Photography theory: a bluffer's guide

Bewildered by Berger? Stumped by Sontag? We read the

essential photography theory so you don't have to

Camera Sculpture by Taiyo Onorato & Nico Krebs Photo: Courtesy the artists,
RaebervonStenglin, Zurich and Peter Lav, Copenhagen
By Diane Smyth, Tim Clark, Rachel Segal Hamilton and Lewis Bush
11:00AM BST 09 Jun 2014
Comment
Have you read the Bible cover to cover? Probably not, but it's also fair to assume you know
the basic plot, the central characters and a few choice quotes. This is the point Pierre Bayard
makes in his mischievously titled book How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read, which
is less a bluffer's guide and more a study of different degrees of familiarity. Some books you
may have read and reread, he points out, and genuinely know by heart; others skimmed and
got the gist of. Some you may have heard so much about from others that you can bluff
convincingly in conversation.
There are many such books in photography, referenced and re-referenced so often they're
almost an article of faith. We polled our Twitter followers to find out which of these books
you consider necessary reading. The results are below, but we'd love to hear if you have other
titles we should consider. Maybe you know these texts backwards but maybe you've read
and forgotten them, or never actually taken them on. If the latter, these guides may serve as a
refresher, or as pointers to see you on your way. You never know, they may even inspire you
to crack open the covers yourself. Diane Smyth
The Decisive Moment by Henri Cartier-Bresson (1952), digested by Rachel Segal
Hamilton
What's it about?

Related Articles

Guest posting this week: Cristina de Middel

04 Mar 2014

The best photography books out now

21 Mar 2014

Belle: a success story about overcoming prejudice Fox

"The decisive moment", an idea that has defined street photography and photojournalism as
we know it, was first outlined in the preface to a book of photographs by Henri CartierBresson. The essay starts with Cartier-Bresson charting his life so far as a photographer
from messing around with a Box Brownie as a child to co-founding Magnum Photos before
talking through his approach to photography.
According to Cartier-Bresson, there is an almost magical split-second in which events in the
world interactions between people, movement, light and form combine in perfect visual
harmony. Once it passes, it is gone forever. To capture such moments as a photographer you
must be inconspicuous, nimble and attentive; working on instinct; responding to reality and
never trying to manipulate it.
Composition cannot be planned, nor can it be added in afterwards. Cropping will invariably
make a good shot worse and is unlikely to make a bad shot better. Camera settings shouldn't
be something the photographer even thinks about taking a photograph should be like
changing gears in a car.
In his own words:
We photographers deal in things that are constantly vanishing, and when they have vanished,
there is no contrivance on earth which can bring them back again.
Composition must be one of our constant preoccupations, but at the moment of shooting it
can stem only from our intuition, for we are out to capture the fugitive moment, and all the
interrelationships involved are on the move.
To me, photography is the simultaneous recognition in a fraction of a second, of the
significance of an event as well as of a precise organisation of forms which give that event its
proper expression.
How to sound as if you've read it:
Be ready and reactive. Don't get hung up on kit and, most importantly, keep it real.

On Photography by Susan Sontag (1977), digested by Rachel Segal Hamilton

What's it about?

According to Sontag, photographs turn the world into a set of collectible objects that we can
own. This makes us feel knowledgeable, and powerful. But although we still treat photos as
evidence, photographers never simply record the world, they interpret it. They might take
multiple shots, for example, selecting the ones that meet their preconceptions.
This is true for us non-professsionals, too: we use family albums to connect with the past and
take holiday snaps to show our friends what we're up to. Bit by bit, though, photography has
started to limit our experience. Instead of photographing what we're doing, we do things so
that we can photograph them.
There is a moral dimension to Sontag's critique. By photographing a situation, you can't
intervene in it war photography is horrific, she says, partly because of the way it has become
acceptable for a photographer to choose to take a photo rather than to save a life. But images
also numb us. The more photographs of suffering we see, the less shocked we are. For Sontag,
there is a violence to photography. The camera is predatory because it lets the photographer
turn people into objects and to know them in a way they cannot know themselves.
We try to use photography to make sense of reality but the knowledge it gives us will always
be sentimental, superficial, never political. To make matters worse, we're hooked. We don't
feel we have really experienced something unless we've photographed it. And so we
photograph everything.
In her own words:
To photograph people is to violate them, by seeing them as they never see themselves, by
having knowledge of them they can never have; it turns people into objects that can be
symbolically posessed.
In these last decades 'concerned' photography has done at least as much to deaden our
conscience as to arouse it.
Today everything exists to end in a photograph.
How to sound as if you've read it:
People these days feel the need to photograph everything - it's totally ruining our experience
of life.
Regarding the Pain of Others by Susan Sontag (2003), digested by Diane Smyth
This was Sontag's update to On Photography (see above). The intervening years hadnt
softened her stance and Sontag pulls no punches in her critique of images of suffering, those
professional, specialised tourists known as journalists who make them, and our culpability in
looking at them.
She starts by tracing the history of images of suffering, arguing that Christian depictions of
martyrdom historically gave way to something more secular that saw pain as something to be
deplored. Photographs were quickly pressed into service; justified by the idea they could
advocate for change.

Photographs were, and still are, she argues, unequal to the task, because they turn disaster into
universal, ineffectual denunciations of human cruelty or suffering. Each image is framed by
the person who makes it, and to frame is to exclude.
Feeling powerless to change what they see, viewers quickly become immune to images of
suffering or - worse - take a prurient interest in them. And because we are bombarded with
such images, we no longer recognise them as records of real events.
Its gloomy reading for committed photojournalists and Sontag has little to offer by way of
comfort, other than to suggest that narrative texts, longer portfolios of images, and artworks
are more likely to mobilise a viewer (or reader) to action against suffering, or any kind of
understanding of it.
In her own words:
"Being a spectator of calamities taking place in another country is a quintessential modern
experience, the cumulative offering by more than a century and a halfs worth of those
professional, specialised tourists known as journalists. Wars are now also living room sights
and sounds. Information about what is happening elsewhere, called news, features conflict
and violenceto which the response is compassion, or indignation, or titillation, or approval,
as each misery heaves into view."
"The photographers intentions do not determine the meaning of the photograph, which will
have its own career, blown by the whims and loyalties of the diverse communities that have
use for it."
"Making suffering loom larger, by globalising it, may spur people to feel they ought to care
more. It also invites them to feel that the sufferings and misfortunes are too vast, too
irrevocable, too epic to be much changed by any local political intervention."
How to sound as if you've read it:
Photographs of suffering don't rouse viewers to action because they universalise pain rather
than explaining what could be changed. Theres no hope, so stop being a voyeur and take
action instead.
The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction by Walter Benjamin (1936),
digested by Lewis Bush
What's it about?
Walter Benjamin was a German-Jewish critic and essayist. In his lifetime he was relatively
unappreciated but since his suicide in 1940 he has been reappraised as one of the 20th
centurys most important writers. Published in 1936 and originally aimed at a small group of
Marxist intellectuals this essay has rather surprisingly become Benjamins best known, partly
helped by its prominence in John Bergers influential 1972 television series Ways of
Seeing.
Benjamin packs a remarkably wide ranging discussion into a relatively short space, but a key
concept is the idea that unique works of art such as paintings possess an "aura" that copies and

reproductions like photographs do not. Even though works of art have always been
reproducible, whether by hand or through semi-mechanical processes such as stamping,
modern forms of reproduction such as photography represent something new, allowing the
artwork to be seen in very different contexts to the original, potentially changing how the
work of art is understood.
For photography this essay is significant in two main respects. Firstly because it explores the
belief that photographs are inferior to traditional forms of art such as painting. Secondly
because its a very specific example of the way the context of a photograph alters the way a
viewer understands the thing that it shows.
In his own words:
"Objects made by humans could always be copied by humans.but the technological
reproduction of artworks is something new."
"In even the most perfect reproduction, one thing is lacking: the here and now of the work of
art, its unique existence in a particular place. It is this unique existence and nothing else that
bears the mark of the history to which the work has been subject."
"What withers in the age of mechanical reproduction is the aura of the work of art."
How to sound as if you've read it:
The infinitely reproducible photograph lacks the aura of the unique work of art.

'Photographs of Agony' by John Berger (1972), digested by Rachel Segal Hamilton

What's it about?
How much photojournalism can change things for the better is subject to ongoing debate. One
of the earlier writers to raise the issue was John Berger in this essay, first published in New
Society magazine. Referring to a Don McCullin photograph of a wounded Vietnamese
man and child, Berger considers why it has lately become acceptable to publish such graphic
images.
He gives two reasons. First, that newspapers are responding to readers who want to see the
truth. Second, that readers have have become desensitised to these images and newspapers are
publishing ever more shocking pictures to win their attention. Dismissing both explanations,
Berger suggests a third: that these photographs can be published precisely because they don't
make viewers question who might be responsible for the violence. If they did then papers in
thrall, he says, to the political establishment wouldn't publish them.
So what effect do they have? McCullin's images often capture moments in which time
suddenly seems to pause the instant a person cries out in grief, say. For viewers, time is
similarly interrupted as we are, briefly, overcome with the victim's pain. But we mistakenly
interpret this interruption as our own moral failure because we can't respond directly. We
either think, "Well, what can I do?" and do nothing, or try to assuage our guilt by donating to

charity. War photographs don't lead us to query the political systems under which wars take
place they just make war seem like some awful but inevitable feature of human life.
In his own words:
"[Photographs of agony] bring us up short. The most literal adjective that could be applied to
them is arresting. We are seized by them.
The reader who has been arrested by the photograph may tend to feel this discontinuity as his
own moral inadequacy. And as soon as this happens even his sense of shock is dispersed: his
own moral inadequacy may now shock him as much as the crimes being committed in the
war.
What we are shown horrifies us. The next step should be for us to confront our own lack of
political freedom. In the political systems as they exist, we have no opportunity of effectively
influencing the conduct of wars waged in our name.
How to sound as if you've read it:
War photography - what is it good for? Making us feel bad about ourselves and despairing of
humanity.

The Ongoing Moment by Geoff Dyer (2005), digested by Rachel Segal Hamilton
This is not a history book. True, it covers the work and lives of some of the biggest figures
(mainly American) in photography including Alfred Steiglitz, Walker Evans, Dorothea
Lange, Diane Arbus, William Eggleston and Nan Goldin. But instead of progressing
chronologically as one might expect, the structure is playful, grouping together pictures shot
by different photographers of the same subjects: blind people, subways, signs, hands, backs,
hats, stairs, fences, snow, windows, roads, cinemas, clouds, petrol stations, barber shops,
doors.
Mixed in with the close readings of photographs are musings on life, quotes from writers
such as Wordsworth, Italo Calvino, Jean Rhys as well as photographers, and colourful
biographical anecdotes. We learn about the resentment felt by Andr Kertsz at having to take
photographs for money while his personal work went unappreciated, about the time Richard
Avedon photographed Jorge Luis Borges and about the intricacies of relationships between
Alfred Steiglitz and Georgia O'Keefe.
From the outset Dyer positions himself as a non-expert he doesn't even own a camera,
apparently and rather than making big theoretical claims about photography as a medium,
he writes about how specific photographs have affected him emotionally. Skipping backwards
and forwards through time, making connections between photographers and writers, images
and ideas, The Ongoing Moment celebrates a personal approach to looking at photographs
that reflects the hotchpotch way we understand the world.
In his own words:

Photographers sometimes take pictures of each other; occasionally they take photographs
or versions of each other's work. Consciously or not they are constantly in dialogue with
their contemporaries and predecessors.
...there is, I am beginning to suspect, a strange rule in photography, namely that we never see
the last of anyone or anything. They disappear or die and then, years later, they reappear, are
reincarnated, in another lens.
My favourite photographs by Brassai are the ones done in daylight, especially the ones that
look like they were done by Lartigue. It's quite possible that some of my favourite Shores
were taken by Eggleston, and vice versa. Perhaps it's not such a surprise, then, that my
favourite Walker Evans (WE) photograph was taken by Edward Weston (EW).
How to sound as if you've read it:
You know, the development of photography has been much more like a conversation than a
story.

After Photography by Fred Ritchn (2009), digested by Diane Smyth

It takes a brave author to tackle digital media, a medium changing so fast that any attempt to
read it looks outdated before the ink is dry. And yet thats what Fred Ritchin did in After
Photography, attempting to describe whats new about digital photography and how its
changed us.
As the title suggests, Ritchin believes digital photography is a fundamental shift rather than a
simple change of tools, and he backs up his argument by considering both its ubiquity and its
malleability. Digital photography started when National Geographic modified a horizontal
photograph of the pyramids to create a more aesthetically pleasing front cover, Ritchin
argues, shaking our belief in the image as proof.
The fact that we are all now armed with digital cameras, especially those embedded in our
smartphones, means that we are all looking at the world second-hand via images, and also
constantly presenting ourselves for image-based consumption.
Its a gloomy reading of a brave new world, but Ritchin also suggests new strategies a shift
into an interactive, networked multimedia, in which hotspots link into other images and
more information. Ritchins references to YouTube and MySpace already feel outdated, and
his thoughts on surveillance seem tentative now that Wikileaks has blown the lid off the NSA
program but its a game attempt to draw a line in the sand.
In his own words
"Photography in the digital environment involves the reconfiguration of the image into a
mosaic of millions of changeable pixels, not a continuous tone imprint of a visible reality.
Rather than a quote from appearances, it serves as an initial recording, a preliminary script,
which may precede a quick and easy reshuffling."

"The multitudes of photographers now intensely staring not at the surrounding world, nor at
their loved ones being wed or graduating, but at their camera backs or cellphones searching
for an image on the small screens, or summoning the past as an archival image on these same
screens, is symptomatic of the images primacy over the existence it is supposed to depict."
"Even before the ubiquity of a billon cell phone cameras, we were already in rehearsal for the
pose, the look and a diminished sense of privacy."
How to sound as if you've read it
The web is all around us; the only solution is to go further into it.
Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography by Roland Barthes (1980), digested by Tim
Clark
Camera Lucida is a short, personal response to photography, so it's strange that it has achieved
canonical status, but the magnetism it exerts extends to artists and writers alike. This book is a
reflection on longing and loss written after Barthes' mother died. It's curious and affecting,
exploring the relationship between photography, history and death.
Barthes explains two key concepts that can be applied when looking at photographs. The first
he calls the studium vague details which constitute the photographs subject, meaning and
context.
However it's the second concept, the punctum, that has really resonated. By this he means the
aspect of an image that attracts the viewer, something intensely private, unexpected and thus
indelible. A photographs punctum is that accident which pricks me (but also bruises me, is
poignant to me) he wrote. The discussion centres on a photograph from 1898, an image of
his mother when she was a child, never at any point shown in the book. For you, it would be
nothing but an indifferent picture, one of the thousand manifestations of the ordinary.
So subjective, and at times sentimental, is his examination of photography that initial
responses to the book were scathing. Conversely, perhaps it is this very act of personalisation
and the sense of vulnerability that has continued to capture imaginations in the 30 years since
publication. Indeed, the academic Geoffrey Batchen, in his book Photography Degree Zero
ventures that Camera Lucida is perhaps the most popular and influential contribution to
photography to this day.
In his own words
Photography: it reminds us of its mythic heritage only by that faint uneasiness which seizes
me when I look at myself on a piece of paper.
Ultimately, Photography is subversive not when it frightens, repels or even stigmatises, but
when it is pensive, when it thinks.
Not only is the Photograph never, in essence, a memory, but it actually blocks memory,
quickly becomes a counter-memory.
How to sound as if you've read it

All photography tells us death in the future.

Lewis Bush is a photographer and writer. He contributes to a range of sites and publications.
Follow him on Twitter @lewiskaybush
Diane Smyth is deputy editor of the British Journal of Photography and has also written for
Foam, Aperture, Creative Review, The Times, The Guardian, Philosophy of Photography and
Photomonitor
Rachel Segal Hamilton writes about photography for the British Journal of Photography,
Photomonitor and IdeasTap, where she works as Commissioning Editor. Follow her on twitter
@rachsh
Tim Clark is the Editor in Chief and Director of 1000 Words Photography Magazine. Follow
him on Twiter @1000wordsmag