The possibility of seeing the photographer’s work as completely neutral or aesthetically intriguing is basically non-existent. There is no essential difference between photography as documentation and photography as artwork. By definition, photography is printing positives chemically from negatives to yield an exact duplication; but through the lens of a camera, all objects, including people, are unnaturally fixed. It is undeniable that the photographer creates with the intention to sell and ‘prostitute.’ Thus, he supports the desire to multiply the human image to proportions of mass produced merchandise, just as the piano supports the mass production of recorded pieces with its pianist. The photographer is perhaps the subliminal message in his photographs because he simultaneously sells himself with the objects in his photographs.
In line with McLuhan’s claim to the medium being the message, it is impractical to distinguish the precedence of the image or its message. In an article about war photography, Sue Sorensen writes, “we presume that images possess the qualities of real things so therefore, our inclination is to attribute to real things the qualities of an image.” In this case, her argument is not always applicable because we are also inclined to identify an image that has a message already familiar to us. Furthermore, Susan Sontag, through her books about photography, goes as far as saying that photography is mental pollution, arguing that the message takes precedence and that we are all image junkies. Though she makes many valid points, it is inaccurate to argue the images we see become a source for our bias, especially since she criticizes that we are all passive viewers who give assent to violence and cruelties.
An image can convey multiple messages just as a message can be shown in multiple ways. Freud’s observations on the language of gesture were heavily dependent on photography and the still shots it produced. In that logic, the image takes precedence over its message. Nevertheless, his name will remain a legacy regardless of the accuracy of his claims, in a sense showing the extent of our desire to ‘prostitute.’ Essentially, the image and the message are indivisible- the photograph is the message.
It is reasonable to doubt the veracity of a photograph because inevitably, the assumption that photographs reveal truth is inaccurate. One application of photography, other than replacing the memory, is to portray the subjective view of the photographer. The presentation of a photo is often manipulative and deceitful as it deconstructs to the way message interacts with style. The photographer has the power to distort with stylistic preferences. Therefore, looking at a photograph is merely looking at the photographer’s bias in choosing an image.
Photographs are used in courts as evidence to support a case, but as McLuhan states, “to say that the camera cannot lie is merely to underline the multiple deceits that are practiced in its name.” Robert Capa’s famous photograph, “The Falling Soldier,” may have been staged along with other actual photographs of war to present a visionary, imagined experience of war. Thus, the content of a photo is entirely dependent on where the camera lies; nonetheless, in the realm of documentary photography, the photographer has no credibility without his camera.
Although a photograph is constructed of an arrangement of lines and points that makes visual syntax, the medium is very straightforward. A photograph is a substitution of shadows for substance, therefore, the variety of colors and shapes is the message. To demonstrate the power of our ‘lens,’ right side up vision is something induced by our culture. Normal vision is in fact upside down, but through translating the retinal impression, according to McLuhan, the brain turns our visual world right side up. He argues that “right side up is apparently something we feel but cannot see directly.” Similarly, images that first appeared upside down were turned right side up by the invention of the camera lens; the photographer is consequently analogous to his camera.
Everything on a photograph is final; once it is printed it becomes the message. On a side note, digital photography is a similar medium to the photograph. It is the discreet version of a photograph because it is not concrete or in its final form. As an advancement of the photograph, a digital photograph can easily be altered at the photographer’s convenience. In one case, a pyramid was digitally moved to fit the page on one of the covers of National Geographic. In another, the face of O. J. Simpson shown in two different shades in Time and National Weekly created much conflict in his representation. Once again, these photographs are distorted to support the specific views and needs of the photographer.
The fruit of a technology is found in its effect on society. The invention of automobiles provided convenience for transportation in the same way the photograph did for memory. However, automobiles became a status symbol in a society categorized by levels of wealth. Given that we care more about the thrill of driving, getting to a destination is no longer the only purpose for cars. Unfortunately, we utilize our tools to their full potential, not realizing the growing need for our machines to fulfill our own potential. The photographer, like the photograph, is the mass-produced message through his camera. He uses the technology of the photo to pause time in order to instigate the thoughts and emotions he wanted to feel again, taking full advantage of a photograph’s ability to transcend time and space. He is addicted to the satisfaction offered by his camera and therefore completely dependent on it. Figuratively speaking, the photographer lives for his camera because he feels good using it, regardless of content. Above all, to the viewer, the photographer’s name gets remembered from his work.
Perhaps photography is even a rival of the word because it offers an alternative to the description of images. Consequently, photography works against the only form of communication for the preservation of a culture. Furthermore, what we see should not distract us from what pictures we are not shown. Not only should the veracity of photographs be questioned, the relationship between man and machine should also be scrutinized. We aspire to fully realize the potential of a technology, like the performer and his piano. However, the artist fulfills the potential of the machine just as much as the machine fulfills the potential of the art. In the end, their aims toward mankind’s desire to ‘prostitute’ are indivisible.
