The photographer directs their camera towards a realm of things that have already been formed as a realm of purposes, values, and significances. However, throughout the perceptual process, these qualities may not be immediately apparent, but rather seen as inherent attributes derived from a ‘natural’ understanding of what exists. The photographer manipulates various factors, such as the arrangement and lighting of objects, the camera’s mechanics and field of view, and the sensitivity of film, paper, and chemicals, to create a pattern of light and dark on paper. This pattern does not accurately represent the subject being photographed.
The pattern depicted on paper serves as the focal point of observation or interpretation, wherein it is constructed as a significant visual representation based on acquired cognitive frameworks. The interpretation of a photographic picture is constructed by the interplay of many schemas or codes, which exhibit significant variations in their level of schematization.
Hence, the picture should be seen as a combination of symbols, more akin to an intricate language rather than a solitary word. The connotations of it are diverse, tangible, and, most significantly, fabricated. Similar to other language-like systems, photographs can be thoroughly examined as representations of a restricted range of rhetorical forms that embody a society’s values and beliefs. These forms cannot be easily disproven through analysis alone. Drawing from Freud’s exploration of desire and criticism, we can perceive rhetorical forms as symbolic violations of abstract, uncomplicated underlying propositions that, despite being rejected, still offer unresolved gratification through their rejection.
The notion that the meaning of a photograph is inherently imprecise and requires a caption to avoid drifting into ambiguity arises from the underestimation of the extent to which the photograph itself must be interpreted as a rhetorical construction. The aforementioned misconception leads to the establishment of a strict division between verbal and visual elements, a notion that semiotics has demonstrated to be unfounded by exposing the intricate interplay between visual and verbal codes. It has been demonstrated that the notion of a purely visual picture is only a utopian construct.
If there is no ontological or semiological foundation for the preference of photography as a method of representation that directly captures the real, how can we explain the significant impact that photography has on contemporary social existence? Firstly, the creation and ascription of photographic significance is not a random or voluntary procedure. The process of encoding and decoding in images is a result of the efforts made by certain historical figures who are intricately intertwined with the ideology inside the ongoing historical narrative.
Furthermore, this study is situated within distinct social and institutional frameworks. Photographs do not possess the characteristics of concepts. Material objects are created through a specific intricate process of production and are subsequently distributed, circulated, and consumed within a specific network of social interactions. These objects are imbued with significance and comprehension within the very dynamics of their production, and are situated within a broader ideological framework that must be connected to the practical and social challenges that uphold and influence it. When examining photography as an ideology, we are not engaging with an entity that exists independently of reality, but rather with a subjective realm that is interconnected with the actual world through the principles of reflection and reversal.
According to Louis Althusser, an ideology is always present inside a system and its implementation. This being is tangible. According to Pierre Macherey, the examination of a society’s ideology does not involve the analysis of its system of ideas, thinking, and representations, nor does it entail the creation of a novel metaphysics of the image. The objective of this study is to examine the operational mechanisms of ideological apparatuses, which are associated with a certain set of activities.
We are currently able to shift the focus from the question of photography’s privileged status as a reliable witness to the reality of the objects or events it portrays, from the internal dynamics of the photographic process to the functioning of specific privileged institutions within the social structure, such as scientific institutions, government agencies, law enforcement agencies, and judicial systems.
Photojournalism possesses a unique ability to confer authority and privilege upon photographic representations, which is not extended to other forms of photography within the same social structure, such as amateur photography or ‘art photography’. Contemplate the circumstances under which a photograph of the Loch Ness Monster or an unidentified flying object (UFO) might be deemed admissible as evidence of their existence.
In accordance with Barthes’ concept of “frontal and clear,” it might be argued that the utilization of the purportedly “natural” language of documentary photographs would not suffice. In this context, we go into the realm of the perpetual interplay between power and knowledge, as examined by the renowned French philosopher and historian Michel Foucault. Foucault contends that every society establishes its’regime of truth’: ‘its ‘general politics’ of truth.’
This refers to the specific types of communication it promotes and allows to be considered true. It also encompasses the mechanisms and examples that allow for the differentiation between true and false statements. Additionally, it involves the techniques and procedures that are highly valued in the pursuit of truth, as well as the status of those responsible for determining what is considered true.