지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 1999.12
- 수록면
- 117 - 130 (14page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The purpose of this thesis is to compare the discourse supporting the objectivity and truthfulness in photography and that constituting the truth in history and to analyze how two discourses are upholding each other. When a historical fact is mobilized as a ground for the truthfulness of a photographic image, we are faced with a paradox. For history and photography are both narratives the objectivity of which is not self-constituted but depends on the discursive formation. History and photography both belong to the positivist system of knowledge which operates with the assumption that it reconstructs the reality in an objective way.
The meaning of the photographic image is also supported by the historicity of its codes and the historical ‘facts’ coming from other sources. It is with the help of the apparatuses that lifts the photographic image to the level of history that an image becomes a record of history. These apparatuses are the codes endowed upon the image, or the discourses of historiography. However, when the objectivity of photography begins to be doubted, the mutual relationship between photography and history is jeopardized. But the suspicion about the truth and objectivity of photography is raised on a much basic level. The objectivity of photography was critiqued by Roland Barthes when he argued that the photograph is neither transparent nor self-evident entity but a sign saturated by culturally given codes. According to him, the meaning of the photograph is inherently unstably floating but language text fixes it.
On the other hand, in the realm of historiography, there are heterogeneous rhetorics in it but they are truncated for the sake of positivist record and only ‘facts’ remain. Such a things occurs by rhetorically emphasizing the fact that “such and such things really happened” which Barthes has called it an ‘eventhood.’ Instead of dealing with facts directly related to the reality, Barthes treats them on the level of signs. All the historiographical efforts construct history by making the events in history as something that really existed. This means the history needs evidence. The biggest irony here is that in order for the status of the photograph as an evidence to be firm it should rely upon another system of evidence, i.e., history. The interdependent circular connection
between the history and photography exists in an irony in which both are upholding each other in a vacuum. As the status of the photograph as an evidence is unstable and unfixed, the attempt to explain history with the help of the photograph can occur only locally and its ground is always open to dispute.
What matters here is how to reconstitute the photograph as an object of critical reading. It can occur only by revitalizing the heterogeneous rhetorics of photography rather than reducing them. The photography of history is not only meaningful as a record of important historical events belonging to master narratives, but as records of seemingly minute but important details. Indeed, we need a different paradigm than record or evidence. To accept the photograph as evidence means that the elements residing outside the frame of the photograph yet determining what is inside it. We have to concern ourselves not only about the content of utterance but its form and strategy. Therefore what is given to us is not just an image but a discursive formation that channels the meaning of the photograph.
So, when we see history in the photograph, we have to focus on other dimensions of history, i.e., the history of the very activity of the record making, the matter of what technique and form of photography have enabled such records, how such records have come to earn credibility and truthfulness and to what audience they address. But the official history that we encounter in a text book or in a museum exerts a discursive power on the monads of history unstable and ambivalent and freezes those movements by reducing the multiple meaning of history in the process of defining something as historical truth.
The meaning of the photographic image is also supported by the historicity of its codes and the historical ‘facts’ coming from other sources. It is with the help of the apparatuses that lifts the photographic image to the level of history that an image becomes a record of history. These apparatuses are the codes endowed upon the image, or the discourses of historiography. However, when the objectivity of photography begins to be doubted, the mutual relationship between photography and history is jeopardized. But the suspicion about the truth and objectivity of photography is raised on a much basic level. The objectivity of photography was critiqued by Roland Barthes when he argued that the photograph is neither transparent nor self-evident entity but a sign saturated by culturally given codes. According to him, the meaning of the photograph is inherently unstably floating but language text fixes it.
On the other hand, in the realm of historiography, there are heterogeneous rhetorics in it but they are truncated for the sake of positivist record and only ‘facts’ remain. Such a things occurs by rhetorically emphasizing the fact that “such and such things really happened” which Barthes has called it an ‘eventhood.’ Instead of dealing with facts directly related to the reality, Barthes treats them on the level of signs. All the historiographical efforts construct history by making the events in history as something that really existed. This means the history needs evidence. The biggest irony here is that in order for the status of the photograph as an evidence to be firm it should rely upon another system of evidence, i.e., history. The interdependent circular connection
between the history and photography exists in an irony in which both are upholding each other in a vacuum. As the status of the photograph as an evidence is unstable and unfixed, the attempt to explain history with the help of the photograph can occur only locally and its ground is always open to dispute.
What matters here is how to reconstitute the photograph as an object of critical reading. It can occur only by revitalizing the heterogeneous rhetorics of photography rather than reducing them. The photography of history is not only meaningful as a record of important historical events belonging to master narratives, but as records of seemingly minute but important details. Indeed, we need a different paradigm than record or evidence. To accept the photograph as evidence means that the elements residing outside the frame of the photograph yet determining what is inside it. We have to concern ourselves not only about the content of utterance but its form and strategy. Therefore what is given to us is not just an image but a discursive formation that channels the meaning of the photograph.
So, when we see history in the photograph, we have to focus on other dimensions of history, i.e., the history of the very activity of the record making, the matter of what technique and form of photography have enabled such records, how such records have come to earn credibility and truthfulness and to what audience they address. But the official history that we encounter in a text book or in a museum exerts a discursive power on the monads of history unstable and ambivalent and freezes those movements by reducing the multiple meaning of history in the process of defining something as historical truth.
목차
등록된 정보가 없습니다.
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
뷰먼트 뉴홀의 『사진의 역사』 비판
현대미술사연구
2008 .06
-
사진 리터러시 교육을 위한 스토리텔링 - 문화예술교육을 중심으로 -
AURA
2012 .01
-
디지털 사진에서 비수정 사진과 수정사진의 예술적 가치 연구
AURA
2005 .01
-
포스트-포토그래피: 현대예술 매체로서의 사진의 재고(再考)
AURA
2004 .01
-
미술사의 사진에 관한 화두 : 사진의 정체성과 예술성에 관한 논의
미술사연구
2006 .12
-
현대미술과 사진
현대미술사연구
2002 .12
-
황규태의 1960-70년대 초기 사진 연구
AURA
2016 .01
-
사진, 무엇을 하기 위한 것인가
민족미학
2003 .07
-
사진의 기호학적 고찰
서양미술사학회논문집
1996 .12
-
사회구조주의 관점에서 본 사진의 의미와 기능에 관한 탐색적인 연구-다큐멘터리 사진을 중심으로-
AURA
2007 .01
-
Jeff Wall의 사진 작품에서 자율적 비평
현대미술학 논문집
2005 .12
-
'보도사진'의 현재적 인식에 대한 연구
AURA
2013 .01
-
1960년대 주명덕과 '현대사진연구회' 관계연구
AURA
2016 .01
-
New Vietnamese Photography
예술과 미디어
2008 .01
-
사진과 프린트 : 기술 이미지 연구
현대미술사연구
2009 .12
-
영화의 역사화 범주 가능성에 관한 연구
영화연구
2008 .03
-
역사 연구방법에서 디자인사의 위치와 방향
Archives of Design Research
2000 .05
-
사진의 변질과 보존에 관한 연구
AURA
2014 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-609-017289674