Anti-photography

From: Victor Subramanium [victorsubramanium@yahoo.com.sg]
To:Justin Loke Kian Whee
CC:
Subject:A project on Anti-photography[Scanned]

Hi Justin,

How are you? How's Fiona and Joshua doing? Have not heard from you guys lately. Just want to share something with you, an idea that has been brewing for many years, and finally, after attending my friend's wedding it was the last straw, I must let it get off my chest and stop thinking about it.

From our conversation I know you always have a dislike for photographers, not personally I believe, but just general, like how society hates trigger happy people. I have an idea for a project for you guys, to add to your already unattended shelves of ideas, I won't be disappointed if it isn't materialised.

A Project that dedicates itself to the anti-photography cause: Truth, Immortality and Banality

Parties and Individuals to attack:

1. Event photgraphers/camera man for weddings, formal dinners, parties, event etc. To me they are human beings that behaves like you say outside the situation, the moment, like the incidents you mentioned to me moving around, talking, adjusting their cables during the solemn moment of silence of the memorial for the deceases of 911 in order to telecst the 'event'. And the photographer who went in to the bride's room before the bridegroom to photographed that moment of greatest significance. To me this is the most lowbrow of attention seeking. Actually I feel that you are like them, because you are not that involved, not paying attention to the wedding ceremony or the moment of silence. But that is another story on documentation in general I guess.

2. As usual, heard and read it often in books and drama series: the attitude or belief in using photos as documents and evidence. But besides the suspicion of Photoshop manipulation, there is something I noticed recently. In last saturday's 'live' telecast of an EPL match a player was foul by another, as always, we can't really see what happened. Should the penalty be given? After replaying from 5 angles, the sixth did show contact between them, whereas the other 5 looked like the player being foul dived. The commentator upon seeing the sixth angle, in clipped British accent said 'Yes indeed, there was a foul', I was wondering why when we have 5 angles (of no foul) against 1 angle (of foul) we deem the last as factual. I know it isn't judged on quanity, but there is something undemocratic, unfair about the rationale, something that's too inductive, they are all points of view, but why that is decisive. It;s like a faulting act than judgment.

3. The lousy photos that pretends to be art. But only lousy ones where the medium did not function beyond itself. Narcisstic posturing. Banal.

4. Tourist, be they hip backpackers or tour group aunties, slr or dummy digital, they are crazy about trapping moments once they step out of their own country. And the self-obsessed teens who love to photograph themselves. This are down right banal creativity.

5. Our over reliance on photography, for existence, traces, memories etc. For example, if this event/project were to actually happend out of habit and neccessity we would photographed it for docmentation or memory, for further fundings, like how I was impressed by VS's portfolio; photograph art works for catalogues. This point is important because if you were to allow photography for this project, for any purpose, then the whole idea is ruined.

Lastly, I would like to add, that photograph is the instrument that creates the illusion of the never never gone land, eternity, immortality etc. The device that uses light to colour the superficial sense of eternity. I belong to those who believe Time is finity, infnity is non-time, and Time is experience etc. Embracing photography is anti-Time, anti- progression. Photo-graph, or light, the anti-thesis is vulgar abstraction, cowardice, cheap thrill (porno), non-experential (compare viewing the scenery from busy taking pictures of it), non-intervention (think war photographer, busy taking pictures of the wounded while others are busy helping the wounded, or the quasi-God's view of camera man for documentrary who uses the excuse of 'letting nature takes it cause' while the lion tears the deer, we don't do that we see man to man assualt we call 'murder') I think this is an ethical issue which affects the Aesthetic of not just art but LIFE!

Man is finity, and woman is infinity. We understand this proposition once we understand how the sexual organs of the male and female function.
- Lance Lesslar, (1745-98)
The Anatomy of Discontentment

I think this guy is right, I can't erect the whole day but woman can fuck thru' the night. If capitalism feminises the society, then I think photography is one instrument that help perpetuate this eradication of masculinity. For the celebration of infinity, through photography, is a feminine activity.

The equation:

If photography=eternity, and eternity=infinity, and inifinity=feminity
then photography is feminine.

Only females or the feminised want to 'stay young forever', or believe 'diamonds are forever'.

I think I am too long winded, must be your bad influence. Let me know what you guys think.

Best Regards,

Victor