Амбівалентність ролі "автора" у фотографічному зображенні
Loading...
Date
2018
Authors
Петрук, Юлія
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
У статті розглянуто питання авторства у творенні фотографічного зображення. Метою
авторки було показати, як фотографія, завдяки технічним чинникам, проблематизує роль автора
і витісняє його у "тінь" зображення. Теоретичною базою дослідження стали праці Сьюзен Зонтаґ,
Вілема Флюссера, Рудольфа Арнхейма, Ернста Ґомбріха. У цьому дослідженні шлях аналізу було
визначено оптико-фізичним аспектом фотографії, історією розвитку техніки, а також порівняльним
аналізом живопису і фотографії. В результаті було обґрунтовано амбівалентність статусу
автора у фотографічному зображенні. Хоча кожне зображення є творінням людини, тобто має
свого автора, у фотографії автор відходить на другий план. У процесі споглядання світлин ім'я
автора фотографії, незалежно від його претензій, ігнорується, адже фотографія, зберігаючи
функцію об’єктивного документування, "незацікавлено" фіксує будь-які події. Водночас факт, що
будь-яке фотографічне зображення є продуктом творчої діяльності людини, відхиляє можливість
тотального заперечення автора. Але саме технічне виробництво фотографії робить роль автора
амбівалентною.
This article questions the role of the author in the photographical image. Undoubtedly, the invention of photography has changed our attitude towards ourselves, towards the world. The impact of photography on one’s life is growing with the development of technology, mainly the photo-technology. One cannot but trust technological tools more than oneself, because any technological device nowadays is considered to be smarter, faster, and more precise than any human being. The technology plays a special role in photography, and that is why the author’s position as the creator of the image is being challenged. Hence, there is also a much wider problem, the impact of technology on a person. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to show that photography as a kind of visual art is not directly a product of human creative activity. Nevertheless, as a technical product, it tends to anonymity when the question of authorship is simply decreasing. Although each image, as a human creation, has its author, in the photography the author becomes the background. We agree with Flusser that it is worthwhile to distinguish between the functionary and the photographer as candidates for the role of the author in the photographic process; but in the process of contemplating the photographs, the name of the author of the photographical image, regardless of his or her claims, is ignored, because the photography, retaining the function of objective documentation, captures any events without any interest. It is also completely dependent on technology; claiming not only for the mediation but also for the "authorship", it introduces the mode of anonymity and accidental fixation of events. The image is deprived of subjective features and the need to have an author. One can say that in any case the photographer falls into the "shadow" created by the device. The author "dies", giving the life to the photography, and dissolves in the technicality of the image.
This article questions the role of the author in the photographical image. Undoubtedly, the invention of photography has changed our attitude towards ourselves, towards the world. The impact of photography on one’s life is growing with the development of technology, mainly the photo-technology. One cannot but trust technological tools more than oneself, because any technological device nowadays is considered to be smarter, faster, and more precise than any human being. The technology plays a special role in photography, and that is why the author’s position as the creator of the image is being challenged. Hence, there is also a much wider problem, the impact of technology on a person. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to show that photography as a kind of visual art is not directly a product of human creative activity. Nevertheless, as a technical product, it tends to anonymity when the question of authorship is simply decreasing. Although each image, as a human creation, has its author, in the photography the author becomes the background. We agree with Flusser that it is worthwhile to distinguish between the functionary and the photographer as candidates for the role of the author in the photographic process; but in the process of contemplating the photographs, the name of the author of the photographical image, regardless of his or her claims, is ignored, because the photography, retaining the function of objective documentation, captures any events without any interest. It is also completely dependent on technology; claiming not only for the mediation but also for the "authorship", it introduces the mode of anonymity and accidental fixation of events. The image is deprived of subjective features and the need to have an author. One can say that in any case the photographer falls into the "shadow" created by the device. The author "dies", giving the life to the photography, and dissolves in the technicality of the image.
Description
Keywords
автор, фотограф, фотографія, фотографічний образ, мистецтво, техніка, стаття, author, photographer, photography, photographic image, art, technology
Citation
Петрук Ю. С. Амбівалентність ролі "автора" у фотографічному зображенні / Петрук Ю. С. // Наукові записки НаУКМА. Філософія та релігієзнавство. - 2018. - Т. 2. - С. 17-25.