"Benjamin and the Political Economy of the Photograph"

"And yet it is precisely these traditional notions of aesthetics, with all their attendant claims about craftsmanship, formal subtlety, and semantic complexity, that have sustained the case for the artistic status of photography."

This quote to me sums up this huge debate over photography being an art, or not being an art. In taking a photograph, there still has to be the aesthetic notion, which only someone with a photographic eye, or artistic view can see, when taking the photograph. Craftsmanship is something which all artists understand, whether in painting, sculpture, drawing, or even photography. I feel that when I look at a photograph taken by someone that knows little to nothing about photography, or has no artistic background, their photograph is not aesthetically pleasing, and might be missing the meaning that was actually at the scene; where as someone that understands photography knows what to capture or how to capture something in a photograph. Just the same as, not every person can pick up a paintbrush and paint a masterpiece.

"Benjamin's, we might say has the force of desire: he wants photography to transform the arts into a revolutionary force; he wants the question of photography as a fine art (or perhaps as just another technique of picture-making) to be bypassed by history."

I think this is a very strong quote from the passage. Benjamin wants nothing more than to see photography be accepted for what it is, even to go as far to say it is innovative. He wants to see this whole pointless debate of photography as a fine art be completely skipped over by history. I couldn't agree anymore with this quote. Photography is a revolutionary force, it always was and always will be. What would history be, if a camera, or photography was never invented? Photography could never be in the same realm as "picture-making." Photographs are the closest to the truth in my opinion. I sure don't want to base history on a painting, drawing, or tall tales passed down generation to generation.

"Extracts from Camera Lucida"

One comment that Barthes made, in the article that really got me thinking was that, "Now, once I feel myself observed by the lens, everything changes: I constitute myself in the process of 'posing,' I instantaneously make another body for myslef, I transform myself in advance into an image." The author dwells on this comment throughout the passage. After reading this quote, I thought back to our discussion in class about some famous photographs that everyone has seen; and where the photographer is in this scene. After Barthes argument about posing, I think of famous photographs, where the photographer had to have been in plain sight to the subjects. The photograph of the Vietnamese police chief holding a gun to another man's head, really makes me think whether or not the chief was 'posing' for the photographer. I would not go as far to say that the man that has the gun pointed to his head is 'posing,' because he shows a true sign of terror in his expression. I really do believe that the photographer was right there in front of these men, especially when you see the other two images that were taken before this image. Also, there is the other Vietnam photograph of the young naked girl running from the napalm attack. In this photograph the little girl had to have been running right towards the photographer. Obviously, these children running in pure terror, are not 'posing,' but what about the soldiers; or the one lighting a cigarette?

I am not at all saying that I always agree with Barthes comment. But it definitely got me thinking. And I know from experience, that when I see a lens pointing at me I 'Pose,' as would most people. As a photographer, this makes it incredibly dificult to capture a true photograph of a person.

"The Painter of Modern Life"

I really don't know what to think about this article. I think that this would have been an easier read, had there been some background information on this passage. But, I will say that the writer's usage of strong analogies help paint the perfect picture of this man, who rejects being referred to as an artist. It is rare to find an artist whom is so modest about their work. The fact that this man doesn't want anyone to know anything about him, shows that he truly appreciates art itself, and most of all everything around him. M.G. find beauty within everyone and everything around him. He does not just sit outside, watching his subjects, while he draws them. Rather, he absorbs everything and everyone around him and feels what is going on. And not till the streets are empty and there is nothing left to watch, does he go and record everything he has seen for the day. This character truly has a passion for what he is doing. He dedicates his life to his artwork.
The author gives this man the name "Man of the World" because he wants to remain anonymous and he does not want to be referred to as an artist, for an artist "moves little, or even not at all, in intellectual and political circles." "Man of the World" is a man who understands the world and its reasons behind customs. I really enjoyed the comparisons between the idea of this genius painter or "Man of the World," and this creative writer, whom paints the perfect picture of this character.

Photography as an art

I guess after reading the controversy over whether or not photography should be considered an art or not, I have come to the conclusion that photography is what it is. Maybe it should just be considered its own art. I don't really understand why it has to be debated over and over, and compared to the realm of painting and drawing. I agree with Lady Elizabeth Eastlake when she stated that "Photography was not an art but emphasized this as its strength." I guess this is often how I view photography. I do think that it is an art, but it is so different from painting and drawing that, I often consider it its own kind of art.
I understand that back when photography first came about there was a lot of debating between whether or not it should be considered an art, and whether or not we could find truth in a photograph. But, I think this should be the controversy now, not in the 1800's and 1900's. Of course manipulation of an image was very possible back then, it was much more complicated and difficult. With today's technology, this is where I can see the questioning of whether or not a photograph is truthful. So many people have digital camera's and so many know how to use Photoshop, this to me takes away from Photographer's, who understand and appreciate the "Art of Photography." I think that critics that argue about the truthfulness of photographs should consider that photography is one of the main aspects of history. Without photographs we would have to rely artifacts and ansestors passing down stories of history. In my opinion, I'll take my chances trusting a photograph versus hundreds of old, stretched, and embellished stories.