Charlie, after a night out, Manchester UK 2004
What are the repercussions of a photograph, in relation to owning a photograph of a being? a piece of pornography?
Taking a photograph, turning the person into an object and that time it was taken into an object, must have some repercussions. The owner of the object - photograph, now has in their possessions a part of the subject/object. And the replications of the subject as object exist in all of the owners world, as well as in the subjects own history.
In relation to pornographic images, this kind of disturbs me.
But I also see the attraction in it. I own, for my personal use, an object that I find arousing, which is beautiful to me, and by my very nature I want to collect and keep things that are beautiful to me for my further enjoyment.
There is a "religious belief that a photograph can steal a soul, imprisoning it within its amalgam of polyester, celluloid, salts and gelatin (or perhaps a CCD if you are into digital photography) is still shared by many cultures across the globe...The soul is believed to be composed of thirteen parts, photography damages or even removes some of these components." (http://www.weddingphotographydirectory.com/wedding-photo/for-wedding-photographers/bleeding-edge-column/art-of-stealing-souls.aspx)
Photography removes and imprisons parts of a soul in the photograph itself. How does this sit in relation to pornography?
What happens to the subject/object after the photograph is taken, developed and distributed?
No comments:
Post a Comment