On it's face, it seems to be simply an image. But it is more than that. It is a representation of the spirit of the times. The woman's expression as she stares off into the distance, her abject depression, is representative of the feel that there was no end in sight of the hard times that had befallen America. The two children hide their heads from the camera, because there is no silver lining to the dark cloud of the depression. Their faces are hidden; they do not wish to look upon the dark prospects of the future.
This photograph, and it IS a photograph, is certainly representative. It was the photographer's intention to capture this spirit of the time. Therefore, Scruton's claim that photography "cannot represent anything" seems to fly right in the face of the truth in actual photography -- the truth that photography CAN, and DOES, represent things beyond the objects pictured, in the same way that a painting can and does represent something outside of itself.
To end with a question: Given this example against Scruton's definition of an "ideal photograph," and the fact that his argument was based entirely on his "ideal examples," does Scruton's argument still hold true?
2 comments:
The photograph is just an image. The scene might be construed as representing something (and most likely will be by most observers), but the image of a potential representation is not a representation. Or so Scruton would argue.
I have responded to your question.
Post a Comment