We come to witness the light, to witness the appearance of the appearable; and, hence, the desire for the light which makes appear all that is appearable. Memory is the memory of having witnessed the light, of having witnessed the appearable appearing. Henceforth, this light cannot be extinguished. One has seen; one can go.
Photography is different from, let’s say, painting and sculpture, in the manner it does its doing. The photographic act is completely subsumed within the virtual. The only contact with the physical is through the pressing of the shutter-release button. Of course, the world is still important, but, in photography, the world is just pretext.
Photography’s argued indexicality is roped in as a weapon, ready to pulverise mainly the other visual arts, most notably painting. The argument, though, is mostly botched because those arguing this argument always happen to start off from the wrong end. The only modicum of indisputable indexicality, one could argue, in a Rembrandt is that at some point in time Rembrandt must have stood in front of the easel and painted the thing, the Rembrandt. But, because this is a painting, even this bit of unimpeachable indexicality can be made to lose its credibility and, more importantly, its validity. From this argumentative standpoint, proceeding to photography, maintaining the same bile, vigour, and scepticism in analysis, the argument of indexicality in photography now, and only now, becomes truly dangerous. Clearly, the argument was botched from the start for a reason; the danger was, and is, palpable – real.
Is there anything intrinsic to the photograph that enables recognition, or does this happen merely through a dynamic set in motion? Indeed, the world! But we know it – in mind!
The experience of ‘the photographic’ is the recognition of recognition. ‘The photographic’ then is the eye of the mind, having seen seeing; it is the quality of the ether in which this seeing seeing occurs. Necessarily, this ether is photographic, of a type known as ‘the photographic’. ‘The photographic’ is that which has the quality of the photographic, and hence is ‘the photographic’.
To bear the responsibility of the question… in itself… this and only this.
The core question in photography is this: how come it comes out looking like the world? This is the question any philosophy of photography has to grapple with. The history of photography is after all photography.
“…because it is the world!” And a photograph always comes out looking like the world, notwithstanding the fact that at times it happens to come out looking as such more so and at other times less so. ‘The photographic’ is what constitutes the photograph as such.
‘The photographic’ looks like something. That is why we say, “it looks photographic!” To all intents and purposes, that is how that something looks.
The eyes see the everything in everything. And that is ‘the photographic’. Evidently, ‘the photographic’ is just an analogy of all that.
We photograph to see what the Other sees. Hence the reason why “from today, painting is dead.” The linchpin is ‘the photographic’.
‘The photographic’ is not a theory of everything. ‘The photographic’ is not a theory. We could say that ‘the photographic’ is a theory of theory. We haven’t even stepped in.
Featured Image:
The Girdle. August 2023 at Paola, Malta. Photograph by the author.