Linfield_Why Photo Critics Hate Photography
Transcript of Linfield_Why Photo Critics Hate Photography
-
7/30/2019 Linfield_Why Photo Critics Hate Photography
1/25
The Treacherous Medium
Why photography critics hate photographs
Susie Linfield
In his New York Times blog called "Zoom," filmmaker Errol Morris (Standard Operating
Procedure) has argued that photographs contain no truth valueno realityat all. In this
view, nothing real exists outside of language:
The issue of the truth or falsity of a photograph is only meaningful with respect to
statements about the photograph. Truth or falsity "adheres" not to the photograph itself
but to the statements we make about a photograph All alone shorn of context,
without captions a photograph is neither true nor false For truth, properly
considered, is about the relationship between language and the world, not about
photographs and the world.
Yet the undeniable limitations of the photograph, especially its inability to reveal
relationships or explicate causes, don't negate its distinctive essence: unlike a painting
or a piece of writing, it is a document of the real. Sometimes a photograph baldly
proclaims; at others, it whispers. It may be hard for us to know what a photograph says,
but that does not mean it is silent; it may be hard for us to understand the full reality at
which a photograph hints, but that does not mean it is empty. The fact that we need to
go outside the frame to discover larger, deeper truths doesn't mean that what's inside
the frame is meaningless, useless, or not-there. As theorist Georges Didi-Huberman
writes in his book about four photographs from Auschwitz, "Images do not say the truth
-
7/30/2019 Linfield_Why Photo Critics Hate Photography
2/25
but are a fragment of it. . . . The image is neither nothing, nor one, nor all."SL
In 1846, Charles Baudelaire wrote a little essay called What is the Good of Criticism?
This is a question that virtually every critic asks herself at some point, and that some
have answered with hopelessness, despair, even self-loathing. Baudelaire didnt think
that criticism would save the world, but he didnt think it was a worthless pursuit, either.
For Baudelaire, criticism was the synthesis of thought and feeling: in criticism,
Baudelaire wrote, passion raises reason to new heights. A few years later, he
would explain that through criticism he sought to transform my pleasure into
knowledgea pithy, excellent description of critical practice. Baudelaires American
contemporary Margaret Fuller held a similar view; as she put it, the critic teaches us to
love wisely what we before loved well.
By pleasure and love Baudelaire and Fuller didnt mean that critics should write only
about things that make them happy or that they can praise. What they meant is that a
critics emotional connection to an artist, or to a work of art, is the sine qua non of
criticism, and it usually, therefore, determines the critics choice of subject. Who can
doubt that Edmund Wilson loved literatureand that, to him, it simply mattered more
than most other things in life? Who can doubt that Pauline Kael found the world most
challenging, most meaningfulhell, most alivewhen she sat in a dark movie theater,
or that Kenneth Tynan felt the same way at a play? For these critics and othersthose I
would consider at the center of the modern traditioncultivating this sense of lived
experience was at the heart of writing good criticism. Randall Jarrell, certainly no anti-
intellectual, wrote that criticism demands of the critic a terrible nakedness. . . . All he
-
7/30/2019 Linfield_Why Photo Critics Hate Photography
3/25
has to go by, finally, is his own response, the self that makes and is made up of such
responses. Alfred Kazin agreed; the critics skill, he argued, begins by noticing his
intuitive reactions and building up from them; he responds to the matter in hand with
perception at the pitch of passion.
The great exception to all this is photography criticism. There, you will hear precious
little talk of love or passion or terrible nakedness. There, critics view emotional
responsesif they, or their readers, have anynot as something to be experienced
and understood but, rather, to be vigilantly guarded against: to these writers, criticism is
a prophylactic against the virus of sentiment. When we enter the world of photography
criticism we travel far from Baudelaires exploration of his pleasure; for there is little
pleasure to be had, and even that is condemned as voyeuristic, pornographic, or
exploitative. Put most bluntly, for the past century most photography critics havent
really liked photographs, or the experience of looking at them, at all. They approach
photographynot specific photographs, or specific practitioners, or specific genres, but
photography itselfwith suspicion, mistrust, anger, and fear. Rather than enter into
what Kazin called a community of interest with their subject, these critics come armed
to the teeth against it. For them, photography is a powerful, duplicitous force to be
defanged rather than an experience to embrace.
Susan Sontags On Photographywas published in 1977, and it remains astonishingly
incisive. It has been, rightly, immensely influential on other photography critics. And
immensely influential, too, in setting the particularly reproachful tone of photography
criticism. Look, for instance, at Sontags description of photography in the first chapter
-
7/30/2019 Linfield_Why Photo Critics Hate Photography
4/25
of the book, which establishes a voice, an attitude, an approach that is maintained
throughout. Sontag describes photography as, among other things, grandiose,
treacherous, imperial, voyeuristic, predatory, addictive, reductive, and the
most irresistible form of mental pollution. A typical sentence reads, The camera
doesnt rape, or even possess, though it may presume, intrude, trespass, distort,
exploit, and, at the farthest reach of metaphor, assassinateall activities that, unlike the
sexual push and shove, can be conducted from a distance, and with some detachment.
Metaphor indeed! On Photographywas written by a brilliant skeptic.
So, too, was Roland Barthess Camera Lucida, first published in France in 1980.
Delicate and playful, this book is a love letter to the photograph. Barthes celebrates the
quirky, spontaneous reactions that photographs can inspireor at least the quirky,
spontaneous reactions they inspire in him: A photographs punctumis that accident
which pricks me (but also bruises me, is poignant to me). Still, Camera Lucidais a very
odd valentine, for Barthes describes photographers as agents of Death and the
photograph as a catastrophe; also as flat, platitudinous, stupid, without culture,
andmost unkind undialectical. The photograph teaches me nothing, Barthes
insists: it completely de-realizes the world of human conflicts and desires.
Continuing this classic-modern tradition of photography criticism is John Berger, the
most urgent, morally cogent critic that photography has produced. My first interest in
photography was passionate, Berger has written (as a young man, he wanted to
compose a book of love poems illustrated with photos), and when you read him, you
believe him. Berger has frequently worked with photographs, producing, among other
works, four books with the Swiss documentarian Jean Mohr. More important, he has
-
7/30/2019 Linfield_Why Photo Critics Hate Photography
5/25
argued that photographs represent an opposition to history by affirming the subjective
experiences of ordinary people that modernity, science, and industrial capitalism have
done so much to crush: And so, hundreds of millions of photographs, fragile images,
often carried next to the heart or placed by the side of the bed, are used to refer to that
which historical time has no right to destroy.
And yet in Bergers canonical photography essays he took a decidedly dark view of the
practice. Photographs of political violence, he insisted, were at best useless and at
worst narcissistic, leading the viewer not to enlightenment, outrage, or revolution but
instead to a sense of his own personal moral inadequacy. (In Sontags last
book,Regarding the Pain of Others, she softened her stance toward photography, but
she too concluded that photographs of war do nothing to bridge the chasm between
victims and voyeurs: We dont get it. . . . Cant understand, cant imagine.) More
generally, Berger described the photographall photographsas a form of violence
and, drawing on a metaphor clearly derived from the atom bomb, as a fission whereby
appearances are separated by the camera from their function. Berger allowed that
photography is a god, but he called it the most cynical oneand one that, he
believed, made amnesiacs rather than critical thinkers of us all.
In the 1980s, the postmodern children of Sontag, Berger, and company transformed this
skepticism into outright antipathy. 1 Indeed, for the postmoderns, suspicion of the
photograph was an ethical stance, though I see it as closer to a pathological one. For
these critics, the photograph was simply a tool of late capitalism, exploiting its subject
and duping its viewer. Thus, Abigail Solomon-Godeau charged, the documentary photo
or what she grandly called the regime of the imagecommits a double act of
http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#FNR1http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#FNR1 -
7/30/2019 Linfield_Why Photo Critics Hate Photography
6/25
subjugation in which the hapless subject is victimized first by social forces, then by the
photographer and viewer. John Tagg went further: photography, he wrote, is ultimately
a function of the state, deeply implicated in the ruling classs apparatus of ideological
control and its reproduction of . . . submissive labour power. (In an interview, Tagg
explained that he drew on the work of Louis Althusser and Michel Foucault to formulate
his ideas, though it is not clear why these two theorists were the best guides to
understanding a photograph.) And it was not fashion or art photographers who incited
the wrath of these critics but, rather, socially conscious photojournalists, with their
foolish belief in such old-fashioned fictions as progress, truth, and justice. The liberal
documentary assuages any stirrings of conscience in its viewers the way scratching
relieves an itch, Martha Rosler scoffed in a seminal, oft-quoted piece. Documentary is
a little like horror movies, putting a face on fear and transforming threat into fantasy.
Most important, these critics denied that a scintilla of autonomyfor either
photographer or viewerwas possible; denied, that is, that the photographer could ever
offer, or the viewer could ever find, even a moment of surprise, originality, or insight
through looking at a photograph. To think otherwise was to partake in a sham: The
wholeness, coherence, identity, which we attribute to the depicted scene is a projection,
a refusal of an impoverished reality in favour of an imaginary plenitude, Victor Burgin
wrote. In the view of these critics, it was impossible to ever see the world anew, for the
gaze of both the photographer and his audience was predetermined, and irreparably
infected, by reactionary ideological forces beyond our control; in their scheme, we are
all simply helpless spiders caught in capitalisms web, which is spun, apparently, not of
silk but of iron. (As Berger would tartly note, Unlike their late master, some of Barthes
-
7/30/2019 Linfield_Why Photo Critics Hate Photography
7/25
structuralist followers love closed systems.) Indeed, Burgin condemned the actual
activity of lookingan odd stance, one would think, for a photography critic: Our
conviction that we are free to choose what we make of a photograph hides the
complicity to which we are recruited in the very act of looking, he insisted. In short,
these critics regarded the photograph as a prison and the gift of vision as a crime.
Abandon hope, all ye who enter here might well have been the epigraph to their
books, which are no fun at all to read.
Compare all thisthis obsession with victimization and predetermination, this utter
refusal of freedom, this insistent morosenessto the opening pages of Pauline Kaels
essay Trash, Art, and the Movies, written in 1969. Kael, too, set a certain tone, both
for her readers and for numerous other critics. Here it is:
A good movie can take you out of your dull funk and the hopelessness that so often
goes with slipping into a theatre; a good movie can . . . make you care, make you
believe in possibilities again. . . . The movie doesnt have to be great; it can be stupid
and empty and you can still have the joy of a good performance, or the joy of just a
good line. An actors scowl, a small subversive gesture, a dirty remark that someone
tosses off with a mock-innocent face, and the world makes a little bit of sense.
Kael continued, Because movies are the most total and encompassing art form we
have, these reactionsthat is, the reactions of the moviegoer sitting in front of the
screencan seem the most personal and, maybe the most important, imaginable.
Trash, Art, and the Movies was written by a brilliant lover.
Kael had two great insights in this piece. One is that trash, far from blinding viewers to
art, actually prepared them for it; or, rather, that through understanding ones visceral
-
7/30/2019 Linfield_Why Photo Critics Hate Photography
8/25
enjoyment of trash, a viewer could begin to formulate her own, independent aesthetic
that could lead to an equally visceral enjoyment of art. Kaels second truth was that the
only capacious and intelligent way to experience movies was to combine ones deepest
emotional reactionswhich should never be disownedwith a probing analysis of
them. She did not, as some have mistakenly thought, champion unadulterated emotion
or unexamined fandom; on the contrary, she insisted that the viewer who approaches
movies in such unthinking ways does not respond more freely but less freely and less
fully than the person who is aware of what is well done and what badly done in a movie,
who can accept some things in it and reject others, who uses all his senses in reacting,
not just his emotional vulnerabilities. But this, after all, is the same insight that
Baudelaire had come to when he wrote of seeking the why of his pleasure; it was the
view of Randall Jarrell when he wrote that the good critic combines the sense of fact
with the personal truth; it was what Alfred Kazin meant when he wrote that the unity of
thinking and feeling actually exists in the passionate operation of the critics
intelligence. It is this quest for the synthesis of thought and feelingand the essentially
comradely, or at least open, approach to art that it impliesthat photography critics
reject. The question is: why?
Photography is a modern inventionone that, from its inception, inspired a host of
conflicts and anxieties. Indeed, when we talk about photography we are talking about
modernity; the doubts that photography inspires are the doubts that modernity inspires.
Photography is a proxy for modern life and its discontents.
What are some of these troubles? From the first, the essential nature of photography
-
7/30/2019 Linfield_Why Photo Critics Hate Photography
9/25
was puzzling. It tended to blur categorieswhich can be both exciting and unsettling.
Was photography a kind of art? of commerce? of journalism? of science? of
surveillance? Was it a form of creativity, a way of bringing newness into the world, or
was its relation to reality essentially mimetic or, even, that of a parasite?
One thing was clear early on: photography was, and perhaps still is, the great
democratic medium. Baudelaire, who launched his famous diatribe against photography
in 1859, hated the new form for many reasons, one of which was certainly its populist
character. In these deplorable times, Baudelaire warned, a new industry has
developed, one supported by what he called the stupidity of the masses. Like an Old
Testament prophet, he railed,
An avenging God has heard the prayer of this multitude; Daguerre was his messiah.
Our loathsome society rushed, like Narcissus, to contemplate its trivial image on the
metallic plate. A form of lunacy, an extraordinary fanaticism, took hold of these new sun-
worshippers.2
Almost from the beginning, it was clear that every butcher, baker, and candlestick
makerat least in developed countries such as England, Germany, France and the
United Stateswould be able to purchase photographic reproductions. But with the
introduction of lighter, cheaper cameras, which began in the late 19th century and
continued throughout the 20th, it became clear that the butcher and baker could not
only purchase photos but could make them, too. Even more startling: they could
makegoodphotos. This is one of several things that sets photography apart from the
other arts. Most people, after all, cant paint a wonderful painting or compose a
wonderful poem or write a wonderful play. But lots of ordinary peoplewith no training,
http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#FNR2http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#FNR2 -
7/30/2019 Linfield_Why Photo Critics Hate Photography
10/25
no experience, no education, no knowledgehave taken wonderful photos: better,
sometimes, than those of the great artists. Yet this, tooand the leveling tendencies it
impliesis troubling. (This is what Sontag meant, I think, when she wrote of the
disconcerting ease with which photographs can be taken.) For where such
egalitarianism dwells, can the razing of all distinctions be far behind? Who can admire
an activitymuch less an artthat so many people can do so damn well?
Photographys democratic promise has always been photographys populist threat.
Then, too, photography stirs up our anxieties about our love-hate relationship to
technology. Unlike painting, writing, dancing, music making, and storytelling,
photography began not thousands of years ago with innocent, primitive man but less
than 200 years ago with compromised, modern man; and unlike those other arts, it is
dependent on a machine. It is, therefore, an impure and highly contingent art, and we
have approached it with that trepidatious mixture of expectation and distrust, of glorious
hope and tremendous gloom, with which we approach the machine age itself.
Yet beyond all this, there is something else at the heart of photography criticisms
peculiarities. Most photography criticsSontag, Berger, Barthes, and certainly the
postmodernswere heavily influenced by the Frankfurt School critics: especially
Siegfried Kracauer and Walter Benjamin and, through him, Bertolt Brecht, who was
Benjamins friend and comrade. In fact, none of these men wrote mainly about
photography, but what they did write has been treated with biblical respectand
undergone hermeneutical scrutinyby late-20th-century critics.
It would be false to say that Benjamin and Kraucauer hated photographs. On the
contrary: as great dialecticians, they (and especially Benjamin) believed the photograph
-
7/30/2019 Linfield_Why Photo Critics Hate Photography
11/25
held out liberating, indeed revolutionary, possibilities. In his now enormously influential
essay Little History of Photography, originally published in 1931, Benjamin argued that
photography had created a new way of seeing and would enable people to achieve
control over works of art. Several years later he wrote of the ways that film and
photography contributed to the smashing of tradition: Mechanical reproduction
emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual. . . . Instead of
being based on ritual, it begins to be based on another practicepolitics.
Equally important, Benjamin understood the subjective power of the photograph, its
spooky ability to make us want to enter into the world and even, sometimes, change it.
For Benjamin, the photo wasnt a dead thing; on the contrary, it could embrace not just
the past but the future. Looking at one photographa 19th-century portrait of a man
and his fiance (she would later commit suicide)he mused:
Immerse yourself in such a picture long enough and you will realize to what extent
opposites touch, here too: the most precise technology can give its products a magical
value, such as a painted picture can never again have for us. . . . The beholder feels an
irresistible urge to search such a picture for the tiny spark of contingency, of the here
and now, with which reality has (so to speak) seared the subject, to find the
inconspicuous spot where in the immediacy of that long-forgotten moment the future
nests so eloquently that we, looking back, may rediscover it.
At the same time, these critics were highly suspicious of photography and the passive,
aestheticized society they feared it would help create. Benjamin wrote that mass events
including monster [political] rallies, . . . sports events, and . . . war were all
intimately connected with the development of the techniques of reproduction and
-
7/30/2019 Linfield_Why Photo Critics Hate Photography
12/25
photography. He believed that photography was a form of mystification, for it can
endow any soup candid he foresee the age of Warhol?with cosmic significance but
cannot grasp a single one of the human connections in which it exists. And he charged
somewhat bizarrelythat with the rise of photography a new reality unfolds, in the
face of which no one can take responsibility for personal decisions. (Instead, One
appeals to the lens.) Both he and Kracauer regarded the photograph as a kind of
diminution: The photograph is not the person but the sum of what can be subtracted
from him or her, Kracauer wrote. The photograph annihilates the person. And while
many artists and journalists working in Weimar Berlins cacophonous, newly
uncensored pressnotable for its plethora of heavily illustrated publicationsviewed
the photograph as a harbinger of modernity, Kracauer was decidedly unimpressed. The
flood of photos sweeps away the dams of memory, he charged. Never before has a
period known so little about itself. In the hands of the ruling society, the invention of
illustrated magazines is one of the most powerful means of organizing a strike against
understanding. . . . The image-idea drives away the idea.
Most of all, though, I believe it is Brecht whose shadow hangs over photography
criticism. Brecht, its fair to say, really did dislike photographs, or at best deeply distrust
them; in 1931 he described them as a terrible weapon against the truth. In Little
History, Benjamin quotes Brecht: Less than ever does the mere reflection of reality
reveal anything about reality. A photograph of the Krupp works or the AEGthe
massive German armaments and electric companies, respectivelytells us next to
nothing about these institutions. 3
These two sentences have been quoted ad infinitum and launched a million Ph.D.
http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#FNR3http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#FNR3 -
7/30/2019 Linfield_Why Photo Critics Hate Photography
13/25
theses. And on one level, there is no doubt that Brecht was right. Photographs dont
explain the way the world works; they dont offer reasons or causes; they dont tell us
stories with a coherent, or even discernible, beginning, middle, and end. Photographs
live on the surface: they cant burrow within to reveal the inner dynamics of historic
events. And though its true that photographs document the specific, they tend, also, to
blurdangerously blurpolitical and historic distinctions: a photograph of a bombed-
out apartment building in Berlin, circa 1945, looks much like a photograph of a bombed-
out apartment building in Hanoi, circa 1969, which looks awfully similar to a photograph
of a bombed-out apartment building in Baghdad from last week. Yet only a vulgar
reductionistor a complete pacifistwould say that these three cities, which is to say
these three wars, are fundamentally the same cities or the same wars. Still, the photos
lookthe same: theres a very real sense in which if youve seen one bombed-out
building you have indeed seen them all. (War is a horrible repetition, Martha Gellhorn
wrote, and this is even truer of photographs than of words.) It is this anti-explanatory,
anti-analytic quality of the photographwhat Barthes called its stupiditythat critics
have seized on with a vengeance and that they cannot, apparently, forgive.
But the problem with photographs is not only that they fail to explain the world. A greater
problem, for Brecht and his followers, is what photographs succeedin doing, which is to
offer an immediate, emotional connection to the world. People dont look at photographs
to understand the inner contradictions of monopoly capitalism or the reasons for the
genocide in Rwanda. Theyweturn to photographs for other things: for a glimpse of
what cruelty, or strangeness, or beauty, or suffering, or love, or disease, or natural
wonder, or artistic creation, or depraved violence, looks like. And we turn to
-
7/30/2019 Linfield_Why Photo Critics Hate Photography
14/25
photographs, also, to find out what our intuitive reactions to such otherness might be.
(This curiosity is not, as the postmoderns have charged, an expression of imperialism,
racism, or orientalism: the peasant in Kenya and the worker in Cairo are as
fascinatedif not more soby a picture of New Yorkers as we are by an image of
them.) None of us is a creature solely of feeling, and yet there is no doubt that we
approach photographs, first and foremost, on an emotional level.
For Brecht, of course, this was the worst possible approach to anything. Brechts entire
oeuvre is an assault not just on sentimentality but on sentiment itself; indeed, for Brecht,
the two were synonymous. Brecht regarded all feelingany feelingas dishonest and
dangerous; he associated emotion with the chaos and irrationality of capitalism. As
George Grosz once remarked, Brecht clearly would have wanted a sensitive electric
computer instead of a heart. And George Grosz was a friend.
There is much that is bracing, and revelatory, and so wonderfully challenging about
Brechts emotional astringency. Who can not admire a man who, in one of his very first
poems, announces to the women in his life, Here you have someone on whom you
cant rely. What is often forgotten, however, is that Brechtlike Moseswas a
particular man who lived in a particular time and place and who observed particular
things. Brechts time and place was Weimar Germany, and he sawcorrectlythat his
compatriots were drowning in a toxic bath of unexamined emotion: of rage over their
defeat in World War I, of ressentimentagainst Jews and intellectuals and others, of self-
pity, of bathos, of fear. Brecht sawcorrectlythat this poisonous mix of increasingly
hysterical feeling, and the voodoo conspiracy theories to which it lent itself, was the
perfect incubator for fascism.
-
7/30/2019 Linfield_Why Photo Critics Hate Photography
15/25
Like Brecht, we live in dark times, which is to say times of confusion, violence, and
injustice. And yet there are real differences between our darkness and Brechts. We do
notunlike Brechtlive in a society that is the precursor, much less the architect, of
Treblinka and Sobibor. Brechts relentless war on emotion was ethically, politically, and
artistically necessary for him, but it has been taken up in an all too uncritical way by
Anglo-American photography critics working in very different times and places and
facing a very different set of challenges.
And while Brecht feared, and fought against, what he saw as the thoughtless, Pavlovian
responses of the audience, I suspect that the postmoderns are motivated by a different
anxiety. That is, they worry not so much about the obedient, automatic reactions of the
viewer but about her disobedient, politically incorrect ones. 4 This strange, confounding
ability of photographs to make us feel things that we do not think we should was brought
home to me recently as I perused a book of photos, taken by photojournalists from
many nations, called Witness Iraq: A War Journal FebruaryApril 20003.5
One image in the book, reproduced in color as a double-page spread, shows six women
in a cemetery outside Baghdad. (Cemeteries in Baghdad are busy places; in the
background of this photo we see two fresh, unfilled graves and the scaffolding for an
unfinished structure.) The women are gathered around a wood coffin that is adorned
with Arabic writing on two sides. Five of the women face each other and seem to be in
conversation; one rests her open palm on the coffin as her other hand cups her face.
The sixth woman, who is in the pictures foreground, turns away from the others and
toward the camera; her head tilts to the side, her arms are folded. All the women wear
http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#FNR4http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#FNR5http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#FNR4http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#FNR5 -
7/30/2019 Linfield_Why Photo Critics Hate Photography
16/25
long black abayas; several have covered not only their heads and bodies but parts of
their faces too. The picture was taken by Jerome Delay, a French war photographer for
the Associated Press, and the caption tells us, Relatives of Mohammed Jaber Hassan
weep over his coffin . . . Hassan, 22, died when a bomb fell on a busy market in
Baghdads Shula district, killing 52 and wounding scores. Because the picture is dated
03/29/03, we know that the bomb was probably an American one, 6 and that it was
dropped on the civilian marketplace almost certainly by accidentwhich is not the same
as forgivably. (If the picture, and the bomb, were dated yesterday or today or tomorrow,
we would know that it was planted by members of the Baathist or Islamist insurgency,
and on purpose.)7
This is a portrait of deep sadness that merges into anguish; it is amazing how much
emotion partially hidden faces can convey. The woman in the foregroundwho is
clearly part of the group and yet seems isolated from ithas covered her eyes and
mouth; what we see is, mainly, her flat nose and her plump, deeply creased cheek. But
what an eloquent crease! Something in it speaks of deepest pain. It is as if the
accumulated experience of a lifetimea universe of sorrowhas been compressed into
that one carved line. The crease howls.
That universe of sorrow is, in all likelihood, a wide one, and did not originate in the
premature death of Mohammed Jaber Hassan. It is probable that the lives of these
women, all of whom look middle-aged, have not been good; probable that they suffered
through the brutal years of Saddam, the IranIraq War, the first Gulf War and the
ensuing, immiserating sanctions; that they have suffered at the hands of the Americans,
and perhaps at the hands of their own fathers and husbands too; 8 that they are
http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#FNR6http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#FNR7http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#FNR8http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#FNR6http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#FNR7http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#FNR8 -
7/30/2019 Linfield_Why Photo Critics Hate Photography
17/25
suffering, right now, through the increasingly sadistic sectarian-political-criminal violence
sweeping Iraq. I cannot pretend to approach, much less share, the depth and the
number of these sorrows, and I cannot pretend that, as an American, I am not deeply
implicated in crucial parts of this pain.
And yet, and yet: looking at Delays picture, that universe of pain did not encompass
me, or pull me in; the photo created no bond between me and the Iraqi women. I did not
feel empathy, or sympathy, or guilt, though I wished I could and thought I should.
Instead I felt impatience, and even disgust: rather than embracing these women, I
wanted to shake them. We have seen, and we will continue to see, countless pictures of
women in black abayas (or chadors, or burkas) wailing over their sonsand often, also,
celebrating them as martyrs. That wailing and that celebrating have persisted for a very
long time, and I am pretty sure they will continue long after the United States pulls out
its troops and grounds its planes. In fact, I doubt that such sorrows can even begin to
abate until the women in the cemetery take off their veils, and stop wailing and
mourning and celebrating, and enter into the modern world to begin making modern
politics. Such politics can be cognizant of, but cannot be founded on, mourning; they
cannot be made by people who dwell in shadows with their faces covered and their
ideas unformed; they cannot be created by those who live in what Michael Ignatieff has
called the dream time of vengeance.
I have felt a similar impatience and a similar revulsion looking at other photographs of
bottomless, impotent suffering, including some from the Holocaust. It is not a pretty
reactionand yet why should it be otherwise? Why should our relation to victimhood,
suffering, and loss, and to the histories of which they speak, be less thorny than our
-
7/30/2019 Linfield_Why Photo Critics Hate Photography
18/25
relation to anything else? In 1944, Hannah Arendt approached this question in a
provocative essay called The Jew as Pariah. She described, with obvious admiration,
the French author and political activist Bernard Lazare:
He demanded . . . that the pariah . . . come to grips with the world of men and women.
In other words, he wanted him to feel that he was himself responsible for what society
had done to him. . . . . However much the Jewish pariah might be, from the historical
viewpoint, the product of an unjust dispensation . . . politically speaking, every pariah
who refused to be a rebel was partly responsible for his own position and therewith for
the blot on mankind which it represented. From such shame there was no escape.
This was an unsparing view for Lazare to hold, and it was an unsparing thing for Arendt
to write, and it would be an unsparing thing to say to the grieving relatives of
Mohammed Jaber Hassan. But I am not sure it is any more harsh, or any less useful,
than empathy or sympathy or guilt.
It may be that the images that move us most nownot necessarily into empathy, but
into fresh thinkingare not those of pure grief. Perhaps, at this blood-soaked moment,
cemeteries can teach us little.9 There is another kind of picture that, while it surely
documents suffering, speaks also of the strange and jarring contradictions that mark so
many of todays violent conflicts. Two such pictures in Witness Iraqstruck me.
One was taken by Damir Sagolj, a Bosnian photographer who works for Reuters. It
shows a pudgy U.S. Marine. He wears wire eyeglasses, and goggles pushed onto his
forehead, and he sits outdoors on a patch of parched ground (we are not told the exact
location, only that it is in central Iraq); in the blurry background we see soldiers with
http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#FNR9http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#FNR9 -
7/30/2019 Linfield_Why Photo Critics Hate Photography
19/25
machine guns. Our Marine seems unarmedthe caption tells us he is a doctorand
we see, placed neatly in his front vest, a pen, a toothbrush, and a pair of scissors. He
wears blue plastic gloves and looks down impassively into his lap, where he holds . . . a
small, dark-haired Iraqi girl cradled in his arms. She looks to be about four; she is
barefoot, and her naked little toes curl downward, as if her feet are clenching into fists.
She is dressed in what look like knit pajamas; they are pink, and one arm is stained with
blood. The girl looks straight ahead at her feetnot at the Marinebut one of her
hands grasps his chest. The bulkiness of the Marine seems to overwhelm and yet
protect her; she nestles almost perfectly within the enclosure of his arms.
What are we to make of this photo? It is a picture of contingent refuge in the midst of
violence; of dependence, but of the most unequal kind; of tremendous strength and
tremendous vulnerability; of two people who are neither enemies nor friends. Is the
Marine savior or villain? The soft pink of the girls outfit contrasts sharply with the
muddy, grayish-green color of the soldiers uniforms and the dry, unforgiving earth, and
thus echoes the jarring discordancies of the war itself. One could make up many stories
the Marines killed the girls family; the Marines protected the girls familybut who
knows what is true? And what of the future of the people in the photo? What has
happened to the girl, and to her family? Is the Marine dead or alive? A photograph, John
Berger wrote, always and by its nature refers to what is not seen, and this was never
truer than in this case. I almost gasped when I saw this picturenot in alarm, but in
surpriseand the more I have looked at it, the less I understand it. It is a mystery that
will not be solved.
Another weird and intriguing image, taken by the French AP photographer Jean-Marc
-
7/30/2019 Linfield_Why Photo Critics Hate Photography
20/25
Bouju, has been widely seen; it won the World Press Photo of the Year Award in 2003.
(Over 63,000 images were considered for the prize.) The combination of cruelty and
kindness that it depicts is discomfiting, almost creepy, and upends any ideas we might
have that the two can always be cleanly separated. Bouju traveled with the 101st
Airborne Division (so much for the charge that embedded journalists are merely
government propagandists), and he took this picture on March 31, 2003, in Najaf.
The photo shows an Iraqi man in what the caption identifies as a POW camp. He sits on
dusty ground behind massive coils of barbed wire (they are the first thing that we see).
The unnamed prisonerwho might be guilty of vicious murders, and might be
completely innocent, and might be somewhere in betweenwears a loose white shirt
and pants, and sandals. His head and face, like those of the women in the cemetery,
are hidden, though not voluntarily: his are covered by a pointy, shiny black hood, a
seemingly medieval artifact many of us now associate with the tortures of Abu Ghraib.
The mans head tilts forwardtoward his four-year-old son, who sits pressed up close
against him, held within his arms. The boy is dressed in a green shirt and pants, and is
barefoot; there is a pair of small sneakers nearby. The boys mouth is slightly openhe
looks stunned, and tiredand mucus drips from his nose; his face is dirty. The man, like
parents the world over, holds his sons forehead in one palm, as if calming him; his
other arm wraps around his sons body. Bouju has said that the boy was crying when
his father was arrested and so the American soldiers allowed the two to stay together,
then cut off the fathers plastic handcuffs so he could hold his child.
One can read this picture as a symbol of compassion (of the soldiers toward the
prisoner, of the father toward his son), and equally of its opposite; the dissonance is
-
7/30/2019 Linfield_Why Photo Critics Hate Photography
21/25
symbolized by the way the harsh, ugly inkiness of the black hood contrasts with the
softness of the boys face. The photo is simultaneously obscene (what is a four-year-old
doing behind barbed wire? and what can he make of his fathers monstrous hood?) and
immensely moving: the tenderness with which the father holds his boy in the midst of
what are obviously horrific circumstances shines through, and suggests that a fathers
love is stronger than barbed wire. But it would be a mistake to sentimentalize this photo:
it shows us one innocent, but not necessarily two.
These photos speak not just of the plight of children in wartime, though they depict that
too. But perhaps more important, they suggestthough do not explainthe strange
incongruities of the Iraq war, which cannot be summed up by phrases like U.S.
imperialism or war on terror. It is a war in which an army of liberation quickly became
an army of occupation, offering an unusual, catastrophic blend of negligence and
oppression; in which the overthrow of a dictator led to the unleashing of tremendous
violence against his already wounded people; in which a nation newly freed from
decades of brutal rule turned, furiously, inward, its lessons in sadism learned all too
well.
It is precisely because these photos are so confusingsuch utter failures at providing
answersthat they are so valuable: by refusing to tell us what to feel, and allowing us
to feel things we dont quite understand, they make us dig, and even think, a little
deeper. In approaching photos such as these, the point is not to formally disassemble
them in the hope of gaining mastery; nor to reject them as feeble, partial truths; nor to
deny the uncomfortable, unfamiliar reactions they elicit. Instead, we can usethe photos
ambiguities as a starting point of discovery, a tool with which to delve into the larger
-
7/30/2019 Linfield_Why Photo Critics Hate Photography
22/25
historic realities at which the images can only hint. By connecting these photographs to
the world outside their frames, they begin to live, to breathe, more fully; otherwise they
simply devolve into spectacles.
With changed circumstances should come changed approaches. The world we live in is
not Brechts, and photography critics today dont needto fear all emotion, as did Brecht;
they dont need to purge all emotion, as did Brecht; they dont need to spend such
ferocious energy distancing us from images. In doing so, they have made it easy for us
to deconstruct photographs but difficult to see them; they have made it difficult, that is,
to grasp what Berger called the therenessof the world. And though most photography
criticsor at least those I have been discussingidentify themselves with the left, this
detestation of the photograph is not a subversive or progressive or revolutionary stance,
but in fact aligns them with the forces of the most deplorable backwardness: aligns
them, for instance, with the frenzied crowds in Kabul and Karachi, Damascus and
Tehran, who called for the execution of the Danish cartoonists and promised what they
called a real holocaust. Here is where pre-modernism and postmodernism merge, for
those demonstrators, too, view images as an exploitation, an insult, a blasphemy: as an
act of subjugation indeed.
It is time, and it is possible, for photography critics to come out of the cold. They can join
the great critical tradition of Kael and Jarrell and Kazin, of James Agee and Arlene
Croce and so many others: not to drown in bathos or sentimentality, but to integrate
emotion into the experience of looking. They can use emotion as a starting point, an
inspiration, to analysis rather than maintain an eternal war between the two. They can,
-
7/30/2019 Linfield_Why Photo Critics Hate Photography
23/25
in short, allow themselves and their readers to come to the photograph as full human
beings: as men and women of heart and mind, of immediacy and history. Along with
Baudelaire, they can turn pleasureand its oppositeinto knowledge, and they can
even teach us, perhaps, how to love more wisely.
1 In the past several years, some curators and art historians, such as Michael Fried,
have devoted much attention to photography. However, they tend to be most enamored
ofor at least interested inartists such as Jeff Wall and Andreas Gursky, who are
known for their elaborately constructed or digitally manipulated photographs and who
have therefore seceded, I would argue, from the traditional definition of photography, if
not actually negating it.
2 Baudelaire feared that photography would weaken if not destroy painting. So did
George Bernard Shaw, but this thrilled rather than enraged him: we might think of him
as the anti-Baudelaire. Writing in 1901, Shaw derided what he saw as the fussy
mannerism of painting, with its "barbarous smudging and soaking, . . . faking and
forging." Shaw loved the modern, truthful clarity of the photograph, and he heralded its
triumph: "The old game is up. . . . The camera has hopelessly beaten the pencil and
paint-brush as an instrument of artistic representation . . . . As to the painters and their
fanciers, I snort defiance at them; their day of daubs is over."
3 With Brecht, though, nothing is simple. He was an admirer of the AIZ(Arbeiter
Illustrierte Zeitung), an illustrated newsweekly published between the wars by the
Communist activist and entrepreneur Willi Mnzenberg. And in 1955 Brecht'sKriegsfibel
(War Primer), a book of assembled photographs he had begun working on 15 years
earlier, was published in East Germany. It contains 85 photos, culled from mass-
http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#1http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#2http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#3http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#1http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#2http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#3 -
7/30/2019 Linfield_Why Photo Critics Hate Photography
24/25
circulation newspapers and magazines, of Hitler and other Nazis, Allied leaders, war
victims, partisans, ruined cities, etc. Each photo is accompanied by a sardonic four-line
poema sort of anti-nursery rhymewritten by Brecht. The effect is quite . . .
Brechtian.
4 Abigail Solomon-Godeau admitted that when looking at a photo, "trajectories of power
and desire, mastery and projection . . . . run between the perceiving eye, the subjective
I, and the visual field," but she quickly called on the "insights of semiotics, linguistics,
psychoanalysis, and poststructural theories of representation" to rescue us from such
pesky, potentially uncontrollable subjectivity.
5 Other photo books documenting the war include Bruno Stevens's Bagdad: Au-del du
miroirand Unembedded: Four Independent Photojournalists on the War in Iraq.
6 Though not definitely. In his book Night Draws Near, Anthony Shadid of The
Washington Postwrites that Iraqi antiaircraft fire may have caused the blast.
7 The day after I wrote this sentence, the front page of The New York Timesbore the
headline "Car Bomb Kills More Than 60 in Iraq Market." The dispatch began, "A
powerful suicide car bomb ripped through a bustling street market here in a Shiite slum
here on Saturday, killing at least 62 people and wounding nearly 120 . . ."
8Unembeddedcontains a series of photos, taken by Rita Leistner, of women in
Baghdad's Rashad Psychiatric Hospital. A psychiatrist there told Leistner that since
many Iraqis fear that a daughter with a mental disorder will render other girls in the
family unmarriageable, the presumably ill daughters are "cast away from society by their
families, who will often provide false addresses so hospital staff can never find them
again. Some mentally healthy women fnd refuge at the hospital from beatings and
http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#4http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#5http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#6http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#7http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#8http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#4http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#5http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#6http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#7http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#8 -
7/30/2019 Linfield_Why Photo Critics Hate Photography
25/25
honor killings . . . Most of the women have no choice but to live at the hospital for the
remainder of their lives." Western reporters have noted a rise in so-called honor killings
a euphemism for intra-familial murderas religious fundamentalism increases and
the dismal security situation worsens.
9 Though the cemeteries, alas, are filling quickly. As I write this, Israel and Hezbollah are
at war, and newspapers, news Web sites, and television screens are filled with images
of Lebanese civilian sufferingand to a lesser degree, that of Israelis. One particularly
startling photograph, published on the front page of The New York Times, showed a
long row of coffins, identified by stark numbers, in the Lebanese city of Tyre; they would
be temporarily buried in a mass grave. This newer war is being covered more
thoroughly, and visually, than the one in Iraq, where many areas are too dangerous for
reporters and photographers to venture into. In contrast, the media has extensive,
though not complete, access to Lebanon and Israel, and Hezbollah membersfar from
attacking journalists, as the Iraqi insurgents doare happy to escort the media around
the ruins of southern Lebanon. Yet the fact that in the newer conflict so many casualties
on both sidesare civilian makes it moredifficult, I think, for onlookers to understand
the political realities behind the undeniably searing images.
1
http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#9http://bostonreview.net/BR31.5/linfield.php#9