The Index and The Algorithm

In The Index and The Algorithm, Braxton Soderman acknowledges a reality that is undeniable: the art world has changed drastically since the turn of the century. Everything has gone through transformations, and the photographic practice is no exception. Our cultural understanding of photography and film, and the place it takes up within society obviously then must be deformed and reformed, and Soderman proposes a very comprehensive outline of this. Because of this, I am going to dedicate this final blog post to what is, at least to me, a most successful conversion, and explanation, of indexicality in digital times.

Soderman, in a nutshell, translates (what to him are) antiquated, outdated discourses on photography into the XXIst century. To me, this translation he offers follows a completely logical path, and I really appreciate the rationality of his step-by-step process. One of the parts I found most interesting about his article is the analysis of Mark Wolf’s proposed updating of indexicality to the digital era. The problematization created by Soderman of Wolf’s attachment of the “iconicity of digital imagery to an index” is especially interesting. I can’t help but agree with the author on this point, because, as he states, “the iconicity of a visual image cannot surely resemble, imitate, or share qualities with an invisible program or with the symbolic nature of the code”. Another specific point of Soderman’s which I personally enjoyed was the creation of the inextricable relationship between programs and the digital image. Programs, according to Soderman, “force the digital image to take on the appearance or behavior that it manifests”; to me, this sound uncannily similar to Pierce’s identification of the photograph as an indexical sign because of the physical conditions (chemical reactions) that force it to “correspond point-by-point” to the material reality. This comparison epitomizes the reasons why I, in many ways, admire Soderman’s translation of indexicality into the digital era.

Overall, there are many concepts and ideas in the reading that I failed to grasp an understanding of, like the creation of “an indexicality attached to the present” he proposes in page 171. However, I did find the text especially interesting, and appreciated the insight on the photographic practice during more contemporary times. As I hope made clear, I am amazed by the success and clarity with which Soderman outlines the transformation of our perception of the index with the appearance of the digital.