TOWARDSAPHILOSOPHYOFPHOTOGRAPHY

TowardsaPhilosophyofPhotography

VilémFlusser

REAKTIONBOOKS

PublishedbyReaktionBooksLtd33GreatSuttonStreet,LondonEC1V0DX,UK

www.reaktionbooks.co.uk

OriginallypublishedinGermanasFüreinePhilosophiederFotografie

Copyright©1983EUROPEANPHOTOGRAPHYAndreasMüller-Pohle,P.O.Box3043,D-37020Göttingen,Germany,www.equivalence.comEDITIONFLUSSER,VolumeIII(2000)

English-languagetranslationcopyright©ReaktionBooks2000Reprinted2005,2006,2007,2009,2010,2012

Afterwordcopyright©HubertusvonAmelunxen2000

AllrightsreservedNopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystemortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,recordingorotherwise,withoutpriorpermissionofthepublishers.

PagereferencesinthePhotoAcknowledgementsandIndexmatchtheprintededitionofthisbook.

TranslatedbyAnthonyMathews

CoverdesignedbyPhilipLewisTextdesignedbyRonCostley

PrintedandboundinGreatBritainbyBell&Bain,Glasgow

BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData:

Flusser,Vilém,1920–1991TowardsaphilosophyofphotographyPhotography–PhilosophyI.Title770.1

eISBN:9781780232447

Contents

IntroductoryNoteTheImageTheTechnicalImageTheApparatusTheGestureofPhotographyThePhotographTheDistributionofPhotographsTheReceptionofPhotographsThePhotographicUniverseWhyaPhilosophyofPhotographyIsNecessaryLexiconofBasicConcepts

Afterword,HubertusvonAmelunxen

IntroductoryNote

Thisbookisbasedonthehypothesisthattwofundamentalturningpointscanbeobservedinhumanculturesinceitsinception.Thefirst,aroundthemiddleofthesecondmillenniumBC,canbesummedupundertheheading‘theinventionoflinearwriting’;thesecond,theonewearecurrentlyexperiencing,couldbecalled‘theinventionoftechnicalimages’.Similarturningpointsmayhaveoccurredpreviouslybutarebeyondthescopeofthisanalysis.Thishypothesiscontainsthesuspicionthatthestructureofculture–

andthereforeexistenceitself–isundergoingafundamentalchange.Thisbookattemptstostrengthenthissuspicionand,inordertomaintainitshypotheticalquality,avoidsquotationsfromearlierworksonsimilarthemes.Forthesamereason,thereisnobibliography.However,thereisashortglossaryofthetermsemployedandimpliedinthecourseofthediscussion;thesedefinitionsarenotintendedtohavegeneralvaliditybutareofferedasworkinghypothesesforthosewhowishtofollowuptheconceptsarisingfromthethoughtsandanalysespresentedhere.Thustheintentionofthisbookisnottodefendathesisbuttomakea

contribution–informedbyphilosophy–tothedebateonthesubjectof‘photography’.

TheImage

Imagesaresignificantsurfaces.Imagessignify–mainly–something‘outthere’inspaceandtimethattheyhavetomakecomprehensibletousasabstractions(asreductionsofthefourdimensionsofspaceandtimetothetwosurfacedimensions).Thisspecificabilitytoabstractsurfacesoutofspaceandtimeandtoprojectthembackintospaceandtimeiswhatisknownas‘imagination’.Itisthepreconditionfortheproductionanddecodingofimages.Inotherwords:theabilitytoencodephenomenaintotwo-dimensionalsymbolsandtoreadthesesymbols.Thesignificanceofimagesisonthesurface.Onecantaketheminata

singleglanceyetthisremainssuperficial.Ifonewishestodeepenthesignificance,i.e.toreconstructtheabstracteddimensions,onehastoallowone’sgazetowanderoverthesurfacefeelingthewayasonegoes.Thiswanderingoverthesurfaceoftheimageiscalled‘scanning’.Insodoing,one’sgazefollowsacomplexpathformed,ontheonehand,bythestructureoftheimageand,ontheother,bytheobserver’sintentions.Thesignificanceoftheimageasrevealedintheprocessofscanningthereforerepresentsasynthesisoftwointentions:onemanifestedintheimageandtheotherbelongingtotheobserver.Itfollowsthatimagesarenot‘denotative’(unambiguous)complexesofsymbols(likenumbers,forexample)but‘connotative’(ambiguous)complexesofsymbols:Theyprovidespaceforinterpretation.Whilewanderingoverthesurfaceoftheimage,one’sgazetakesinone

elementafteranotherandproducestemporalrelationshipsbetweenthem.Itcanreturntoanelementoftheimageithasalreadyseen,and‘before’canbecome‘after’:Thetimereconstructedbyscanningisaneternalrecurrenceofthesameprocess.Simultaneously,however,one’sgazealsoproducessignificantrelationshipsbetweenelementsoftheimage.Itcanreturnagainandagaintoaspecificelementoftheimageandelevateittothelevelofacarrieroftheimage’ssignificance.Thencomplexesof

significanceariseinwhichoneelementbestowssignificanceonanotherandfromwhichthecarrierderivesitsownsignificance:Thespacereconstructedbyscanningisthespaceofmutualsignificance.Thisspaceandtimepeculiartotheimageisnoneotherthantheworld

ofmagic,aworldinwhicheverythingisrepeatedandinwhicheverythingparticipatesinasignificantcontext.Suchaworldisstructurallydifferentfromthatofthelinearworldofhistoryinwhichnothingisrepeatedandinwhicheverythinghascausesandwillhaveconsequences.Forexample:Inthehistoricalworld,sunriseisthecauseofthecock’scrowing;inthemagicalone,sunrisesignifiescrowingandcrowingsignifiessunrise.Thesignificanceofimagesismagical.Themagicalnatureofimagesmustbetakenintoaccountwhen

decodingthem.Thusitiswrongtolookfor‘frozenevents’inimages.Rathertheyreplaceeventsbystatesofthingsandtranslatethemintoscenes.Themagicalpowerofimagesliesintheirsuperficialnature,andthedialecticinherentinthem–thecontradictionpeculiartothem–mustbeseeninthelightofthismagic.Imagesaremediationsbetweentheworldandhumanbeings.Human

beings‘ex-ist’,i.e.theworldisnotimmediatelyaccessibletothemandthereforeimagesareneededtomakeitcomprehensible.However,assoonasthishappens,imagescomebetweentheworldandhumanbeings.Theyaresupposedtobemapsbuttheyturnintoscreens:Insteadofrepresentingtheworld,theyobscureituntilhumanbeings’livesfinallybecomeafunctionoftheimagestheycreate.Humanbeingsceasetodecodetheimagesandinsteadprojectthem,stillencoded,intotheworld‘outthere’,whichmeanwhileitselfbecomeslikeanimage–acontextofscenes,ofstatesofthings.Thisreversalofthefunctionoftheimagecanbecalled‘idolatry’;wecanobservetheprocessatworkinthepresentday:Thetechnicalimagescurrentlyallaroundusareintheprocessofmagicallyrestructuringour‘reality’andturningitintoa‘globalimagescenario’.Essentiallythisisaquestionof‘amnesia’.Humanbeingsforgettheycreatedtheimagesinordertoorientatethemselvesintheworld.Sincetheyarenolongerabletodecodethem,theirlivesbecomeafunctionoftheirownimages:Imaginationhasturnedintohallucination.

Thisappearstohavehappenedoncebefore,inthecourseofthesecondmillenniumBCatthelatest,whenthealienationofhumanbeingsfromtheirimagesreachedcriticalproportions.Forthisveryreason,somepeopletriedtoremembertheoriginalintentionbehindtheimages.Theyattemptedtoteardownthescreensshowingtheimageinordertoclearapathintotheworldbehindit.Theirmethodwastoteartheelementsoftheimage(pixels)fromthesurfaceandarrangethemintolines:Theyinventedlinearwriting.Theythustranscodedthecirculartimeofmagicintothelineartimeofhistory.Thiswasthebeginningof‘historicalconsciousness’and‘history’inthenarrowersense.Fromthenon,historicalconsciousnesswasrangedagainstmagicalconsciousness–astrugglethatisstillevidentinthestandtakenagainstimagesbytheJewishprophetsandtheGreekphilosophers(particularlyPlato).Thestruggleofwritingagainsttheimage–historicalconsciousness

againstmagic–runsthroughouthistory.Withwriting,anewabilitywasborncalled‘conceptualthinking’whichconsistedofabstractinglinesfromsurfaces,i.e.producinganddecodingthem.Conceptualthoughtismoreabstractthanimaginativethoughtasalldimensionsareabstractedfromphenomena–withtheexceptionofstraightlines.Thuswiththeinventionofwriting,humanbeingstookonestepfurtherbackfromtheworld.Textsdonotsignifytheworld;theysignifytheimagestheytearup.Hence,todecodetextsmeanstodiscovertheimagessignifiedbythem.Theintentionoftextsistoexplainimages,whilethatofconceptsistomakeideascomprehensible.Inthisway,textsareametacodeofimages.Thisraisesthequestionoftherelationshipbetweentextsandimages–

acrucialquestionforhistory.Inthemedievalperiod,thereappearstohavebeenastruggleonthepartofChristianity,faithfultothetext,againstidolatersorpagans;inmoderntimes,astruggleonthepartoftextualscienceagainstimage-boundideologies.Thestruggleisadialecticalone.TotheextentthatChristianitystruggledagainstpaganism,itabsorbedimagesanditselfbecamepagan;totheextentthatsciencestruggledagainstideologies,itabsorbedideasanditselfbecameideological.Theexplanationforthisisasfollows:Textsadmittedly

explainimagesinordertoexplainthemaway,butimagesalsoillustratetextsinordertomakethemcomprehensible.Conceptualthinkingadmittedlyanalyzesmagicalthoughtinordertoclearitoutoftheway,butmagicalthoughtcreepsintoconceptualthoughtsoastobestowsignificanceonit.Inthecourseofthisdialecticalprocess,conceptualandimaginativethoughtmutuallyreinforceoneanother.Inotherwords,imagesbecomemoreandmoreconceptual,textsmoreandmoreimaginative.Nowadays,thegreatestconceptualabstractionistobefoundinconceptualimages(incomputerimages,forexample);thegreatestimaginationistobefoundinscientifictexts.Thus,behindone’sback,thehierarchyofcodesisoverturned.Texts,originallyametacodeofimages,canthemselveshaveimagesasametacode.Thatisnotall,however.Writingitselfisamediation–justlikeimages

–andissubjecttothesameinternaldialectic.Inthisway,itisnotonlyexternallyinconflictwithimagesbutisalsotornapartbyaninternalconflict.Ifitistheintentionofwritingtomediatebetweenhumanbeingsandtheirimages,itcanalsoobscureimagesinsteadofrepresentingthemandinsinuateitselfbetweenhumanbeingsandtheirimages.Ifthishappens,humanbeingsbecomeunabletodecodetheirtextsandreconstructtheimagessignifiedinthem.Ifthetexts,however,becomeincomprehensibleasimages,humanbeings’livesbecomeafunctionoftheirtexts.Therearisesastateof‘textolatry’thatisnolesshallucinatorythanidolatry.Examplesoftextolatry,of‘faithfulnesstothetext’,areChristianityandMarxism.Textsarethenprojectedintotheworldoutthere,andtheworldisexperienced,knownandevaluatedasafunctionofthesetexts.Aparticularlyimpressiveexampleoftheincomprehensiblenatureoftextsisprovidednowadaysbyscientificdiscourse.Anyideaswemayhaveofthescientificuniverse(signifiedbythesetexts)areunsound:Ifwedoformideasaboutscientificdiscourse,wehavedecodedit‘wrongly’;anyonewhotriestoimagineanything,forexample,usingtheequationofthetheoryofrelativity,hasnotunderstoodit.Butas,intheend,allconceptssignifyideas,thescientific,incomprehensibleuniverseisan‘empty’universe.Textolatryreachedacriticallevelinthenineteenthcentury.Tobe

exact,withithistorycametoanend.History,intheprecisemeaningoftheword,isaprogressivetranscodingofimagesintoconcepts,aprogressiveelucidationofideas,aprogressivedisenchantment(takingthemagicoutofthings),aprogressiveprocessofcomprehension.Iftextsbecomeincomprehensible,however,thereisnothinglefttoexplain,andhistoryhascometoanend.Duringthiscrisisoftexts,technicalimageswereinvented:inorderto

maketextscomprehensibleagain,toputthemunderamagicspell–toovercomethecrisisofhistory.

TheTechnicalImage

Thetechnicalimageisanimageproducedbyapparatuses.Asapparatusesthemselvesaretheproductsofappliedscientifictexts,inthecaseoftechnicalimagesoneisdealingwiththeindirectproductsofscientifictexts.Thisgivesthem,historicallyandontologically,apositionthatisdifferentfromthatoftraditionalimages.Historically,traditionalimagesprecedetextsbymillenniaandtechnicalonesfollowonafterveryadvancedtexts.Ontologically,traditionalimagesareabstractionsofthefirstorderinsofarastheyabstractfromtheconcreteworldwhiletechnicalimagesareabstractionsofthethirdorder:Theyabstractfromtextswhichabstractfromtraditionalimageswhichthemselvesabstractfromtheconcreteworld.Historically,traditionalimagesareprehistoricandtechnicalones‘post-historic’(inthesenseofthepreviousessay).Ontologically,traditionalimagessignifyphenomenawhereastechnicalimagessignifyconcepts.Decodingtechnicalimagesconsequentlymeanstoreadofftheiractualstatusfromthem.Technicalimagesaredifficulttodecode,forastrangereason.Toall

appearances,theydonothavetobedecodedsincetheirsignificanceisautomaticallyreflectedontheirsurface–justlikefingerprints,wherethesignificance(thefinger)isthecauseandtheimage(thecopy)istheconsequence.Theworldapparentlysignifiedinthecaseoftechnicalimagesappearstobetheircauseandtheythemselvesareafinallinkinacausalchainthatconnectsthemwithoutinterruptiontotheirsignificance:Theworldreflectsthesun’sandotherrayswhicharecapturedbymeansofoptical,chemicalandmechanicaldevicesonsensitivesurfacesandasaresultproducetechnicalimages,i.e.theyappeartobeonthesamelevelofrealityastheirsignificance.Whatoneseesonthemthereforedonotappeartobesymbolsthatonehastodecodebutsymptomsoftheworldthroughwhich,evenifindirectly,itistobeperceived.Thisapparentlynon-symbolic,objectivecharacteroftechnicalimages

leadswhoeverlooksatthemtoseethemnotasimagesbutaswindows.Observersthusdonotbelievethemastheydotheirowneyes.Consequentlytheydonotcriticizethemasimages,butaswaysoflookingattheworld(totheextentthattheycriticizethematall).Theircriticismisnotananalysisoftheirproductionbutananalysisoftheworld.Thislackofcriticismoftechnicalimagesispotentiallydangerousata

timewhentechnicalimagesareintheprocessofdisplacingtexts–dangerousforthereasonthatthe‘objectivity’oftechnicalimagesisanillusion.Fortheyare–likeallimages–notonlysymbolicbutrepresentevenmoreabstractcomplexesofsymbolsthantraditionalimages.Theyaremetacodesoftextswhich,asisyettobeshown,signifytexts,nottheworldoutthere.Theimaginationthatproducestheminvolvestheabilitytotranscodeconceptsfromtextsintoimages;whenweobservethem,weseeconcepts–encodedinanewway–oftheworldoutthere.Withtraditionalimages,bycontrast,thesymboliccharacterisclearly

evidentbecause,intheircase,humanbeings(forexample,painters)placethemselvesbetweentheimagesandtheirsignificance.Paintersworkoutthesymbolsoftheimage‘intheirheads’soastotransferthembymeansofthepaintbrushtothesurface.Ifonewishestodecodesuchimages,thenonehastodecodetheencodingthattookplace‘inthehead’ofthepainter.Withtechnicalimages,however,thematterisnotsoclearlyevident.It

istruethatwiththeseimagesanotherfactorplacesitselfbetweenthemandtheirsignificance,i.e.acameraandahumanbeingoperatingit(forexample,aphotographer),butitdoesnotlookasifthis‘machine/operator’complexwouldbreakthechainbetweenimageandsignificance.Onthecontrary:Thesignificanceappearstoflowintothecomplexontheoneside(input)inordertoflowoutontheotherside(output),duringwhichtheprocess–whatisgoingonwithinthecomplex–remainsconcealed:a‘blackbox’infact.Theencodingoftechnicalimages,however,iswhatisgoingonintheinteriorofthisblackboxandconsequentlyanycriticismoftechnicalimagesmustbeaimedatanelucidationofitsinnerworkings.Aslongasthereisnowayofengaging

insuchcriticismoftechnicalimages,weshallremainilliterate.Butthereissomethingwecansayabouttheseimagesafterall.For

example,theyarenotwindowsbutimages,i.e.surfacesthattranslateeverythingintostatesofthings;likeallimages,theyhaveamagicaleffect;andtheyenticethosereceivingthemtoprojectthisundecodedmagicontotheworldoutthere.Themagicalfascinationoftechnicalimagescanbeobservedallovertheplace:Thewayinwhichtheyputamagicspellonlife,thewayinwhichweexperience,know,evaluateandactasafunctionoftheseimages.Itisthereforeimportanttoenquireintowhatsortofmagicwearedealingwithhere.Obviouslyitcanhardlybethesamemagicasthatoftraditional

images:ThefascinationthatflowsoutofthetelevisionorcinemascreenisadifferentfascinationfromthesortthatweobserveincavepaintingsorthefrescoesofEtruscantombs.TelevisionandcinemaareonadifferentlevelofexistencefromcavesandtheEtruscans.Theancientmagicisprehistoric,itisolderthanhistoricalconsciousness;thenewmagicis‘post-historic’,itfollowsonafterhistoricalconsciousness.Thenewenchantmentisnotdesignedtoaltertheworldouttherebutourconceptsinrelationtotheworld.Itismagicofthesecondorder:conjuringtrickswithabstractions.Thedifferencebetweenancientandmodernmagiccanbestatedas

follows:Prehistoricmagicisaritualizationofmodelsknownas‘myths’;currentmagicisaritualizationofmodelsknownas‘programs’.Mythsaremodelsthatarecommunicatedorallyandwhoseauthor–a‘god’–isbeyondthecommunicationprocess.Programs,ontheotherhand,aremodelsthatarecommunicatedinwritingandwhoseauthors–‘functionaries’–arewithinthecommunicationprocess(theterms‘program’and‘functionary’willbeexplainedlater).Thefunctionoftechnicalimagesistoliberatetheirreceiversbymagic

fromthenecessityofthinkingconceptually,atthesametimereplacinghistoricalconsciousnesswithasecond-ordermagicalconsciousnessandreplacingtheabilitytothinkconceptuallywithasecond-orderimagination.Thisiswhatwemeanwhenwesaythattechnicalimagesdisplacetexts.

TextswereinventedinthesecondmillenniumBCinordertotakethemagicoutofimages,eveniftheirinventormaynothavebeenawareofthis;thephotograph,thefirsttechnicalimage,wasinventedinthenineteenthcenturyinordertoputtextsbackunderamagicspell,evenifitsinventorsmaynothavebeenawareofthis.Theinventionofthephotographisahistoricaleventasequallydecisiveastheinventionofwriting.Withwriting,historyinthenarrowersensebeginsasastruggleagainstidolatry.Withphotography,‘post-history’beginsasastruggleagainsttextolatry.Forthiswasthesituationinthenineteenthcentury:Theinventionof

printingandtheintroductionofuniversaleducationresultedineverybodybeingabletoread.Therearoseauniversalconsciousnessofhistorythatextendedeventopeopleinthosestrataofsocietywhohadpreviouslylivedalifeofmagic–thepeasants–whonowbegantoliveaproletarianandhistoricallife.Thistookplacethankstocheaptexts:Books,newspapers,flyers,allkindsoftextsbecamecheapandresultedinahistoricalconsciousnessthatwasequallycheapandaconceptualthinkingthatwasequallycheap–leadingtotwodiametricallyopposeddevelopments.Ontheonehand,traditionalimagesfindingrefugefromtheinflationoftextsinghettos,suchasmuseums,salonsandgalleries,becamehermetic(universallyundecodable)andlosttheirinfluenceondailylife.Ontheotherhand,therecameintobeinghermetictextsaimedataspecialistélite,i.e.ascientificliteraturewithwhichthecheapkindofconceptualthinkingwasnotcompetenttodeal.Thusculturedividedintothreebranches:thatofthefineartsfedwithtraditionalimageswhichwere,however,conceptuallyandtechnicallyenriched;thatofscienceandtechnologyfedwithhermetictexts;andthatofthebroadstrataofsocietyfedwithcheaptexts.Topreventculturebreakingup,technicalimageswereinvented–asacodethatwastobevalidforthewholeofsociety.Validinthesense,infact,thatfirst,technicalimagesweretointroduce

imagesbackintodailylife;second,theyweretomakehermetictextscomprehensible;andthird,theyweretomakevisiblethesubliminalmagicthatwascontinuingtooperateincheaptexts.Theyweretoformthelowestcommondenominatorforart,scienceandpolitics(inthesense

ofuniversalvalues),i.e.tobeatoneandthesametime‘beautiful’,‘true’and‘good’,andinthisway,asauniversallyvalidcode,theyweretoovercomethecrisisofculture–ofart,scienceandpolitics.Infact,however,technicalimagesfunctioninadifferentway:Theydo

notintroducetraditionalimagesbackintolifebut,ratherthanreplacethemwithreproductions,displacethemand,ratherthanmakehermetictextscomprehensible,aswasintended,theydistortthembytranslatingscientificstatementsandequationsintostatesofthings,i.e.images.Theydonotmaketheprehistoricmagiccontainedsubliminallywithincheaptextsinanywayevidentbutreplaceitwithanewkindofmagic,i.e.theprogrammedkind.Forthisreason,theycannotreduceculture,aswasintended,tothelowestcommondenominatorbut,onthecontrary,theygrinditupintoamorphousmasses.Masscultureistheresult.Theexplanationforthisisasfollows:Technicalimagesaresurfaces

thatfunctioninthesamewayasdams.Traditionalimagesflowintothemandbecomeendlesslyreproducible:Theycirculatewithinthem(forexampleintheformofposters).Scientifictextsflowintothemandaretranscodedfromlinesintostatesofthingsandassumemagicalproperties(forexampleintheformofmodelsthatattempttomakeEinstein’sequationcomprehensible).Andcheaptexts,afloodofnewspaperarticles,flyers,novels,etc.flowintothem,andthemagicandideologyinherentwithinthemaretranslatedintotheprogrammedmagicoftechnicalimages(forexampleintheformofphoto-novels).Thustechnicalimagesabsorbthewholeofhistoryandformacollectivememorygoingendlesslyroundincircles.Nothingcanresisttheforceofthiscurrentoftechnicalimages–there

isnoartistic,scientificorpoliticalactivitywhichisnotaimedatit,thereisnoeverydayactivitywhichdoesnotaspiretobephotographed,filmed,videotaped.Forthereisageneraldesiretobeendlesslyrememberedandendlesslyrepeatable.Alleventsarenowadaysaimedatthetelevisionscreen,thecinemascreen,thephotograph,inordertobetranslatedintoastateofthings.Inthisway,however,everyactionsimultaneouslylosesitshistoricalcharacterandturnsintoamagicritualandanendlesslyrepeatablemovement.Theuniverseoftechnicalimages,emergingall

aroundus,representsthefulfilmentoftheages,inwhichactionandagonygoendlesslyroundincircles.Onlyfromthisapocalypticperspective,itseems,doestheproblemofphotographyassumetheimportanceitdeserves.

TheApparatus

Technicalimagesareproducedbyapparatuses.Insayingthis,onepresumesthatthetypicalcharacteristicsofapparatusesassuch–inasimplified,embryonicform–arealsocontainedwithinthecameraandcanbederivedfromit.Tothisextent,thecamera,asaprototypeoftheapparatusesthathavebecomesodecisiveforthepresentandtheimmediatefuture,providesanappropriatestartingpointforageneralanalysisofapparatus–thoseapparatusesthat,ontheonehand,assumegiganticsize,threateningtodisappearfromourfieldofvision(liketheapparatusofmanagement)and,ontheother,shrivelup,becomingmicroscopicinsizesoastototallyescapeourgrasp(likethechipsinelectronicapparatuses).However,onemustfirstattemptamoreexactdefinitionoftheterm‘apparatus’,sincevariousconceptionsofitexistincurrentusage.TheLatinwordapparatusisderivedfromtheverbappararemeaning

‘toprepare’.AlongsidethisthereexistsinLatintheverbpraeparare,likewisemeaning‘toprepare’.ToillustrateinEnglishthedifferencebetweentheprefixes‘ad’and‘prae’,onecouldperhapstranslateappararewith‘pro-pare’,using‘pro’inthesenseof‘for’.Accordingly,an‘apparatus’wouldbeathingthatliesinwaitorinreadinessforsomething,anda‘preparatus’wouldbeathingthatwaitspatientlyforsomething.Thephotographicapparatusliesinwaitforphotography;itsharpensitsteethinreadiness.Thisreadinesstospringintoactiononthepartofapparatuses,theirsimilaritytowildanimals,issomethingtograspholdofintheattempttodefinethetermetymologically.Butetymologyonitsownisnotsufficienttodefineaterm.Onehasto

enquireintotheontologicalstatusofapparatuses,theirlevelofexistence.Theyareindubitablythingsthatarepro-duced,i.e.thingsthatareproduced(broughtforward)outoftheavailablenaturalworld.Thetotalityofsuchthingscanbereferredtoasculture.Apparatusesarepart

ofaculture,consequentlythiscultureisrecognizableinthem.Itistruethatthewordapparatusisalsooccasionallyappliedtonaturalphenomena,e.g.whenspeakingofthehearingapparatusofanimals.Suchusageis,however,metaphorical:Wecalltheseorganshearingapparatusbecausethey‘lieinwaitforsounds’–thusapplyingaculturaltermtothenaturalworld;iftherewerenoapparatusesinourculture,weshouldnotrefertosuchorgansinthatway.Roughlyspeaking,twokindsofculturalobjectscanbedistinguished:

theonesthataregoodforconsumption(consumergoods)andtheonesthataregoodforproducingconsumergoods(tools).Thetwohaveincommonthattheyare‘good’forsomething:Theyare‘valuable’,theyareastheyshouldbe,i.e.theyhavebeenproducedintentionally.Thisisthedifferencebetweenthenaturalandtheculturalsciences:Theculturalsciencespursuetheintentionshidingbehindthings.Theyenquirenotonly‘Why?’butalso‘Whatfor?’,andconsequentlytheyalsopursuetheintentionbehindthecamera.Judgedbythiscriterion,thecameraisatoolwhoseintentionistoproducephotographs.Assoonasonedefinesapparatusesastools,however,doubtsarise.Isaphotographaconsumeritemlikeashoeoranapple?Andhence,isacameraatoollikeaneedleorapairofscissors?Toolsintheusualsensetearobjectsfromthenaturalworldinorderto

bringthemtotheplace(producethem)wherethehumanbeingis.Inthisprocesstheychangetheformoftheseobjects:Theyimprintanew,intentionalformontothem.They‘inform’them:Theobjectacquiresanunnatural,improbableform;itbecomescultural.Thisproductionandinformationofnaturalobjectsiscalled‘work’anditsresultiscalled‘awork’.Manyworks,suchasapples,areadmittedlyproduced,buthavehardlybeeninformed;others,suchasshoes,arestronglyinformed,theyhaveaformthatisdevelopedfromanimalskins(leather).Apple-producing(-picking)scissorsaretoolsthatinformverylittle;shoe-producingneedlesaretoolsthatinformalot.Isthecamerathenakindofneedlesincephotographscarryinformation?Toolsintheusualsenseareextensionsofhumanorgans:extended

teeth,fingers,hands,arms,legs.Astheyextendtheyreachfurtherinto

thenaturalworldandtearobjectsfromitmorepowerfullyandmorequicklythanthebodycoulddoonitsown.Theysimulatetheorgantheyareextendedfrom:Anarrowsimulatesthefingers,ahammerthefist,apickthetoe.Theyare‘empirical’.WiththeIndustrialRevolution,however,toolswerenolongerlimitedtoempiricalsimulations;theygraspedholdofscientifictheories:Theybecame‘technical’.Asaresulttheybecamestronger,biggerandmoreexpensive,theirworksbecamecheaperandmorenumerous,andfromthenontheywerecalled‘machines’.Isthecamerathenamachinebecauseitappearstosimulatetheeyeandintheprocessreachesbacktoatheoryofoptics?A‘seeingmachine’?Whentoolsintheusualsensebecamemachines,theirrelationshipto

humanbeingswasreversed.PriortotheIndustrialRevolutionthehumanbeingwassurroundedbytools,afterwardsthemachinewassurroundedbyhumanbeings.Previouslythetoolwasthevariableandthehumanbeingtheconstant,subsequentlythehumanbeingbecamethevariableandthemachinetheconstant.Previouslythetoolfunctionedasafunctionofthehumanbeing,subsequentlythehumanbeingasafunctionofthemachine.Isthesametrueforthecameraasforthemachine?Thesizeandhighpriceofmachinesmeantthatonlycapitalistswere

abletoownthem.Mosthumanbeingsworkedasafunctionofmachines:theproletariat.Humanitywasdividedintotwoclasses,thatofthemachineownersforwhosebenefitthemachinesworked,andthatoftheclassofproletarianswhoworkedasafunctionoftheuseofmachines.Isthattruenowforthecamera?Isthephotographeraproletarian,andaretherephotocapitalists?Allthesequestions,eventhoughtheyare‘goodquestions’,donot

appeartograspthebasicfunctionofapparatuses.Ofcourse:Apparatusessimulatetechnicalorgans.Ofcourse:Humanbeingsfunctionasafunctionofapparatuses.Ofcourse:Thereareintentionsandinterestsconcealedbehindapparatuses.Butthisisnotthedecisivethingaboutthem.Allthesequestionslosesightofthebasicfunctionofapparatusesbecausetheyariseoutoftheindustrialcontext.Apparatuses,thoughtheresultofindustry,pointbeyondtheindustrialcontexttowardspost-

industrialsociety.Thereforeaformulationofthingsbasedonindustry(likethatoftheMarxists,forexample)isnolongercompetenttodealwithapparatusesandmisseswhattheyareabout.Wehavetoreachoutfornewcategoriesinordertobeabletotackleapparatusesanddefinewhattheyare.Thebasiccategoryofindustrialsocietyiswork:Toolsandmachines

workbytearingobjectsfromthenaturalworldandinformingthem,i.e.changingtheworld.Butapparatusesdonotworkinthatsense.Theirintentionisnottochangetheworldbuttochangethemeaningoftheworld.Theirintentionissymbolic.Photographersdonotworkintheindustrialsense,andthereisnopointintryingtocallthemworkersorproletarians.Asmosthumanbeingscurrentlyworkonandinapparatuses,talkoftheproletariatisbesidethepoint.Thecategoriesofculturalcriticismmustberethought.Photographers,itistrue,donotworkbuttheydodosomething:They

create,processandstoresymbols.Therehavealwaysbeenpeoplewhohavedonesuchthings:writers,painters,composers,book-keepers,managers.Intheprocessthesepeoplehaveproducedobjects:books,paintings,scores,balance-sheets,plans–objectsthathavenotbeenconsumedbutthathaveservedascarriersofinformation.Theywereread,lookedat,played,takenintoaccount,usedasthebasisfordecisions.Theywerenotanendbutameans.Currentlythissortofactivityisbeingtakenoverbyapparatuses.Asaresult,theobjectsofinformationcreatedinthiswayarebecomingmoreandmoreefficientandmoreandmoreextensive,andtheyareabletoprogramandcontrolalltheworkintheoldsense.Therefore,mosthumanbeingsarecurrentlyemployedonandinwork-programmingandwork-controllingapparatuses.Priortotheinventionofapparatus,thiskindofactivitywasseenasbeingthe‘servicesector’,as‘tertiary’,as‘brainwork’,inshortasperipheral.Nowadaysitisatthecentreofthings.Thereforeinculturalanalysisthecategory‘work’mustbereplacedbythecategory‘information’.Ifoneconsidersthecamera(andapparatusesingeneral)inthissense,

oneseesthatthecameraproducessymbols:symbolicsurfacesthathave

inacertainwaybeenprescribedforit.Thecameraisprogrammedtoproducephotographs,andeveryphotographisarealizationofoneofthepossibilitiescontainedwithintheprogramofthecamera.Thenumberofsuchpossibilitiesislarge,butitisneverthelessfinite:Itisthesumofallthosephotographsthatcanbetakenbyacamera.Itistruethatonecan,intheory,takeaphotographoverandoveragaininthesameoraverysimilarway,butthisisnotimportantfortheprocessoftakingphotographs.Suchimagesare‘redundant’:Theycarrynonewinformationandaresuperfluous.Inthefollowing,noaccountwillbetakenofredundantphotographssincethephrase‘takingphotographs’willbelimitedtotheproductionofinformativeimages.Asaresult,itistrue,thetakingofsnapshotswilllargelyfalloutsidethescopeofthisanalysis.Withevery(informative)photograph,thephotographicprogram

becomespoorerbyonepossibilitywhilethephotographicuniversebecomesricherbyonerealization.Photographersendeavourtoexhaustthephotographicprogrambyrealizingalltheirpossibilities.Butthisprogramisrichandthereisnowayofgettinganoverviewofit.Thusphotographersattempttofindthepossibilitiesnotyetdiscoveredwithinit:Theyhandlethecamera,turnitthiswayandthat,lookintoitandthroughit.Iftheylookthroughthecameraoutintotheworld,thisisnotbecausetheworldintereststhembutbecausetheyarepursuingnewpossibilitiesofproducinginformationandevaluatingthephotographicprogram.Theirinterestisconcentratedonthecamera;forthem,theworldispurelyapretextfortherealizationofcamerapossibilities.Inshort:Theyarenotworking,theydonotwanttochangetheworld,buttheyareinsearchofinformation.Suchactivitycanbecomparedtoplayingchess.Chess-playerstoo

pursuenewpossibilitiesintheprogramofchess,newmoves.Justastheyplaywithchess-pieces,photographersplaywiththecamera.Thecameraisnotatoolbutaplaything,andaphotographerisnotaworkerbutaplayer:notHomofaberbutHomoludens.Yetphotographersdonotplaywiththeirplaythingbutagainstit.Theycreepintothecamerainordertobringtolightthetricksconcealedwithin.Unlikemanualworkers

surroundedbytheirtoolsandindustrialworkersstandingattheirmachines,photographersareinsidetheirapparatusandboundupwithit.Thisisanewkindoffunctioninwhichhumanbeingsareneithertheconstantnorthevariablebutinwhichhumanbeingsandapparatusmergeintoaunity.Itisthereforeappropriatetocallphotographersfunctionaries.Theprogramofthecamerahastoberich,otherwisethegamewould

soonbeover.Thepossibilitiescontainedwithinithavetotranscendtheabilityofthefunctionarytoexhaustthem,i.e.thecompetenceofthecamerahastobegreaterthanthatofitsfunctionaries.Nophotographer,noteventhetotalityofallphotographers,canentirelygettothebottomofwhatacorrectlyprogrammedcameraisupto.Itisablackbox.Itispreciselytheobscurityoftheboxwhichmotivatesphotographers

totakephotographs.Theylosethemselves,itistrue,insidethecamerainsearchofpossibilities,buttheycanneverthelesscontrolthebox.Fortheyknowhowtofeedthecamera(theyknowtheinputofthebox),andlikewisetheyknowhowtogetittospitoutphotographs(theyknowtheoutputofthebox).Thereforethecameradoeswhatthephotographerwantsittodo,eventhoughthephotographerdoesnotknowwhatisgoingoninsidethecamera.Thisispreciselywhatischaracteristicofthefunctioningofapparatuses:Thefunctionarycontrolstheapparatusthankstothecontrolofitsexterior(theinputandoutput)andiscontrolledbyitthankstotheimpenetrabilityofitsinterior.Toputitanotherway:Functionariescontrolagameoverwhichtheyhavenocompetence.TheworldofKafka,infact.Aswillbeshownlater,theprogramsofapparatusesconsistof

symbols.Functioningthereforemeansplayingwithsymbolsandcombiningthem.Ananachronisticexamplemayserveasanillustration:Writerscanbeconsideredfunctionariesoftheapparatus‘language’thatplayswiththesymbolscontainedwithinthelanguageprogram–withwords–bycombiningthem.Theirintentionistoexhaustthelanguageprogramandtoenrichliterature,theuniverseoflanguage.Theexampleisanachronisticbecauselanguageisnotanapparatus;itwasnotcreatedasasimulationofabodyorgananditisnotbased,initscreation,onany

scientifictheoriesatall.Nevertheless,languagecannowadaysbe‘apparatusized’:‘Wordprocessors’canreplacewriters.Intheirgameswithwords,writersinformpages–theyimprintlettersonthem–somethingawordprocessorcanalsodoand,eventhoughthisis‘automatic’,i.e.happensbychance,itcan,inthelongrun,createthesameinformationasawriter.Butthereareapparatusesthatarecapableofplayingquitedifferent

games.Whilewritersandwordprocessorsinformstatically(thesymbolsthattheyimprintonpagessignifyconventionalsounds),therearealsoapparatusesthatinformdynamically:Thesymbolsthattheyimprintonobjectssignifyspecificmovements(e.g.workmovements)andtheobjectsinformedinthiswaydecodethesesymbolsandmoveaccordingtotheprogram.These‘smarttools’replacehumanworkandliberatehumanbeingsfromtheobligationtowork:Fromthenontheyarefreetoplay.Thecameraillustratesthisrobotizationofworkandthisliberationof

humanbeingsforplay.Itisasmarttoolbecauseitcreatesimagesautomatically.Photographersnolongerneed,likepainters,toconcentrateonabrushbutcandevotethemselvesentirelytoplayingwiththecamera.Theworktobecarriedout,imprintingtheimageontothesurface,happensautomatically:Thetoolsideofthecamerais‘donewith’,thehumanbeingisnowonlyengagedwiththeplaysideofthecamera.Therearethereforetwointerweavingprogramsinthecamera.Oneof

themmotivatesthecameraintotakingpictures;theotheronepermitsthephotographertoplay.Beyondthesearefurtherprograms–thatofthephotographicindustrythatprogrammedthecamera;thatoftheindustrialcomplexthatprogrammedthephotographicindustry;thatofthesocio-economicsystemthatprogrammedtheindustrialcomplex;andsoon.Ofcourse,therecanbeno‘final’programofa‘final’apparatussinceeveryprogramrequiresametaprogrambywhichitisprogrammed.Thehierarchyofprogramsisopenatthetop.Everyprogramfunctionsasafunctionofametaprogramandthe

programmersofaprogramarefunctionariesofthismetaprogram.Consequently,no-onecanownapparatusesinthesensethathuman

beingsprogramapparatusesfortheirownprivatepurposes.Becauseapparatusesarenotmachines.Thecamerafunctionsonbehalfofthephotographicindustry,whichfunctionsonbehalfoftheindustrialcomplex,whichfunctionsonbehalfofthesocio-economicapparatus,andsoon.Thequestionofownershipoftheapparatusisthereforeirrelevant;therealissuehereiswhodevelopsitsprogram.Thefollowingexplanationshowsthatthereislittlepointinwantingtoownanapparatus,asifitwerejustanyotherobject.Itistruethatmanyapparatusesarehardobjects.Acamerais

constructedoutofmetal,glass,plastic,etc.Butitisnotthishardnessthatmakesitcapableofbeingplayedwith,norisitthewoodofthechessboardandthechess-piecesthatmakethegamepossible,buttherulesofthegame,thechessprogram.Whatonepaysforwhenbuyingacameraisnotsomuchthemetalortheplasticbuttheprogramthatmakesthecameracapableofcreatingimagesinthefirstplace–justasgenerallythehardsideofapparatuses,thehardware,isgettingcheaperallthetime,thesoftsideofthem,thesoftware,isgettingmoreexpensiveallthetime.Onecanseefromthesoftestoftheapparatus,e.g.politicalapparatus,whatischaracteristicofthewholeofpost-industrialsociety:Itisnotthosewhoownthehardobjectwhohavesomethingofvalueattheirdisposalbutthosewhocontrolitssoftprogram.Thesoftsymbol,notthehardobject,isvaluable:arevaluationofallvalues.Powerhasmovedfromtheownerofobjectstotheprogrammerandthe

operator.Thegameofusingsymbolshasbecomeapowergame–ahierarchicalpowergame.Photographershavepoweroverthosewholookattheirphotographs,theyprogramtheiractions;andthecamerahaspoweroverthephotographers,itprogramstheiracts.Thisshiftofpowerfromthematerialtothesymboliciswhatcharacterizeswhatwecallthe‘informationsociety’and‘post-industrialimperialism’.LookatJapan:Itownsneitherrawmaterialsnorenergy–itspowerliesinprogramming,‘dataprocessing’,information,symbols.Thesereflectionsmakeitpossibletoattemptthefollowingdefinition

oftheterm‘apparatus’:Itisacomplexplaything,socomplexthatthoseplayingwithitarenotabletogettothebottomofit;itsgameconsistsof

combinationsofthesymbolscontainedwithinitsprogram;atthesametimethisprogramwasinstalledbyametaprogramandthegameresultsinfurtherprograms;whereasfullyautomatedapparatusescandowithouthumanintervention,manyapparatusesrequirethehumanbeingasaplayerandafunctionary.Apparatuseswereinventedtosimulatespecificthoughtprocesses.

Onlynow(followingtheinventionofthecomputer),andasitwerewithhindsight,isitbecomingclearwhatkindofthoughtprocesseswearedealingwithinthecaseofallapparatuses.Thatis:thinkingexpressedinnumbers.Allapparatuses(notjustcomputers)arecalculatingmachinesandinthissense‘artificialintelligences’,thecameraincluded,eveniftheirinventorswerenotabletoaccountforthis.Inallapparatuses(includingthecamera),thinkinginnumbersoverrideslinear,historicalthinking.ThistendencytosubordinatethinkinginletterstothinkinginnumbershasbeenthenorminscientificdiscoursesinceDescartes;ithasbeenaquestionofbringingthoughtintolinewith‘extendedmatter’constructedoutofpunctuatedelements.Onlynumbersaresuitedtoaprocessof‘bringingthinkingmatterintolinewithextendedmatter’.SinceDescartesatleast(perhapssinceNicholasofCusa)scientificdiscoursehastendedtowardsthere-encodingofthoughtintonumbers,butonlysincethecamerahasthistendencybecomemateriallypossible:Thecamera(likeallapparatusesthatfollowedit)iscomputationalthinkingflowingintohardware.Hencethequantum(computational)structureofallthemovementsandfunctionsoftheapparatus.Inshort:Apparatusesareblackboxesthatsimulatethinkinginthe

senseofacombinatorygameusingnumber-likesymbols;atthesametime,theymechanizethisthinkinginsuchawaythat,infuture,humanbeingswillbecomelessandlesscompetenttodealwithitandhavetorelymoreandmoreonapparatuses.Apparatusesarescientificblackboxesthatcarryoutthistypeofthinkingbetterthanhumanbeingsbecausetheyarebetteratplaying(morequicklyandwithfewererrors)withnumber-likesymbols.Evenapparatusesthatarenotfullyautomated(thosethatneedhumanbeingsasplayersandfunctionaries)playandfunctionbetterthanthehumanbeingsthatoperatethem.Thishastobe

thestartingpointforanyconsiderationoftheactofphotography.

TheGestureofPhotography

Ifoneobservesthemovementsofahumanbeinginpossessionofacamera(orofacamerainpossessionofahumanbeing),theimpressiongivenisofsomeonelyinginwait.Thisistheancientactofstalkingwhichgoesbacktothepalaeolithichunterinthetundra.Yetphotographersarenotpursuingtheirgameintheopensavannabutinthejungleofculturalobjects,andtheirtrackscanbetracedthroughthisartificialforest.Theactsofresistanceonthepartofculture,theculturalconditionalityofthings,canbeseenintheactofphotography,andthiscan,intheory,bereadofffromphotographsthemselves.Thephotographicjungleconsistsofculturalobjects,i.e.objectsthat

were‘intentionallyproduced’.Eachoftheseobjectsobscuresphotographers’viewsoftheirprey.Stalkingtheirwaythroughtheseobjects,avoidingtheintentionconcealedwithinthem,photographerswishtoliberatethemselvesfromtheirculturalconditionandtosnaptheirpreyunconditionally.Forthisreason,thephotographictracksthroughthejungleofWesternculturetakeadifferentroutefromthosethroughthejungleofJapanorthosethroughanunderdevelopedcountry.Intheory,culturalconditionsseem,toacertainextent,toemerge‘innegative’inthephotograph,asactsofresistancethathavebeenavoided.Criticismofphotographyshouldbeabletoreconstructtheseculturalconditionsfromthephotographs–notjustinthecaseofdocumentarypicturesandphotojournalism,wheretheculturalconditionisthepreytobesnapped–becausethestructureoftheculturalconditioniscapturedintheactofphotographyratherthanintheobjectbeingphotographed.Suchadecodingoftheculturalconditionsofphotographyis,however,

almostimpossiblesincewhatappearsinthephotographarethecategoriesofthecamerawhichensnaretheculturalconditionslikeanetwithalimitedviewthroughitsmesh.Thisischaracteristicofallfunctions:Thecategoriesoftheapparatusadjusttoculturalconditions

andfilterthem.Individualculturalconditionsthusdisappearfromview:Theresultisamasscultureofcamerasadjustedtothenorm;intheWest,inJapan,inunderdevelopedcountries–allovertheworld,everythingisphotographedthroughthesamecategories.Kantandhiscategoriesbecomeimpossibletoavoid.Thecategoriesofthecameraareregisteredontheoutsideofthe

cameraandcanbeadjustedthere,aslongasthecameraisnotfullyautomatic.Thesearethecategoriesofphotographictimeandspace.TheyareneitherNewtoniannorEinsteinian,buttheydividetimeandspaceintoratherclearlyseparatedareas.Theseareasoftimeandspacearedistancesfromthepreythatistobesnapped,viewsofthe‘photographicobject’situatedatthecentreoftimeandspace.Forexample:onetimeandspaceforextremeclose-up;oneforclose-up,anotherformiddledistance,anotherforlongdistance;onespatialareaforabird’s-eyeview,anotherforafrog’s-eyeview;anotherforatoddler’sperspective;anotherforadirectgazewitheyeswideopenasinoldendays;anotherforasidelongglance.Or:oneareaoftime(shutterspeed)foralightning-fastview,anotherforaquickglance,anotherforaleisurelygaze,anotherforameditativeinspection.Theactofphotographyhasitsmovementwithinthistimeandspace.Onthehunt,photographerschangefromoneformofspaceandtimeto

another,aprocesswhichadjuststhecombinationsoftime-and-spacecategories.Theirstalkingisagameofmakingcombinationswiththevariouscategoriesoftheircamera,anditisthestructureofthisgame–notdirectlythestructureoftheculturalconditionitself–thatwecanreadofffromthephotograph.Photographersselectcombinationsofcategories–forexample,they

mayplacethecamerainsuchawaythattheycanshoottheirpreywithaside-flashfrombelow.Itlookshereasifphotographerscouldchoosefreely,asiftheircameraswerefollowingintention.Butthechoiceislimitedtothecategoriesofthecamera,andthefreedomofthephotographerremainsaprogrammedfreedom.Whereastheapparatusfunctionsasafunctionofthephotographer’sintention,thisintentionitselffunctionsasafunctionofthecamera’sprogram.Itgoeswithout

sayingthatphotographerscandiscovernewcategories.Butthentheyarestrayingbeyondtheactofphotographyintothemetaprogram–ofthephotographicindustryoroftheirownmaking–fromwhichcamerasareprogrammed.Toputitanotherway:Intheactofphotographythecameradoesthewillofthephotographerbutthephotographerhastowillwhatthecameracando.Thesamesymmetrybetweenthefunctionofthephotographerandthat

ofthecameracanbeperceivedinthechoiceofthe‘object’tobephotographed.Photographerscanphotographeverything:aface,alouse,thetraceofanatomicparticleinaWilsoncloudchamber,aspiralnebula,theirownactofphotographyreflectedinthemirror.Inreality,however,theycanonlyphotographwhatcanbephotographed,i.e.everythinglocatedwithintheprogram.Andtheonlythingsthatcanbephotographedarestatesofthings.Whateverobjectsphotographerswishtophotograph,theyhavetotranslatethemintostatesofthings.Consequentlyitistruethatthechoiceofthe‘object’tobephotographedisfree,butitalsohastobeafunctionoftheprogramofthecamera.Inchoosingtheircategories,photographersmaythinktheyare

bringingtheirownaesthetic,epistemologicalorpoliticalcriteriatobear.Theymaysetouttotakeartistic,scientificorpoliticalimagesforwhichthecameraisonlyameanstoanend.Butwhatappeartobetheircriteriaforgoingbeyondthecameraneverthelessremainsubordinatetothecamera’sprogram.Inordertobeabletochoosecamera-categories,astheyareprogrammedonthecamera’sexterior,photographershaveto‘set’thecamera,andthatisatechnicalact,morepreciselyaconceptualact(‘concept’,aswillbeshownlater,isaclearanddistinctelementoflinearthought).Inordertobeabletosetthecameraforartistic,scientificandpoliticalimages,photographershavetohavesomeconceptsofart,scienceandpolitics:Howelsearetheysupposedtobeabletotranslatethemintoanimage?Thereisnosuchthingasnaïve,non-conceptualphotography.Aphotographisanimageofconcepts.Inthissense,allphotographers’criteriaarecontainedwithinthecamera’sprogram.Thepossibilitiescontainedwithinthecamera’sprogramarepractically

inexhaustible.Onecannotactuallyphotographeverythingthatcanbe

photographed.Theimaginationofthecameraisgreaterthanthatofeverysinglephotographerandthatofallphotographersputtogether:Thisispreciselythechallengetothephotographer.Likewise,therearepartsofthecamera’sprogramthatarealreadywellexplored.Itistruethatonecanstilltakenewimages,buttheywouldberedundant,non-informativeimages,similartothoseonehasseenbefore.Asstatedelsewhere,redundantphotographsarenotofinterestinthisstudy;photographersinthesenseintendedhereareinpursuitofpossibilitiesthatarestillunexploredinthecamera’sprogram,inpursuitofinformative,improbableimagesthathavenotbeenseenbefore.Basically,therefore,photographerswishtoproducestatesofthings

thathaveneverexistedbefore;theypursuethesestates,notoutthereintheworld,sinceforthemtheworldisonlyapretextforthestatesofthingsthataretobeproduced,butamongstthepossibilitiescontainedwithinthecamera’sprogram.Tothisextent,thetraditionaldistinctionbetweenrealismandidealismisoverturnedinthecaseofphotography:Itisnottheworldouttherethatisreal,noristheconceptwithinthecamera’sprogram–onlythephotographisreal.Theprogramoftheworldandthecameraareonlypreconditionsfortheimage,possibilitiestoberealized.Wearedealingherewithareversalofthevectorofsignificance:Itisnotthesignificancethatisrealbutthesignifier,theinformation,thesymbol,andthisreversalofthevectorofsignificanceischaracteristicofeverythingtodowithapparatusandcharacteristicofthepost-industrialworldingeneral.Theactofphotographyisdividedintoasequenceofleapsinwhich

photographersovercometheinvisiblehurdlesofindividualtime-and-spacecategories.Iftheyareconfrontedbyoneofthesehurdles(e.g.ontheborderlinebetweenclose-upandlongshot),theyhesitateandarefacedwiththedecisionabouthowtosetthecamera.(Inthecaseoffullyautomaticcamerasthisleap,thisquantumnatureofphotography,hasbecometotallyinvisible–theleapstakeplacewithinthemicro-electronic‘nervoussystem’ofthecamera.)Thistypeofjump-startpursuitiscalled‘doubt’.Photographershavedoubts,butthesearenotofascientific,religiousorexistentialsort;rather,theyaredoubtsinthe

senseofanewsortofdoubtinwhichstoppingshortandtakingadecisionarereducedtograins–aquantum,atomizeddoubt.Eachtimephotographersareconfrontedbyahurdle,theydiscoverthattheviewpointtheyhaveadoptedisconcentratedonthe‘object’andthatthecameraoffersanynumberofdifferentviewpoints.Theydiscoverthemultiplicityandtheequalityofviewpointsinrelationtotheir‘object’.Theydiscoverthatitisnotamatterofadoptingaperfectviewpointbutofrealizingasmanyviewpointsaspossible.Theirchoiceisthereforenotofaqualitative,butofaquantitivekind.‘Vivreleplus,nonpaslemieux.’Theactofphotographyisthatof‘phenomenologicaldoubt’,tothe

extentthatitattemptstoapproachphenomenafromanynumberofviewpoints.Butthe‘mathesis’ofthisdoubt(itsdeepstructure)isprescribedbythecamera’sprogram.Twoaspectsaredecisiveforthisdoubt.First:Photographers’practiceishostiletoideology.Ideologyistheinsistenceonasingleviewpointthoughttobeperfect.Photographersactinapost-ideologicalwayevenwhentheythinktheyareservinganideology.Second:Photographers’practiceisfixedtoaprogram.Photographerscanonlyactwithintheprogramofthecamera,evenwhentheythinktheyareactinginoppositiontothisprogram.Thisistrueofallpost-industrialacts:Theyare‘phenomenological’inthesenseofbeinghostiletoideology,andtheyareprogrammedacts.Thusitisamistaketotalkofadrifttowardsideologyonthepartofmassculture(e.g.onthepartofmassphotography).Programmingispost-ideologicalmanipulation.Ultimately,thereisafinaldecisiontakenintheactofphotography:

pressingtheshutterrelease–justliketheAmericanPresidentultimatelypressingtheredbutton.Inreality,however,thesefinaldecisionsareonlythelastofaseriesofpart-decisionsresemblinggrainsofsand:inthecaseoftheAmericanPresident,thefinalstrawthatbreaksthecamel’sback:aquantum-decision.Asconsequently,nodecisionisreally‘decisive’,butpartofaseriesofclearanddistinctquantum-decisions,likewiseonlyaseriesofphotographscantestifytothephotographer’sintention.Fornosinglephotographisactuallydecisive;eventhe‘finaldecision’finds

itselfreducedtoagraininthephotograph.Photographersattempttoescapethisgranulationbyselectingsomeof

theirimagesinthesamewayasafilmdirectorcutsstripsoffilm.Buteventhentheirchoiceisquantum,sincetheycannothelphighlightingelementsofaseriesofclearanddistinctsurfaces.Eveninthisseeminglypost-camerasituationofchoosingthephotograph,onecanseethequantum,atomizedstructureofeverythingtodowithphotography(andeverythingtowithapparatuspureandsimple).Tosummarize:Theactofphotographyislikegoingonahuntinwhich

photographerandcameramergeintooneindivisiblefunction.Thisisahuntfornewstatesofthings,situationsneverseenbefore,fortheimprobable,forinformation.Thestructureoftheactofphotographyisaquantumone:adoubtmadeupofpointsofhesitationandpointsofdecision-making.Wearedealingherewithatypicallypost-industrialact:Itispost-ideologicalandprogrammed,anactforwhichrealityisinformation,notthesignificanceofthisinformation.Andthesameistruenotonlyofthephotographerbutofallfunctionaries,fromabankcashiertotheAmericanPresident.Theactofphotographyresultsinphotographssuchaswenowadaysare

beingfloodedwithonallsides.Henceaconsiderationofthisactcanserveasanintroductiontothesesurfaceswhosepresenceisubiquitous.

ThePhotograph

Photographsareubiquitous:inalbums,magazines,books,shopwindows,onbill-boards,carrierbags,cans.Whatdoesthissignify?Thusfar,reflectionhassuggestedthethesis(stilltobeexamined)thattheseimagessignifyconceptsinaprogramandthattheyprogramsocietytoactasthoughunderasecondarymagicspell.However,forpeoplewholookatphotographsnaïvelytheysignifysomethingdifferent,i.e.statesofthingsthathavebeenreflectedontosurfaces.Forthesepeople,photographsrepresenttheworlditself.Admittedly,suchnaïveobserverswillconcedethatthestatesofthingsarereflectedontosurfacesfromspecificpointsofviewbuttheywon’tworrytoomuchaboutthat.Anyphilosophyofphotographywillthereforeseemtothemacompletewasteofmentalenergy.Suchobserverstacitlyacceptthattheyarelookingthroughthe

photographsattheworldoutthereandthatthereforethephotographicuniverseandtheworldoutthereareoneandthesame(whichstillamountstoarudimentaryphilosophyofphotography).Butisthisthecase?Thenaïveobserverseesthatinthephotographicuniverseoneisfacedwithbothblack-and-whiteandcolouredstatesofthings.Butarethereanysuchblack-and-whiteandcolouredstatesofthingsintheworldoutthere?Assoonasnaïveobserversaskthisquestion,theyareembarkingontheveryphilosophyofphotographythattheyweretryingtoavoid.Therecannotbeblack-and-whitestatesofthingsintheworldbecause

black-and-whitecasesareborderline,‘idealcases’:blackisthetotalabsenceofalloscillationscontainedinlight,whitethetotalpresenceofalltheelementsofoscillation.‘Black’and‘white’areconcepts,e.g.theoreticalconceptsofoptics.Asblack-and-whitestatesofthingsaretheoretical,theycanneveractuallyexistintheworld.Butblack-and-whitephotographsdoactuallyexistbecausetheyareimagesofconcepts

belongingtothetheoryofoptics,i.e.theyariseoutofthistheory.Blackandwhitedonotexist,buttheyoughttoexistsince,ifwecould

seetheworldinblackandwhite,itwouldbeaccessibletologicalanalysis.Insuchaworldeverythingwouldbeeitherblackorwhiteoramixtureofboth.Thedisadvantageofsuchablack-and-whitewayoflookingattheworld,ofcourse,wouldbethatthismixturewouldturnouttobenotcolouredbutgrey.Greyisthecolouroftheory:whichshowsthatonecannotreconstructtheworldanymorefromatheoreticalanalysis.Black-and-whitephotographsillustratethisfact:Theyaregrey,theyaretheoreticalimages.Longbeforetheinventionofthephotograph,oneattemptedtoimagine

theworldinblackandwhite.Herearetwoexamplesofthispre-photographicmanicheism:Abstractionsweremadefromtheworldofjudgementsdistinguishingthosethatwere‘true’andthosethatwere‘false’,andfromtheseabstractionsAristotelianlogicwasconstructedwithitsidentity,differenceandexcludedmiddle.Modernsciencebasedonthislogicfunctionsdespitethefactthatnojudgementisevereithercompletelytrueorcompletelyfalseandeventhougheverytruejudgementisreducedtonothingwhensubjectedtologicalanalysis.Thesecondexample:Abstractionsweremadefromtheworldofactionsdistinguishingthe‘good’fromthe‘bad’andreligiousandpoliticalideologieswereconstructedfromtheseabstractions.Thesocialsystemsbasedonthemactuallyfunctiondespitethefactthatnoactionisevereithercompletelygoodorcompletelybadanddespitethefactthateveryactionisreducedtoapuppet-likemotionwhensubjectedtoideologicalanalysis.Black-and-whitephotographsbelongtothesamesortofmanicheism,

onlytheyinvolvetheuseofcameras.Andtheytooactuallyfunction:Theytranslateatheoryofopticsintoanimageandtherebyputamagicspellonthistheoryandre-encodetheoreticalconceptslike‘black’and‘white’intostatesofthings.Black-and-whitephotographsembodythemagicoftheoreticalthoughtsincetheytransformthelineardiscourseoftheoryintosurfaces.Hereinliestheirpeculiarbeauty,whichisthebeautyoftheconceptualuniverse.Manyphotographersthereforealsoprefer

black-and-whitephotographstocolourphotographsbecausetheymoreclearlyrevealtheactualsignificanceofthephotograph,i.e.theworldofconcepts.Thefirstphotographswereblackandwhiteandstillclearly

acknowledgedtheirorigininthetheoryofoptics.However,withtheadvanceofanothertheory,thatofchemistry,colourphotographswerealsofinallypossible.Itlookedasifphotographsfirstabstractedthecoloursfromtheworldinordertosmugglethembackin.Inreality,however,thecoloursofphotographsareatleastastheoreticalasblackandwhite.Thegreenofaphotographedfield,forexample,isanimageoftheconcept‘green’,justasitoccursinchemicaltheory,andthecamera(orratherthefilminsertedintoit)isprogrammedtotranslatethisconceptintotheimage.Itistruethatthereisaveryindirect,distantconnectionbetweenthegreenofthephotographandthegreenofthefield,sincethechemicalconcept‘green’isbasedonideasthathavebeendrawnfromtheworld;butbetweenthegreenofthephotographandthegreenofthefieldawholeseriesofcomplexencodingshavecreptin,aseriesthatismorecomplexthanthatwhichconnectsthegreyofthefieldphotographedinblackandwhitewiththegreenofthefield.Inthissensethefieldphotographedingreenismoreabstractthantheoneingrey.Colourphotographsareonahigherlevelofabstractionthanblack-and-whiteones.Black-and-whitephotographsaremoreconcreteandinthissensemoretrue:Theyrevealtheirtheoreticaloriginmoreclearly,andviceversa:The‘moregenuine’thecoloursofthephotographbecome,themoreuntruthfultheyare,themoretheyconcealtheirtheoreticalorigin.Whatistrueofthecoloursofphotographsisalsotrueofallofthe

otherelementsofphotographs.Theyallrepresenttranscodedconceptsthatclaimtohavebeenreflectedautomaticallyfromtheworldontothesurface.Itispreciselythisdeceptionthathastobedecodedsoastoidentifythetruesignificanceofthephotograph,i.e.programmedconcepts,andtorevealthatinthecaseofthephotographoneisdealingwithasymboliccomplexmadeupofabstractconcepts,dealingwithdiscoursesre-encodedintosymbolicstatesofthings.Herewemustagreeaboutwhatwemeanby‘decode’.WhatamIdoing

whenIdecodetextsencodedinLatincharacters?AmIdecodingthemeaningofthecharacters,i.e.thesoundconventionsofaspokenlanguage?AmIdecodingthemeaningofthewordsmadeupofthesecharacters?Themeaningofthesentencesmadeupofthesewords?OrdoIhavetolookfurther–forthewriters’intentions,theculturalcontextbehindthem?WhatamIdoingwhenIdecodephotographs?AmIdecodingthemeaningof‘green’,i.e.aconceptfromthediscourseofchemicaltheory?OrdoIhavetolookfurther,intothephotographers’intentionsandtheirculturalcontext?WhenwillIdecidethatIhavehadenoughofdecoding?Puttingthequestioninthisway,thereisnosatisfactorysolutionto

decoding.Onewouldbedrawnintoanendlessprocesssinceeverylevelofdecodingwouldrevealanotheronewaitingtobedecoded.Everysymbolisjustthetipofanicebergintheoceanofculturalconsensus,andevenifonegotrighttothebottomofdecodingasinglemessage,thewholeofculturepastandpresentwouldberevealed.Carriedoutinthis‘radical’fashion,criticismofasinglemessagewouldturnouttobecriticismofcultureingeneral.Inthecaseofthephotograph,thisdescentintoinfiniteregressioncan

beavoided,however,sinceonecanbesatisfiedwithrecordingtheencodingintentionsatworkwithinthe‘photographer/camera’complex.Onceonehasreadoffthisencodingfromthephotograph,itcanthenbeconsideredtohavebeendecoded.Provided,ofcourse,thatadistinctionismadebetweenthephotographer’sintentionandthecamera’sprogram.Inactualfact,thesetwofactorsareinterconnectedandcannotbeseparated;buttheoretically,inordertocarryoutthedecoding,theycanbeconsideredasseparateineverysinglephotograph.Reducedtobasicelements,photographers’intentionsareasfollows:

first,toencodetheirconceptsoftheworldintoimages;second,todothisbyusingacamera;third,toshowtheimagesproducedinthiswaytootherssothattheycanserveasmodelsfortheirexperience,knowledge,judgementandactions;fourth,tomakethesemodelsaspermanentaspossible.Inshort:Photographers’intentionsaretoinformothersandthroughtheirphotographstoimmortalizethemselvesinthememoryof

others.Forphotographers,theirconcepts(andtheideassignifiedbytheseconcepts)arethemainraisonsd’êtrefortakingphotographs,andthecamera’sprogramisintheserviceoftheseraisonsd’être.Likewisereducedtoitsbasicelements,thecamera’sprogramisas

follows:first,toplaceitsinherentcapabilitiesintotheimage;second,tomakeuseofaphotographerforthispurpose,exceptinborderlinecasesoftotalautomation(forexample,inthecaseofsatellitephotographs);third,todistributetheimagesproducedinthiswaysothatsocietyisinafeedbackrelationshiptothecamerawhichmakesitpossibleforthecameratoimproveprogressively;fourth,toproducebetterandbetterimages.Inshort:Thecamera’sprogramprovidesfortherealizationofitscapabilitiesand,intheprocess,fortheuseofsocietyasafeedbackmechanismforitsprogressiveimprovement.Asmentionedpreviously,therearefurtherprogramsbehindthisone(thatofthephotographicindustry,oftheindustrialcomplex,ofthesocio-economicapparatuses),throughtheentirehierarchyofwhichthereflowstheenormousintentionofprogrammingsocietytoactintheinterestsoftheprogressiveimprovementoftheseapparatuses.Thisintentioncanbeseenineverysinglephotographandcanbedecodedfromit.Acomparisonofthephotographer’sintentionandtheintentionofthe

camerashowsthattherearepointswherebothconvergeandotherswheretheydiverge.Atthepointsofconvergencetheyworktogether;atthepointsofdivergencetheyconflictwithoneanother.Everysinglephotographistheresult,atoneandthesametime,ofco-operationandofconflictbetweencameraandphotographer.Consequently,aphotographcanbeconsideredtohavebeendecodedwhenonehassucceededinestablishinghowco-operationandconflictactononeanotherwithinit.Thequestionputtophotographsbycriticsofphotographycan

thereforebeformulatedas:‘Howfarhavephotographerssucceededinsubordinatingthecamera’sprogramtotheirownintentions,andbywhatmeans?’And,viceversa:‘Howfarhasthecamerasucceededinredirectingphotographers’intentionsbacktotheinterestsofthecamera’sprogram,andbywhatmeans?’Onthebasisofthesecriteria,the‘best’photographsarethoseinwhichphotographerswinoutagainstthe

camera’sprograminthesenseoftheirhumanintentions,i.e.theysubordinatethecameratohumanintention.Itgoeswithoutsayingthatthereare‘good’photographsinwhichthehumanspiritwinsoutagainsttheprogram.Butinthephotographicuniverseasawhole,onecanseehowprogramsaresucceedingmoreandmoreinredirectinghumanintentionsintheinterestsofcamerafunctions.Thetaskofphotographycriticismshouldthereforebetoidentifythewayinwhichhumanbeingsareattemptingtogetaholdoverthecameraand,ontheotherhand,thewayinwhichcamerasaimtoabsorbtheintentionsofhumanbeingswithinthemselves.Ofcourse,wehavebeenunabletoachievecriticismofthistypeuptonowforreasonsstilltobediscussed.(Itistruethattheheadingofthisessayis‘ThePhotograph’,butweare

dealingwiththosespecificaspectsofphotographsinwhichtheydifferfromothertechnicalimages.Bywayofexplanation,let’ssaythattheintentionofthisessaywastoindicatethedirectionforarationaldecodingofphotographs.Thefollowingessaywillattempttomakeupforthisnarrowfocus.)Tosummarize:Likealltechnicalimages,photographsareconcepts

encodedasstatesofthings,includingphotographers’conceptssuchasthosethathavebeenprogrammedintothecamera.Thisgivesphotographycriticsthetaskofdecodingthesetwointerweavingcodesinanyphotograph.Photographersencodetheirconceptsasphotographicimagessoastogiveothersinformation,soastoproducemodelsforthemandtherebytobecomeimmortalinthememoryofothers.Thecameraencodestheconceptsprogrammedintoitasimagesinordertoprogramsocietytoactasafeedbackmechanismintheinterestsofprogressivecameraimprovement.Ifphotographiccriticismsucceedsinunravellingthesetwointentionsofphotographs,thenthephotographicmessageswillbedecoded.Ifphotographycriticsdonotsucceedinthistask,photographsremainundecodedandappeartoberepresentationsofstatesofthingsintheworldoutthere,justasiftheyreflected‘themselves’ontoasurface.Lookedatuncriticallylikethis,theyaccomplishtheirtaskperfectly:programmingsocietytoactasthoughunderamagicspellforthebenefitofcameras.

TheDistributionofPhotographs

Thecharacteristicthatdistinguishesphotographsfromothertechnicalimagesisclearlyevidentassoonasonelooksatthedistributionofphotographs.Thephotographisanimmobileandsilentsurfacepatientlywaitingtobedistributedbymeansofreproduction.Forthisdistributionthereisnoneedofanycomplicatedtechnicalapparatus:photographsarelooseleaveswhichcanbepassedfromhandtohand.Thereisnoneedforthemtobestoredintechnicallyperfectdata-storagesystems:Theycanbeputawayindrawers.Inordertoidentifymoreclearlythesepeculiaritiesofthedistributionofphotographs,afewinitialobservationsshouldbemadeaboutthedistributionofinformation.Natureasawholeisasysteminwhichinformationdisintegrates

progressivelyaccordingtothesecondlawofthermodynamics.Humanbeingsstruggleagainstthisnaturalentropynotonlybyreceivinginformationbutalsostoringandpassingiton–(inthisrespecttheydifferfromotherformsoflife)–andalsobydeliberatelycreatinginformation.Thisspecificallyhumanandatthesametimeunnaturalabilityiscalled‘mind’,andcultureisitsresult,i.e.improbablyformed,informedobjects.Theprocessofmanipulatinginformation–called‘communication’–

isdividedintotwophases:Inthefirst,informationiscreated;inthesecond,itisdistributedtomemoriesinordertobestoredthere.Thefirstphaseiscalled‘dialogue’,thesecond‘discourse’.Indialogue,availableinformationissynthesizedintoanewphaseinwhichtheinformationtobesynthesizedcanbelocatedinasinglememory(asin‘innerdialogue’);indiscourse,theinformationproducedindialogueisdistributed.Fourmethodsofdiscoursecanbedistinguishedhere:First,the

receiversformasemi-circlearoundthesender,asinthetheatre;second,thesendermakesuseofaseriesofinformationconveyors(relaystations),asinthearmy;third,thesenderdistributestheinformationto

dialogueswhichtheypassoninanenrichedform,asinscientificdiscourses;fourth,thesendertransmitstheinformationintospace,asontheradio.Eachoneofthesemethodsofdiscoursecorrespondstoaparticularculturalsituation–thefirstcorrespondstoresponsibility,thesecondtoauthority,thethirdtoprogress,thefourthtomassification.Thedistributionofphotographsmakesuseofthefourthmethod.Photographscan,ofcourse,betreateddialogically.Onecandraw

moustachesorobscenesymbolsonphotographicpostersandtherebysynthesizeanewpieceofinformation.Butthisdoesnotformpartofthecameras’programs.Camerasareprogrammed,aswillbeshown,purelyforthetransmissionofinformation,likeallimage-creatingapparatuses(withexceptionssuchasvideoorartificialcomputerimages,wheredialoguesarepredictedwithintheirprograms).Thephotographisforthetimebeingnothingbutaflyer,evenifitisin

theprocessofbeingtakenoverbyelectromagnetictechnology.Aslongasitremainsattachedtopaperintheold-fashionedway,however,itcanbedistributedintheold-fashionedwayaswell,i.e.independentlyoffilmprojectorsortelevisionscreens.Thestateofbeingattachedlikethis,asintheold-fashionedway,toamaterialsurfaceremindsoneofthestateofbeingboundtoascreeninthecaseofancientimages,suchascavepaintingsorthefrescoesinEtruscantombs.Butthis‘objectivity’ofthephotographisdeceptive.Ifonewantstodistributeancientimages,onemustconveythemfromownertoowner;onehastosellorwincontroloverthecavesortombs.Fortheyareunique,valuableasobjects;theyare‘originals’.Photographs,ontheotherhand,canbedistributedbymeansofreproduction.Thecameracreatesprototypes(negatives)fromwhichasmanystereotypes(copies)asonelikescanbeproducedanddistributed–inwhichcasetheconceptoftheoriginal,inthecontextofthephotograph,hasscarcelyanymeaninganymore.Asanobject,asathing,thephotographispracticallywithoutvalue;aflyerandnomore.Aslongasthephotographisnotyetelectromagnetic,itremainsthe

firstofallpost-industrialobjects.Eventhoughthelastvestigesofmaterialityareattachedtophotographs,theirvaluedoesnotlieinthethingbutintheinformationontheirsurface.Thisiswhatcharacterizes

thepost-industrial:Theinformation,andnotthething,isvaluable.Issuesoftheownershipanddistributionofobjects(capitalismandsocialism)arenolongervalid,evadingastheydothequestionoftheprogramminganddistributionofinformation(theinformationsociety).Itisnolongeramatterofowninganotherpairofshoesoranotherpieceoffurniture,butofhavinganotherholidayoranotherschoolforone’schildrenatone’sdisposal.Revaluationofallvalues.Untilphotographsbecomeelectromagnetic,theyareaconnectinglinkbetweenindustrialobjectsandpureinformation.Itgoeswithoutsayingthatindustrialobjectsarevaluableprecisely

becausetheyconveyinformation.Ashoeandapieceoffurniturearevaluablebecausetheyareinformation-carriers,improbableformsmadeofleatherorwoodandmetal.Butinformationisimpressedintotheseobjectsandcannotbedetachedfromthem.Onecanonlywearoutandconsumethisinformation.Thisiswhat‘makes’suchobjects,asobjects,valuable,i.e.‘able’tobefilledwithvalue.Inthecaseofthephotographontheotherhand,theinformationsitslooselyonthesurfaceandcaneasilybeconveyedtoanothersurface.Tothisextent,thephotographdemonstratesthedefeatofthematerialthingandoftheconceptof‘ownership’.Itisnotthepersonwhoownsaphotographwhohaspowerbutthepersonwhocreatedtheinformationitconveys.Itisnottheownerbuttheprogrammeroftheinformationwhoisthepowerfulone:neo-imperialism.Theposteriswithoutvalue;nobodyownsit,itflapstorninthewindyetthepoweroftheadvertisingagencyremainsundiminishednevertheless–theagencycanreproduceit.Thisobligesustorevalueourtraditionaleconomic,political,moral,epistemologicalandaestheticvalues.Electromagneticphotographs,filmsandtelevisionimagesdonot

illustratethedevaluationofthematerialthingnearlyaswellasphotographsattachedtopaperintheold-fashionedway.If,inthecaseofsuchadvancedimages,thematerialbasisofinformationhascompletelydisappearedandelectromagneticphotographscanbecreatedartificiallyatwillandprocessedbythereceiveraspureinformation(i.e.the‘pureinformationsociety’),inthecaseofphotographsoftheold-fashioned

type,onestillholdssomethingmaterial,flyer-like,inone’shands;thissomethingiswithoutvalue,treatedwithcontempt–andisbecominglessandlessvaluableandtreatedwithmoreandmorecontempt.Inthecaseofclassicalphotographs,therearestillvaluablebromideprints–eventodaythelastvestigesofvalueattachtothe‘originalphotograph’makingitmorevaluablethanareproductioninanewspaper.Butthephotographboundtopaperneverthelessindicatesthefirststepontheroadtothedevaluationofthematerialthingandvaluationofinformation.Eventhoughthephotographremainsaflyerforthetimebeingand

thereforecanbedistributedintheold-fashionedway,giganticcomplexapparatusesofphotographdistributionhavecomeintobeing.Attachedtotheoutputofthecamera,theyabsorbtheimagesflowingoutofthecameraandreproducethemendlessly,delugingsocietywiththemviathousandsofchannels.Likeallapparatuses,theapparatusesofphotographdistributionalsohaveaprogrambywhichtheyprogramsocietytoactaspartofafeedbackmechanism.Typicalofthisprogramisthedivisionofphotographsintovariouschannels,their‘channelling’.Intheory,informationcanbeclassifiedasfollows:intoindicative

informationofthetype‘AisA’,intoimperativeinformationofthetype‘AmustbeA’,andintooptativeinformationofthetype‘AmaybeA’.Theclassicalidealoftheindicativeistruth,thatoftheimperativeisgoodness,andthatoftheoptativeisbeauty.Thistheoreticalclassificationcannot,however,beappliedinpracticesinceeveryscientificindicativehasatthesametimepoliticalandaestheticaspects,everypoliticalimperativehasscientificandaestheticaspects,everyoptative(workofart)hasscientificandpoliticalaspects.Nevertheless,thedistributionapparatusespractisepreciselythistheoreticalclassification.Thustherearechannelsforsupposedlyindicativephotographs(e.g.

scientificpublicationsandreportagemagazines),channelsforsupposedlyimperativephotographs(e.g.politicalandcommercialadvertisingposters)andchannelsforsupposedlyartisticphotographs(e.g.galleriesandartjournals).Ofcourse,thedistributionapparatusesalsohaveborderlineareas,inwhichaparticularphotographcanslipoverfromone

channeltoanother.Thephotographofthemoonlanding,forexample,canslipfromanastronomyjournaltoausconsulate,fromthereontoanadvertisingposterforcigarettesandfromtherefinallyintoanartexhibition.Theessentialthingisthatthephotograph,witheachswitch-overtoanotherchannel,takesonanewsignificance:Thescientificsignificancecrossesoverintothepolitical,thepoliticalintothecommercial,thecommercialintotheartistic.Inthisrespect,thedivisionofphotographsintochannelsisinnowaysimplyamechanicalprocessbutratheranencodingone:Thedistributionapparatusesimpregnatethephotographwiththedecisivesignificanceforitsreception.Photographersareinvolvedinthisencoding.Evenatthetimeoftaking

photographstheyhavetheireyeonaspecificchannelofthedistributionapparatusesandencodetheirimagesasafunctionofthischannel.Theytakephotographsforspecificscientificpublications,specifickindsofillustratedmagazine,specificexhibitionopportunities.Andtheydothisfortworeasons:first,becausethechannelallowsthemtoreachmanyreceivers;second,becausethechannelfeedsthem.Thesymbiosis,characteristicoftakingphotographs,betweencamera

andphotographerismirroredinthechannel.Forexample:Photographerstakephotographsforaspecificnewspaperbecausethenewspaperallowsthemtoreachhundredsorthousandsofreceivers,andbecausetheyarebeingpaidbythenewspaper;inthis,theyactinthebeliefthattheyareusingthenewspaperastheirmedium.Meanwhile,thenewspaperisoftheopinionthatitisusingthephotographsasanillustrationofitsarticlesinordertobeabletoprogramitsreaders,thataccordinglyphotographersarefunctionariesofthenewspaperapparatus.Asphotographersknowthatonlythosephotographsthatfitintothenewspaper’sprogramwillbepublished,theyattempttofoolthenewspaper’scensorshipbysurreptitiouslysmugglingaesthetic,politicalorepistemologicalelementsintotheirimage.Thenewspaperontheotherhandmaywelldiscovertheseattemptstofoolitandpublishthephotographsanywaybecauseitthinksitcanexploitthesmuggledelementstoenrichitsprogram.Andwhatistruefornewspapersisalsotrueforallotherchannels.Everydistributedphotographallowsphotographycriticismtoreconstructthe

strugglebetweenphotographerandchannel.Itispreciselythisthatmakesphotographsintodramaticimages.Itispositivelydisconcertinghowoftenstandardphotographycriticism

doesnotreadofffromphotographsthisdramaticconfusionofthephotographer’sintentionwiththeprogramofthechannel.Photographycriticismhabituallytakesitforgrantedthatscientificchannelsdistributescientificphotographs,politicalchannelspoliticalphotographs,artisticchannelsartisticphotographs.Inthisrespect,thecriticsfunctionasafunctionofthechannels:Theyallowthemtovanishfromthereceiver’sfieldofvision.Theyignorethefactthatthechannelsdeterminethesignificanceofthephotographs,andthustheygivesupporttothechannels’intentiontobeinvisible.Seeninthislight,thecriticscollaboratewiththechannelsagainstthephotographerswantingtofoolthechannels.Wearedealingherewithacollaborationinthebadsense,atrahisondesclercs,acontributiontothevictoryoftheapparatusoverthehumanbeing.Thisischaracteristicofthesituationofintellectualsinpost-industrialsocietyingeneral.Thecritics,forexample,askquestionssuchas:‘Isphotographyart?’–asifthesequestionswerenotalreadybeingansweredautomaticallybythechannelsconcealingthisautomatic,programmedchannellingandmakingitallthemoreeffective.Tosummarize:Photographsaresilentflyersthataredistributedby

meansofreproduction,infactbymeansofthemassifyingchannelsofgigantic,programmeddistributionapparatuses.Asobjects,theirvalueisnegligible;theirvalueliesintheinformationthattheycarrylooseandopenforreproductionontheirsurface.Theyaretheharbingersofpost-industrialsocietyingeneral:Interesthasshiftedintheircasefromtheobjecttotheinformation,andownershipisacategorythathasbecomeuntenableforthem.Thedistributionchannels,the‘media’,encodetheirlatestsignificance.Thisencodingrepresentsastrugglebetweenthedistributionapparatusandthephotographer.Byconcealingthisstruggle,photographiccriticismmakesthe‘media’totallyinvisibleforthereceiverofthephotograph.Inthelightofstandardphotographiccriticism,photographsgetanuncriticalreceptionandarethereforeabletoprogramthereceivertoactasiftheyareunderamagicspell;this

actionflowsbackintheformoffeedbackintotheprogramsoftheapparatus.Thisbecomesevidentassoonaswestarttoexaminethereceptionofphotographsclosely.

TheReceptionofPhotographs

Almosteveryonetodayhasacameraandtakessnaps.Justasalmosteveryonehaslearnedtowriteandproducetexts.Anyonewhoisabletowritecanalsoread.Butanyonewhocantakesnapsdoesnotnecessarilyhavetobeabletodecodephotographs.Forustoseewhytheamateurphotographercanbeaphotographicilliterate,thedemocratizationofthetakingofphotographshastobeconsidered–andatthesametime,anumberofaspectsofdemocracyingeneralhavetobeaddressed.Camerasarepurchasedbypeoplewhowereprogrammedintothis

purchasebytheapparatusofadvertising.Thecamerapurchasedwillbethe‘latestmodel’:cheaper,moreautomaticandmoreefficientthanearliermodels.Ashasalreadybeenestablished,thisprogressiveimprovementofcameramodelsisbasedonthefeedbackmechanismbywhichthosetakingsnapsfeedthephotographicindustry:Thephotographicindustrylearnsautomaticallyfromtheactionsofthosetakingsnaps(andfromtheprofessionalpressthatconstantlysuppliesitwithtestresults).Thisistheessenceofpost-industrialprogress.Apparatusesimprovebymeansofsocialfeedback.Despitethefactthatthecameraisbasedoncomplexscientificand

technicalprinciples,itisaverysimplemattertomakeitfunction.Thecameraisastructurallycomplex,butfunctionallysimple,plaything.Inthisrespect,itistheoppositeofchesswhichisastructurallysimple,andfunctionallycomplex,game:Itsrulesareeasy,butitisdifficulttoplaychesswell.Anyonewhoholdsacameraintheirhandscancreateexcellentphotographswithouthavinganyideawhatcomplexprocessestheyaresettingoffwhentheypushthebutton.Peopletakingsnapsaredistinguishablefromphotographersbythe

pleasuretheytakeinthestructuralcomplexityoftheirplaything.Unlikephotographersandchess-playerstheydonotlookfor‘newmoves’,forinformation,fortheimprobable,butwishtomaketheirfunctioning

simplerandsimplerbymeansofmoreandmoreperfectautomation.Thoughimpenetrabletothem,theautomaticityofthecameraintoxicatesthem.Amateurphotographers’clubsareplaceswhereonegetshighonthestructuralcomplexitiesofcameras,whereonegoesonaphotograph-trip–post-industrialopiumdens.Camerasdemandthattheirowners(theoneswhoarehookedonthem)

keepontakingsnaps,thattheyproducemoreandmoreredundantimages.Thisphoto-maniainvolvingtheeternalrecurrenceofthesame(orofsomethingverysimilar)leadseventuallytothepointwherepeopletakingsnapsfeeltheyhavegoneblind:Drugdependencytakesover.Peopletakingsnapscannowonlyseetheworldthroughthecameraandinphotographiccategories.Theyarenot‘inchargeof’takingphotographs,theyareconsumedbythegreedoftheircamera,theyhavebecomeanextensiontothebuttonoftheircamera.Theiractionsareautomaticcamerafunctions.Apermanentflowofunconsciouslycreatedimagesistheresult.They

formacameramemory,adatabankofautomaticfunctions.Anyonewholeafsthroughthealbumofapersonwhotakessnapsdoesnotrecognize,asitwere,thecapturedexperiences,knowledgeorvaluesofahumanbeing,buttheautomaticallyrealizedcamerapossibilities.AjourneytoItalydocumentedlikethisstoresthetimesandplacesatwhichthepersontakingsnapswasinducedtopressthebutton,andshowswhichplacesthecamerahasbeentoandwhatitdidthere.Thisgoesforalldocumentaryphotography.Thedocumentaryphotographer,justlikethepersontakingsnaps,isinterestedincontinuallyshootingnewscenesfromthesameoldperspective.Thephotographerinthesenseintendedhereis,ontheotherhand,interested(likethechess-player)inseeingincontinuallynewways,i.e.producingnew,informativestatesofthings.Theevolutionofphotography,fromitsoriginsrightuptothepresent,isaprocessofincreasingawarenessoftheconceptofinformation:fromanappetiteforthecontinuallynewusingthesameoldmethodtoaninterestincontinuallyevolvingnewmethods.Boththosetakingsnapsanddocumentaryphotographers,however,havenotunderstood‘information’.Whattheyproducearecameramemories,notinformation,andthebetter

theydoit,themoretheyprovethevictoryofthecameraoverthehumanbeing.Anyonewhowriteshastomastertherulesofspellingandgrammar.

Anyonewhotakessnapshastoadheretotheinstructionsforuse–becomingsimplerandsimpler–thatareprogrammedtocontroltheoutputendofthecamera.Thisisdemocracyinpost-industrialsociety.Thereforepeopletakingsnapsareunabletodecodephotographs:Theythinkphotographsareanautomaticreflectionoftheworld.Thisleadstotheparadoxicalresultthatthemorepeopletakesnaps,themoredifficultitbecomestodecodephotographs:Everyonethinksthereisnoneedtodecodephotographs,sincetheyknowhowphotographsaremadeandwhattheymean.Thatisnotall.Thephotographsthatwearedelugedbyareseenas

contemptibleflyerswhicharecutoutofthenewspaper,tornuporusedforpackingpaper;inshort:Wecandowhatwelikewiththem.Anexample:IfoneseesascenefromthewarinLebanonontelevisionoratthecinema,oneknowsonehasnoalternativebuttolookatit.Ifoneseesitinanewspaper,ontheotherhand,onecancutitoutandkeepit,sendittofriendswithcommentsorscrewitupinrage.OnethinksoneistherebyabletoreactinanactivewaytothesceneinLebanon.Thelastvestigesofmaterialityadheringtothephotographgiverisetotheimpressionthatweareabletoactinahistoricalwaytowardsit.Infact,theactionsdescribedarenothingbutritualacts.ThephotographofthesceneinLebanonisanimagewhich,asone’s

gazewandersoverthesurface,producesmagical–nothistorical–relationshipsbetweentheelementsoftheimageandthereader.Inthephotograph,ratherthanseeinghistoricaleventswiththeircausesandconsequences,weseemagicalconnections.Itistruethatthephotographillustratesanewspaperarticlewhosestructureislinearandwhichismadeupofconceptswithmeaningfulcausesandconsequences.Butwereadthisarticlethroughthephotograph:Itisnotthearticlethatexplainsthephotograph,butthephotographthatillustratesthearticle.Thisreversalofthetext–photorelationshipistypicallypost-industrialandrendersanyhistoricalactionimpossible.

Throughouthistory,textshaveexplainedimages;nowphotographsillustratearticles.IlluminatedcapitallettersusedtoillustrateBibletexts;nownewspaperarticlesillustratephotographs.TheBiblebrokethemagicspellofcapitalletters,thephotographisrecastingthemagicspellofthearticle.Throughouthistory,textsdominated,todayimagesdominate.Andwheretechnicalimagesdominate,illiteracytakesonanewrole.Theilliteratearenolongerexcluded,astheyusedtobe,fromacultureencodedintexts,butparticipatealmosttotallyinacultureencodedinimages.Ifthecompletesubordinationoftextstoimagescomesaboutinfuture,thenweshallbefacedwithageneralstateofilliteracy,andonlyafewspecialistswilllearntoreadanymore.Therearesignsofthisalready:‘Johnnycan’tspell’intheUSA,andeventheso-calleddevelopingcountriesareintheprocessofgivingupthestruggleagainstilliteracyandprovidingschoolswitheducationintheformofimages.Wedonotreactinahistoricalwaytophotographicdocumentationof

thewarinLebanon,butwithritualmagic.Cutoutthephotograph,senditon,screwitup–alltheseareritualacts,reactionstothemessageoftheimage.Thismessagehasaparticularbackground:Oneelementoftheimageaddressesitselftoanotherelement,givessignificancetoanotherandinreturngetsitsownsignificancefromit.Everyelementcanfollowonfromthatwhichhasfollowedit.Chargedwiththisbackground,thesurfaceoftheimageis‘deified’:Everythinginitiseithergoodorevil–tanksareevil,childrengood,Beirutinflamesishell,doctorsinwhitecoatsareangels.Mysteriouspowersarecirclingoverheadabovethesurfaceoftheimage,someofwhichcarrynamespregnantwithvaluejudgement:‘imperialism’,‘Zionism’,‘terrorism’.Meanwhile,mostofthemarewithoutnames,andtheyaretheonesthatgivethephotographanindefinableatmosphere,lendingitacertainfascinationandprogrammingustoactinaritualfashion.Itgoeswithoutsayingthatwedon’tjustlookatthephotograph,we

alsoreadthearticleillustratedbyit–oratleasttheheadline.Asthefunctionofthetextissubordinatetotheimage,thetextdirectsourunderstandingoftheimagetowardstheprogramofthenewspaper.Ittherebydoesnotexplaintheimage,itconfirmsit.Besides,wearebynow

sickandtiredofexplanationsandprefertosticktothephotographthatreleasesusfromthenecessityforconceptual,explanatorythoughtandabsolvesusfromthebotherofgoingintothecausesandconsequencesofthewarinLebanon:Intheimageweseewithourowneyeswhatthewarlookslike.Thetextsimplyconsistsofinstructionsastohowwearetosee.TherealityofthewarinLebanon,asallrealityingeneral,isinthe

image.Thevectorofsignificancehasbeenreversed;realityhasslippedintobeingasymbol,hasenteredthemagicuniverseofthesymbolismofimages.Thequestionofthesignificanceofsymbolsisbesidethepoint–a‘metaphysical’questionintheworstsenseoftheword–andsymbolsthathavebecomeundecodableinthiswaysuppressourhistoricalconsciousness,ourcriticalawareness:Thisisthefunctionthattheyhavebeenprogrammedfor.Thusthephotographbecomesthemodelforitsreceivers’actions.

Theyreactinaritualfashiontoitsmessageinordertoplacatethepowersoffatecirclingoverheadabovethesurfaceoftheimage.Here’sanotherexample:Thephotographicposterofatoothbrushsummonsupthesecretpowerof‘tooth-decay’,andfromthenonitliesinwaitforus.Webuyatoothbrushinordertocarryouttheritualofbrushingourteethandtoescapethepowerof‘tooth-decay’lyinginwaitforus.Wemakeasacrificetothegod.Itistruethatwecanlookup‘tooth-decay’inadictionary,butthedictionaryhasbecomeapretextforthephotographicposter:Itwillnotexplainthephotographicposter,butconfirmit.Wewillbuythetoothbrushwhateverthedictionarysays,becauseweareprogrammedtocarryoutthispurchase.Thelexi-contexthasbecomeacaptionforthephotograph:Evenwiththesupportofhistoricalinformationweareactingasifweareunderamagicspell.Ourmagical-ritualactsareneverthelessnotthoseofNative

Americans,butthoseoffunctionariesinapost-industrialsociety.BothNativeAmericansandfunctionariesbelieveintherealityofimages,butfunctionariesdothisoutofbadfaith.Afterall,theyhavelearnedtowriteatschoolandconsequentlyshouldknowbetter.Functionarieshaveahistoricalconsciousnessandcriticalawarenessbuttheysuppressthese.

TheyknowthatthewarinLebanonisnotaclashbetweengoodandevilbutthatspecificcauseshavespecificconsequencesthere.TheyknowthatthetoothbrushisnotasacredobjectbutaproductofWesternhistory.Buttheyhavetosuppresstheirsuperiorknowledgeofthis.Howelsewouldtheybuytoothbrushes,haveopinionsaboutthewarinLebanon,filereports,fillinforms,goonholiday,takeretirement–inshort,howwouldtheyfunction?Thephotographhereservesthesuspensionofcriticalfaculties,itservestheprocessoffunctionality.Ofcourse,criticalawarenesscanstillbeawakenedsoastomakethe

photographtransparent.ThenthephotographofLebanonbecomestransparentasregardsitsnewspaperprogramandtheprogrambehinditbelongingtothepoliticalpartyprogrammingthenewspaper.Thenthephotographofthetoothbrushbecomestransparentasregardstheprogramoftheadvertisingagencyandtheprogrambehinditbelongingtothetoothbrushindustry.Andthepowersof‘imperialism’,‘Zionism’,‘terrorism’and‘tooth-decay’arerevealedasconceptscontainedwithintheseprograms.Butthiscriticalexercisedoesnotnecessarilyleadtoadisenchantmentoftheimages.Thatis,itcanitselfhavebeenputunderamagicspell,therebybecoming‘functional’.TheculturalcriticismoftheFrankfurtSchoolisanexampleofsuchasecond-orderpaganism:Behindtheimagesituncoverssecret,superhumanpowersatwork(e.g.capitalism)thathavemaliciouslycreatedalltheseprogramsinsteadoftakingitforgrantedthattheprogrammingproceedsinamindlessautomaticfashion.Athoroughlydisconcertingprocessinwhich,behindtheghoststhathavebeenexorcized,moreandmorenewonesaresummonedup.Tosummarize:Photographsarereceivedasobjectswithoutvaluethat

everyonecanproduceandthateveryonecandowhattheylikewith.Infact,however,wearemanipulatedbyphotographsandprogrammedtoactinaritualfashionintheserviceofafeedbackmechanismforthebenefitofcameras.Photographssuppressourcriticalawarenessinordertomakeusforgetthemindlessabsurdityoftheprocessoffunctionality,anditisonlythankstothissuppressionthatfunctionalityispossibleatall.Thusphotographsformamagiccirclearoundusintheshapeofthe

photographicuniverse.Whatweneedistobreakthiscircle.

ThePhotographicUniverse

Asinhabitantsofthephotographicuniversewehavebecomeaccustomedtophotographs:Theyhavegrownfamiliartous.Wenolongertakeanynoticeofmostphotographs,concealedastheyarebyhabit;inthesameway,weignoreeverythingfamiliarinourenvironmentandonlynoticewhathaschanged.Changeisinformative,thefamiliarredundant.Whatwearesurroundedbyaboveallareredundantphotographs–andthisisthecasedespitethefactthateverydaynewillustratednewspapersappearonourbreakfasttables,everyweeknewpostersappearoncitywallsandnewadvertisingphotographsappearinshopdisplays.Itispreciselythispermanentlychangingsituationthatwehavebecomeaccustomedto:Oneredundantphotographdisplacesanotherredundantphotograph.Assuch,thechangingsituationisfamiliar,redundant;‘progress’hasbecomeuninformative,run-of-the-mill.Whatwouldbeinformative,exceptional,excitingforuswouldbeastandstillsituation:tofindthesamenewspapersonourbreakfasttableseverydayortoseethesamepostersoncitywallsformonthsonend.Thatwouldsurpriseandshockus.Photographspermanentlydisplacingoneanotheraccordingtoaprogramareredundantpreciselybecausetheyarealways‘new’,preciselybecausetheyautomaticallyexhaustthepossibilitiesofthephotographicprogram.Thisisthereforealsothechallengeforthephotographer:toopposethefloodofredundancywithinformativeimages.Itisnotonlythepermanentlychangingsituationofthephotographic

universebutalsoitsgaudinessthathasbecomecommonplace.Wearehardlyawarehowastonishingthecoloursofourenvironmentwouldbetoourgrandfathers.Inthenineteenthcenturytheworldwasgrey:walls,newspapers,books,shirts,tools,allthesevariedbetweenblackandwhitemergingtogetherintogrey–asinthecaseofprintedtexts.Noweverythingcriesoutinallimaginablecolours,butitcriesouttodeafears.Wehavebecomeaccustomedtovisualpollution;itpassesthroughour

eyesandourconsciousnesseswithoutbeingnoticed.Itpenetratessubliminalregions,whereitfunctionsandprogramsouractions.IfonecomparesthecolourofourownworldwiththatoftheMiddle

Agesorofnon-Europeancultures,oneisfacedwiththedifferencethatthecoloursoftheMiddleAgesandthoseof‘exotic’culturesaremagicsymbolssignifyingmythicalelements,whereasforustheyaremythicalsymbolsatworkonatheoreticallevel,elementsofprograms.Forexample,‘red’intheMiddleAgessignifiedthedangerofbeingswallowedupbyHell.Similarly,forus‘red’attrafficlightsstillsignifies‘danger’,butprogrammedinsuchawaythatweautomaticallyputourfootonthebrakewithoutatthesametimeengagingourconsciousness.Allthatemergesfromthesubliminalprogrammingofthecoloursofthephotographicuniversearemerelyritual,automaticactions.However,thischameleon-likenatureofthephotographicuniverse,the

changinggaudinessofit,isonlyoneofitsmaincharacteristics,asuperficialfeature.Inaccordancewithitsdeeperstructure,thephotographicuniverseisgrainy;itchangesitsappearanceandcolourasamosaicmightchangeinwhichtheindividuallittlepiecesarecontinuallybeingreplaced.Thephotographicuniverseismadeupofsuchlittlepieces,madeupofquanta,andiscalculable(calculus=littlepieceor‘particle’)–anatomized,democraticuniverse,ajigsawpuzzle.Thequantum-likestructureofthephotographicuniverseisnot

surprising,sinceithasarisenoutoftheactofphotography,whosequantum-likecharacterhasalreadybeendiscussed.Yetanexaminationofthephotographicuniverseallowsustoseethedeeperreasonforthegrainycharacterofallaspectsofphotography.Itreveals,forexample,thattheatomized,punctuatedstructureischaracteristicofallthingsrelatingtoapparatus,andthateventhosecamerafunctionsthatappeartoslide(e.g.filmandtelevisionpictures)areactuallybasedonpunctuatedstructures.Intheworldofapparatus,all‘waves’aremadeupofgrains,andall‘processes’aremadeupofpunctuatedsituations.Thisisbecauseapparatusesaresimulationsofthought,playthingsthat

playat‘thinking’,andtheysimulatehumanthoughtprocesses,notforexampleinthewayoneunderstandsthoughtcorrespondingto

introspectionortheinsightsofpsychologyandphysiology,butinthewayoneunderstandsthoughtasdescribedintheCartesianmodel.AccordingtoDescartes,thoughtconsistsofclearanddistinctelements(concepts)thatarecombinedinthethoughtprocesslikebeadsonanabacus,inwhicheveryconceptsignifiesapointintheextendedworldoutthere.Ifeverypointcouldbeassignedaconcept,thenthoughtwouldbeomniscientandatthesametimeomnipotent.Forthoughtprocesseswouldthensymbolicallydirectprocessesoutthere.Unfortunatelythisomniscienceandomnipotenceareimpossible,becausethestructureofthoughtisnotadequatetodealwiththestructureofextendedmatter.If,forexample,thepointsintheextended(‘concrete’)worldgrowtogether,leavingnogaps,thendistinctconceptsinthoughtareinterruptedbyintervalsthroughwhichmostofthepointsescape.DescarteshopedtoovercomethisinadequacyofthenetworkofthoughtwiththehelpofGodandanalyticgeometry,buthedidnotsucceed.Apparatuses,meanwhile,thesesimulationsofCartesianthought,have

succeeded.Theyareomniscientandomnipotentintheiruniverses.Forintheseuniverses,aconcept,anelementoftheprogramoftheapparatus,isactuallyassignedtoeverypoint,everyelementoftheuniverse.Thiscanbeseenmostclearlyinthecaseofcomputersandtheiruniverses.Butitcanalsobeseeninthecaseofthephotographicuniverse.Toeveryphotographtherecorrespondsaclearanddistinctelementinthecameraprogram.Everyphotographtherebycorrespondstoaspecificcombinationofelementsinprograms.Thankstothisbi-univocalrelationshipbetweenuniverseandprogram,inwhichaphotographcorrespondstoeverypointintheprogramandapointintheprogramtoeveryphotograph,camerasareomniscientandomnipotentinthephotographicuniverse.Buttheyalsohavetopayahighpricefortheiromniscienceandomnipotence,thispricebeingthereversalofthevectorsofsignificance.Thatis:Conceptsnolongersignifytheworldoutthere(asintheCartesianmodel);instead,theuniversesignifiestheprogramwithincameras.Theprogramdoesnotsignifythephotograph,thephotographsignifiestheelementsoftheprogram(concepts).Inthecaseofcameras,wearethereforedealingwithanabsurdomniscienceandan

absurdomnipotence:Camerasknoweverythingandareabletodoeverythinginauniversethatwasprogrammedinadvanceforthisknowledgeandability.Thisistheplacetodefinetheterm‘program’.Tothisend,allhuman

involvementintheprogram–thatstrugglebetweenthefunctionoftheprogramandhumanintentionthatwasthesubjectofthepreviousessay–shouldbebracketedout.Theprogramtobedefinedisacompletelyautomaticone:acombinationgamebasedonchance.Asaparticularlysimpleexampleofaprogram,onecancitethethrowofdicecombiningtheelements‘1’to‘6’.Everythrowisrandom,cannotbepredicted:butovertimeeverysixththrowisnecessarilya‘1’.Putanotherway,allpossiblecombinationsarerealizedbychance,butovertimeallpossiblecombinationsarenecessarilyrealized.If,forexample,anatomicwarisenteredintotheprogramofanyapparatusasapossibility,thenitwillhappenbychance,butnecessarilysomeday.Inthissubhumanlymindlesssense,apparatuses‘think’bymeansofchancecombinations.Inthissensetheyareomniscientandomnipotentintheiruniverses.Thephotographicuniverse,liketheonebywhichwearecurrently

surrounded,isachancerealizationofanumberofpossibilitiescontainedwithincameraprogramswhichcorrespondspointforpointtoaspecificsituationinacombinationgame.Asotherprogrammedpossibilitieswillberealizedbychanceinfuture,thephotographicuniverseisinapermanentstateoffluxandwithinitonephotographpermanentlydisplacesanother.Everygivensituationinthephotographicuniversecorrespondstoa‘throw’inthecombinationgame,i.e.pointforpoint,photographforphotograph.Butthesearetotallyredundantphotos.Theinformativephotographsofphotographersconsciouslyplayingagainsttheprogramsignifybreakthroughsinthephotographicuniverse–andarenotpredictedwithintheprogram.Fromwhichonecandrawthefollowingconclusions:First,the

photographicuniverseiscreatedinthecourseofacombinationgame,itisprogrammed,anditsignifiestheprogram.Second,thegameproceedsautomaticallyandobeysnointentionalstrategy.Third,thephotographicuniverseismadeupofclearanddistinctphotographsthateachsignify

onepointintheprogram.Fourth,everysinglephotois–asthesurfaceofanimage–amagicalmodelfortheactionsofanobserver.Tosummarize:Thephotographicuniverseisameansofprogrammingsociety–withabsolutenecessitybutineachindividualcasebychance(i.e.automatically)–toactasamagicfeedbackmechanismforthebenefitofacombinationgame,andoftheautomaticreprogrammingofsocietyintodice,intopiecesinthegame,intofunctionaries.Thisviewofthephotographicuniversechallengesonetolookintwo

directions:towardsasocietysurroundedbythephotographicuniverseandtowardsthecamerasprogrammingthephotographicuniverse.Itchallengesonetoengage,ontheonehand,incriticismofthepost-industrialsocietythatiscomingintobeing,and,ontheother,incriticismofcamerasandtheirprograms;inotherwords:tocriticallytranscendpost-industrialsociety.Tobeinthephotographicuniversemeanstoexperience,toknowand

toevaluatetheworldasafunctionofphotographs.Everysingleexperience,everysinglebitofknowledge,everysinglevaluecanbereducedtoindividuallyknownandevaluatedphotographs.Andeverysingleactioncanbeanalyzedthroughtheindividualphotostakenasmodels.Thistypeofexistence,then,inwhicheverythingexperienced,knownandevaluatedcanbereducedtopunctuatedelements(into‘bits’),isalreadyfamiliar:Itistheworldofrobots.Thephotographicuniverseandallapparatus-baseduniversesrobotizethehumanbeingandsociety.New,robot-likeactionsareobservableeverywhere:atbankcounters,

inoffices,infactories,insupermarkets,insport,dancing.Whenonelooksabitmoreclosely,thesamestaccatostructureisalsoperceptible,forexampleinscientifictexts,inpoetry,inmusicalcomposition,inarchitectureandinpoliticalprograms.Correspondinglyitisthetaskofcurrentculturalcriticismtoanalyzethisrestructuringofexperience,knowledge,evaluationandactionintoamosaicofclearanddistinctelementsineverysingleculturalphenomenon.Withinsuchculturalcriticism,theinventionofphotographywillprovetobethepointatwhichallculturalphenomenastartedtoreplacethelinearstructureofslidingwiththestaccatostructureofprogrammedcombinations;not,

therefore,toadoptamechanicalstructuresuchasthatintheIndustrialRevolution,buttoadoptacyberneticstructuresuchasthatprogrammedintoapparatuses.Withinsuchculturalcriticism,thecamerawillprovetobetheancestorofallthoseapparatusesthatareintheprocessofrobotizingallaspectsofourlives,fromone’smostpublicactstoone’sinnermostthoughts,feelingsanddesires.Ifonenowattemptsacriticismofapparatuses,onefirstseesthe

photographicuniverseastheproductofcamerasanddistributionapparatuses.Behindthese,onerecognizesindustrialapparatuses,advertisingapparatuses,political,economicmanagementapparatuses,etc.Eachoftheseapparatusesisbecomingincreasinglyautomatedandisbeinglinkedupbycyberneticstootherapparatuses.Theprogramofeachapparatusisfedinviaitsinputbyanotherapparatus,andinitsturnfeedsotherapparatusesviaitsoutput.Thewholecomplexofapparatusesisthereforeasuper-black-boxmadeupofblackboxes.Anditisahumancreation:Asaproductofthenineteenthandtwentiethcenturies,humanbeingsarepermanentlyengagedindevelopingandperfectingit.Thetimeisthereforenotfaroffwhenonewillhavetoconcentrateone’scriticismofapparatusesonthehumanintentionthatwilledandcreatedthem.Suchacriticalapproachisenticingfortworeasons.First,itabsolves

thecriticsofthenecessityofdelvingintotheinterioroftheblackboxes:Theycanconcentrateontheiroutput,humanintention.Andsecond,itabsolvescriticsofthenecessityofdevelopingnewcategoriesofcriticism:Humanintentioncanbecriticizedusingtraditionalcriteria.Theresultofsuchacriticismofapparatuseswouldthereforebesomethinglikethefollowing:Theintentionbehindapparatusesistoliberatethehumanbeingfrom

work;apparatusestakeoverhumanlabour–forexample,thecameraliberatesthehumanbeingfromthenecessityofusingapaintbrush.Insteadofhavingtowork,thehumanbeingisabletoplay.Butapparatuseshavecomeunderthecontrolofanumberofindividualhumanbeings(e.g.capitalists),whohavereversedthisoriginalintention.Nowapparatusesservetheinterestsofthesepeople;consequentlywhatneedstobedoneistounmasktheinterestsbehindtheapparatuses.

Accordingtosuchananalysis,apparatusesarenothingbutpeculiarmachines,theinventionofwhichhasnothingrevolutionaryaboutit;thereisnopointthereforeintalkingofa‘secondIndustrialRevolution’.Thusphotographsalsohavetobedecodedasanexpressionofthe

concealedinterestsofthoseinpower:theinterestsofKodakshareholders,oftheproprietorsofadvertisingagencies,thosepullingthestringsbehindtheusindustrialcomplex,theinterestsoftheentireusideological,militaryandindustrialcomplex.Ifoneexposedtheseinterests,everysinglephotographandthewholephotographicuniversecouldbeconsideredashavingbeendecoded.Unfortunatelythistraditionalkindofcriticismwithitsbackgroundin

theindustrialcontextisnotadequatetodealwiththephenomenon.Itmissestheessentialthingaboutapparatuses,i.e.theirautomaticity.Andthisispreciselywhatneedstobecriticized.Apparatuseswereinventedinordertofunctionautomatically,inotherwordsindependentlyoffuturehumaninvolvement.Thisistheintentionwithwhichtheywerecreated:thatthehumanbeingwouldberuledout.Andthisintentionhasbeensuccessfulwithoutadoubt.Whilethehumanbeingisbeingmoreandmoresidelined,theprogramsofapparatuses,theserigidcombinationgames,areincreasinglyrichinelements:theymakecombinationsmoreandmorequicklyandaregoingbeyondtheabilityofthehumanbeingtoseewhattheyareuptoandtocontrolthem.Anyonewhoisinvolvedwithapparatusesisinvolvedwithblackboxeswhereoneisunabletoseewhattheyareupto.Tothisextent,onecan’ttalkofanownerofapparatuseseither.As

apparatusesfunctionautomaticallyanddonotobeyanyhumandecision,theycannotbeownedbyanybody.Allhumandecisionsaremadeonthebasisofthedecisionsofapparatuses;theyhavedegeneratedintopurely‘functional’decisions,i.e.humanintentionhasevaporated.Ifapparatuseswereoriginallyproducedandprogrammedtofollowhumanintention,thentoday,inthe‘secondandthirdgeneration’ofapparatuses,thisintentionhasdisappearedoverthehorizonoffunctionality.Apparatusesnowfunctionasanendinthemselves,‘automatically’asitwere,withthesingleaimofmaintainingandimprovingthemselves.Thisrigid,

unintentional,functionalautomaticityiswhatneedstobemadetheobjectofcriticism.The‘humanistic’criticismofapparatusesreferredtoaboveisin

oppositiontothisportrayalofapparatusesbeingtransformedintosuperhuman,anthropomorphicTitansandofthuscontributingtotheobscuringofthehumaninterestsbehindapparatuses.Butthisobjectioniserroneous.ApparatusesareactuallyTitans,sincetheywerecreatedwiththissoleintention.Thisportrayalattemptstoshowpreciselythattheyarenotsuperhumanbutsubhuman–bloodlessandsimplisticsimulationsofhumanthoughtprocesseswhich,preciselybecausetheyaresorigid,renderhumandecisionssuperfluousandnon-functional.Whereasthe‘humanistic’criticismofapparatuses,bycallinguponthelastvestigesofhumanintentionbehindapparatuses,obscuresthedangerlyinginwaitwithinthem,thecriticismofapparatusesproposedhereseesitstaskpreciselyinuncoveringtheterriblefactofthisunintentional,rigidanduncontrollablefunctionalityofapparatuses,inordertogetaholdoverthem.Returningtothephotographicuniverse:Itreflectsacombination

game,achanging,gaudyjigsawpuzzleofclearanddistinctsurfacesthateachsignifyanelementoftheprogramoftheapparatus.Itprogramstheobservertoactmagicallyandfunctionally,andthusautomatically,i.e.withoutobeyinganyhumanintentionintheprocess.Anumberofhumanbeingsarestrugglingagainstthisautomatic

programming:photographerswhoattempttoproduceinformativeimages,i.e.photographsthatarenotpartoftheprogramofapparatus;criticswhoattempttoseewhatisgoingonintheautomaticgameofprogramming;andingeneral,allthosewhoareattemptingtocreateaspaceforhumanintentioninaworlddominatedbyapparatuses.However,theapparatusesthemselvesautomaticallyassimilatetheseattemptsatliberationandenrichtheirprogramswiththem.Itisconsequentlythetaskofaphilosophyofphotographytoexposethisstrugglebetweenhumanbeingandapparatusesinthefieldofphotographyandtoreflectonapossiblesolutiontotheconflict.Thehypothesisproposedhereisthat,ifsuchaphilosophyshould

succeedinfulfillingitstask,thiswouldbeofsignificance,notonlyinthefieldofphotography,butforpost-industrialsocietyingeneral.Admittedly,thephotographicuniverseisonlyoneofawholenumberofuniverses,andtherearesurelymuchmoredangerousonesamongstthem.Butthenextessaywillillustratethatthephotographicuniversecanserveasamodelforpost-industrialsocietyasawholeandthataphilosophyofphotographycanbethestartingpointforanyphilosophyengagingwiththecurrentandfutureexistenceofhumanbeings.

WhyaPhilosophyofPhotographyIsNecessary

Inthecourseoftheforegoingattempttosumuptheessentialqualityofphotography,afewbasicconceptscametolight:image–apparatus–program–information.Thesemustbethecornerstonesofanyphilosophyofphotography,andtheymakepossiblethefollowingdefinitionofaphotograph:Itisanimagecreatedanddistributedbyphotographicapparatusaccordingtoaprogram,animagewhoseostensiblefunctionistoinform.Eachoneofthebasicconceptsthuscontainswithinitfurtherconcepts.Imagecontainswithinitmagic;apparatuscontainswithinitautomationandplay;programcontainswithinitchanceandnecessity;informationcontainswithinitthesymbolicandtheimprobable.Thisresultsinabroaderdefinitionofaphotograph:Itisanimagecreatedanddistributedautomaticallybyprogrammedapparatusesinthecourseofagamenecessarilybasedonchance,animageofamagicstateofthingswhosesymbolsinformitsreceivershowtoactinanimprobablefashion.Thisdefinitionhasthepeculiaradvantageforphilosophyofnotbeing

acceptable.Oneischallengedtoproveitwrongsinceitrulesoutthehumanbeingasafreeagent.Itprovokesoneintoacontradiction,andcontradiction–dialectics–isoneofthespurstophilosophy.Tothisextent,theproposeddefinitionisawelcomestartingpointforaphilosophyofphotography.Ifoneconsidersthebasicconceptsimage,apparatus,programand

information,onediscoversaninternalconnectionbetweenthem:Theyareallbasedonthe‘eternalrecurrenceofthesame’.Imagesaresurfacesabovewhichtheeyecirclesonlytoreturnagainandagaintothestartingpoint.Apparatusesareplaythingsthatrepeatthesamemovementsoverandoveragain.Programsaregamesthatcombinethesameelementsoverandoveragain.Piecesofinformationareimprobablestatesthatbreakawayagainandagainfromthetendencytobecomeprobableonlytosinkbackintoitagainandagain.Inshort:Withthesefourbasicconcepts,we

nolongerfindourselvesinthehistoricalcontextofthelinear,inwhichnothingisrepeatedandeverythinghasacauseyieldingconsequences.Theareainwhichwefindourselvesisnolongerascertainablebymeansofcausalbutonlybymeansoffunctionalexplanations.AlongwithCassirer,weshallhavetoleavecausalitybehind:‘Rest,rest,dearspirit.’Anyphilosophyofphotographywillhavetocometotermswiththeahistorical,post-historicalcharacterofthephenomenonunderconsideration.Besides,wehavealreadystartedtothinkspontaneouslyinapost-

historicalfashioninawholerangeofareas.Cosmologyisanexampleofthis.Weseeinthecosmosasystemtendingtowardsstatesthatarebecomingmoreandmoreimprobable.Itistruethatbychancemoreandmoreimprobablestatesarecomingintobeing;however–ofnecessity–thesesinkbackintothetendencytobecomeprobable.Inotherwords:Weseeinthecosmosanapparatusthatcontainsanoriginalpieceofinformationinitsoutput(the‘bigbang’)andthatisprogrammedtorealizeandexhaustthisinformationnecessarilythroughchance(‘heatdeath’).Thefourbasicconceptsimage,apparatus,programandinformation,

supportourcosmologicalthinkingquitespontaneously,andinsodoing,quitespontaneouslypromptustoreachoutforfunctionalexplanations.Thesameappliestootherareassuchaspsychology,biology,linguistics,cyberneticsandinformationtechnology(tomentiononlyafew).Wethink,quitespontaneously,acrosstheboardinanimaginary,functionallyprogrammaticandinformation-technologicalfashion.Thehypothesisproposedherethusarguesthatwethinklikethisbecausewethinkinphotographiccategories:becausethephotographicuniversehasprogrammedustothinkinapost-historicalfashion.Thishypothesisisnotasboldasitfirstseems.Itisahypothesisthat

hasbeenaroundforalongtime:Humanbeingscreatetoolsandinsodoingtakethemselvesasthemodelforthiscreation–untilthesituationisreversedandhumanbeingstaketheirtoolsasthemodelofthemselves,oftheworldandofsociety.Hencethewell-knownprocessofalienationfromone’sowntools.Intheeighteenthcentury,humanbeingsinvented

machines,andtheirownbodiesservedasamodelforthisinvention–untiltherelationshipwasreversedandthemachinesstartedtoserveasmodelsofhumanbeings,oftheworldandofsociety.Intheeighteenthcentury,aphilosophyofthemachinewouldsimultaneouslyhavebeenacriticismofthewholeofanthropology,science,politicsandart,i.e.ofmechanization.Itisnodifferentinourtimeforaphilosophyofphotography:Itwouldbeacriticismoffunctionalisminallitsanthropological,scientific,politicalandaestheticaspects.Thematterisnotallthatsimple,however.Foraphotographisnota

toollikeamachine;itisaplaythinglikeaplayingcardorchess-piece.Ifthephotographisbecomingamodel,thenitisnolongeramatterofreplacingatoolwithanothertoolasamodel,butofreplacingatypeofmodelwithacompletelynewtypeofmodel.Thehypothesisproposedabove,accordingtowhichwearestartingtothinkinphotographiccategories,arguesthatthebasicstructuresofourexistencearebeingtransformed.Wearenotdealingwiththeclassicalproblemofalienation,butwithanexistentialrevolutionofwhichthereisnoexampleavailabletous.Toputitbluntly:Itisaquestionoffreedominanewcontext.Thisiswhatanyphilosophyofphotographyhastoconcernitselfwith.Itgoeswithoutsayingthatthisisnotanewquestion:Allphilosophy

hasalwaysbeenconcernedwithit.Butinbeingsoconcerned,itwaslocatedwithinthehistoricalcontextoflinearity.Inanutshell,itformulatedthequestionlikethis:Ifeverythingistohavecausesandconsequences,ifeverythingis‘conditioned’,whereistherespaceforhumanfreedom?Andallanswers,likewiseinanutshell,canbereducedtothefollowingcommondenominator:Thecausesaresocomplexandtheconsequencessounpredictablethathumanbeings,theselimitedbeings,canactasthoughtheywere‘unconditioned’.Inthenewcontext,however,thequestionoffreedomisformulateddifferently:Ifeverythingisbasedonchanceandnecessarilyresultsinnothing,thenwhereistherespaceforhumanfreedom?Inthisabsurdclimate,thephilosophyofphotographyhastoaddressthequestionoffreedom.Weobserve,allaroundus,apparatusesofeverysortintheprocessof

programmingourlifethroughrigidautomation;humanlabourisbeing

replacedbyautomaticmachinesandmostofsocietyisstartingtobeemployedinthe‘tertiarysector’,i.e.playingwithemptysymbols;theexistentialinterestsofthematerialworldarebeingreplacedbysymbolicuniversesandthevaluesofthingsarebeingreplacedbyinformation.Ourthoughts,feelings,desiresandactionsarebeingrobotized;‘life’iscomingtomeanfeedingapparatusesandbeingfedbythem.Inshort:Everythingisbecomingabsurd.Sowhereisthereroomforhumanfreedom?Thenwediscoverpeoplewhocanperhapsanswerthisquestion:

photographers–inthesenseofthewordintendedinthisstudy.Theyarealready,inminiature,peopleoftheapparatusfuture.Theiractsareprogrammedbythecamera;theyplaywithsymbols;theyareactiveinthe‘tertiarysector’,interestedininformation;theycreatethingswithoutvalue.Inspiteofthistheyconsidertheiractivitytobeanythingbutabsurdandthinkthattheyareactingfreely.Thetaskofthephilosophyofphotographyistoquestionphotographersaboutfreedom,toprobetheirpracticeinthepursuitoffreedom.Thiswastheintentionoftheforegoingstudy,andinthecourseofita

fewanswershavecometolight.First,onecanoutwitthecamera’srigidity.Second,onecansmugglehumanintentionsintoitsprogramthatarenotpredictedbyit.Third,onecanforcethecameratocreatetheunpredictable,theimprobable,theinformative.Fourth,onecanshowcontemptforthecameraanditscreationsandturnone’sinterestawayfromthethingingeneralinordertoconcentrateoninformation.Inshort:Freedomisthestrategyofmakingchanceandnecessitysubordinatetohumanintention.Freedomisplayingagainstthecamera.However,photographersonlyprovidesuchanswerswhencalledto

accountbyphilosophicalanalysis.Whenspeakingspontaneouslytheysaysomethingdifferent.Theyclaimtobemakingtraditionalimages–evenifbynon-traditionalmeans.Theyclaimtobecreatingworksofartorcontributingtoknowledge–orbeingpoliticallycommitted.Ifonereadsstatementsbyphotographers,forinstanceintheusualworksonthehistoryofphotography,oneisfacedwiththeprevailingopinionthatwiththeinventionofphotographynothingreallyfar-reachingtookplaceand

thateverythingisbasicallyproceedingjustasitdidbefore;only,asitwere,thatalongsidetheotherhistoriesthereisnowahistoryofphotographyaswell.Eventhough,inpractice,photographershavebeenlivingforalongtimeinapost-historicalfashion,thepost-industrialrevolution,asitappearsforthefirsttimeintheshapeofthecamera,hasescapedtheirconsciousness.Withoneexception:so-calledexperimentalphotographers–those

photographersinthesenseofthewordintendedhere.Theyareconsciousthatimage,apparatus,programandinformationarethebasicproblemsthattheyhavetocometotermswith.Theyareinfactconsciouslyattemptingtocreateunpredictableinformation,i.e.toreleasethemselvesfromthecamera,andtoplacewithintheimagesomethingthatisnotinitsprogram.Theyknowtheyareplayingagainstthecamera.Yeteventheyarenotconsciousoftheconsequenceoftheirpractice:Theyarenotawarethattheyareattemptingtoaddressthequestionoffreedominthecontextofapparatusingeneral.Aphilosophyofphotographyisnecessaryforraisingphotographic

practicetothelevelofconsciousness,andthisisagainbecausethispracticegivesrisetoamodeloffreedominthepost-industrialcontextingeneral.Aphilosophyofphotographymustrevealthefactthatthereisnoplaceforhumanfreedomwithintheareaofautomated,programmedandprogrammingapparatuses,inorderfinallytoshowawayinwhichitisneverthelesspossibletoopenupaspaceforfreedom.Thetaskofaphilosophyofphotographyistoreflectuponthispossibilityoffreedom–andthusitssignificance–inaworlddominatedbyapparatuses;toreflectuponthewayinwhich,despiteeverything,itispossibleforhumanbeingstogivesignificancetotheirlivesinfaceofthechancenecessityofdeath.Suchaphilosophyisnecessarybecauseitistheonlyformofrevolutionleftopentous.

LexiconofBasicConcepts

Apparatus(pl.-es):aplaythingorgamethatsimulatesthought[trans.Anoverarchingtermforanon-humanagency,e.g.thecamera,thecomputerandthe‘apparatus’oftheStateorofthemarket];organizationorsystemthatenablessomethingtofunction.

Automaticmachine:anapparatusthathastoobeyanarbitraryprogram.Code:asignsystemarrangedinaregularpattern.Concept:aconstitutiveelementofatext.Conceptualization:aspecificabilitytocreatetextsandtodecodethem.Culturalobject:aninformedobject.Decode:demonstratethesignificanceofasymbol.Entropy:thetendencytowardsmoreandmoreprobablestates.Functionary:apersonwhoplayswithapparatusandactsasafunctionofapparatus.

Game:anactivitythatisanendinitself.History:thelinearprogressionoftranslationfromideasintoconcepts.Idea:aconstitutiveelementofanimage.Idolatry:theinabilitytoreadoffideasfromtheelementsoftheimage,despitetheabilitytoreadtheseelementsthemselves;hence:worshipofimages.

Image:asignificantsurfaceonwhichtheelementsoftheimageactinamagicfashiontowardsoneanother.

Imagination:thespecificabilitytoproduceandtodecodeimages.Industrialsociety:asocietyinwhichthemajorityofpeopleworkatmachines.

Inform:1.createimprobablecombinationsofelements;2.imprintthemuponobjects.

Information:animprobablecombinationofelements.Machine:atoolthatsimulatesanorganofthebodyonthebasisofscientifictheories.

Magic:aformofexistencecorrespondingtotheeternalrecurrenceofthesame.

Memory:informationstore.Object:athingstandinginourway.Photograph:aflyer-likeimagecreatedanddistributedbyapparatus.Photographer:apersonwhoattemptstoplace,withintheimage,informationthatisnotpredictedwithintheprogramofthecamera.

Plaything:anobjectintheserviceofagame.Post-history:thetranslationofconceptsbackintoideas.Post-industrialsociety:asocietyinwhichthemajorityofpeopleareoccupiedinthetertiarysector.

Primaryandsecondarysector:theareasofactivityinwhichobjectsareproducedandinformed.

Production:thetransferofathingfromnatureintoculture.Program:acombinationgamewithclearanddistinctelements[trans.Atermwhoseassociationsincludecomputerprograms,hencetheusspelling].

Reality:whatwerunupagainstonourjourneytowardsdeath;hence:whatweareinterestedin.

Redundancy:repetitionofinformation;hence:theprobable.Rites:actionscorrespondingtothemagicformofexistence.Sign:aphenomenonthatsignifiesanother.Significance:theaimofsigns.Stateofthings:ascenarioinwhichwhatissignificantaretherelationshipsbetweenthingsandnotthingsthemselves.

Symbol:asignconsciouslyorunconsciouslyagreedupon.Symptom:asignbroughtaboutbyitssignificance.Technicalimage:atechnologicalormechanicalimagecreatedbyapparatus.

Tertiarysector:theareaofactivityinwhichinformationiscreated.Text:seriesofwrittensigns.Textolatry:theinabilitytoreadoffconceptsfromthewrittensignsofatext,despitetheabilitytoreadthesewrittensigns;hence:worshipofthetext.

Tool:asimulationofanorganofthebodyintheserviceofwork.Translation:switchingoverfromonecodetoanother;hence:jumpingfromoneuniverseintoanother.

Universe:1.thetotalityofcombinationsofacode;2.thetotalityofsignificationsofacode.

Valuable:somethingthatisasitissupposedtobe[trans.abletobefilledwithvalue].

Work:theactivitythatproducesandinformsobjects.

Afterword

This,Ithink,showswhatbeingfreemeans.Notcuttingoffone’stieswithothersbutmakingnetworksoutoftheseconnectionsinco-operationwiththem.Émigrésbecomefree,notwhentheydenytheirlosthomeland,butwhentheycometotermswithit.VILÉMFLUSSER

Aphilosophyofphotographyisnecessarybecauseitistheonlyformofrevolutionleftopentous.VilémFlusser’sbook,firstpublishedinGermanin1983,constructsthefirststepstowardsaphilosophyofphotography,orrathertowardsthequestionofwhetherornotallphilosophynowadaysmustbededicatedtothinkingintermsofaphotographicuniverse–inotherwords,committedtotheparadoxofphilosophizingabouttheendofBecomingattheComingoftheend.TherangeofFlusser’smajorwork,fromhisGeschichtedesTeufels(HistoryoftheDevil),publishedinBrazilianPortugueseinSãoPauloin1965,rightthroughtohisnumerousposthumousfragments,displaysaphenomenologicalcommitment.Flusser’swritingis‘nomadological’;itreflectsthefateofbeinganémigréinthetwentiethcentury,the‘rootlessness’,the‘groundlessness’andthebasicinsecurityofhumandestiny.Thus,tounderstandhiswritingand,aboveall,themotivationsofhiswriting,itshouldberememberedthatFlussergrewupasachildofJewishintellectualsinPrague,thathebeganstudyingphilosophyin1939attheageofnineteen,thatin1940heemigratedtoLondonwithEdithBarth(whomhemarriedin1941)andthatuptohisdeathinaroadaccidentin1991heledalifeof‘groundlessness’(thisisthetitleofhisphilosophicalautobiography),of‘homelessness’inBrazil,theninItalyandfinallyinFrance.HismotherandsisterweremurderedatAuschwitz,hisfatherbeatentodeathatBuchenwald.InLondonin1940,ashesaysinoneessay,‘inthis–bycontinental

standards–somewhatinscrutableEngland’,‘freed’fromPragueby

havingbeenforcedtoleave,nonethelessawareof‘thecomingdislocationofhumanity’,heformulatedthebasicquestionofhiswriting:

Changingthequestion‘freefromwhat?’into‘freeforwhat?’;thischangethatoccurswhenfreedomhasbeenachievedhasaccompaniedmeonmymigrationslikeabassocontinuo.Thisiswhatwearelike,thoseofuswhoarenomads,whocomeoutofthecollapseofasettledwayoflife.*

Inthesamewaythat,intheprocessofphotography,thingslosetheirplace,are‘displaced’andgoonajourneymadeupofcountlessexperiences,andthattelematicimagescaptureandencircledisplacedpeople,Flusser’sthoughtshouldbeseenasaprocessofwanderingthatdoesnotcomeeithertoa‘clearing’(inHeidegger’ssense)ortoanytranscendentalplace.Theforwardmovementofthiswayofthinkingconsistsmuchmoreofthedeliberaterepetitionofeverystepthatneverthelessfailsultimatelytoindicatethewayout.Perhapsitisthankstothismigration,asexperiencedandreflectedupon,thatFlusser,inhisbestessayistmanner,isabletoshowuseverydaythingswithpreciselytheurgencyandsharpanalyticfocusthatcharacterizesthegreatphilosophersandtheoristsofthetwentiethcentury(Nietzsche,Husserl,Heidegger,WittgensteinandKafka).Flusser’sthinkingproceedsbymeansofetymologicalstatements,

perceivinglanguageverymuchasthe‘homeofbeing’–asmovement,asmediacommunication–whosecapacitytointegrateexperienceisbeingalteredincreasinglybytechnologicalmedia.Sincehealwayswroteinanumberoflanguagesandtranslatedthembackandforth–Portuguese,English,French,GermanandCzech–theideaoftranslationisattheheartofallofhisworks,ofhiswayofthinking.However,translationmeansnotsomuchtheformallinguisticactoftranslationasthehumanactofleavingandthenrediscoveringanareaoflanguage.Thus,inthiscontinualstateofbeingonthemovelikenomads,languagesacquiredforFlussertheoriginalcharacterbornoutofelementaldifferenceorseparationandoutofthedesiretobeonthemove,tobuildbridges,to

communicate.Thedemandfortranslationoriginatesfromallthosemigrationsthatdidnotariseoutofpersecutionandtheneedtoseekrefugeelsewhere;atthesametime,Flusser’swritingdemandsthatonelearnsthelessonoftranslationbylookingatcatastrophesandhumandegradationcausedbypoliticalpersecution.Everytranslationsignifiesthespace-between,thegap,thehistoricalchasmortherepressionofhistory;translationisthemostcautiousformofcommunicationsincethereisalwaystheinherentadmissionofacertaindepartureandanuncertainarrival.Inthissense,Flusser’sphilosophicalwritingmustbeseenasadeparture–attemptingtograspthetransitionfromaworldviewcharacterizedbyhumanismtoaworldofthe‘techno-imaginary’springingfromnowhere–andviewingtheartificialparadisesof‘digitalfog’astheendofthegrandprojectsofthephilosophyofhistory.Flusserhasbeencalledthephilosopherofnewmedia;hisnameis

oftenmentionedinthesamebreathasJeanBaudrillardandPaulVirilio.Flusser’sthoughtisneverthelessfarremovedfromtheeschatalogicaldimensionofVirilio’stheoryofthemediaandfromthe‘criminological’dimensionofBaudrillard’stheoryofsimulations.FlusserpinnedhishopesonthepotentialityoftheNowthatisbasedneitheronhumanvigilancenoronsocialprogress–ofthelateMarxistorthelatecapitalistvariety–butonanameless,post-historicaluniverseoftechnicalimages.Flusserisnoapologistfornewmedia,yetitiswithdeepmelancholythatheseesinthedisappearanceofhistoricalreferencesadevastationoftheterritoryofhistoryandanusheringinofadislocatedworldview.Inthisrespect,hisphilosophyofphotographyisverymuchaphilosophyoftranslationcontinuallymovingtowardsthephilosophyofemigrationthatwastheaimofhiswriting:

Theuniverseoftechnicalimagesemergingallaroundus,representsthefulfilmentoftheages,inwhichactionandagonygoendlesslyroundincircles.Onlyfromthisapocalypticperspective,itseems,doestheproblemofphotographyassumetheimportancethatitdeserves.

Thisbookcanbeseenasaworkofphilosophyinwhichphotographyiselevatedtoanallegoryofpost-industrialandpost-historicalthought.Thusoneshouldnotbesurprisedthattherearenodescriptionsofphotographicimagesnorarethereanyphotographsincludedbywayofillustration.Flusserisnotconcernedherewiththehistoryofphotography,butratherwithpresentingawayofthinkingabouthistorypost-photography.Neitherisheconcernedwithdescribingcurrent‘redundant’or‘informative’photographs,norwiththeartofphotographyorevenphotographyasart.TowardsaPhilosophyofPhotographyisaworkofdoubtandconcern,aworkofindecisioncharacteristicofthephotographicuniverseinwhichonestillhastocometotermswithahistorysteepedinphotographsandthe‘collectivememorygoingendlesslyroundincircles’.Itarguesforawayofthinkingaboutconceptsinwhichcriticismoftheprimarymediumoftechnicalimageshastobebroadenedintogeneralculturalcriticism.Thephilosophyofphotographyis‘acriticismoffunctionalisminallitsanthropological,scientific,politicalandaestheticaspects’;theactofphotography,accordingtoFlusser,isoneof‘phenomenologicaldoubt’.Thisbookisofprimeinteresttoanyonestudyingtheeffectsofthe

informationsocietyonthebasicstructuresofhumanexistence.TheoriginaleditionwasfollowedbyInsUniversumdertechnischenBilder(“EnteringtheUniverseofTechnicalImages),abookwhichwaspublishedtwoyearslater,andtheessayDieSchrift(Writing),publishedin1987.TheseshouldbecomesettextsforreaderstodaywhofeelthelackofaBuckminsterFuller,HaroldInnisorMarshallMcLuhan,whofeeltheycannolongerfallbackonKant’sCritiqueofJudgementandwhodonotfeelfullystretchedbyNeilPostman.Flusser’sargumentscanbetakenasapleaforaradicallydifferentkindofeducationinwhichthedominationoftechnicalimagesmustbecounter-balancedbyacriticalprogramofeducationonimage-programming.Educationischallenged,bothtocontinuethestruggleagainstilliteracyandalsotoupholdthewarning–proclaimedinthe1920sbyMoholy-Nagy–thatthosewhoareignorantinmattersofphotographywillbetheilliteratesoftomorrow.Thefirstessayinthisbookexploresthereplacementofthecultureof

linearwritingbythecultureoftechnicalimagesduetotheinventionofphotographyinthefirstthirdofthenineteenthcentury.Flusserconsiderstheinventionofphotographytobeasearth-shatteringaneventforthehistoryofhumankindastheinventionofwritinginthesecondcenturyBC.Iftherelationshipofthesubjecttothetext(textolatry)andtotheimage(idolatry)wasdeterminedbymagicandritual,intheuniverseofphotographythisrelationshipischaracterizedbythefunctionalismoftheapparatusandtheoperator.Whereastranscendenceonceoccupiedthefieldofmeaningintheformofmyth,andgods–likeauthors–stoodatthecentreofthehermeneuticcircle,theinterpretationofthetechnicalimagebecomesanactofgraspingthetransdescendent–functionalandcircularinteractionsbetweenthefouressentialandnon-causaldeterminantsofthephotographicuniverse:image,apparatus,programandinformation.Thegodshave,asitwere,beenturnedinto‘functionaries’whoputtheireffortsintotheprocessesofcommunication–i.e.‘manipulatedinformation’–thattheythinktheyhaveundertheircontrol,butwhose‘computative’logictheyareneverthelesssubjectto.Photographersarefunctionaries,theymakeuseofapparatusesusingprogramslinkedtothemandproduceinformation.Theindustrialevolutionofapparatusesandprogramshastobeorderedinsuchawaythatphotographers’abilitiesareexceededandyetprogramcapabilitiesarenotexhausted.Toacertainextent,the‘blackbox’asthehermeneuticresidueofmagicmuststillbeabletoofferitsfunctionaryaguaranteeofmeaning.Thisisthemeasureofindividualityandthedegreeofinformationprovidedbythephotographicimage;intheend,Flusseridentifiesthesetwothingsonlyasexperimentalphotography,i.e.theliteraldeconstructionofthewholeapparatusandtheoverallprogramofphotography.Photographyinitiatedthetransitionfromtheindustrialandhistorical

tothepost-industrialandpost-historicalage.Thiswasdetermined,accordingtoFlusser,bytheshiftor‘redirection’ofpower‘fromthematerialtothesymbolic’andreplacedmatterandworkwiththetwinpillarsofinformationandplay–‘Insteadofhavingtowork,thehumanbeingisabletoplay.’Theapparatus,theblackbox,thehardware

representaformof‘robotization’andautomationofculturalproduction(notthereforetobeconfusedwiththedebateaboutapparatusinfilmtheorysincethe1960s);asawork-thing(Werkzeug)itisaplaything(Spielzeug)thatsimulatesawayofthinkingandcreatesimagesaccordingtothecombinationsofferedbytheprogram(thesoftware).FlusserwasnoLuddite;hedid,however,pressforacriticismofapparatuseswhoseproductionservestheinterestsofsocialpowerandwhoseaimwasthat‘thehumanbeingwouldberuledout’.Hedifferentiatedhiscriticismofapparatusesfromhumanisticcriticismwhichcontinuedtoinvokehumanresponsibilityanddeniedthefaitaccomplithatthehumanbeinghadbeenexcludedfromtheworldofapparatuses.Theparadoxheformulatesaboutthe‘photographiccriticism’thatisneededis,tousehiswords,‘uncoveringtheterriblefactofthisunintentional,rigidanduncontrollablefunctionalityofapparatusesinordertogetaholdoverthem’.Inthisway,photographersascriticalfunctionariesarechargedwiththeresponsibilityofinformingbymeansofimages,ofimposinginformationontoasurface.Whetherphotographyisbeingemployedintheserviceofart,scienceorpolitics,photographershaveadutytoanalyzetheirownintentions.Theaimofanysinglephotographis–asAdornosays–thedisclosureofthe‘logicofbeingproduced’.Thinkingaboutphotographymeansdefiningtheplayfulcombinationscontainedwithintheapparatusandseeingtheprogramasaconceptoffreedom.TheonlynamesmentionedbyFlusser,initiallyjustinpassing–KafkaandKant–determinetheethicalmotivationofthissocialphilosophy.‘Freedomisplayingagainstthecamera,’eventhoughthehumanbeingstakingthephotographscannotescapethestateofdependencethattheyhavebroughtuponthemselves,theirpositive‘theatreoftheabsurd’.Theirjobmustbetouseimagestocreatespacesrunningcountertothosethatareprogrammedwithinapparatuses.Intheinformationsociety,questionsofpropertyandsocial

emancipationcommontobothcapitalismandsocialismhaveevolvedintoproblemsofthe‘programminganddistributionofinformation’.Thesolutiontotheseproblemsinthe‘post-historical’and‘post-ideological’ageisnolongeraimedatasocialsituationthatcanbeachieved

historically.Anysuchteleologicalmodelhasnowbeentransformedintothecircularmodelofself-reflexive,autopoieticapparatus.‘Aslongasthephotographisnotyetelectromagnetic,itremainsthefirstofallpost-industrialobjects,’Flusserwrotein1983.‘Eventhoughthelastvestigesofmaterialityareattachedtophotographs,theirvaluedoesnotlieinthethingbutintheinformationontheirsurface.’Theactofphotography,inwhichinformationisencodedandsubsequentlydecodedbythereceiver,signifiesanawarenessofhowthingsaredevaluedbytheirphotographicrepresentation.Themomentoflossincreatingaphotographicimage–interpretedbyphilosophersfromWalterBenjamintoRolandBarthesasbeingapreconditionfor‘phenomenologicaldoubt’–mustnotleadtothefetishizingcompensationoflostobjectsbytheirsymbolicreplacement;itmustinsteadeducateusintoanawarenessofthistranslationwithintheimage.Admittedly,Flusserdoesnotpresentanyprogramforthis,makesnoreferenceeithertodirectionsinstyleandartortoidealphotographers;instead,bypointinginthedirectionofexperimentalphotography,heindicatesthatthis‘informative’photographyhastobedistinguishedfrom‘redundant’photographywhichexhaustsitselfstylisticallyandveneratesapparatusesandprograms.Experimentalphotographymustexposethesecracksinrepresentation,theabsurdityofany‘post-historical’technicalrepresentation.Flusser’sworkonthephilosophyofphotographyshouldbereadasa

treatiseonthecrisisofhistorythatcannolongerberesolved.Thereaderwillbeunabletoavoidbeingconfrontedoverandoveragainwiththemelancholyreasonbehindtheobservationspresentedhere.Whentextswerenolongerabletoformnarratives,‘technicalimageswereinvented’.Theirjobwas‘tomaketextscomprehensibleagain,toputthemunderamagicspell–toovercomethecrisisofhistory’.ThereisaconnectionbetweentheinventionofphotographyandGustaveFlaubert,whosedearestwishissaidtohavebeentowriteabookaboutNothing.AfterreadingFlusser,oneseesthattheendofthestoryturnsouttobethebasicinformationofany‘informative’photography.Theobscuringoftheaestheticcomponentoftheprogramofthetwentiethcenturyformedthedarkapocalypticbackgroundtotheindescribablecatastropheofhuman

historyagainstwhichFlusserformulatedhisphilosophyoffreedom.

*VilémFlusser,‘WohnungbezieheninderHeimatlosigkeit’(FindingaHomeinHomelessness),inVonderFreiheitdesMigranten:EinsprüchegegendenNationalismus(OntheFreedomoftheMigrant:ObjectionstoNationalism)(Mannheim,1994),p.17.