E Pluribus Unum: History and Photographic Difference

  • Owen Clayton
Chapter

Abstract

The evolutionary model of technological advancement, present in many photo-histories, is liable to deny or repress aspects of multiplicity, and thereby construct a pure lineage for photography. This explains why recent theoretical and literary accounts of photography have tended to treat the ‘medium’ as if it were a single entity. As this chapter will argue, many photo-histories have underplayed photographic multiplicity in favour of an essentialist and teleological framework derived from concepts of evolution. Recognising the pervasive nature of the evolutionary model will, I suggest, move us closer to recognising the potential usefulness of ‘photographies’. After discussing the effect of a belief in photographic unity upon concepts of photographic realism, I will provide a brief history of technological multiplicity. This will provide a basis for the re-examination of photographic difference in the chapters that follow.

Keywords

Photographic Image Graphic Difference Pervasive Nature Camera Obscura Early Film 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    John Werge, The Evolution of Photography: With a Chronological Record of Discoveries, Inventions, etc., Contributions to Photographic Literature, and Personal Reminiscences extending over Forty Years (London: Piper & Carter, 1890), p. 2.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A similar technical-evolutionary approach is present in the work of Werge’s contemporary Josef Maria Eder. See his Geschichte Der Photographie (Halle: Wilhelm Knapp, 1905). Both historians have a nationalist bias.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    Beaumont Newhall, The History of Photography from 1839 to the Present Day (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1997), p. 141.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    Abigail Solomon-Godeau, Photography at the Dock: Essays on Photographic History, Institutions, and Practices (Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press, 1991).Google Scholar
  5. 7.
    See, for example, Larry Schaaf, Out of the Shadows: Herschel, Talbot, & The Invention of Photography (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1992), p. 159.Google Scholar
  6. 8.
    Hans Rooseboom, What’s Wrong with Daguerre? Reconsidering Old and New Views on the Invention of Photography (Amsterdam: Nescio, 2010), p. 16.Google Scholar
  7. 9.
    Helmut Gernsheim, The Origins of Photography (London: Thames and Hudson, 1982), p. 50. It is worth noting that though he is often credited as sole author, Gernsheim collaborated on his books with his wife, Alison.Google Scholar
  8. 10.
    Michel Frizot, ‘Introduction: The age of light’ in A New History of Photography, ed. Michel Frizot (Koln: Könemann, 1994; 1998), pp. 9–13 (p. 13).Google Scholar
  9. 12.
    Cecilia Strandroth, ‘The »New« History? Notes on the Historiography of Photography’ in Konsthistorisk Tidskrift/Journal of Art History, 78:3 (2009), 142–53 (p. 149).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 13.
    Photography: Crisis of History, ed. Joan Fontcuberta (Barcelona: ACTAR, 2001).Google Scholar
  11. 14.
    Elizabeth Edwards, The Camera as Historian: Amateur Photographers and Historical Imagination, 1885–1918 (Durham, NC; London: Duke University Press, 2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 15.
    Cornelius Jabez Hughes, ‘About Light And About Lighting the Sitter; with some Reflection about the Room in Which He is Lighted’ (1865), cited in Jennifer Green-Lewis, Framing the Victorians: Photography and the Culture of Realism (Ithaca, NY; London: Cornell University Press, 1996), p. 54.Google Scholar
  13. 17.
    Michel Foucault, ‘Governmentality’, trans. Rosi Braidotti, in The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, ed. Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon, and Peter Miller (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), pp. 87–104.Google Scholar
  14. 18.
    Charles Baudelaire, ‘The Modern Public and Photography’ in Classic Essays on Photography, ed. Alan Trachtenberg (New Haven: Leete’s Island Books, 1980), pp. 83–9 (p. 86).Google Scholar
  15. 19.
    Another aspect of Baudelaire’s photographic ideology is the self-selecting quality of the images that he discusses — namely those that are clear and precise. As John Ruskin perceptively noted in Modern Painters, ‘because clearness is supposedly a merit in them [photographs] … such results as are misty and faint … are thrown away, and the clear ones only are preserved’. John Ruskin, Modern Painters, 2nd ed., 9 vols (London: George Allen, 1898), IV ‘Of Mountain Beauty’, p. 65.Google Scholar
  16. 20.
    Mia Fineman, Faking It: Manipulated Photography before Photoshop (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2012), p. 19.Google Scholar
  17. 24.
    Geoffrey Batchen, ‘Another Little History of Photography’ in Photography Degree Zero, Reflections on Roland Barthes’s Camera Lucida, ed. Geoffrey Batchen (Cambridge, MA; London: MIT Press, 2009), pp. 259–73 (p. 14).Google Scholar
  18. 25.
    Mary Marien, Photography and Its Critics: A Cultural History 1839–1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 25.Google Scholar
  19. 26.
    Some historians have argued that Johann Heinrich Schulze’s 1727 experiments with white chalk and nitrate of silver deserve credit as the first photographic images. As ever, this depends upon the definition of ‘photography’ that one uses. See Erich Stenger, The History of Photography: Its Relation to Civilization and Practice (Easton, PA: Mack Printing Company, 1939), pp. 3–6.Google Scholar
  20. 27.
    Humphrey Davy, ‘An Account of a method of copying paintings upon Glass, and of making Profiles, by the agency of Light upon Nitrate of Silver. Invented by T. Wedgwood, Esq. With Observations by H. Davy’ in Journal of the Royal Institution 1 (1802), pp. 170–4.Google Scholar
  21. 28.
    Though this may be about to come into dispute with a new volume, yet to be published at the time of writing. See Tanya Sheehan and Andres Zervigon (eds), Photography and Its Origins (New York and London: Routledge, 2015).Google Scholar
  22. 30.
    Carol Armstrong, Scenes in a Library: Reading the Photograph in the Book, 1843–1875 (Cambridge, MA; London: MIT Press, 1998), p. 4.Google Scholar
  23. 32.
    I say ‘taking’, but it is highly unlikely that Beard operated the camera himself. Here, as so often, photographic workers are invisible in the historical record. For more on this, see Steve Edwards’ excellent The Making of English Photography: allegories (University Park, PA, The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2006).Google Scholar
  24. 33.
    Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin, Remediation: Understanding New Media (Cambridge, MA; London: MIT Press, 1999).Google Scholar
  25. 34.
    Geoffrey Batchen, Each Wild Idea: Writing, Photography, History (Cambridge, MA; London: MIT Press, 2002), pp. 60–1.Google Scholar
  26. 35.
    Helmut Gernsheim, The Rise of Photography 1850–1880: The Age of Collodion (London: Thames and Hudson, 1988), p. 23.Google Scholar
  27. 36.
    Elizabeth Siegel (ed.), Playing with Pictures: The Art of Victorian Photocollage (New Haven and London: The Art Institute of Chicago and Yale University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
  28. 37.
    George Bernard Shaw, ‘Abracadabra Photography, What the World Says’ (1888) in George Bernard Shaw on Photography, ed. Bill Jay and Margaret Moore (Wellingborough: Equation, 1989), p. 56.Google Scholar
  29. 38.
    Fox Talbot took the first photograph of a moving object in 1851, although the image itself has not survived. For more on the history of ‘instantaneous’ photography, see Peter Geimer, ‘Picturing the Black Box: On Blanks in Nineteenth Century Paintings and Photographs’ in Science in Context 17:4 (2004), 467–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 39.
    John Towler, The Silver Sunbeam: A Practical and Theoretical Textbook (New York: Joseph H. Ladd, 1864), p. 233.Google Scholar
  31. 40.
    Kelley Wilder, Photography and Science (London: Reaktion Books, 2009), p. 23.Google Scholar
  32. 41.
    See Marta Braun, Picturing Time: The Work of Étienne-Jules Marey (1830–1904) (Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press, 1994).Google Scholar
  33. 42.
    See Richard Howells, ‘Louis Le Prince: The body of evidence’ in Screen, 47:2 (2006), 179–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 43.
    See Charles Musser, The Emergence of Cinema: The American Screen to 1907 (Berkeley; Los Angeles; London: University of California Press, 1990).Google Scholar
  35. 44.
    André Gaudreault, ‘The Infringement of Copyright Laws and Its Effects, 1900–1906’ in Early Cinema: Space, Frame, Narrative, ed. Thomas Elsaesser with Adam Barker (London: BFI, 1990), pp. 114–22 (p. 115).Google Scholar
  36. 45.
    Maxim Gorky, ‘Review’ (1896) in Jay Leyda, Kino: A History of the Russian and Soviet Film (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983), pp. 407–9 (p. 407).Google Scholar
  37. 47.
    Charles Keil, Early American Cinema in Transition: Story, Style, and Filmmaking, 1907–1913 (Madison; London: University of Wisconsin Press, 2002), pp. 125–74.Google Scholar
  38. 48.
    See, for example, Noël Burch, ‘Porter or Ambivalence?’ in Screen, 19:4 (1978–9), 91–105; Charles Musser, ‘The Early Cinema of Edwin Porter’, in Cinema Journal 19:1 (1979), 1–38; Gilles Deleuze, Cinema 1: the Movement-Image, trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Barabra Habberjam (London; New York: Continuum, 1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 49.
    Wanda Strauven, ‘From “Primitive Cinema” to “Marvelous”’ in The Cinema of Attractions Reloaded, ed. Wanda Strauven (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006), pp. 105–20 (p. 108).Google Scholar
  40. 50.
    Tom Gunning, ‘The Cinema of Attraction: Early Film, Its Spectator and the Avant-Garde’, in Wide Angle, 8:3–4 (1986), 63–70. Gunning’s ‘The Cinema of Attraction’ was slightly revised, becoming plural in ‘The Cinema of Attractions: Early Film, Its Spectator and the Avant-Garde’, in Early Cinema: Space Frame Narrative, pp. 56–62.Google Scholar
  41. 51.
    Gaudreault has more recently made the case for ‘kine-attractography’, in order to avoid the term ‘cinema’ completely. See André Gaudreault, Film and Attraction: From Kinematography to Cinema, trans. Timothy Barnard (Urbana, Chicago, and Springfield: University of Illinois Press, 2011).Google Scholar
  42. 52.
    To cite some recent examples: Susan McCabe, Cinematic Modernism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), David Trotter, Cinema and Modernism (Malden: Blackwell, 2007); Laura Marcus, The Tenth Muse: Writing about Cinema in the Modernist Period (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Owen Clayton 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Owen Clayton
    • 1
  1. 1.University of LincolnUK

Personalised recommendations