Basic Definitions and Ideas about Photography and Indexicality
I'm reading essays by Rosalind Krauss about the indexicality of photographs.
Here is just some quotations and a few of my comments. I based my use of "index" and "icon" originally on C. S. Pierce.
Charles Sanders Pierce"By index I mean that type
of sign which arises as the physical manifestation of a cause, of which traces,
imprints, and clues are examples".-- Krauss
Aristotle uses this relatrionhship to classify "artistic" (as in artificial) and "inartistic" (physical) proofs in forensic logic.
"C. S. Peirce distinguishes
photographs from icons even though icons (signs which establish meaning through
the effect of resemblance) form a class to which we would suppose photographs
to belong. ‘Photographs,’ Pierce says, ‘especially instantaneous photographs,
are very instructive, because we know that they are in certain respects exactly
like the object they represent. But this resemblance is due to the photographs
having been produced under such circumstances that they were physically forced
to correspond point by point to nature. In that aspect, then, they belong to
the second class of signs [indices], those by physical connection”.-- Krauss
"Every photograph is the
result of a physical imprint transferred by light reflections onto a sensitive surface.
The photograph is thus a type of icon, or visual likeness, which bears an
indexical relationship to its object. Its separation from true icons is felt
through the absoluteness of this physical genesis, one that seem [sic] to short-circuit
or disallow those processes of schematization or symbolic intervention that
operate within the graphic representations of most paintings."--KraussBarthes:
"What this [photographic]
message specifies,” he writes "is, in effect, that the relation of signified
and signifier is quasi-tautological. Undoubtedly the photograph implies a
certain displacement of the scene (cropping, reduction, flattening), but this
passage is not a transformation (as an encoding must be). Here there is
a loss of equivalency (proper to true sign systems) and the imposition of a
quasi-identity. Put another way, the sign of this message is no longer drawn
from an institutional reserve; it is not coded. And one is dealing here with
the paradox of a message without a code”. Krauss quoting BarthesI'm thinking that for me, the transformation that takes place when I paint from a photograph is what Barthes here is calling "encoding".
"It is in the order of the
natural world that imprints on the photographic emulsion and subsequently on
the photographic print. This quality of transfer or trace give to the photograph
its documentary status, its undeniable veracity. But at the same time this
veracity is beyond the reach of those possible internal adjustments which are
the necessary property of language. The connective tissue binding the objects
contained by the photograph is that of the world itself, rather than that of a cultural
system."--Krauss
Of course this is not the
whole case when it comes to photo-collage or photoshopped images. Those are on a spectrum of indexicality, but also encoded. I think it is in that space or slippage between indexical reality and
arbitrary symbol that I am trying to work.
|
Alex's note from old blog
This is a good idea Paula. So simple and easily accessed. As
your fellow student I will begin the contributions by suggesting a book
on Bacon that Georgie has. There is quite a good essay in there in
which Bacon's use of the photograph as index is described and also
ascribed to Duchamp. For myself I am really curious to get into it as a
photographer and a semiotician. On the one side, I am more skeptical of
the pure indexical status given to the photograph as if it points to an
object, subject or event in the world to everyone equally. I think the
indexical relationship of a photograph to its 'object' is a very
different thing for someone who has actual experience of that
particular object than it is for someone who only knows it through the
photograph (for the latter there is already a process of
generalization, universalization, etc at work). On the other hand, as a
semiotician, I am fascinated with the idea of the photograph as a sign
that seems to be independent of the arbitrary relation of the signifier
to the signified and the conventional relationship between the two. I'm
fascinated by it but also don't trust it. Perhaps in that lies my
fascination. If this is indeed its status, it would explain the
essential muteness of all photography - its like the cat that was given
the power to speak and used his new voice to refuse to tell us what he
was thinking. February 16, 2009 |