When Miller writes that photos are dead, what does he mean?  Clearly a 
photograph can't be dead because it was never alive.  Only living things can 
become dead things.  This is another example of Miller's habit to add fiction 
to fact in order to transfer what is factual to the fictional and then to 
translate that as a new fact, hence, a fact, photo, is added to its fictional 
state, dead, and presto, a photo is therefore a dead thing.  If I recall 
properly, and I may not, the philosopher Sibley, made a career of just this 
sort of confusion as it pertains to aesthetics.

The implied but never recognized term in hiding here is "facture", a word 
rarely used anymore but relevant to our perception of artworks.  It refers to 
the process in making art.  Of course the facture of a photograph is different 
from that of painting.  In addition to the camera settings, an ordinary photo 
print, is "made" in the developing tray, where facture entailed the printer's 
activity and judgment.  Automatic type developing still used the printer's 
judgment which pre-set the controls.  In digital, analogous facture is 
utilized.  Painting, through its visible brushstrokes or modes of paint 
application reveals facture.  No matter how refined, any paint mark obscures 
some information that is "filled in" by the viewer (merely an exaggerated form 
of the same thing in photography). Looser paint applications make facture much 
more obvious and invite the viewer to project subjective information (what I 
call make believe) to the work, making it seem to
 embody the viewer's "aliveness".  Thus to the extent that an artwork reveals 
its facture, in one way or another, is what enables us to imagine projecting 
our own sense of "aliveness" to it, as if we experience ourselves anew in the 
'mirror' of the artwork.  This can be true, I think, in all the arts.  Even in 
writing, when the arrangement of words, as words and sounds, their facture, 
invites us to make-believe our experience as re-made by those words.

I'm for reviving facture as a fit topic for aesthetic discussion.   It is also 
a plea for some return to logical and intellectual acuity, steering us away 
from such foolish constructions as photos are dead because they are not 
paintings.  Ugh!

WC

Reply via email to