Why should we prefer the weak version of the new theory of photography?

Authors

  • Paloma Atencia Linares National Autonomous University of Mexico image/svg+xml

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24310/Contrastescontrastes.v23i2.5572

Keywords:

NEW THEORY OF PHOTOGRAPHY, STRICTLY PHOTOGRAPHIC MEDIA, PHOTOGRAPHY, DIARMUID COSTELLO, DOMINIC LOPES

Abstract

Diarmuid Costello has recently supported a radical version of what he calls, following Dominic Lopes, The new theory of photography and he has criticized a position within this theory that he considers weaker and restrictive. Both views – radical and restrictive – are opposed to the received view in the analytic philosophy of photography. However, Costello argues that the weaker version is too close to orthodoxy. This paper constitutes a defense of the purported restrictive view and argues that, as a matter of fact, the radical version is more prescriptive, restrictive and inadequate.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

  • Paloma Atencia Linares, National Autonomous University of Mexico

    Paloma Atencia-Linares es doctora en Filosofía por UCL (University College London). Actualmente trabaja en  la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM)

     

    Línea de investigación:

    Filosofía del Arte, Filosofía de la Percepción

     

    Publicaciones recientes:

     

    «Sound in Film» en The Palgrave Handbook for the Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures. Carroll, N. Di Summa, L. Eds.

     

    “Fiction and Non-fiction. Genres in Photography” in Art & Philosophy: New Essays at the Intersection. MagUhidr C. Ed. Oxford University Press.

     

    Dirección postal:

    Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, UNAM

    Circuito Mario de la Cueva

    Ciudad Universitaria

    Del. Coyoacán

    México D.F. 04510

     

    Dirección electrónica: atenciap@filosoficas.unam.mx

References

ATENCIA-LINARES, P. 2012: «Fiction, Nonfiction, and Deceptive Photographic Representation.» The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 70 (1) (January 1): 19–30.

———, 2013. Arts and Facts. Fiction, Nonfiction and the Photographic Medium. Thesis, UCL, University of London.

BARTHES, R. 1980. La cámara lúcida. Buenos Aires: Paidós

BAZIN, A. 2008: ¿Qué es el cine? Madrid: Editorial Rialp.

CAVEDON-TAYLOR, D. 2010: «In Defence of Fictional Incompetence.» Ratio 23 (2): 141–150.

CAVELL, S. 1979: The World Viewed: Reflections on the ontology of film.» Boston: Harvard University Press.

COSTELLO, D. 2017: On Photography. A Philosophical Inquiry. Routledge.

CURRIE, G. 1999: «Visible Traces: Documentary and the Contents of Photographs.» Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 57 (3): 285–297.

FRIDAY, J. 1997: «Digital Imaging, Photographic Representation and Aesthetics.» Ends and Means 2 (2): 7–11.

HOPKINS, R. 2010: «Factive Pictorial Experience: What’s Special About Photographs?» Noûs (December 15).

LOPES, D. 2016: Four Arts of Photography. Willey Blackwell.

MAYNARD, P. 2005: The Engine of Visualization: Thinking Through Photography. Cornell University Press.

PHILLIPS, D. 2009: «Photography and Causation: Responding to Scruton’s Scepticism.» British Journal of Aesthetics 49 (4): 327–340.

RICHTER, G. 1995: «Interview with Rolf Schön» in Richter, The Daily PRactice of Painting: Writings 1962-1993, ed. Hans-Ulrich Obrist (London: Thames & Hudson)

SCRUTON, R. 1981: «Photography and Representation.» Critical Inquiry 7: 577–603.

SONTAG, S. 1973: Sobre la Fotografía. Madrid: Debolsillo.

WALTON, K. 1970: «Categories of Art.» The Philosophical Review 79 (3) (July 1): 334–367.

———, 1984: «Transparent Pictures: On the Nature of Photographic Realism.» Critical Inquiry 11 (2) (December 1): 246–277.

Downloads

Published

2019-02-01

Dimensions

PlumX

Issue

Section

ARTICLES

How to Cite

Why should we prefer the weak version of the new theory of photography?. (2019). Contrastes. Revista Internacional De Filosofía, 23(2). https://doi.org/10.24310/Contrastescontrastes.v23i2.5572