The Concept of Photographic Truth

Believing the Lie: An Analysis of the Concept of Photographic Truth

“Theoretically speaking, photography is nothing other than a process of recording, a technique of inscribing, in an emulsion of silver salts, a stable image generated by a ray of light” (Damisch, P287, 1978) This is essentially true about the physicality of the photograph but it seems to be missing some other important elements. With this being the case, the question needs to be asked, what else can the photograph contain?

For generations the photograph has been used as a document, to show people what the world is like in remote places, or to prove someone’s identity, or to record important world events. It has been used as a tool of self expression, to show a range of human emotions such as joy, sadness anger and love. The photograph through the years since it’s invention has shown almost everything that is possible to see.

With this being the case one of the elements of the photograph that underpins and separates it from other mediums is its sense of realism, that what the camera shows is what actually happened. The other types of media, such as painting or sculpture cannot rival the photograph for its sense of reality, and there has always been the notion of “artistic licence”, of where the sculptor or painter can alter the scene. However, the photograph and its sense of realism does not have such freedom, that the sense of reality in a photograph cannot be rivalled. This element of the photograph leads to a phenomenon called photographic truth and is the centre of this dissertation. It will explore this phenomenon and how it is created, but it will also explore how the viewer can accept the photographic truth that seems to be inherent in the photograph.

To help this exploration of truthfulness there will be an analysis of a photograph by using the tools of semiotics and of how these tools helps the viewer understand the photograph. Also, the dissertation will focus on how the viewer looks at a photograph, interprets it and then reaches a conclusion about the image. In this process, there will hardly be any mention of the photographer because to explore the element of photographic truth and its transmission only really requires to discuss the relationship between the viewer and the photograph.

Most of this discussion will evolve around the assertion that photography uses a language to communicate and of how that language, like any language, will rely on the cultural knowledge of the person who is using the language. This will relate to the use of semiotics in photography and how this aids interpreting the photograph and also how semiotics influences the way the photograph is seen.

“A photograph is already a message about the event it records” (Berger, P18, 1967) states Berger in Understanding a photograph. With this statement Berger is asserting that with the photograph being a message, then the photograph becomes a form of communication. Indeed, one of the functions of the photograph, and probably its main function, is one of communication, but how does the image turn from being a representation of an object into being a message? Also, how can the viewer believe the message, how truthful is the message to the viewer? In other words, how does this form of communication work, do all parties involved understand it and can it be relied upon to be honest and trustworthy?

Consequently this means that a system needs to be employed for that communication and this happens in the form of a visual language. This is also asserted by Graham Clarke when he states that “The photograph achieves meaning through what has been called a ‘photographic discourse’: a language of codes which involves its own grammar and syntax” (Clarke, P27,1997) So for a photograph to successfully transmit a meaning or a definition it has to rely on a visual language, or more specifically, a photographic discourse.

This then means that a code needs to be used that is understood by the photographer and also the viewer. This code is constructed by using signs and is called semiotics, which first originated from the theories of Ferdinand de Saussure. In his theory he states that "units are dual in nature, comprising of two elements" (Saussure, P66, 1983) and so asserts that a sign is dyadic, that it is constructed of two parts, a signifier and the signified. This means that languages are dualistic, that they have two parts that make up their function. These two elements always exist in any sign and the photograph is no exception and consequently both elements have a symbiotic relationship with each other and the sign cannot exist without them. Indeed Clarke expresses the same thought when he states “the photographic image contains a ‘photographic message’ as part of a ‘practice of signification’ which reflects the codes, values, and beliefs of the culture as a whole” (Clarke, P28,1997)

So the image uses a system of signs that are constructed through the use of a signifier and what is signified. As Saussure puts it "The ambiguity would be removed if the three notions in question were designated by terms which are related but contrast. We propose to keep the term sign to designate the whole, but replace concept and sound pattern respectively by signification and signal." (Saussure, P67, 1983). By using this system of Signal and Signification, or signifier and signified, it gives the photograph incredible scope to be able to express practically anything, the only limits are the cultural and personal knowledge of the viewer. Everyone has seen a photograph of something that has amazed them, that has created a sense of wonder, or a scene that has horrified and repulsed them, but not everyone has reacted the same way to the same image, or had the same level of reaction. This is because the viewer’s reaction is subjective, it depends on how the image is interpreted and even if the same visual language is used, different viewers will have different reactions.

There is also a similarity here between the photograph and a philosophical argument, where it is constructed by using two premises to reach a conclusion. Premise one would be the signifier and then premise two is the signified and then the combination of the two lead to a conclusion. As with the construction of an argument the conclusion can form another premise, which then leads to a further conclusion. With this being the case, further elements can be introduced, such as historic or cultural influences, which can lead to a deeper and fuller reading of the photograph.

With using the system of premises and conclusion it also gives the photograph an element of truthfulness because there appears to be a logical basis. As Josh May points out: “A premise is a proposition one offers in support of a conclusion. That is, one offers a premise as evidence for the truth of the conclusion, as justification for or a reason to believe the conclusion. A conclusion is a proposition the truth of which one claims to be supported by the premises.” (http://www.joshdmay.com/teaching/philosophy-basics/) By being able to adapt this line of thinking and applying it to a photograph it is possible to define the concept of photographic truth because this system employs logic and is a pattern of thinking that is used every day.

However, the issue of photographic truth is not so clean cut. There are two types of philosophical arguments, the deductive and inductive. The deductive argument is the one above that applies strict logic to its structure where as the inductive argument uses inference instead of logic, and will make a prediction that is more reliant on experience and knowledge. As Josh May goes on to explain “A non-deductive argument is an argument the premises of which are meant to provide support for the conclusion, but this support is not supposed to establish the conclusion beyond doubt. (Note: Some of the most common forms of non-deductive argument are inductive and abductive arguments.)” (http://www.joshdmay.com/teaching/philosophy-basics/)

So, this is why photographic truth can be so malleable and subjective. As one premise we have the signifier, which is the object depicted within the picture, that uses a deductive argument to establish its validity, but the other premise is the signified element of the sign, which is reliant on induction and not strict logic. These two elements are compatible but do not fit tightly together and so consequently there is room for doubts and misunderstanding. To understand why this is the case there needs to be a closer examination of the two premises, the signifier and the signified. So we are now in a position where we have the signifier and the signified, which can be thought of in the same way as denotation and connotation. The denotation of the image is the representation of the items within the image and the connotation is the meaning attached to those images.

However, the denotation held within the image is the first element that is noticed. We interpret a series of lines, tones and colours to build up a representation of an object. This is where the viewer identifies what is represented within the photograph and uses the same method as is used when viewing the real and empirical world. This is because the representation of the object or scene is so lifelike within the photograph, that it conforms to our understanding of reality. This notion that the denotation conforms to, or mimics, a sense of reality underpins the notion of photographic truth and can be summarised by asserting that the image contains veracity. Clarke also thought along the same lines when he asserted that the photograph has the “ability to record an objective image of events with an assured veracity that painting and drawing could never claim with equal authority. The cliche that the camera cannot lie is, thus, part of a deep but misplaced notion of the camera’s veracity as an agent of recording.” (Clarke, P146, 1997)

However, if the photograph was just reliant on the element of veracity leading to denotation, then this would be simplistic. As the denotation is forming one part of the conclusion it needs to be more substantial than just the aspect of veracity and another element that helps the denotation of the image is that of antithesis. As David Bate points out “In the study of rhetoric, antithesis is one of the common forms of argument. You can find it in every day figures of speech. People contrast one thing with another, like ‘chalk and cheese’” (Bate, P39, 2009) This basically means the difference between things, such as the foreground being different to the background. Antithesis is used in languages every day and forms part of the rhetoric of the image and aids denotation because it makes objects depicted more obvious as it

Fig 1: Blast Furnaces by Berne & Hilla Becher

is highlighting contrast between the shapes. To refer back to Clarke, who also supports this theory by concluding that “Thus, what the image begins to reflect is that, like a language, its meanings work not through similarity but through difference.” (Clarke, P30, 1997)

So, by using the tools antithesis and veracity a viewer can recognise the objects within the photograph and then achieve the denotation. It is also worth mentioning that some photographers have decided to rely heavily on denotation more than others. The most obvious is Bernd and Hilla Becher, who in the 1960s photographed a series of industrial buildings and were exhibited within a grid system. With Blast Furnaces (fig 1), each photograph was taken by employing the same standard for each image, such as overcast lighting and by doing so produced a series that used denotation with a greater emphasis. As Michael Fried mentions about this series “another early decision was to photograph the structures in question as “objectively” as possible, by choosing as head-on a viewpoint as could be found” (Fried, P306, 2008) So, the Bechers intentionally tried and succeeded in using the denotation of an image and to minimise their own artistic influences and in doing so created what has become known as “the deadpan style”.

But denotation cannot work by itself because it is a premise to a larger conclusion. Even though the Bechers tried to photograph their subject matter as objectively as possible, it also became a case that because of the objectivity, subjectivity was also produced. This is because just like denotation and connotation, objectivity and subjectivity are also dyadic, that they cannot be purely separated and isolated from each other. Jerry Badger supports this connection when he states that “Nevertheless, every artist must develop some kind of authorial consistency in his or her work, or else it is formless - and form, in one way or another, must always be the artist’s goal.” (Badger, P211, 2010)

As these two elements are inseparable this can lead to the conclusion that denotation does have limits and always will lead to the connotation. But there is another element that needs to be considered of denotation, which in itself does lead the viewer in the direction of connotation. Roland Barthes asserts that “This purely denotative status of the photograph, the perfection and plentitude of its analogy, in short its objectivity has every chance of being mythical” (Barthes, P198, 1982) Barthes is asserting that the subject of the photograph becomes an analogy of the item itself because it is a copy of that item. Because we are looking at a copy of an object within the photograph we are removed from the object itself and so consequently need to attach the object to a definition. Also the object can only be confirmed by one sense, our sight, it cannot be corroborated by either smell, taste, touch or sound. By giving the object this freedom, the object needs to be redefined and so it becomes an analogy for the object and can only rely on a visual denotation.

This means that the denotation has to rely on an inductive rather than a deductive argument and consequently has a less logical structure that can undermine the interpretation of truth. But the veracity and the antithesis are so strong that it overpowers the doubt of an inductive argument and produces an impression that is so powerful that the denotation of an image remains unquestioned. This is why there is the paradox that an image that faithfully depicts reality can still be questioned but also the same image can be accepted as an uncompromising document of reality.

As the viewer has been moved from a deductive argument to an inductive argument this naturally invokes the start of defining the photograph, to give the denotation a meaning, a definition. As the object depicted has been successfully identified through the process of recognition there is now the need to realise what is being signified by the signifier, or to give the object a subjective definition. This is where the notion of indexicality can be introduced because the subject within the image needs to be indexed to a particular definition. As Charles Sanders Pierce wrote:

“Photographs, especially instantaneous photographs, are very instructive, because we know that they are in certain respects exactly like the objects they represent. But this resemblance is due to the photographs having been produced under such circumstances that they were physically forced to correspond point by point to nature. In that aspect, then, they belong to the second class of signs, those by physical connection. “ (Pierce, P159, 1894)

Because of having this connection the representation of the object produces a strong link between the actual object and its image, hence why it can be treated as being indexical. The same connection between the object and its image is also noted by Geoffrey Batchen when he makes the same point by stating that “Photographs are therefore designated as indexical signs, images produced as a consequence of being directly affected by the objects to which they refer” (Batchen, P31, 2004)

By having the subject matter in the photographic image as being indexical signs, the mental action of perception is needed. This is where by following the notion of indexicality that a definition can be achieved and so provide a context and understanding of the image. Perception itself is a vital mental ability that enables everyone to understand and interact with the world around them, it is an action that is used regularly and gives the ability for us to access our own personal knowledge. Daniel O’Brien asserts that because of perception “all our empirical knowledge is grounded in how we see, hear, touch, smell and taste the world around us.” (O’Brien, http://www.iep.utm.edu/epis-per/) Consequently our perception accesses all of our personal knowledge of reality and our relationship with it to fulfil the indexicality of the photograph.

But as noted before though, there is only one sense that the viewer can rely on, the sense of sight and with this being the case then our perception of the photograph can be limited. This means that our sense of sight can be fooled because no other sense can corroborate the scene but because of the veracity and the indexicality of the photographic image, the notion of truth is still strong. However, because the image is a copy of a reality and can only be verified by one sense, our vision, there is a lack of evidence and so our personal knowledge and understanding of the photograph will be weakened.

However, there is another mental action that can help to support the knowledge used by the sense of sight and that is imagination. Imagination has been employed by the viewer since first viewing the image because imagination had to be used for the denotation of the object or scene depicted. It helped the viewer make sense of the lines, tones and colours and organised them into something that was recognisable. But now imagination provides another task, which is to connect different elements of knowledge.

Fig 2: Thomas Struth Paradise 15

One example that can be used is this image by Thomas Struth Paradise 15 (fig 2). With this image we can see that it is a landscape of a forest interior, that the visual representation of the trees, the stream and the light is all very strong, but it is still just a representation of that scene, it’s just a copy. But with looking we can then imagine the sound of the stream, the coolness of being under the canopy of a forest and that we are in a temperate climate. By using the imagination in this way, the viewer is adding depth to the denotation because the visual sense shows just the scene, but the imagination has added sound and also

touch. As Tamar Gendler has put it “To imagine something is to form a particular sort of mental representation of that thing.” (Gendler http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/imagination/)So by using imagination the representation of the scene has been strengthened. The photograph can now not only be viewed in just a visual sense but the other senses can be employed and this in turn can increase the veracity of the image. Even though these elements are being added by the imagination they still carry a great weight of knowledge because, just like the sense of sight, they are used continuously every day. This in turn has the result of making the veracity of the image more believable, which then increases the sense of truth about the image.

With this being the case the denotation of the image has the sense of being strong and believable, the viewer can relate to the image because of the use of personal knowledge and imagination. Because these elements are personal, the knowledge is based on personal experience, it then makes the assumptions introduced by the imagination as being believable, which then influences the connotation of the image. It is this sense of belief that upholds the notion of truth within an image because it is built upon what we believe about the empirical world and helps us to interact with that world. As Stephen Hetherinton states “We have beliefs, some of which help us to achieve our aims by telling us how not to ‘bump into’ the world around us. We can ‘fit into’ — by ‘finding our way within’ — the world by using beliefs.” (Hetherington, S. http://www.iep.utm.edu/knowledg/)

However, one point that needs to be realised with using knowledge and imagination, the depth of the connotation depends on the amount of knowledge that can be linked by the imagination. This is because knowledge is specific to certain areas of reality and if a viewer has more knowledge of the arts then their connotation of the image is greater. So, it then stands to reason that a viewer with more experience of the arts will use more imagination and knowledge and will have a greater understanding of the image because they have a larger resource of knowledge. This is another reason why the connotation of the image can and does differ from each viewer because the knowledge used is personal to that particular viewer, it is subjective and not a logical constant.

But to say that denotation leads to recognition, that then introduces perception, which then uses knowledge and imagination combined to reach a belief is missing one of the most vital parts of the whole the process. Knowledge and imagination do lead to a belief, but there is a process that needs to be understood and is undertaken before the belief can inferred onto the depicted object or scene. This is the mental action of connotation, which lies at the heart of the entire process.

As mentioned above all signs operate on two levels, the signifier and the signified. With the photograph, because the image is a copy of a reality and then removed from that reality, the photographic image is removed from its original context. As Susan Sontag mentions in On Photography “Photographed images do not seem to be statements about the world so much as pieces of it, miniatures of reality that anyone can make or acquire” (Sontag, P4,1977) Consequently, because the “miniature of reality”, the image, has been taken out of context, it’s been decontextualised and it needs to be recontextualised by the viewer, hence the need for connotation.

A good explanation of this is the analogy of Plato’s Cave, where a group of prisoners are chained in a cave and can only look forward towards a wall of where shadows of objects are projected, which can be similar to a modern day cinema screen. Images of unknown origins to the prisoners are projected onto the screen and then the prisoners have only their own limited reality to relate the images to. The reality that is depicted in the images needs to be reinterpreted by the viewers, to be recontextualised into their own reality so the images can be understood. Consequently the meaning of the decontextualised image is free of its original definition and, as John Berger asserts, “an image will be used for many different purposes and that the reproduced image, unlike an original work, can lend itself to all of them.” (Berger, P25, 1972)

Fig 3: As a seductive Ballerina by Milton H Green

So, as the viewer recontextualises the image they begin to relate to the image. The denotation means we visually understand the photograph and once we do we can then start to intellectually and emotionally understand the image. The image then becomes part of the viewer’s reality to give the items or scene a context and this builds up our relationship with the image. As Vilem Flusser acknowledges “One can take them in at a single glance yet this remains superficial. If one wishes to deepen the significance, i.e. to to reconstruct the abstracted dimensions, one has to allow one’s gaze to wander over the surface feeling the way as one goes.” (Flusser, P8, 2000)

Now being at the point of recontextualising the scene, the viewer begins to empower the image with their own knowledge and understanding of the empirical world and because it is the viewers own personal knowledge they begin to relate to the photograph as they do with their own reality. This process can happen instantaneously and

almost instinctively because this behaviour is a pattern that has been learnt through the experience of using our sense of sight, and so the photographs allows the senses to act as they do normally. By looking at the photograph fig 3 we can see this process in action. In itself it is a simple image, black and white and shows a clearly denoted portrait of a woman. Because of the veracity of the image it can be assumed that she posed for this image, and that it is a true and lifelike representation of the woman. For the denotation of the image there seems to be no ambiguity, no possibility of mistaking this scene for something else, for example a still life. Because the photograph is lifelike and realistic the viewer assumes they can believe the represented version of that reality, which has now been removed from its original context, and so then begin to attach their own values and judgements to recontextualise the image, to make the photograph fit within their own personal knowledge.

The connotation itself is split into three areas, which are the relationship between the image and the viewer, the paradigm of the image and also the narrative of the image. All three of the processes are part of the same system, but from different perspectives. A good analogy of this is the egg, where you have the shell, yolk and egg white. All three parts make up an egg but each element is still identifiable from the other, they are connected and reliant to each other and if one is removed then there is no egg. The three elements of connotation are also intrinsically connected, with each element supporting the other and not one element achieving greater dominance than the other. The manner of which these three elements rely on each other has also been noted by Flusser when he states:

“The time reconstructed by scanning is an eternal recurrence of the same process. Simultaneously, however, one’s gaze also produces significant relationships between elements of the image. It can return again and again to a specific element of the image and elevate it to the level of a carrier of the image’s significance.” (Flusser, P9, 2000)

With this particular image, the more time spent viewing the image, the more richer the connotation. There is depth to this photograph that relies on all three of the elements of connotation, the relationship, paradigm and narrative. Even though the elements are interwoven it will be necessary to discuss them separately for the sake of clarity and then afterwards note of how those elements relate to each other. Also, the connotation cannot be strictly removed from the denotation, because as mentioned before both elements are inherent to each other and to try and draw distance between them leads to a too literal interpretation of the photograph.

The woman in the photograph is very recognisable, she is Marilyn Monroe and her image has been placed so much throughout our culture that she is virtually unmistakable. By being able to recognise her the viewer has used their own knowledge to comprehend that the photograph is a portrait and can name the person depicted. This could then move the viewer to utilise other knowledge they have attained in the past about Marilyn Monroe, perhaps they might recall that she died of an overdose in 1962, that she was a glamorous film star in the 1950s and had fame and stardom in abundance. Then the viewer could consider the contradiction between having a life that fulfilled the “american dream” but then committed suicide at the age of just 34. By using this knowledge, the viewer is reading the photograph, using the symbols within the frames as icons to connect to knowledge.

From this point it could be possible that the viewer then becomes emotionally involved with the photograph. A sense of sadness could emerge because of her untimely demise, or confusion because of the act of suicide by someone who appeared to have everything that society strives for. An emotional connection is created with the photograph which then personalises the relationship between the photograph and the viewer. All of this emotional involvement helps the viewer to relate to the image, to reconstruct the context of the photograph and to produce a strong connection and appreciation of the image. In essence the photograph delivers a message that is wider than what is depicted and as Liz Wells summarises when discussing the writings of Umberto Eco, “that the rhetorical function of the image emerges principally from iconic emphasis” (Wells, P111, 2003)

However, the knowledge used is not strict factual knowledge as it is doubtful that the viewer actually met Marilyn Monroe as she died in 1962, but her image is still recognisable. By being able to recognise Marilyn Monroe utilises a different form of knowledge, observational knowledge, and this knowledge is used daily when a person interacts with reality. However, with a photograph being a copy of reality, the same observational knowledge is used. This, consequently, preserves the notion that the scene depicted is factually true and the photograph is being conceptualised by the viewer to reconstruct the photograph so the viewer can relate to it. This process is called induction, where the definition of one object is achieved by knowledge that is gained through another object. As David Hume has stated, “if we be, therefore, engaged by arguments to put trust in past experience, and make it the standard of our future judgement, these arguments must be probable only.” (Hume, P435, 1748/2008)

With this being the case the photograph can only assert that it is a photograph of Marilyn Monroe and that any definition that is given to the photograph by the viewer is undermined. There is a gap between the depicted object, Marilyn Monroe, and the definition that it is Marilyn Monroe, which is crossed by the use of imagination. This consequently means that any value given to the photograph becomes analogical and can be undermined and any subsequent value assigned to the photograph suffers from the same frailty. Barthes also noticed the same phenomenon when he states “given that the relation between thing signified and image signifying in analogical representation is not arbitrary” (Barthes, P35, 1977).

Because the value of the image is not arbitrary and an unquestioning definition is not produced, so the representation becomes an analogy for a suitable definition. So, as the message that is transmitted from the photograph is analogical and not arbitrary, this has a fundamental consequence for the photograph in relation to photographic truth. How can an image, no matter how realistic and full of veracity be considered to be unquestionably truthful?

It is possible to describe the photograph of Marilyn Monroe as either a modern representation of Botticelli’s Birth of Venus or a flirtatious whore in a state of undress, both would be correct even though they are widely different definitions. Because the photograph is an analogy, the definitions, the signified part of the sign is not firmly grounded. As Barthes goes on to say “all images are polysemous; they imply, underlying their signifiers, a ‘floating chain’ of signifieds, the reader able to choose some and ignore others.” (Barthes, P39, 1977)

When this is considered in relation to the viewer looking at the photograph, reading the image, beginning to understand and relate to the photograph it is possible to see how the viewer can be misled. Ultimately an image can be considered to be free of a specific meaning and that the definition of the photograph lies with the interpretation by the viewer. This will involve social and cultural meanings, which change from country to country, and so the definition of the image will change. To quote Barthes again “In other words, the sign of this message is not drawn from an institutional stock, is not coded, and we are brought up against the paradox … of a message without a code” (Barthes, P36, 1977)

A lie does become much more believable if it is surrounded by the truth, and this is the potential of the photograph. When we consider that we now have digital manipulation of photographs and is so much part of the photographic industry, this means that the possibilities are endless. Because the photograph fools the viewer into believing that what is depicted by the illusion of using a decipherable code is true, then the viewer can be tricked into believing anything. By their being a rhetorical use of icons that are ultimately analogies in themselves, the signified elements are free floating until they are grasped by the imagination and then defined by the viewer and not the photograph. This is why the photograph can mean anything, literally anything, until it is understood by the viewer relating to the image.

Marilyn is quoted to of said "Boys think girls are like books, If the cover doesn't catch their eye they won't bother to read what's inside.” Unfortunately it is not possible to verify if this is an actual quote or an urban myth, but when thinking about the paradigm of the image, this quote encapsulates its definition.

But what is a paradigm? A paradigm is mainly used as a model to explain scientific thought and enquiry. One definition is that it is a collection of data that leads to a particular outcome that has been predicted by the evidence. It is a case that a scientist conceives a theory based on previous data and then conducts an experiment to determine how correct his prediction was. This knowledge then creates a framework for how the scientist views his area of expertise, say medicine, and so because of this framework he is able to treat diseases successfully or research and produce cures for new illnesses.

However, the important element of this definition is to realise that the scientist is not only relying on his own experience but that of others, his contemporaries and predecessors. The scientist is part of a network of scientists who collectively pool their combined knowledge as a general resource. This pool of knowledge then creates rules and conventions which help the scientists to further explore their own field and as Thomas Kuhn states, “provide models from which spring particular coherent traditions of scientific research.” (Kuhn, P476, 2008) In other words the scientist joins a community, a society that is striving to deepen the knowledge of their chosen field of expertise and they have developed a certain way of thinking about their own particular science.

Now if the scientist is replaced with the viewer it is possible to see that the viewer will look at the image a certain way that does not always rely on their own knowledge, but the collected knowledge of society as a whole. With this being the case then traditions about the representation of the body will not be limited to the viewer’s own knowledge but can access the accumulated knowledge of aesthetics, art history and popular culture.

So, when viewing the Marilyn Monroe image it is possible to comprehend that the image needs to be viewed in a certain way, that the photograph needs to be thought about relating to other artworks because of its aesthetic. When Gombrich says “we can admire the clarity and simplicity with which the artist modelled the beautiful body, the way he marked its main divisions without ever being harsh or vague” (Gombrich, P105, 1995) he was referencing a classical greek sculpture Venus of Milo. However, the same description fits the Marilyn Monroe image and the reason being is because they employ the notion of classical beauty.

Marilyn Monroe is the modern equivalent of Venus of Milo. In the photograph she appears youthful, curvaceous and healthy. These are all qualities that connect her image to our cultural understanding of beauty and because they are beautiful qualities the viewer can appreciate them and then experience the sensation of pleasure. Consequently this defines beauty as something that is a cultural phenomenon and so can be subjective. When this is considered in relation to the analogy of the scientist, it is understandable that the beauty expressed is more cultural knowledge adapted by the viewer rather than original personal knowledge. As Immanuel Kant observed “The judgement of taste, therefore, is not a cognitive judgement, and so not logical, but is aesthetic - which means that it is one whose determining ground cannot be other than subjective.” (Kant, P717, 1790) In essence, beauty does not originate from the object, but is a subjective reaction from the viewer based on personal and cultural knowledge.

But this image goes further, she appears to be in a state of undress, her dress is unzipped at the side, her cleavage is exposed and she is leaning forward with her eyes half closed. She appears to be alluring, attractive and seductive. It is at this point that the notion of beauty is hijacked by another phenomenon that has become known as The Male Gaze.

The phenomenon of the male gaze has existed for centuries but was not conceptualised until 1974 of when Laura Mulvey wrote her groundbreaking essay Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. Even though the essay primarily talks about film and cinema it can also be adapted to photography as the two types of media are extremely close. In the essay she claims that “There are circumstances in which looking itself is a source of pleasure, just as, in the reverse formation, there is the pleasure of being looked at” (Mulvey, P839, 1974) At the centre of the male gaze is the notion that a sense of pleasure is derived just from the action of looking, which is defined as scopophilia. The process of this phenomenon is that the viewer objectifies the person they are viewing with a sensation of a sexual pleasure and intent. Indeed scopophilia leads to voyeurism but because these are unconscious actions, the viewer is not aware of this and is another point raised by Mulvey when she claims that “associated scopophilia with taking other people as objects, subjecting them to a controlling and curious gaze” (Mulvey, P839, 1974)

Now the reason why this is important is because the person who photographed Marilyn Monroe was male and so the photograph has been taken from a male perspective. Consequently when the image was taken, this unconscious behaviour would influence the way the photograph was captured. It can also provide part of the answer to Kant when he mentions “All one wants to know is whether the merest representation of the object is to my liking, no matter how indifferent I may be to the real existence of the object of this representation.” (Kant, P718, 1790) It is clear that the photographer, Milton Greene, found the “representation of the object” to his liking because he took the photograph, he presses the shutter to confirm this. Milton is subconsciously objectifying Marilyn Monroe and so this leads to a photograph which is seductive and that “sexual satisfaction can come from watching, in an active controlling sense, an objectified other.” (Mulvey, P839, 1974)

But because of the links through art and the female nude, of where allegories are scantily clothed such as The Three Graces by Antonio Canova , the female nude can be represented as defining a classical beauty. Consequently, this can then mean that the female nude can be used to define anything that is an abstract ideal, such as Beauty or Justice or Freedom and so makes the female nude more acceptable rather than fulfilling a voyeuristic and sexual intent. It is a case of an unconscious desire being made acceptable in a history that has been dominated by males, there is a lack of female artists throughout history, and being seen as the normal and acceptable mode of representation. In other words, the male gaze was “the elephant in the room” that could only be seen from a different perspective and the woman’s perspective provided that difference. By being an observer with a different perspective, Mulvey noticed that “Woman then stands in patriarchal culture as signifier for the male other, bound by a symbolic order in which man can live out his phantasies and obsessions through linguistic command by imposing them on the silent image of woman still tied to her place as bearer of meaning, not maker of meaning.” (Mulvey, P838, 1974)

However, Mulvey also mentions another part of the process, which is the pleasure of being looked at. It is clear that Greene enjoyed looking at Marilyn Monroe through his lens, but it is also clear that Monroe is enjoying the attention, that she is ‘playing to the camera’. Mulvey supports this when discussing the woman’s complicit role in the male gaze by stating “their appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact so that they can be said to connote to-be-looked-at-ness. Women displayed as sexual object is the leit-motiff of erotic spectacle; from pin ups to strip-tease, from Ziegfeld to Busby Berkeley. She holds the look, plays to and signifies male desire.” (Mulvey, P841, 197). Monroe was a movie star whose image was everything to her, that it built her career and defined the way the public saw her. She loved the attention and the limelight and enjoyed being in front of the lens. In the photograph she is making herself seductive, alluring and sexually attractive, she was being complicit and reacting to the gaze of the lens being controlled by a man.

This in itself raises the question, is the viewer seeing the real Marilyn Monroe? Is it possible that she is projecting an image of herself that she wants to be seen? Is it a case that she wants to cause the reaction of sexual attraction within the male viewer?

Barthes noticed a certain phenomenon when he felt he was being watched. In Camera Lucida, he mentions: “Now, once I feel myself being observed by the lens, everything changes: I constitute myself in the process of “posing”, I instantaneously make another body for myself, I transform myself in advance into an image.” (Barthes, P10, 1980) When a camera is pointed at someone, often they will behave how they want to be perceived and not how the photographer sees them, which has led to a huge gap between the posed photograph and the candid image. This also explains the contradiction between why Monroe had such a complete and glamorous public image which was very different to her private life. In reality she was a deeply troubled and unhappy person, but her image was full of vitality, attraction and success.

It also needs to be acknowledged that the image was taken in 1956, nearly two decades before Mulvey’s essay and so Monroe and Greene were not aware of this phenomenon. Even though the image might seem modest when compared to today’s hedonistic imagery, but if the same image was taken today then the overt sexual nature of the image would be mentioned, the objectification and submission of the woman in the frame as a sexual object would be noticed and probably heavily criticised. There has been many social and cultural changes over the last sixty years and tastes have changed, but it is testament to the success of this image that it can still transfix the viewer.

Being in essence the paradigm of this photograph is the male gaze. It assumes that the viewer is male as it is taken from a male perspective, and it contains elements of objectification and sexual desire masquerading and being attached to an impression of beauty. This in turn makes the viewer look at the image in a certain way, it guides them through using signs that have a cultural value that rely on references outside of the viewers own personal knowledge. By having access to the collected cultural knowledge, certain values and methods of thinking are used to define the image and so aid the connotation.

Above all though, the paradigm has to lead to a conclusion which the viewer can believe to be truthful, even though it is constructed by cultural beliefs and a false representation. With this image so obviously orientated around the male gaze there is little doubt that the definition it leads to would be believable. Because the paradigm of this image is so strong it does make the viewer believe that Marilyn Monroe was a sensual, seductive and beautiful woman, full of youthfulness and passion. It is a beautiful image and, in the words of Robert Adams, “For a truth to be beautiful, it must be complete, the full and final truth. And that, in turn, leads me to a definition of Beauty linked unavoidably linked to belief.” (Adams, P32, 1996)

Moving into the third element of connotation, the narrative. Narrative in itself is an incredibly slippery notion to grasp, and yet it is a concept that is used across all of the arts in one shape or another and during the every day life to understand the world we live in. Narrative can enrich and deepen our own experiences and provides a context of how to deal with situations that are familiar or unfamiliar. But what exactly is narrative and how does it relate to the photograph?

A narrative can simply be seen as a series of events that follow each other consecutively, it produces and arranges these events to help people understand and contextualise the world we live in. So, for example, when Harper Lee writes ”Miss Caroline began the day by reading us a story about cats. The cats had long conversations with one another, they wore cunning little clothes and lived in a warm house beneath a kitchen stove.” (Lee, P18, 1960) a scene is being set. But the reader can also understand that this is something fictitious because cats don’t wear clothes, that Miss Caroline is talking to a group and they will have to be close together to hear the story being read. This is what is called Narrative Competence and is where the reader or the viewer “fills in the gaps.” Simon Blackburn describes Narrative Competence as “The system of cultural, historical or other textual knowledge that a reader brings to a text and that makes it possible to understand it.” (Blackburn, P245, 2008)

So, when a viewer looks at a photograph, the image needs to be established in a wider context for the viewer to understand what is depicted. With the Marilyn Monroe image the narrative competence will direct the viewer to the cultural history that is linked to Marilyn Monroe, they could recall her fame, that she was also married three times and that she is now perceived a style icon. By doing so the photograph is placed within the wider cultural narrative that lies outside the of the image and is referencing the cultural history and importance of Marilyn Monroe.

The need to use narrative competence is because the photograph has been removed from its original context. The image is a recreation of a particular reality, a copy of the scene in front of the lens, and consequently, once removed from the original scene, the image needs to be recontextualised. Walter Benjamin was also thinking along the same lines when he states “it can also place the original in situations beyond the reach of the original itself.” (Benjamin, P6, 1936)

With this being the case the copy of the scene, the image, taps into our own cultural knowledge of Marilyn Monroe and her personality, values and style are more defined by her image than the person themselves. It is testament to the strength and almost overwhelming phenomenon of the narrative competence, that more than fifty years after she died that her image is still recognisable and the viewer can still relate to the image. But this in turn raises the question, how did this happen? How is her image still part of our culture 52 years after her death?

The answer to these questions lie within the reproduction of the photograph. The photographic image can be infinitely reproduced, both physically and digitally. Consequently photography has lost that “singularity” or a sense of uniqueness that is embedded into painting and its original context changes. Because the image is free of definition, it is an image without a code, other meanings and definitions can be adopted that are shaped by culture and society. Thus, because the portrayed image of Marilyn Monroe was of someone who was glamorised, sexy and successful and because this was portrayed before and after her death it has now become what defines her. In other words, her cultural status has become iconic on the belief of these values and not her own personality.

In essence with the image being able to be reproduced infinitely but the original context of the image is not, means that the cultural value can and does shift. Benjamin confirms this when he says, “The fact that the work of art can now be reproduced by technological means alters the relationship of the masses to art. From being very backward (faced with Picasso for instance) it has become extremely progressive.” (Benjamin, P26, 1936) In the case of Marilyn Monroe the progressive shift built upon her image and this has now become so strong that it is iconic and overpowers any other definition of her.

There is another point that is also important, and that is that the Narrative Competence also sets the parameters for the relationship of the image. By viewing the image with a wider knowledge base than what is originally depicted it is expanding the definition of the image and this leads to a deeper understanding. The image is part of a wider cultural narrative and the knowledge used for this is outside the realms of personal knowledge and introduces concepts that are dependant on culture. This in turn has a direct impact on our relationship with the image, that it is defining the parameters, and as Benjamin says above “alters the relationship of the masses to art.”

Consequently, the image is then reinterpreted from a contemporary viewpoint. With Marilyn Monroe we see a glamorous woman who defines a certain image of femininity and that definition has been achieved not through this photograph, but through the cultural interpretation of her. The cultural definition of Marilyn Monroe has been determined by her image and now, fifty years later, her image and iconic status are now bigger than the person who was Marilyn Monroe.

Now that the three elements of connotation have been established it is possible to see how they interconnect with each other. The paradigm makes the viewer think a certain way about the photograph, the relationship personalises the photograph and the narrative places the photograph into a wider context. All of these elements support each other but each can be separately defined as a distinct part of the connotation and each contribute to a definition of the image within the photograph. This definition is then turned into a belief that what is seen is a true account of the object or scene depicted in the photograph. It is believable because the viewer has the impression that because of the evidence, the visual and the connoted evidence, that the photograph is a true and realistic version of what was seen. It is similar to a jigsaw puzzle, all the pieces fit together to produce a picture, a complete picture with a definition that is believable. In the case of the Marilyn Monroe photograph we can see who she is, her identity is quite apparent and so we place her into the wider sociological definition of her character. This is combined with her looking seductive and is undressing, which is the way her image is portrayed and also the viewer emotionally relates to the image because of the tragic way her life ended. All three parts of the connotation play a part in defining the image and giving the viewer a belief about the image.

As the viewer now has a belief about the photograph it is then turned into being a truth, that the evidence the viewer has attained through using the denotation and the connotation leads to a belief that what is depicted is true and beyond doubt. Sometimes this is the case, that the photograph does not seek to deceive but to represent a truthful and honest account of what is seen.

However, “semiotics reduces the truth-value of the photograph to a set of crackable codes. For example, we can easily identify the visual and contextual elements that would make a photojournalistic image operate in a convincing way to trigger empathy or outrage.” (Soutter, P70, 2013) So it then becomes possible to intentionally lead the viewer astray and into believing a certain interpretation of the photograph and this is possible because the photograph does not possess its own code, but borrows one from the viewer, hence why the photograph needs to be interpreted.

With this being the case, the definition of the image is not anchored and the meaning it is given is purely arbitrary from the viewer. As Barthes argues “ certainly the image is not the reality but at least it is a perfect analogon and it is exactly this analogical perfection which, to common sense, defines the photograph. Thus can be seen the special status of the photographic image: it is a message without a code.” (Barthes, P196, 1982) The definition and the meaning are given to the photograph rather than the photograph giving the definition to society. With this being the case, the photograph operates initially as if in a vacuum, waiting for a definition to be given and imposed by the viewer and not the photograph giving the definition to the viewer.

This is one of the inherent problems of languages, the definitions that are attached to objects are purely arbitrary. This also applies to the visual language that the viewer uses when looking at a photograph. The photograph doesn’t have a definition in itself, it can only prompt that definition from the viewer. This is why Barthes claims “myth is a system of communication, that is a message. This allows one to perceive that myth cannot possibly be an object a concept, or an idea; it is a mode of signification, a form.” (Barthes, P109,1972)

So, with regard to the concept of photographic truth, the photograph carries a message to the viewer, but that message is a myth. It doesn’t exist in the photograph, the image only prompts the viewer to interpret the image in a certain way. In the analysis of the denotation and the connotation there was nothing that was explicit in the photograph, it is all supposition bought to the image by the viewer. The photograph prods and hints, sometimes very very strongly and can produce extreme reactions within the viewer, but the thoughts, reactions and emotions already existed within the viewer beforehand, the photograph is just the catalyst that makes those thoughts, reactions and emotions prevalent.

Looking at the image from this perspective and undermining the notion of truth within the photograph is a notion that has been prevalent for about the last fifty years. This is mainly due to the theory of Deconstruction, which, put simply and as the name applies, means that something is taken apart to see how it works and how reliable something is. One of the areas that has been looked at with this theory is languages and is the motivation behind the analysis of how the visual language works and how languages relate to reality. Consequently the gap between the definition and the object became apparent and so the mistrust of languages became more apparent, and as Christopher Butler asserts “For the deconstructor, the relationship of language to reality is not given, or even reliable, since all language systems are inherently unreliable cultural constructs.” (Butler, P17,2002)

With this being the case, it is possible to at least question the notion of truth. The framework for the creation of a belief and then consequently being led to an impression of the truth has been explored but it has not led to an unquestioning definition of the photograph, but rather has raised more questions than answers. Ultimately it leads to the notion that photographic truth is constructed from analogies that are constructed from cultural references and as Lucy Soutter states “Postmodernism in art involves a loss of belief in the truth or unique value of the photograph. If modernism prizes singular images that reflect the world with great beauty or penetrating truthfulness, postmodernism rests in the idea that reality is constructed and unstable.” (Soutter, P25, 2013)

So, to summarise, does photographic truth actually exist? Ultimately it does, but the notion of photographic truth also exists. When the process of semiotics is used to establish the truth in the photograph it is possible to assume that it is a case of just being “all smoke and mirrors.” Photographic truth can be an illusion, but paradoxically, it does exist, and so does the notion of photographic truth. This is because of the indexicality of the photographic image carries the notion forward, that it is portrayed as a perfect representation of reality and so has to be real. “The indexicality of the photograph carries an ethical burden alongside claims to truth” (Soutter, P53, 2013) and this is the biggest element of the notion of photographic truth. But because the indexicality can only rely on one sense, the sight, the notion of truth is stretched and becomes malleable.

History is littered with examples of photographs being altered ranging from the celebrity having facial blemishes removed to the Soviet Union under Stalin and demonstrates the power of the notion of photographic truth. Nowadays with the invention of digital photography and manipulation, there literally is no limit to what could be depicted. But photographic truth and the notion of photographic truth, even though it is under attack, does remain. Even in the contemporary setting of post modernism with the photograph being disassembled into various parts for further analysis, the notion of truth still remains.

The only conclusion that can be drawn is that there are two separate elements, photographic truth and the notion of photographic truth. From this position it is possible to claim that the notion is bigger than the truth. The messenger has become bigger than the message and the message relies upon the validity of the messenger, that the truth relies more on the validity of the photograph rather than the truth validating the photograph. With the Marilyn Monroe photograph the notion of photographic truth defines her as an object of male desire, secure in herself whilst the actual truth is that she was projecting an image of seduction and temptation.

This in turn explains why a photograph can almost appear to be schizophrenic, on one hand it depicts a version of reality but on the other hand that version of reality is not real. But if the version of reality is depicted strongly enough, then that version might well be believed no matter how far from the truth it actually is. By having this split personality it echoes that reality is a personal phenomenon reliant on personal perception rather than a preconceived arrangement and reflects more the individuality of the photographer and the viewer rather than being neatly defined.

The photograph will continue to cause wonder and the notion of photographic truth with actual photographic truth will both play their part. But the actual truth within an image is limited, whilst the notion of photographic truth has the entire breadth of reality to play with.

Bibliography:

Soutter, L. (2013) Why Art Photography, Routledge, Abingdon

Barthes, R. (1982) A Roland Barthes Reader, Vintage Classics, London

Barthes, R.(1972) Mythologies, Vintage Classics, London

Butler, C. (2002) Postmodernism A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford

Lee, H. (1960) To Kill a Mocking Bird, Arrow books, London

Blackburn, S. (2008) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford University Press, New York

Benjamin, W.(1936) The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, Penguin Books, London

Kuhn, T. (1962) Change and Crisis in Science, Cottingham, J. (2008), Editor, Western Philosophy An Anthology, 2nd Edition, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford

Gombrich, E. (1995) The Story of Art 16th edition, Phaidon, London

Kant, I. (1790) Critique of Judgement, Cottingham, J. (2008), Editor, Western Philosophy An Anthology, 2nd Edition, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford

Barthes, R. (1980) Camera Lucida, Hill and Wang, New York.

Adams, R. (1996) Beauty in Photography, Aperture, New York.

Mulvey, L. (1974) Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, Braudy L & Cohen M, (editors) (2004) Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory readings, Oxford University Press, New York

Hume, D. (1748) Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, Cottingham, J. (2008), Editor, Western Philosophy An Anthology, 2nd Edition, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford

Wells, L. (2003) The Photographic Reader, Routledge, Abingdon

Barthes, R. (1977) Image Music Text, Fontana Press, London

Sontag, S. (1977) On Photography, Penguin Classics, London

Berger, J. (1972) Ways of Seeing, Penguin books, London

Flusser, V. (2000) Towards a philosophy of Photography, Reaktion Books Ltd, London

Clarke, G. (1997) The Photograph, Oxford , Oxford University Press

Bate, D. (2009) Photography The key concepts, London, Bloomsbury Academic

Fried, M. (2008) Why Photography Matters as Art as Never Before, Malaysia, Yale University Press

Barthes, R. (1982) A Roland Barthes Reader, London, Vintage Classics

Badger, G. (2010) The Pleasures of Good Photographs, New York, Aperture

Berger, J. (1967) Understanding a Photograph, London, Penguin Classics

Clarke, G. (1997) The Photograph, Oxford , Oxford University Press

11 January 2015 http://www.uvm.edu/~tstreete/semiotics_and_ads/terminology.html, WWW Page

12 January 2015 http://www.joshdmay.com/teaching/philosophy-basics/ WWW Page

Batchen, G. (2004) Forget me not: Photography and Remembrance New York: Princeton Architectural Press / Amsterdam: Van Gogh Museum

Peirce, C.S. (1894/1931-58) Elements of logic, Volume 2, Thoemmes Press, Bristol

O’Brien, D. http://www.iep.utm.edu/epis-per/ accessed 17/01/2016

Gendler, T. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/imagination/ accessed 20/01/2016

Stephen Hetherington University of New South Wales accessed 17/01/2016

http://www.iep.utm.edu/knowledg/

Damisch, H. (1978) Five notes for a Phenomenology of the Photographic Image, Trachtenberg, A. (ed), Classic Essays on Photography, Leete’s Island Books, Sedgwick

Saussure, F.de, (1983) Course in General Linguistics, Harris. R, (translator) Duckworth, London