerling mentions debates that circulate around the role of the human in producing a photograph and whether or not their role is overshadowed by the mechanical nature of the form. What do you think there are certain implications in photography - whether visual or otherwise - that are unique to the medium because of its majorly technological character? Does the inhuman quality of photography link more to contemporary subjects, or are there ways to relate this unnatural crafted form into more traditional concepts and approaches to art? (Emerling, 10-11).