Valokuvaa ei ole

Abstract

Väitöskirja koostuu kuudesta aiemmin julkaistusta artikkelista ja johdantoluvusta. Artikkeleissa analysoidaan muun muassa valokuvan kerronnallisuutta, Esko Männikön valokuvien vastaanottoa, kriittisen maisemavalokuvauksen edellytyksiä ja nuorten tulkintoja monialayritys Benettonin mainoskuvista.

Teoreettisena ja metodisena lähtökohta on antiessentialistinen näkemys valokuvasta. Se tarkoittaa sitä, että valokuvat saavat merkityksensä aina niissä kulttuurisissa tiloissa, joissa ne tuotetaan ja tulkitaan. Tutkimuksen nimi Valokuvaan ei ole viittää juuri siihen, että mitään kulttuurisista konteksteista irrallista valokuvallista merkitystä ja valokuvaa ei ole.

Tutkimuksessa arvioidaan myös ns. brittiläisen ja yhdysvaltalaisen valokuvatutkimuksen perinteitä. Näitä perinteitä läpikäymällä rakennetaan perustaa yhteiskuntatieteelliselle valokuvatutkimukselle.

Väitöskirjassa osoitetaan, kuinka vastaanottotutkimus avaa valokuvatutkimukselle uusia mahdollisuuksia ja antaa sille eväitä päästä keskusteluyhteyteen laajemman viestinnän tutkimuksen kanssa.

The study includes six previously published articles and an introduction which is labeled Kaksi traditiota (Two traditions). The label refers to the American and British photography research as they developed from the beginning of 1970s to the present day. Key researchers - to mention only a few - are Abigail Solomon-Godeau, John Tagg, Allan Sekula, Jo Spence and Victor Burgin. In the introduction I develop my theoretical and methodological approach, which I call antiessentialism. The concept refers to the idea that the photograph has no intrinsic identity or ontological nature. In a sense, the photograph as such does not exist. Antiessentialism emphasizes that photographs are part of discoursive formations. The meanings of photographs depend on the contexts in which photographs are used and interpreted. I argue that antiessentialism is the most important theoretical and methodological common denominator for the two traditions mentioned above. In my articles I 'materialize' a rather philosophical and abstract antiessentialist view to the specific research problems.

The first article (Who stole the landscape photograph? Some remarks on critical practices in landscape photography.) concerns the critical photography practices (pastiche, appropriation, intertextuality and simulation) which were employed by so-called postmodern photographers in United States during the late 1970s. The basic research problem was: how to call into the question the landscape as an unproblematic, romantic and harmless space between nature and culture? I tried to find some tools for landscape photography to deconstruct the mythical representations of landscape which one can find in advertisements, for example. I used Sherrie Levine's pastiches of Eliot Porter's landscape photographs as a typical example of postmodern strategies. However, those critical strategies have their own shortcomings. The basic problem is the reception of 'critical' postmodern works. I refered to Linda Andre's article 'Politics of Postmodern Photography'. Andre writes: "Imagine the experience of three different gallerygoers at an exhibition of Sherrie Levine's work. Say it is a show of rephotographed Eliot Porters. The first viewer, unfamiliar with art photography, assumes that Sherrie Levine is a landscape photographer and enjoys the conventional beauty of the pictures. The second viewer knows Porter's work and recognizes Levine's pictures as copies, but finds the meaning of the gesture unclear. The third viewer has read Barthes, so the Levine photos (unlike Porter's) enable him or her to 'immediately grasp the wholly conventional (and as Barthes would have said, entirely mythological) scheme in which 'Nature' is made to be seen as 'Beautiful'." My conclusion is: critical postmodern practices might be useful in deconstructing mythical landscape representations. However, they must be very well aware of the cultural preconditions of their reception.

The second article (Notes on the narrativity of photography.) calls into the question the concept of photograph's narrativity. The narrativity of photography has not been very much discussed within photography research. This paper approaches the problem from three perspectives. First, the semiotic functions of photography are discussed. The narrative potentials of photography are considered to be dependent on the semiotic functions possible for photography. Second, the concept of narrativity itself is reviewed by referring to a debate between Manuel Alvarado and Kevin Halliwell in the early 1980s. Third, the author defines the narrativity of photography in the same as it is defined in current Finnish news research. As an example, a reportage from a monthly magazine is analysed.

The third article (How to approach the photograph? Three theoretical models.) outlines three theoretical ideal types for understanding the photograph as a societal phenomenon. The aesthetic-formalistic approach is based on Beaumont Newhall's historical study of the photograph. The discursive-functionalistic perspective approaches the photograph within different institutional practices that define the meanings and identity of the photograph; this approach is mainly based on John Tagg's work The Burden of Representation. The third ideal type is concerned with the constitution of observing subject and the position of photograph in this process. This approach is illustrated by reference to Jonathan Crary's study. The aesthetic-functional understanding of the meaning of the photograph is widespread both in the litterature on the photograph and in everyday conceptions. The basic problem with this approach lies in its essentialism, in its desire to preserve and construct the photograph's own identity. It is difficult within this sort of thinking to perceive the photograph at the crossroads of different kinds of societal practices. Nor does the aesthetic-formalistic view deliberate upon its place as part of discourses constructing the photograph and photography. From this point of view Newhall's work is more an object of study waiting to be deconstructed rather than a relevant study of the photograph. Tools for this deconstructive excercise are provided by the discursive-functionalistic approach, which aims to unravel the cultural meanings of the photograph in different practices. It sociologizes the aesthetics of the photograph and contaminates it throughout with social theory. However, the problem with this approach is that it is not capable of recognizing the historical constitution of the obeserving subject. The constitutional theory perspective poses the question of subject constitution and at once raises the question of whether it would be worthwhile to study the photograph in itself or as part of broader changes that have taken place in visual culture.

The next article (Nature in newspaper photographs: On the relations between text and image in environmental discourse.) is written together with Esa Väliverronen. The role of photographs and the visual elements in environmental discourse has received only very little explicit and systematic attention. This is quite strange because many researchers admit that photographs have had an important role to play in the 'environmental awakening' since the 1960s; if people had not been alerted to the environmental crisis earlier, they were certainly shaken by the images of oiled seabirds, poisoned fish and forests destroyed by acid rain that were shown in their living rooms. At the same time, wonders-of-nature documentaries and colourful nature books have continued to offer images of untouched nature which has not yet been destroyed. The relationship of the photograph to nature is an internal one, in two overlapping ways. Firstly, the photograph is seen discursively as an integral part of nature. Secondly, nature photographs are constructed as a spectacle that in itself is (simulated) nature, This simulated nature can appeal to the viewer's emotions in many different ways e.g. it may become the target of 'affective inputs'. This article considers the role of the photograph in environmental communication. More concretely, we are concerned with the definition, popularisation and visualisation of biodiversity in a certain newspaper. The study consists of stories published in the Finnish newspaper Helsingin Sanomat between 1990 and 1997, and the analysis starts with the photographs featured in these stories. We focus on the way that nature is represented, the relationship between man and nature and the politics of biodiversity. In contrast to forest destruction, ozone depletion and climate change, the destruction of biodiversity has had no special or distinctive visual symbol of its own, and it has proved a very difficult task to popularise and visualise this particular problem. Perhaps the most common way of popularising and visualising biodiversity is via endangered species, summing up the problem with earlier environmental thinking and its imagery; many conservation organisations, for instance, have used 'charismatic' and 'photogenic' species such as pandas, tigers, whales and elephants in their symbols. Our examples demonstrate the key role that photographs can play in the production of meanings e.g. producing a 'reality effect', providing an opportunity for affective inputs, and constructing social relationships between different actors. They point to alternative and rival interpretations, opening the door to different affects and experiences. Texts can be used to influence the way photographs are interpreted, but on the other hand photographs can also be used to construct new meanings into texts.