The Redundant Photograph.

Chambers dictionary defines redundant as: 1 not needed; superfluous. 3 said of a word or phrase: superfluous; expressing an idea or sense already conveyed by another word or phrase, and therefore able to be removed without affecting the overall meaning of the sentence, etc.

A recent post at Conscientious and one at politicstheoryphotography.blogspot.com  - which has thus far attracted a few interesting comments - both link to 'Click here to disappear: thoughts on images and democracy' (accessed 18/04/07) by David Levi Strauss, which, I think, touches upon the very issue of photographic redundancy. Before looking at this however, it is worthwhile going back to Barthes and his concept of studium which also touches upon such a notion:

The studium is that very wide field of unconcerned desire, of various interest, of inconsequential taste... (p27)

Thousands of images consist of this field, and in these photographs I can, of course, take a general interest, one that is even stirred sometimes, but in regard to them my emotion requires the rational intermediary of an ethical and political culture. (p26)

There is however at least an indication of engagement in Barthes text quoted above, albeit a reserved one.

Flusser, in Towards a Philosophy of Photography articulates a specific concept of 'redundancy', in effect extending the notion of studium - a general interest - into no interest at all. He writes :

What we are surrounded by above all are redundant photographs - and this is the case despite the fact that every day new illustrated newspapers appear on our breakfast tables, every week new posters appear on city walls and new advertising photographs appear in shop displays. It is precisely this permanently changing situation that we have become accustomed to: One redundant photograph displaces another redundant photograph. As such the changing situation is familiar, redundant; 'progress' has become uninformative, run-of-the-mill. What would be informative, exceptional, exciting for us would be a standstill situation: to find the same newspapers on our breakfast tables everyday or to see the same posters on city walls. That would surprise and shock us. (p65)

While this was originally published in 1983 the point still holds true, if not more so. To the 'newspapers on our breakfast tables' and the 'posters on city walls', one need only add the image on our computer screen.

David Levi Strauss then: '

I used to think that more people making images would necessarily lead to more conscious image reception, but I'm less sure of that now. It seems that it's possible to make images as unconsciously as one consumes them, bypassing the critical sense entirely. One of the main culprits here is time pollution, or "the pollution of temporal distance" that Paul Virilio writes about. To regain our liberty (and our distance), we must slow the images down.' And: 'Images online are both more ephemeral (in form) and more substantial (in number).

The integral Polaroid photograph occupies an interesting location within this debate. It prefigured the digital in permitting the viewing of the image as near to the time of taking as possible - possessing a degree of temporal authority - which the digital now exceeds. The desire to lessen the time required between the act of taking the photograph and viewing the resultant image was of course a central reason for the production - and success - of integral Polaroid photography. Time Magazine, almost thirty years ago, published the following (26/04/76. Author not indicated):

David Eisendrath, a photo consultant for TIME and Modern Photography: "Kodak finally realized what Polaroid knew from the start—that there are people who want to take good pictures, and other people who want to see them as fast as possible. The latter group is much larger than the former."' http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,879691-2,00.html (Accessed 19/04/07)

That images are created as unconsciously as they are consumed then is not a new concept - rather it is the scale at which this occurs that now warrants increased study. And I wonder to what degree this is true of me also? How attentive to the image am I, really - both those I create and those I view? And is there a difference between the two: am I really more attentive to those I create? Further, does the manner of their creation have a baring on this - am I more attentive to the integral Polaroid in distinction to the digital due to its physicality and singularity? One could argue that one is more attentive to the physical image over the screen / digital image - and this is why we still seek to provide hard copies of such images (the digital) as their final or primary manifestation.

On the final point quoted: a physical copy of the integral Polaroid can be produced: in the case type SX70 Polaroids one needed to send the Polaroid to the manufacturer itself (a service I imagine to be no longer available), and in the case of Spectra/Image System film (and 1200) one can make use of a duplicator stand. Their status however warrants additional investigation: are they copies, duplications, fabrications... And what status should the digitized integral photograph viewed on the screen hold? How does the fact that numerous individuals in different locations - yet always infront of a screen - are able to view such a manifestation simultaneously affect its status?

And of course this proliferation of duplication: of a certain image, of images of a type, of images in general has echoes in other areas: more widespread homogenisation of (non)cultural space for instance. One town or city provides much the same experience - places to shop, places to eat, places providing entertainment - that ones awareness dulls. 

Barthes, Roland. Camera Lucida. Vintage. 1993.
Flusser, Vilem. towards a Philosophy of Photography. Reaktion Books. 2000.

Update on 10 08 2009 by S. Cousin

The interview with Alec Soth (by Daniel Shea) at Too Much Chocolate attracted much attention, especially the following comment:

I also just think photography was much more interesting 50 plus years ago, and now there is just this overabundance of photography. It’s like saying “What type of art do you do?” “Oh, I do Twitter.” (http://toomuchchocolate.org/?p=1067. 21/07/2009)

A similar number of comments were also posted at:
http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/07/22/photography-is-just-not-good-for-storytelling/