A picture is worth a thousand words-- or about the length of your average editorial.
In his article “Photography and Representation,” Roger Scruton concludes that photography in its ideal state is purely a representation of what already exists. He breaks photography into two groups, one in which the photographer has a causal relationship with his subjects and one in which the photographer has an intentional relation with his subject. He calls causal photography the more ideal of these two groups because it is a direct attempt to record the event it captures with none of the artist’s subjectivity added. When the photographer has a intentional relationship with his subject, he represents it in a unique and calculated manner. To Scrutton, this is no longer considered photography. Instead it is a different type of art-- the photographer is really “painting” his subject.
Unlike Scruton, I value the second category of photography more, precisely for the reason that he scorns it—because these images demonstrate the unique and interesting view of the photographer.
It is for this reason that the opinion section is revamping a feature we started last semester called “as I see it.” The point of this feature is to give equal weight to the pictures as we do to the words on our page. These photos will be editorials in the form of a photograph, where each week a different photographer will display the world as they see it.
Whereas with an editorial the idea of the author is clearly stated, these photographs are not here to fight for a cause or encourage you to vote for a certain candidate. These photos are here to open you up to the photographer’s world and a get a glimpse of what they see and what they’re thinking. While each photograph will be titled, there will be no additional written explanations, allowing the photograph to speak for itself and allowing the viewer to interpret it as they like.
The author, a Spectator associate, is a Columbia College sophomore.