Post #1 - Kracauer's essay on Photography

I want to apologize in advance if I seem to repeat myself during my presentation in class, but I'm using this blog post as a way to organize my thoughts and lay down some questions for discussion.

Kracauer's essay on Photography is part of his earlier writings. Maybe this is something useful to keep in mind as later in life he relates the role of photography more to Capitalism as he becomes more and more influenced by Marx.

This essay is particularly interesting as it points out the relationship between Photography, Memory and History. He lays out that photography, devoid of Memory images, are void of meaning and further from what can be considered the "truth". Once a subject is photographed, she is removed from the space-time continuum, this removal and eternalization is emphasized by the photograph, not the eternalization of the subject itself. The subject is then devoid of its human traits as, without memory, we do not know the truth behind who they are. We simply know that the subject of the photograph, who could really be anyone of the era, once existed in this continuum.

It appears rather strange at first for Kracauer to argue that photographs, which record likeness and document events, are devoid of history, and on the other hand memory which is absolutely subjective and fragmented, reconstructs history. Common sense would argue that photographs are more apt to document history than memory. But maybe it is more useful to think of Kracauer's definition of history as subjective and constructed. This can be illustrated by his quote about the painter who tells his client to hire the photographer across the street to document his wrinkles. He, as an artist, hides the wrinkles and paints history. Is history then devoid of wrinkles and imperfections?

Memory allows us to remember what we find relevant. Photographs document likeness that, without word of mouth and history, become irrelevant, like fashion. A curiosity, a ghost, the peculiarity of something that is no longer there. The collection of old photographs, archived and void of memory, then can be used to analyze and deconstruct history. This part of his argument was actually the most confusing, as he speaks of the capability of the photograph (or those who use photographs) to create strange constructs that jumble nature. Is he slowly moving towards a political use of photography? Or is this more of an artistic project? He mentions film, maybe he is slowly starting to reference German expressionist film?