Monday, June 23, 2014

On Dead Things and Scannerwerk

Looking at Hanne Sharkey's Scannerwerk, (   (I have decided to call it that, without consultation with the artist.) the first question that comes to mind is how to place the images. They are all in blank space, hanging in the void, except the image of the mouse held in Hanne's hand. I shall come to that in a while. Looking at the remaining three, hanging dismembered and obviously dead in the void becomes an intellectual exercise for they are like insects encased in amber. One does not wonder how they died, or how they ended up hanging in the void. They are presented to me, and I look at them as such.

Hanne Sharkey Scannerwerk, Exploded Bird (?)

The question then becomes, to what end? Is it an exercise in composition? Is it a statement about life, or worse, about the artist's life? Since I am not a psychoanalyst, and don't really care much for unloading my interpretation of symbols on people, unless terribly pertinent, I shall look at them as platonically removed from ideal form. For example, look at the image with the bird and the feathers strewn around it. If the bird was not obviously flattened, one would almost argue it was flying, with some vigor, since it shed feathers. Let us go further down the platonic path.

All images, and indeed all artwork, are like onions (all good ones at least). They have many layers, meant to be analysed, consumed, wept over, in succession. You can not claim to reach the middle before you have consumed the first layer. Here, in the work, looking again at the Exploded Bird (for a want of a better title, since none were supplied), the first layer we see is that of a bird, almost in flight, or at the moment of its death, like Robert Capa's image of the dying spanish loyalist.

Robert Capa; The Falling Soldier

The feathers at the same time give the impression of movement, even though they are static (most probably because the bird is in such a dynamic pose), but also of clouds in a starless night. It is as if the image was taken in the wild, using an extraordinarily large flash, while trying to hunt the bird with ack ack guns.
The second layer we see, is of the bird, preserved in death, like a memento mori. It is dead, and now embalmed, preserved, in the photographic amber. Its death, as its life is commemorated surprisingly sympathetically. (for the scanner's light is passionless, cold, and objective. It refuses such artifice that a camera operator could use, like lighting set ups, and expressions.)
The third layer is that of platonic forms that the bird strikes. Is the bird the perfect bird? For only the perfect bird would deserve to be commemorated in life and death by such an image. It seems the bird was such a perfect bird, for it is reproduced in such detail. The bird has become a scientific specimen, for study by undergraduates in coldly lit biology labs, smelling of formaldehyde. Is the Sharkey Scanner such a lab? A biohazard site that dissects roadkill for the progression of art?
The fourth layer is that of the compositional forms. The image can be reduced to abstract forms.
The compositional weight on the lower left of the quadrilateral is balanced by the overextended speckled line, whimsical, that extends to the top right. The red and yellow circle in the the quadrilateral is mirrored by the speckles in the line, almost desaturated versions of the red yellow circle.
So on and so forth do the layers progress.
In such a manner, can all images in Hanne Sharkey's Scannerwerk, and indeed all image be analysed.

What strikes me is the singular image of the dead mouse held in a disembodied hand. I invite you to peel apart the image onion here. Do it for your own edification.

Done? Ok. Now what strikes me as intriguing, and possibally as a progression from the other three images, is the use of the hand, which supposedly belongs to Hanne. We can't know, and we don't really need to know (atleast for this analysis. A critic who works with the theories of Lacan, or a surrealist would have a field day). What is important here is that the hand grounds the image. The rat is no longer in space. It is held by a hand. It is held tenderly, in an almost motherly manner. The blood could have buggered that impression, but it is not the hand of the murderer that is holding the mouse. It is the hand of the person who interred it. The image no longer feels like a lab tray, reeking of formaldehyde. Now, it is a intimate sight. The grey aura that surrounds the hand before the black field has permeated the mood of the image, while the slightly nicotine stained nails speak of sadness that permeates the to be funeral. It is as if in its final moments, the rat curled up in the hand for warmth. Of all four, this is possibly the most emotional photo.

The question now becomes not one of merit, for it is obviously there, but of how. The use of a scanner versus that of a camera is interesting, and indeed pertinent to the discussion. Arguments, valid, could be made that a scanner is a camera. It is, but a camera less mediated by a human. It is cold, objective. It supplies its own light, doing away with the photographers tricks of modulating light. The light is cold, straight, direct and revealing. A scanner's camera, with its constant movement is like a scalpel, cutting the image into sections, recording it, and then mashing it together to create the finished image. In doing so, it brings about an image that is more then the subject. It is a mechanically examined image, that puts the subject to closer scrutiny then the naked eye can provide.
The scanner photography project comes to mind1, where the image is not only a record of the subject, but also its motion, vis a vis time. Inadvertently, the scanner has granted the image another dimension. Some might argue that the same dimensionality is also given to a camera image after a long exposure, but that is not the case. Possibly the closest analogue  to photographs taken by scanners would be images of racing cars taken by Lartigue, with the oval shaped wheels2

Jacques Henri Lartigue

It then becomes a question, whether Hanne, by using a scanner, is a photographer, or something else. By loose definition, I could concede that yes, she is a photographer, because she is creating images using a camera. However, I would argue that the images are photographic only in the “look”. In the sense of creating images, she is not a traditional photographer. She arranges the subject on a surface, and then lets the technology take care of the rest. That in no way is me denigrating her process. It is instead, an alternative avenue to image making. The image making process is mediated by a machine, that has no emotional bias (the question of whether it is biased towards one subject or another is a separate topic, and in short, I think, Yes. More on that in some other essay.) Thus, the image created in this man machine interface, while separated from the artist's intent by the machine interface, gains a life of its own, precisely because it is separated in such a manner. [More on this topic in later posts. Still developing this idea. Look forward to thoughts on a scanner vs a camera, and their artistic potential, used separately, or in conjunction.]
As for the four photos, I would argue they have merit individually. As a group, there is only trivial coherence, due to the subject matter. Simply putting dead things together not a series make. But I have a feeling that this is not a series yet, but a group of images, that are a work in progress. And a series of work that shows much potential.


2  The oval images were because of the shutter, which would lead to different parts of film being exposed at different times

Thursday, June 19, 2014

Towards A New Photographic Theory: Arguments in the Fine Arts Photography Context

I have been told by many that I am an exceptionally verbose writer. Going on tangents, however informative or uninformative, is a particular hobby. I looked forward to writing a hundred page thesis, which would be self indulgent, and would entertain more then inform the reader.
That was until I came across a blog curated by my academic colleague Stephen Anderson. An essay caught my eye, mostly by its terseness. I was working on a series of abstract forms in photographs at the time, and so was Stephen in the studio next to me. Having a meeting of minds, I decided that I will blatantly steal his technique of essay writing for this thesis.
When you go onwards from this page, you will find bullet points upon bullet points, and a new chapter every ten or so lines. Think of it in this manner. Look back to your math classes in school, especially the geometry and algebra classes. You would lay out your givens. You would progress an step, and step by step, in a logical progression, you would build upon the givens, until you reached the final proof, or answer.
Think of these arguments in the same line. Each point of the argument is reduced down to a succinct argument, and then progresses, until the argument has culminated. There is no time, or space for droll observations on how visual puns are analogous to verbal puns, but triter, or rants on the French landscape photographers and their inferiority to eastern European photographers. All those things were written down, and then mercilessly edited out, creating this new form. In a manner, the thesis is also minimal, like the work Stephen and I were doing. Stephen helped with the editing, and with hashing out the arguments, and for that, I am eternally thankful.
Rahul Sharma

On creation of a new photographic identity/ work.
  • The camera not only elevates 1the subject, it elevates the operator.
  • The very act of taking a photograph is a concrete act2. (of course the concreteness has been weakened in the digital age. Refer to snapchat thesis)
  • Because the process of taking a photograph is so irksome/ hard, each photograph should have merit3.
  • If the merit is not instantly visible, it has to be found in it, subsumed in the image. A mundane image can have many obscure layers of meaning, to be peeled apart like an onion.
  • This scrutiny of the work necessitates scrutiny of the operator.
  • The operator himself thus becomes a part of the work.
  • A Minor White photo taken by Ansel Adams would thus not be of the same merit, because the approach to image making of the operator adds to the aura of the image. Adds more layers to the onion.
  • By the study of the operator we gain a better insight into the image-onion.
  • The operators life thus comes into scrutiny.
  • Living the most mundane life, or the most exciting life thus comes to same end. The life of the photographic worker thus becomes a performance in its own.
  • For the common man, an exciting life, and exciting work is more easy to connect to. It caters to aspirations, and desires. Hence every amateur photographer's dream to be a national geographic photographer.
  • A mundane life, a staid life, equally reflects on the work. It of course does not mean the work itself is mundane and staid.
  • Thus it is the prerogative of the operator to make work that reflects his way of living.
  • Alternatively, the operator can construct a new life, for photographic work.
  • All these choices contribute to the work of the operator, not only in documenting what he sees, but also in documenting through what he sees, of himself.
On the importance of process
  • Photography is equal amounts of art and craft
  • Indeed art and craft can not be separated. It could even be argued that all good art is based on good craft. (Or lack thereof. But true craftlessness can only be achieved deliberately, with due knowledge of good craftsmanship.)
  • To achieve proper technical sophistication, or lack thereof in a work, one has to know the process backwards and forwards.
  • Not only is the knowledge of the process important, so is the knowledge of what supports the process. The history, the conceptual framework et cetera
  • An analogy can be made that the knowledge of the process and the knowledge of prior history is the base, and the concept behind the work is the superstructure. Without both, no work is complete.
  • We can furthermore use this analogous separation to come to two terms which can encompass all the driving forces behind a work of art. Techne, and Episteme. These words are taken out of their Greek context, but as I will show, can suffice in a grander theory behind the work.
  • Techne is (in the new framework) the craft, the knowledge of the past, and the knowledge from previous work that informs the current work of the artist.4
  • Episteme, on the other hand, is the concept behind the current work. It is the idea that informs the work and is anything that is not techne, whether it be the usage of a specific process (not informed by the rules of techne) or the style of working.5
  • Take for example, the work of photographer Crewdsen6, which shall inform the binary of Techne and Episteme.
    Uses film and large format cameras. Uses cinematic lighting and movie studio style crews to create the image. Creates emotionally evocative environments. Heavy usage of post processing work.
    If we try to separate the various forces and what drives those forces in his work, we can see these components.
Usage of Large format cameras. Why?
Control over the image.
High resolution of film.
Cinematic lighting and high budget movie crews. Why?
Ultimate control over the image as visualised by the artist.
Create an environment suited to his conception.
Heavy post processing work and Usage of Hollywood studio style work flow. Why?
Optimal control over image.
Creation of in depth images, fully under control of the artist.
Recreation of the idea of the movie as escape, the cinema paradiso concept.7

Of all these reasons, the majority are informed by
Techne. The only motivator informed by Episteme is the text in italics.8
  • This overarching understanding of the interaction between the binary motivators gives a better understanding of the work, and makes for a fuller reading of the text that the artwork is. Yes, Crewdsen's work stands exceptional on its formal merit (Techne), however the appreciation of the interaction of the Techne ,and the driving motivators of Episteme give us a more overarching understanding of the work.
  • I have established that the understanding of the binary is important to all artists. I go on further and say that for a photographic worker who wishes to create pieces that stand the test of time, this understanding is paramount. 9
  • The important question then rises. Is it Important to the viewer?

Subject, Object, Audience and the Creator.
  • Looking at a photographic work as a play is especially revealing.
  • The camera operator is the director. The subject is the script. The image is the performance. The viewer is the audience.10
  • The object is just an object, albeit one selected (by the operator) to be interpreted by the operator. The operator uses the camera to capture it in a moment in time. Thus, the operator interprets the object to form an image. This is analogous to the relationship between the director and the script.
  • The interpretation, after all the technical due diligence, is the finished product. This is akin to a performance.
  • The audience, based on the cues it is offered, also interprets the finished piece.
  • The net result of this process is an interpretation of an interpretation of an object, all under the veil of photographic realism11. After all “the camera never lies”12.
  • The concept of a subjective, partially occluded truth, that pretends to be absolute, is in effect, the nature of a photographic image.
  • There are multiple levels to this “truthiness” of the image. They can be broadly be divided by three motivators.
Operator's Intent and interpretation.
Viewer's Interpretation.
Mutual Gestalt between the viewer and the operator.
  • As reiterated multiple times, the object is just an object. A Tabula Rasa. Various intents and motivations are placed upon this, and the final image is made. Arguably, the object is mutually manipulated by the viewer and the operator.
  • Ethnographic portraits are a good example of this framework.
  • Ethnographic portraits were made with scientific intent. A portrait of a Bantu tribesman from Africa was in the same conceptual framework as a photograph of a Monarch butterfly on pins in a natural history museum.
  • Today however, the image of the Bantu will elicit a different reaction then that of the monarch butterfly. Post-Colonial Outrage, would be a motivator for such a reaction. Indeed, Indian photo artist Pushpamala N.13 did a series as a reaction to these portraits.
  • The question then becomes, is a photograph just a document of reality? I would say vaguely. It is more like a mirror that looks both ways. The past (Object) and the present (Viewer) interact and create a new narrative reality, shaped by all the motivators that go into reading the image.14

On the Contemporary Popularity of Antiquarian Photography1516
  • Digital Photography has been a disruptive innovation in photography17.
  • The democratisation of photography and the apparent ease by which a person can make a competent photograph, has resulted in dissatisfaction in certain circles with the status quo.
  • This, and the current post-modern inquiry into the past gives a practitioner of fine art photography18 with certain avenues.
  • Contemporary Hypertechnicality: Using cutting edge techniques post the camera operation to create distinctive images.19
  • Antiquarian Hypertechnicality20: The school of thought whereby old processes are recreated and then extended using techniques offered by modern science.
  • Antiquarian Fetishization:21 Recreating various historical processes, using period correct equipment and techniques.
  • Active Reactionism: whereby doing the exact opposite of the contemporary doings, just to have a contrarian approach.22
  • Status Quo: This group of practitioners continue to take photos in the same manner as before introduction of digital photography (the conceptual approach to image making has not changed). This would be the largest group of camera operators today.
  • These subcategories collectively produce all the work made in the fine art photography world today. Other categories may exist, however looking from a process based approach, these categories suffice.
  • Looking at antiquarian processes, and the images made, the processes themselves have innate qualities which leads to three further categories of work.
  • Printmaker-esque: gum, albumin, carbon, salt, uranium, platinum/ palladium printing are some of the processes that exhibit these tendencies.
    This is a process based approach akin to printmaking. Attention is paid to the proficiency of the technique vis-a-vis image quality, such as image tonality, colour range, saturation,
    et cetera. The printed image gains precedence over the image captured by the camera.
Another way of looking at this, as that all these processes relay on multiple intermediary steps, and thus the final result has print like tendencies.
  • Photography-esque: wet plate positives, Paper negatives, polaroid, pinhole, infrared/ ultra violet photography are some of the processes that exhibit this tendency.
    Attention to the representational image and its photographic quality over the process of the creation of the image.
    Thus the Image captured by the camera takes precedence over the printed image.
    As above, a way to look at it would be to consider the fact that the image produced by these processes is achieved as soon as the negative is Processed.
  • Intermediary: Bromoil, Cyanotypes, lumen prints, Chromodekastic Sabbatier processes are some of the techniques that exhibit this tendencies.
    These processes can occupy either sides depending on the approaches of the practitioner.
  • The question arises, with all these possibilities, all of which are more tedious to practice, compared to photography that is commonly practiced by a lay person, why do antiquarian processes have such contemporary popularity, keeping in mind that practitioners like Pobboravsky24 , Scully and Osterman25, Coffer26, et cetera have been practicing and teaching these techniques for over three decades?
  • Handmade aesthetic. Images in the digital world are by design, perfect. They do not leave place for happy accident, and by their instantaneous feedback, they offer the operator a simulacrum of real life. This, contrasted with the antiquarian techniques, which have many process artifacts, makes for a choice for an operator who wants to create an evocative image. Often the choice offered by artifacts intrinsic to the process is a more easily attainable. This would also explain the preponderance of software that simulates the “look” of antiquarian processes with digital images.
  • Tangibility. Digital images more often then not, remain digital and don't exist in solid form. This, compared with an antiquarian image, which is always made by hand, offers a tangible return for all the work, which can be satisfying to the operator.
  • Popular culture. Contemporary culture has been exhibiting signs of dissatisfaction with the increasingly networked nature of modern lifestyle. Going back to the work flow of the past offers a welcome relief to those in this state.27

A Manifesto for a New Abstraction
  • Photography as an art form must be freed from the schackles of the representational image.
  • What separates a photograph from a detailed pen and ink sketch, or a well done oil painting? The optical and chemical process.
  • The base nature of a photograph is the interaction of chemicals on a substrate, and of photons on a sensor.
  • No longer should this interaction of art and science be subjugated to the tyranny of a representaional image. If the image is representational, it is because I the artist made a deliberate choice, and the representation is to be note as such, an important artistic choice.
  • I strive to make an image that has to pretense to reality. An image that reduces itself to a Rorschach like abstraction.
  • I strive for an image that is a tabula rasa both for the artist and the viewer, to make what they want to out of it.
  • This does not mean neglect towards to art of constructing the image. The same rules would apply to this New Abstract Image that would apply to the most pictorial image of a sunset.
  • There will no accidents or coincidence. There will be total control over the visual medium. Each line and mark is on the surface for a reason.
  • This New Abstraction is the logical progression of the art of photography. A panorama, or a still life will have the same merit, and vice versa. The New Abstract Photograph will not pretend to be something it is not.
  • The New Abstract image is a True Image, A Honest Image, a Better Image.

Suggested Reading and Bibliography

Andre Kertesz: Master of Photography. Norfolk, Virginia: Chrysler museum of Norfolk, 1982. Print.
Abbott, Brett. Engaged Observers: Documentary Photography since the Sixties. Los Angeles, CA: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2010. Print.
Adams, Ansel, and Robert Baker. The Negative. Boston: New York Graphic Society, 1981. Print.
Barthes, Roland. Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography. New York: Hill and Wang, 1981. Print.
Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: British Broadcasting, 1973. Print.
Bush, Alfred L., and Lee Clark Mitchell. The Photograph and the American Indian. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1994. Print.
Collier, John, and Malcolm Collier. Visual Anthropology: Photography as a Research Method. Albuquerque: U of New Mexico, 1986. Print.
Guimond, James. American Photography and the American Dream. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina, 1991. Print.
Johnson, Tim. Spirit Capture: Photographs from the National Museum of the American Indian. Washington: Smithsonian Institution in Association with the National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian Institution, 1998. Print.
Kicken, Annette, Rudolf Kicken, and Georg Kargl. Pictorialism: Hidden Modernism: Photography 1896-1916. Vienna: Georg Kargl Fine Arts, 2008. Print.
Klett, Mark, Ellen Manchester, and JoAnn Verburg. Second View: The Rephotographic Survey Project. Albuquerque: U of New Mexico, 1984. Print.
Lombroso, Cesare, and Guglielmo Ferrero. Female Offender. New York: Philosophical, 1958. Print.
Morris, Errol. Believing Is Seeing: Observations on the Mysteries of Photography. New York: Penguin, 2011. Print.
Newhall, Beaumont. The History of Photography: From 1839 to the Present. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1982. Print.
Nickell, Joe. Camera Clues: A Handbook for Photographic Investigation. Lexington: U of Kentucky, 1994. Print.
Sontag, Susan. On Photography. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1977. Print.
Spence, Jo, and Patricia Holland. Family Snaps: The Meaning of Domestic Photography. London: Virago, 1991. Print.
Steichen, Edward, and Ezra Stoller. The Family of Man: The Photographic Exhibition. New York: Published for the Museum of Modern Art by Simon and Schuster in Collaboration with the Maco Magazine, 1955. Print.
Thomas, Julia. Reading Images. Houndsmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave, 2001. Print.
White, Minor. Minor White: Rites & Passages: His Photographs Accompanied by Excerpts from His Diaries and Letters. Millerton, NY: Aperture, 1978. Print.

Addendum 1: The Snapchat Thesis

We live in an image driven world today. Constantly bombarded by images, still and moving. TV's, billboards, computers, newspapers, magazines, all are chock full of images. Some are commercial images, selling you something. Some are reportage, showing you something. Some are memorial images, reminding you of something. From a cursory glance, they all have one thing in common. A camera made them. And the operator of the camera made them too. This paper is about these two creatures of sort. The camera, and the person behind the camera.
The camera occupies a grey zone in our society. It is a tool, a machine. However, it has properties of the human. This cyclops captures the image of its surroundings, and makes it permanent. The camera sees. This characteristic in itself makes it a potent aid for the human who also wants to see. But the camera, for all its ability to see, still needs an operator. The operator captures the image with the agency of the camera. The camera sees, but the operator manipulates the seeing. So then, what is the camera? Is it an intermediary in the interaction of the subject and the operator? Or is it a participant in a three way interaction?
The biggest problem with photography is its biggest strength. As I said earlier, the camera sees. The camera is a better documentarian then any human operator. While the human observer would gloss over some trivial thing, the camera, with its cyclopian sensibility, leaves nothing invisible. It captures everything, and even a century later shows each and every trivial detail. But this very ability to record everything in exquisite detail is a two edged sword. It records everything perfectly, yet its agency to capture such realistic detail is mediated by the biases and agendas of the operator. Basically, the camera never lies, but at the same time, it does.
I look a lot at historical photography, but I want to start off by looking at something that is a rage among the younger generation. I recently got myself an application called Snapchat for my cell phone. The gist of the app is that it allows you to take a photograph, and add some text or scribbles to it, and send it to someone. Something like a visual telegraphic message. The twist lies in the fact that the image disappears in 10 seconds.
As a photographer, this application was a disconcerting experience. Any “traditional” photographer has a mountain of records. The entire photographic industry survives on it, as do archives and museums. A photographer in Matthew Brady's time would have boxes full of glass plate negatives. Edward Sheriff Curtis had storehouses full of negatives, and plates for printing his seminal volumes on native Americans. Magnum Photographs have a substantial collection of film negatives from all their photographers. I myself have over 20,000 photographs digital photographs I have taken over half a decade backed up on my computer, not to mention a shoebox full of negatives.
Indeed, the storage of negatives was such a cumbersome issue that technology tried to keep up with making it easier. Charney, a French photographer on mission in Egypt, came up with a technique to transfer negatives from glass plates to paper, so they could be transported back to France more easily. But, photography never did away with a record. Photography, at the roots of it, has always been about recording a moment in time, and making it permanent. That, most may argue, is its idée fixe.
In face of all this, being confronted with an image that was truly impermanent, was a shocking experience. In a way, it harked back to the ages when the chemical darkening of certain salts was not understood. We credit Fox Talbot with inventing photography as we know it, but we need to realize that he came up with a way to make images permanent. People experimented with darkening of salts before. Indeed Schulze, in early 1700's figured out that silver salts darken in presence of light. But it was not until the first half of the 19th century that Talbot figured out that the simple action of Sodium Hypochloride would act to “fix”the image.
But why was it such a shocking experience? Photography, as I reiterate, and no doubt will later too, serves as a record. When a record itself is temporary, then that suggests that it was willfully removed. Indeed, that is the point, some may say, of Snapchat. Now this wilful removal of a record suggests two alternatives. Either the images are a record of illicit activity, or a record of something mundane. A lot of people do use snapchat for sexting, a term used to describe sending promiscuous photographs to other people. Snapchat is an ideal application for that. The image serves to titillate, and then disappears, leaving no incriminating evidence behind. But titillating images have never been outside the purview of photography. Pornographic pictures are on record from the earliest days of photography.

The other option we are faced with is the image itself is made trivial. A trivial image need not be recorded for posterity. The triviality of the image is disconcerting for me. Furthermore, it is fitting in the progression of the history of photography. At the start, taking photographs was hard, and dangerous. Glass plates were the negatives. Handling cyanide or mercury to fix photos would frequently kill photographers. So each image had to count. Later, with the box brownie, came the snapshot culture. Still, the camera had only so much film. Each photo had to count. With digital photography, selectiveness still counted, because your memory card has only so much space, and the batteries eventually die. But Snapchat does away with that restriction. No space is taken on the phone. Each photo is deleted anyway. Snapchat makes the image trivial, which has never been done before.

It could be argued that Snapchat Photography could be an art medium, much like performance art, or installation art used to be. It could be said that its very ephemeral nature would be its strength, by removing photography from its documentary raison d'etre but then, the very argument could be extended to say that photographs existed of performances, to serve as a record. What would a record be of something that subverts the record itself?
Some would call out the usual epistemological conundrum of the falling tree in an empty forest, which in this case, would be apt. I would rather not go down that road, but would propose a new form. The form of performance photography. If someone takes a screenshot of the snapchat, thus subverting the process itself (which would be a subversion of a subversion), then only can a record be produced. But if the process would remain true to itself, then the image would stay alive in a small circle of viewers for 10 seconds on the maximum. I feel somewhere, Talbot would be turning in his grave.

But why snapchat? Why the selfie? Why is the much maligned selfie so interesting in the historical trends of photography as we know it? Look back to the idea of the photograph as a trace. The photograph is a physical trace, at its very phenomenological roots. Light comes from the sun, or from another light source and hits the subject. The light reflects off the subject and by the action of refraction through curved glass that is the cyclopean eye, hits a surface that reacts to the minuscule light particles we call photons.
In the days of chemical photography, the photons would react with the various substances to call a chemical change that would result in a visible image where there was none. Now, in the digital age, the light just hits a thin wafer of silicon which releases an electric impulse that is recorded by a computer to create a image. In either case, a tangible change is brought about in the photographic materiel at its base state to create an image.
This is the trace that we as humans have instinctively latched on to. To be photographed is to exist. The photograph is proof not only of our existence, but of our importance, because someone took the effort to take the photograph. Refer above to the trails that involved photographic images. The digital photograph made the photograph an easy affair. Snapchat made the photograph ephemeral. But the selfie made the photograph revolutionary. I said that the photograph is a document, but it is rarely a true document. What the selfie did was to snatch the ability to photograph from the chemically enabled elite, and hand it to the dirty unwashed masses (#poopselfie is a thing). By handing the subject the ability to mediate their own image, photography finally became democratic.
This is why we see so many tourist selfies and #foodshots and #swag images. The very act of being is now a worthwhile act to document, and we rise to the challenge. Of course, we make banal and trivial images, which in themselves are cries for the importance of our individuality. What is banal in the greater scheme of things, is for a person important. A new dress is not haute couture, but it sure does mean a lot for someone who paid for it. A photograph of dinner at el bulli is common, and banal because every gourmand photographs the occasion, but for the diner, it is a once in a lifetime event.
Should we sneer at selfies? Sure. But in a similar manner as we sneer at the maudlin childhood portraits. Because we realise that while they may not make a difference in out life and well being, they are important moments in a personal life, being thrown out for adulation of friends on social media, rather then being Hi-Art as we expect all photos to be.
The question to ask would be, if I am taking a selfie holding a Minor White photo, crossing off an item off my bucket list, is it as important for you, because it contains a Minor White photo, as it is for me, because it is me holding a Minor White photo? I ask, you decide.

1To elevate is to take an object and make it out of the ordinary. To make it not mundane.
2Concrete here refers to the fact that it is a action which has real consequences, vis a vis the process of creation, and is not a frivolous act.
3This merit may be of a personal nature to a photographer, or universal merit in a fine art context. Of course, a photograph with universal merit may have no merit for a person. Here we enter the debate about what defines good art, which is outside the purview of this discussion.
4Knowledge of the past, in this context, refers to the knowledge of what aspects of the image work, and what don't, for example, rules of composition, knowledge of photographic angles, et cetera.
5There are always ways in which the Techne can be subsumed in Episteme. Indeed, a clear delineation between the two is never possible. It could be said that if the work is driven by the process and its artifacts, then the work's Episteme is the Techne itself.
6 Gregory Crewdson (born September 26, 1962) is an American photographer who is best known for elaborately staged scenes of American homes and neighborhoods...Crewdson's photographs usually take place in small-town America, but are dramatic and cinematic. They feature often disturbing, surreal events. His photographs are elaborately staged and lighted using crews familiar with motion picture production and lighting large scenes using motion picture film equipment and techniques (Sourced from Wikipedia) []
7This is somewhat of a more subjective statement, compared to the objectivity (in my eyes) of the rest of the statements. It is based on my reading of the work of Crewdsen, and others might see the opposite in his work.
8This reading of Crewdsen's work is cursory and truncated, however suffices, if only for the purpose of illustration of the binary I talk about.
On being questioned by S.A. about the reason for the single Episteme motivator, I had many responses, but the only one that had any merit in my eyes, and which would satisfy my reading, was that a work of art has many conceptual motivators. However by a process a artistic selection, most are winnowed away, and a grand theme emerges. This grand theme fits most of the artist's oeuvre. Hence the single Episteme Motivator.
9S.A. Posed an interesting query to me as a response to this, whereby the work of “Naive” artists was called into question. The work of Jacques Henri Lartigue immediately came to mind. Lartigue started taking photographs at the age of 7 and take photos for most of his life. Most of his famous work was done in the early part of his life.
I would argue that photography, being an extremely visual medium, while still based on the subject makes it easy for an operator to take dynamic photographs if he possesses a keen visual sensibility. Compositional rules such as the rule of thirds are based on how the eyes see, and one could argue that some people instinctively see better. However, in the technical aspects of photography, a good eye can take you only so far. Cartier-Bresson, who outsourced his processing and printing studied painting, as did most of the early masters of Photography such as David Octavius Hill, and William Henry Jackson.
Also instructive to notice would be the case of David Octavius Hill, who was partnered by Robert Adamson. Hill was a painter, whereas Adamson was and engineer. They collaborated in making images, and general historical consensus is that While Hill took care of the composition and lighting , Adamson did the camera and lab work to make the images possible. Images taken by either on their own do not have the merit of their collaborative work. In this case, Hill was the Episteme whereas Adamson was the Techne of the partnership.
10Pertinent here, would be the fact that Ansel Adams, a great photographic educator also made a similar analogy, saying that the photographic negative is the Score, and the Print is the performance. It might be pertinent to mention that Adams was an accomplished pianist, and studied to be a concert pianist. This might inform the analogy.
11Does this mean that there are no “real” photographs? I would argue not. The most factual photograph would be the one on which all involved parties can agree. For example, an x-ray of a broken bone plainly shows the broken bone. That is outside of interpretation when given to all parties who look at the images objectivity. However, If that very same image is taken outside of its medical context, it ceases to be an objective image. And that, is the very nature of a photograph. Its inherent fluidity of meaning in differing contexts.
12Yes, a camera never lies. It is just that its truth is subjective in our eyes. Scientifically speaking, the camera is the best recorder of truth. It is just that we can not interpret the image correctly all the time. Again, epistemology is not the purview of this text.
13 Pushpamala N.(born 1956) is a photo and visual artist based in BangaloreIndia. Pushpamala formally trained as a sculptor and eventually shifted to photography to explore her interest in narrative figuration. Her work has been described as performance photography,as she frequently uses herself as model in her own work. She uses elements of popular culture in her art to explore placegender and history. (Sourced from Wikipedia) []
14Refer to footnote 12
15 Antiquarian photography can be defined as usage of processes that are generally obsolete for contemporary photo work. Processing such as collodion, albumin, gum, carbon, et cetera fall in this purview, as do techniques such as kallitypes, platinum/palladium, salt,cyanotype, and calotype
I would go so far as to argue that using Pinhole cameras, using film, and paper negatives, and other processes of image making that fall under the banner of Alternative Photographic processes can be classified under the Antiquarian term for the purview of this text. Antiquarian processes are a subset of Alternative processes, but either term suffices, and Antiquarian sounds better then Alternative.
This is not an exhaustive list of processes used in Alternative processes. Indeed an exhaustive list of such processes and their derivative processes would take up at least a couple of pages, and I am of no inclination to make such a list. The Processes listed are the major processes commonly used, and the other processes are practiced by probably under 500 people around the world, most of whom do them as research (A majority of people who use those processes are paper conservators, or chemists who work with silver halide chemistry, possibly with a lot of free time on their hands.)
16All the research for this section has been done with online interaction with practicing photographers over Facebook, and Instagram. Applied Anthropology, when mixed with procrastination leads to useful results.
17This is in the Christensenion sense, where Sustainable innovations are innovations in technology, whereas Disruptive innovations change the market. A classic disruptive innovation would be the development of the Model T to the transportation market, which was earlier full of Horse drawn buggies and hand made motor vehicles.
18I would rather not prefer to provide an over encompassing definition for Fine Art Photography, and would, for the purposes of this text just define it as a photo where the photographer says it is Art, and which was made to satisfy a creative impulse.
19For example, in my personal work with digital cameras, I use techniques used by astrophotographers to increase the signal to noise ratio for long exposure night photographs, which are stitched, using advanced graphical interpolation algorithms, to make panoramas of views around Idaho at night. Techniques such as HDR (High Dynamic Range Imaging), Focus Stacking (Whereby large areas of the photo can be in focus) also fall in this category, as would 3d photographs, and all the assorted computer intensive digital photography techniques.
20An appropriate example of this school of thought would be a wet plate practitioner who I got in touch with over Facebook who explored varnishes for collodion plates. Not content with using traditional varnishes like Shellac gum, and Sandarac Gum, he proceeded to investigate modern compounds such as Paraloid, Tinuvin et cetera. After this, he proceeded to make a system of mass producing these varnishes, using vacuum pumps, centrifuges, activated charcoal, celite cakes, etc. The Varnish, aptly named ÜSB (Über Super Blond) is a shellac varnish that gives exceptional results, and can be purchased for a small sum from the maker (disclosure: I myself have used the varnish and find it exceptional).
21eg. Wet plate collodion techniques were taught to current practitioners by civil war re-enactors. Similarly, people are working on calotypes using the same methods, just because they are calotypes. It is, broadly speaking, a fetishization of the past, and the artifacts that remain. Period correct lenses are on bid on e-bay for thousands of dollars, a price that is out of touch with their utility. This school of thought mixes aspects antique hunting, with photographic gear fetishization.
22The question arises whether to put it in the category of Fine art photography, but I would rather exercise due diligence. The lack of conceptual support to the technical process makes it not good art (in my personal opinion), however many striking images are made by the practitioners of this school, hence the inclusion.
23Indeed in some processes of this category, the negative is not even needed. Wet Collodion Positives, and Polaroids are direct positive processes, and do away with the need for an intermediary negative image.
24 In The Scenic Daguerreotype (1995) John Wood describes Pobboravsky as "the dean of modern daguerreotypists" in recognition both of his pioneering role and his exceptional talent in turning the abandoned daguerreian process into a medium for contemporary art. Irving's first work with the daguerreotype began in the 1960s and continues today. Through his activities in Rochester NY, likewise home to the George Eastman House and its alternative process seminars, Pobboravsky has been an inspiration to many of the modern daguerreotypists who followed him. (sourced from gallery biography) []
25 Mark Osterman is Photographic Process Historian at George Eastman House International Museum of Photography and Film in Rochester, NY. He teaches the technical evolution of photography from Niepce heliographs to making gelatin emulsions. France Scully Osterman is an artist-educator, and lecturer at Scully & Osterman Studio and guest scholar at George Eastman House International Museum of Photography and Film, both in Rochester, NY.  France is recognized for her extensive knowledge of early photographic processes including photogenic drawings, wet-plate and dry-plate collodion, albumen and salt print methods.  Mark's most recent writings on the subject of early photographic processes include the 19th century chapter for the Focal Encyclopedia of Photography . He began research in historic photographic processes while attending the Kansas City Art Institute in the 1970s.  (Sourced from personal website) []
26John Coffer is a wet plate collodion photographer who has been working with the technique since 1978, and traveling around the country in a horse drawn buggy, taking collodion photographs of people at towns he stops by. He refuses to have electricity and internet at his house, and lives an Amish lifestyle.
27This explanation might seem jejune however, it is important to note the recent popular culture choices. Vinyl records are enjoying a resurgence, as are film cameras in a non fine art milieu. Furthermore, an attraction to the vintage, not only in aesthetic choices, but lifestyle is more common. A trite answer would have blamed it on the class of Hipsters, however, I would argue that it is more a sign of a generation that has spent the last two and a half decades in an increasingly networked world, saturated with information, and these choices are just a reaction to the surroundings.
29Sturge, John M., ed. Neblette's Handbook of Photography and Reprography. 7th ed. London: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1977. Print.

30Indeed, his contribution is immortalised in the history of photography by the colloquial use of the term Hypo, for fixer