Images & Political Agendas

I selected the April 25, 2005 cover of Time magazine to consider the concepts of denotative and connotative meanings, ideology, and the myth of photographic truth.

The image denotes a seated Ann Coulter, who is a prominent American political commentator and lawyer. Less specifically, the cover features a blonde woman appearing to be in her mid-40s sitting cross-legged on a brown, leather, modern-looking chair. She dons a conservative navy dress with stockings, and is making direct eye contact with the camera. The perspective makes her legs appear as long as or longer than her entire torso and face.

What Coulter and the image connote for most Americans are such descriptors such as conservative, right-wing, Republican. Yet, the image most certainly connotes different meanings for Republicans than it does for Democrats, or even Independents. Personally, its connotative meaning brings to mind a number of adjectives and trains of thought. I associate Ann with extremist beliefs, outlandish comments, and incredibly narrow-minded forms of expression. I’m also saddened by her, because for me, she represents the facts that our country is extremely polarized in political ideology, that citizens must choose one side or the other, and that people like her demonize other intelligent, well-spoken conservatives. 

The image’s connotative meanings go hand-in-hand with the concept of ideology and its relationship to the practice of looking at images. Obviously, any representation of a prominent political figure can provoke a discussion on differing ideologies. I’ve already touched some on the varying connotative meanings Coulter’s depiction may produce for people of opposing political parties or views. The social assumptions that Republicans make are often very different from the ones Democrat make; both ideologies are different ways of viewing the world, how it works, and how it can be bettered through political means. The way a person looks at an image is dependent on their individual ideology and way of viewing the world. The way a person frames an image is also dependent upon their ideology. The photographer who framed this shot portrays Coulter in a rather unflattering way. Arguably, that photographer could be influenced by a differing ideology from Coulter. 

Oftentimes, it is easy to determine if a news source has a political bias simply by looking at the images they choose to feature. For instance, Fox News tends to have a conservative viewpoint, and the photos they feature of liberal or left-wing policy leaders are typically unflattering angles, lighting, and coloring. The same can be said of more liberal news sources such as MSNBC. 

One of the most intriguing aspects of the Practices of Looking article is the myth of photographic truth. This concept applies to the image of Coulter if we consider that the photographer may have had some sort of ideological, albeit subconscious, bias against her. The image is not an unmediated copy of the real world. 

Is Film Photography Dead?

I imagine the blood pressure of contemporary diehard analog photographers spikes every time an infidel to their cause utters, “Film is dead.” They are a little like the devout citizens of 1966, when Time magazine questioned, “Is God Dead?”* It is blasphemous to question film. It is sacrilege and damning to--God forbid--leave their church. They would rather be martyrs for film than acknowledge reality, which is this: Film is not dead…yet. It is dying.

I imagine the unbending saints of film secretly desire the occurrence of a catastrophic Y2K-esque event. They are probably preparing their “I told you so” speeches even as I write: “You see?! What good is your quantization now?” Of course, as good saints, they will graciously teach the ignorant digitally-dependent the ways of film. The photography world will be at peace, even if mass chaos everywhere else is ongoing. But until that hypothetical day, digital photography remains superior to analog. The photography society is a democracy, and although the film camp has a small voice, their argument is obsolete. Majority rules.

Film is dying, especially as countries face the some of the worst economic crises in history. While purchasing a digital camera is a significant initial investment, the cost of film is rising. The accessibility is decreasing. And most certainly the expense over a lifetime of film alone far exceeds that of a single digital camera plus accessories.

Film is dying, even as the film camp protests that digital cannot supersede the total control that an experienced film photographer has while framing an image, and the control in a darkroom. The lab argument is certainly a stretch, as many factors in that environment are incredibly difficult to control. What if your toddler doddles in to your darkroom in the midst of developing the single greatest roll of film you’ve ever shot? Or what if the chemicals have expired, or have different measurements of their components unbeknownst to you? Chaos ensues, that of the uncontrollable kind.

Film is dying, especially as sensors in digital cameras are becoming more and more developed, even capable of capturing RAW, uncompressed and lossless images (which before the development of, was the single greatest upper hand film photographers possessed).

Are there any upsides to film? Film photographers have a limited number of shots to work with, and must carefully select their subjects. This may seem like a downside, but a trip to any tourist attraction may change that opinion. Oftentimes, tourists view their entire trip behind the lens of a digital camera. Secondly, the picture cannot be viewed immediately after the shutter closes. This forces a refreshing kind of patience to a fast-paced culture that is conditioned to accessing images and information almost instantaneously.

Considering the pace of life, very few people have the time, money, or energy to learn the techniques of analog imagery. Digital images are too easy to create, manipulate, and transmit in an increasingly technology-dependent world. And that’s the reality of it.

Sources:

We Hereby Declare the Death of Film Photography, Steve Jansen

*I am in no way making commentary on the “God is dead” debate.