Through the years philosophers have proposed that we cannot directly experience the world outside our minds (if it exists), but only our mental representations of it. With recent research empirical evidence is mounting about how true this is. It appears that we don't directly sense things or see things in the world--ever. We experience a mental simulation of it that scientists are calling a controlled hallucination. I think the word hallucination has some unfortunate connotations of pathology and simulation might be a better term. But the way that the brain generates dreams, hallucinations, and our perception of the world is very similar. Perception differs by having more error correction. If our mental simulations were a perfectly accurate depiction of the outer world perhaps it would not matter. But it turns out that it is far from a perfect likeness. So, photos are not an exact likeness of the material world, and neither are our perceptions.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-neuroscience-of-reality/
What is an appropriate standard for discourse in a setting like Photrio?
What about chromogenic prints? They're made with light and about 99.9999998% of them are from digital files.
But I was referring to the usual printing with inks.
I understand. And at the risk of being pedantic, I'd say what is 'usual' depends a lot on what segment you're looking at. Chromogenic printing is a vast market. Around here, it's the usual way of getting (digital) photographs printed. Inkjet is a substantially smaller segment here.
But that's not so important; a more relevant question is why do you believe the action of light is relevant? Mind you, I 'feel' your argument and in a way, I agree, but I also realize very well that I have not a single valid/objective argument to support that feeling. So I'd be interested to hear your take on this (and anyone else's).
And also: is a chromogenic print from a digital file any different than one made in an enlarger? And what about an analog minilab that's basically just an automated enlarger inside a box?
Apologies for taking this slightly off-topic. It's still about how photography and reality relate to each other; just a different angle than the outset presented in the OP.
The print process is different since digital printing with inks does not use light as chemically printing does with an enlarger.
I wasn't trying to start an argument.
I was only pointing out that a photo print can be made without light as most home digital printers operate that way. .
One philosophy course tends to make people think they can discuss things philosophically. Ten philosophy courses tend to make you embarrassed you ever thought that.
There is no such thing as "philosophical rigour". Rigour applies generally to argument structure of any kind. If an argument is logically sound and based on valid premises, it is likely true.
This thread is not a philosophy seminar group discussion. It's a colloquial discourse. As such, bringing in specialized terms does no good. It does harm. What's happened here is people have started to trickle in specialized streams of discourse about things which are colloquially understood perfectly well. The fact is, we all have more-or-less the same naive or colloquial understanding of "photography" and of "reality" - unrelated to the specialized language of quantum physics and its concerns or of philosophical noumena. Everyone here is capable of talking about the topic in a meaningful way without citing abstract theoretical science or schools of philosophy. Doing such is essentially a call to authority - an irrelevant authority.
All of philosophy - every last school - boils down to one thing: Your presuppositions (axioms). Those foundational things from which the entire system of thought springs. These axioms are - in their own right - necessarily assumed and cannot be proven to be so, one way or another.
This is true of every single intellectual tradition including science itself. All systems of thought assume at least one thing (and often more than one) and proceed from there. Outside the very narrow definition of "proof" in mathematics, nothing can absolutely be proven, only shown to be consistent, or not, with the starting points. (Even that has a pretty big hole in it thanks to Goedel's Incompleteness Theorems.
So philosophical debate across systems founded on different presuppositions are a fools errand. The only debate worth having in these cases is to the question of the merit of the presuppositions themselves.
A classical thinker or theist starts on the assumption that there is a body of things which are true independent of anyone knowing or experiencing them. An existentialist assumes none of that is relevant until one experiences it themselves. A postmodernist assumes all true to be relative to each individual and denies the existence of any objective truth whatsoever (though it's hard to get them to admit it).
The point is, what you think you "know" depends exactly on what you assumed as a starting point in the first place...
It could be useful if all those intending philosophical debate took at least one formal semester in basic philosophical concepts. Students who do this are immediately shocked to discover things they knew to be certain and universally agreed upon can lead to swampy logical ground.Maris I have seen you repeatedly critique comments for lacking philosophical rigor. On the one hand, we have all the seen the discussions go in circles with people talking past each other because a lack of precision in language has people talking about different things. If that is a problem, what is the solution? Does everyone need to take a philosophy course? ,,,,
The appearance of the shadow depends on the non-existence of direct rays of sunlight.
I didn't think you were. My question to you was sincere.
Yeah, so my question is how the difference between these two ways of printing meaningful? Sure, there are technical differences, but setting those apart for a bit - is a print made in either of these ways somehow more real, more meaningful, more valuable etc. than the other?
No difference leaving aside things like resolution and other technical variables. They're both depictions of reality.
No difference leaving aside things like resolution and other technical variables. They're both depictions of reality.
As long as you delete the last two words, I agree with you.
Right, yeah, I think objectively I'd agree.
And yet, if that were all, I wouldn't find myself mucking around with color enlargements. So apparently, for me personally, there's something else at play as well. I was wondering how you felt about it. Thanks for responding.
you can't clone the real thing unless you're a magician.
The book sounds interesting; I've ordered it from Routledge, along with another book about teaching photography (BTW- if anyone is interested, Routledge is having a 20% off sale for the month of April - jump on it while you can).A lot of energy here … (no pun intended). For anyone who is interested in what it means to ask the original question, start by reading:
“On Photography, A Philosophical Inquiry” Diarmuid Costello, published by Routledge Press, First published in 2018.
If you have a degree in Philosophy, you’ll have an easier time with this book, if not, find some good online “philosophy dictionaries,” to find useful definitions of formal terms. Chasing the references found in the end of chapter notes and, of course, the Bibliography will provide you with good starting points to explore contemporary thinking on this topic—and, perhaps find out where you fit in the mix.
I have read this small book several times … because, I’m interested in these particular questions. And in philosophy asking the right questions is often more important than evaluating the answers. That said, these studies are not as valuable as a pound of talent and drive, seasoned with a pinch of good fortune.
The book sounds interesting; I've ordered it from Routledge, along with another book about teaching photography (BTW- if anyone is interested, Routledge is having a 20% off sale for the month of April - jump on it while you can).
That should be "absence" rather than "non-existence". A shadow is delineated just as much by the presence of light around it as the absence of light within it. That a shadow is impermanent and dependent on something blocking a projection of light doesn't mean it isn't real.
Now, you don't exactly photography "it", though. Let's look at the following example from Lee Friedlander:
View attachment 368204
This is a photo of Friedlander's shadow and a few other shadows. But what is it actually a photo of? Friedlander's shadow is the area defined by the darker outline of his body (you can recognize that's what it is) but it's actually a photo of the floor and the blinds (that's where the shadow "falls"). Yet, even though you see the floor and the blinds when you see his shadow, it's certainly the shadow you're looking at in this photo.
Keep in mind that, if you and your bicycle are on the sidewalk before a very large building that casts it's shadow over you, your bicycle, the sidewalk, the cars on the street, and the buildings across the road, you are all just as equally in shadow as the area defined by Friedlander's silhouette in the above photo, yet when you look at your bicycle, you don't consider you're looking at the shadow of the building.
What were we talking about again?
You can tell a good photo in two seconds. We know....
What's interesting to me is that these themes are timeless show up from Gregorian chant to digital image processing, and everything in between. It suggests - to me, anyway - that there is something innately wired into being human that helps us seek and identify not only art, but good art. I think it must be a building block of all humanity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?