on Photography #2

Comment on the last one: "Well written, well put, well said…From a linear context your arguments are flawless…By what happens when time comes full circle…when past, future and present become one? What happens to the concept of art, of communication. of photograph? Does the flattenting of space and time from the context of one dimesion prevent it from existing in another? Are future, present and past different entities? (are universal truths universal?) If not, how should these 3 ’snapshots’ of time aspire to create ‘reality’? What happens to intent when ‘time’ ceases to exist?"

mmm… that is an interesting question; but the theme of the question, if I understand it correctly is partly what I am critiquing here.

Q1) From a linear context your arguments are flawless…By what happens when time comes full circle…when past, future and present become one? What happens to the concept of art, of communication. of photograph?

A: Could you provide an example of when "time comes full circle"? I cannot think of any other than scientific ones, thus ascribed rather to natural or generated scientific phenomena rather than "human experience" which is what I am looking at…

The idea of the "collective consciousness", of human history (written, thought, spoken, lived–it doesn't really matter) is to me the logical fulcrum of the notion of "when past, future and present become one". We as a society are the sum legacy of our past and the tools to "create" the future, living within the present; and while individual lives may be ephemeral, the "collective consciousness" is rather a manifestation of social, cultural, political, or economic movements, or combinations thereof.

So what then is supposed to happen to the concepts of art, communication or photographs? Well, they are a part of that collective consciousness–their weightage in shaping it depends upon the level of exposure a population has to it, and the degree of it; the weightage in cultural political hegemony those concepts receive, and the relevance or lack thereof of that hegemony, the degree of freedom to replicate it or otherwise question its value, and the power to which one can revalue/devalue that form.

Q2) Does the flattenting of space and time from the context of one dimesion prevent it from existing in another? Are future, present and past different entities? (are universal truths universal?)

The "flattening" of space and time to form a photograph, or to use a more generic term "text" does not prevent it from existing in another.

To more clearly define the nature of the argument, "truth" is in essence "history"; and the "truth" of a text implies the degree to which a history has been accurately recorded. There can be many "versions" of the truth, many "stories"; but the truth remains the "actual" occurence that led to that history–failure to establish a singular truth is merely representative then, of a failure to establish a comparatively competent system of recording history on our part, rather than the non-existence of a singular truth. Which is why I stated that maybe photography aspires to reality, or maybe it doesn't; but it certainly should.

The past and present and the future, then are all interlinked as I said by the recorder of events–humankind.

By extension, "truths" when recorded correctly (across factors of intent, action, reaction and consequence) are then universal truths.

Q3) If not, how should these 3 ’snapshots’ of time aspire to create ‘reality’?

Again, it is not the medium that must aspire to reality–the medium is neutral. It is the recorder, the user of the medium who signifies intent. In McLuhan's famous words, the medium itself can become the message; but the medium is ultimately controlled by the mediator and all influences around it–the medium as a text still needs to be written before it can be read.

Q4) What happens to intent when ‘time’ ceases to exist?"

Time doesn't cease to exist–the recorder might, though 🙂

Advertisements

About this entry