SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Art-Sanat Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 8

THE ONTOLOGY OF DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND IMAGES

KORAY DEĞİRMENCİ
Pages
553–570
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

With a particular focus on the concept of indexicality, defined herein as an element that radically determines the definition of photography, the author argues that the image becomes a “thing” in digital images in the absence of indexicality by using Jean-Paul Sartre’s notion of “illusion of immanence”, a claim that would strongly challenge the view that digital images can still be regarded as photographs that themselves presuppose a particular relationship between an image and its object

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This article attempts to understand the fate of conventional notions of photographic indexicality and referentiality in the digital era where digital images have replaced analog images almost completely.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Following a critical overview of relevant literature on digital photography, the author makes a conceptual distinction between referentiality and indexicality with respect to their implications for the notion of photographic realism.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:With a particular focus on the concept of indexicality, defined herein as an element that radically determines the definition of photography, the author argues that the image becomes a “thing” in digital images in the absence of indexicality by using Jean-Paul Sartre’s notion of “illusion of immanence”, a claim that would strongly challenge the view that digital images can still be regarded as photographs that themselves presuppose a particular relationship between an image and its object
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This article attempts to understand the fate of conventional notions of photographic indexicality and referentiality in the digital era where digital images have replaced analog images almost completely. Following a critical overview of relevant literature on digital photography, the author makes a conceptual distinction between referentiality and indexicality with respect to their implications for the notion of photographic realism. With a particular focus on the concept of indexicality, defined herein as an element that radically determines the definition of photography, the author argues that the image becomes a “thing” in digital images in the absence of indexicality by using Jean-Paul Sartre’s notion of “illusion of immanence”, a claim that would strongly challenge the view that digital images can still be regarded as photographs that themselves presuppose a particular relationship between an image and its object

🔖

Cite This Article

DEĞİRMENCİ, K. (2022). THE ONTOLOGY OF DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND IMAGES. Art-Sanat Dergisi, Cilt: 0 - Sayı: 8, 553–570. https://ajindex.com/articles/450314

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Amelunxen, Hubertus v. 1996. “Photography after Photography: The Terror of the Body in Digital Space.” In Photography after Photography: Memory and the Representation in the Digital Age, ed. Hubertus v. Amelunxen et al., trans. Pauline Cumbers, 115-123. Munich: G+B Arts. Archambault, Michael. “Film vs. Digital: A Comparison of the Advantages and Disadvantages.” http://petapixel.com/2015/05/26/film-vs-digital-a-comparison-of-theadvantages-and-disadvantages/.
  2. Armstrong, Carol. 1998. Scenes in a Library: Reading the Photograph in the Book, 1843– 1975.
  3. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
  4. Arnheim, Rudolf. 1974. “On the Nature of Photography.” Critical Inquiry 1 no.1: 149- 161. Barthes, Roland. 1981. Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography, trans. Richard Howard. New York: Hill and Wang. Batchen, Geoffrey. 1994. “Phantasm: Digital Imaging and the Death of Photography.” Aperture 136: 46-51.
  5. Batchen, Geoffrey. 1997. Burning with Desire: The Conception of Photography. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
  6. Batchen, Geoffrey. 2000. Each Wild Idea: Writing Photography History. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
  7. Baudrillard, Jean. 1994. Simulacra and Simulation, trans. Sheila Faria Glaser. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
  8. Baudrillard, Jean. 1996. The Perfect Crime, trans. Chris Turner. London and New York: Verso. Baudrillard, Jean. 2007.
  9. Fatal Strategies. Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e). Bazin, André. 1967. “The Ontology of the Photographic Image.” In What is Cinema?, Vol. 1, trans. Hugh Gray, 9-16. Berkeley: University of California Press. (Orig. pub. 1958.)
  10. Binkley, Timothy. 1993. “Reconfiguring Culture.” In Future in Visions: New Technologies of the Screen, ed. Philip Hayward and Tana Wollen, 92-122. London: BFI. Bolter, Jay David and Grusin, Richard. 2000. Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  11. Crary, Jonathan. 1992. Techniques of the Observer: On Vision and Modernity in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  12. Cubitt, Sean et al. 2015. “Introduction: Materiality and Invisibility.” Digital Light, ed. Sean Cubitt et al., 7-20. London: Open Humanities Press.
  13. Derrida, Jacques. 2010.
  14. Copy, Archive, Signature: A Conversation on Photography, trans. Jeff Fort. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  15. Doane, Mary A. 2007. “The Indexical and the Concept of Medium Specificity.” Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 18, no. 1: 128-152.
  16. Flusser, Vilém. 1986. “The Photograph as