In roger scruton article, he states " ‘… it is important to separate painting and photography as much as possible, so as to discuss not actual painting and actual photography but an ideal form of each, an ideal which represents the essential differences betwen them ... "

I am confused as to why he describes it as an "ideal" photography ?

What is an ideal photograph ? Is there an ideal photograph?

What necessary and sufficient condition can he give to this claim ?

And if there is an intention in the photograph... is it a weak intention ?

Well, near as I can figure is that it is pretty much the same situation as one BIG quagmire I found myself in why... ugh... oh... some time back in which the completely mistifying perposal of such magnitudanal presumptiveness just completely beset my humble little quarter stake of pebble strewn incoragabilty as to ponder the vulifying presumtiveness as to if or not if why mud was not chocolate mousse and without jerking a knee it was plain to me that the because of it is just because it isn't! This post may or may not follow a completely straight line along with the true nature of the selected theme however it does contain encrypted and secret information as to how to take over the entire world with just a pocket knife, a piece of red yarn and three marbles so drop your remote controls and follow me. No! You cannot bring your Game Boy for it will only give us away. There, I hope that helps with your truly matter of life and death problem.:eek:

Now read my encrypted and secret information.
--what a sh!t answer.

By 'ideal' Scruton means 'logical ideal'. Therefore, his claims about why photography is not a representational art refer to his 'ideal' of photography. His logical ideal is that 'if a photograph is of x it is likely that x exist(ed)s and was present when the photograph was taken' (This is me paraphrasing). Working from this 'ideal' he goes on to show (by logical reasoning) that an artist who uses the camera is unable to make a photograph that shows his/her intentions to see the subject in a way that is expressive of her thought about the subject. This is criteria he claims that is necessary for us to take an 'aesthetic' interest towards a picture. To break this down further, Scruton is measuring photography against painting: A painter when he/she makes a painting must make an 'interpretation' of the subject. Therefore, when we look at the painting we do not 'see' the subject painted (as we do when we look at a photograph) but the artist's interpretation of that subject (even if the artist makes a photorealist depiction we still see the artist's depiction and not that subject). So to cut a long story short, for Scruton, because we are unable to see the subject how the artist sees the subject (because we see the subject photographed) then photography is not an art. But note, this is a logical ideal and not a 'normative' claim that Scruton is making. Therefore, he is saying that the facts relate to his understanding or logical deduction. In short, you too can make a logical ideal of photography. I realise that this question was posted some time ago and probably will never be read. Anyway, if you think I have not been clear or want any other points clarified or are interested in knowing what I think of Scruton please send me an email at [email protected]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chrismanley

By 'ideal' Scruton means 'logical ideal'. Therefore, his claims about why photography is not a representational art refer to his 'ideal' of photography. His logical ideal is that 'if a photograph is of x it is likely that x exist(ed)s and was present when the photograph was taken' (This is me paraphrasing). Working from this 'ideal' he goes on to show (by logical reasoning) that an artist who uses the camera is unable to make a photograph that shows his/her intentions to see the subject in a way that is expressive of her thought about the subject. This is criteria he claims that is necessary for us to take an 'aesthetic' interest towards a picture. To break this down further, Scruton is measuring photography against painting: A painter when he/she makes a painting must make an 'interpretation' of the subject. Therefore, when we look at the painting we do not 'see' the subject painted (as we do when we look at a photograph) but the artist's interpretation of that subject (even if the artist makes a photorealist depiction we still see the artist's depiction and not that subject). So to cut a long story short, for Scruton, because we are unable to see the subject how the artist sees the subject (because we see the subject photographed) then photography is not an art. But note, this is a logical ideal and not a 'normative' claim that Scruton is making. Therefore, he is saying that the facts relate to his understanding or logical deduction. In short, you too can make a logical ideal of photography. I realise that this question was posted some time ago and probably will never be read. Anyway, if you think I have not been clear or want any other points clarified or are interested in knowing what I think of Scruton please send me an email at [email protected]

---

Photography is not an art because it is a logical ideal of the subject matter? In other words, If a photograph can capture x-ness itself then x-ness should still reside in the photograph. Sounds like an argument in support of Plato's theory of forms. What if we compare a photograph and a painting of a tree?

The argument might go something like this.

There exists the perfect form of a tree in which all other particular trees participate. In other words,a photograph of a tree captures the essential element of what treeness is ( what x itself is).

People who paint pictures of trees only capture particular instances of trees. In other words, their artistic ability allows them to convey their feelings about trees. What would a large number of paintings of trees have in common? Do they somehow exhibit elements which allows us to classify them as trees? Yes, because they all participate in the form of tree (logical ideal of tree). According to Plato if this were not the case then how do we know all of these different and varied expressions are of things we call trees?

What of a photograph of a tree? Have we captured treeness itself (logical ideal) within the photograph? Plato himself would probably answer, no.

The argument seems to be this: There exists an ideal form of tree which can be exhibited in a photograph of a tree. When we paint a tree our labors produce interesting and varied depictions of trees, but none actually approach the ideal ( photograph). On this basis this 'falling short' gives us what might be termed 'art'. In other words, our attempt at striving towards the 'ideal' is never achieved but we do end up with an interesting subjective expression.

It seems to me the whole argument depends on there being an ideal and artists somehow are able to participate in this ideal by way of painting. It seems to me that it is impossible for anyone to capture treeness itself in a photograph. If this is the case then once again the photographer like the artist has 'fallen' short of the ideal. On this basis photography must be by definition an art form.



Tut

Interesting reply Tut, I have not thought of looking at in this way. However, I think that perhaps my clarification of how Scruton uses the term 'logical ideal' was not that clear as I do not think he uses it in the way you suggest. For Scruton a photograph is not a 'logical ideal' of the subject. So he does not think a photograph of a tree contains some essence of its 'treeness'. All he is saying is that when I see a photograph of a tree it is because the tree was present when the photograph was taken. We need not make the same association with the painting of a tree; I could be standing in front of a brick wall and paint a tree, for example. The 'ideal' refers to what is typical and the 'logical' refers to the process of deduction by which he arrives at the 'ideal'. He asks what do we attribute the appearance in a photograph to. The answer he arrives at is the way something appears, when it was photographed - not its essence.

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the clarification. I see where your are coming from. I guess there would be a need to ,'tease out' a definition of 'logical ideal'.

Tut

P.S. I warn you that when it comes art I draw a extremely good stick figure of a person. Trees are a bit a bit harder.

No problem Tut, always nice to engage with someone on this problem. Scruton is slippery and often provokes disagreement. He has not got things right on this occasion. To answer the second part of the original question; no, photographs do not represent a 'weak' intention. Its tempting to argue against Scruton, but in doing so, you will become embroiled in what he assumes to be an impossibility - that of finding the 'painter' in photography. He is right of course, on this point. But then what if we accept what Scruton is saying; that photographers cannot make an intentionally dependent picture and ask how this loss of the 'intentional', 'interpretive' and 'imaginative' effects the relationship between photographer and subject. Scruton's understanding of 'intention' relates to the painterly and this is how he waves of creative photography. Instead of looking for a painterly conception of 'intention' why not think how photography effects our understanding of 'intention'.