With inkjet printers being ubiquitous, the distinction between a photograph printed in a book or on some piece of paper with an inkjet printer isn’t that massive. If you think about it, the traditional photographic print is an anomaly. But it’s straightforward to subsume another form that seemingly isn’t covered by these three modes into one of them (a picture in a newspaper would fall under “book” - after all, a newspaper is a form of book, a poster is a form of print, etc.).Īwoiska van der Molen - Fukushima, 2017 photograph by Awoiska van der Molen Approaching photographs this way simplifies things a little bit. The three carriers of a photograph are the photographic print, the book, and the screen. However, it deserves to not only be thought about, it actually needs to be understood. This is such an obvious statement that most photographers don’t think about it much. But here, I don’t want to deal with the metaphysics of photography.Ī different way of expressing the above would be to say that when we see photographs, we always see them tied to some carrier - however strongly or loosely - and surrounded by something. One could argue that latent photographs exist “on their own”. We never see photographs outside of any context. We always see photographs in some context. Actually, even to talk about photographs “on their own” makes very little sense. On their own, photographs have no meanings. Crucially, for the most part a photograph’s meaning derives from its use and context and from what a viewer might bring to it. Much like a chameleon can change the colour of its skin, based on their environment photographs can change some of their properties, while essentially still keeping their essence.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |