Sontag'S Photo Monograph: The Pain Of Photo Refraction

"The pain of others" is the last book that Sontag published during his lifetime. It is a monograph on photography, which reminds us of her "photography" published in 1977.

Although the subject of the former is also a description of all kinds of photographs, it is quite different from "photography".

At least on the surface, "photography" is a relatively pure art book. Its focus is on the art form of photography itself. Therefore, the photographs it focuses on are obviously broader in types. While the pain of others is focused on the word "pain", or Sontag only uses "photography" to explore the moral implication of pain itself.

In this sense, the concern for others' pain is actually not art, but morality, or the ambiguous meaning of morality, just like those ambiguous pictures of pain and suffering.

This undoubtedly coincides with Sontag's own changes in his old age. In an interview, Sontag confessed that he was a "secluded moralist".

But on the other hand, it is natural for us to regard the pain of others as a continuation of photography.

In the first chapters of the "pain of others", the discrimination of early war images is based on the arguments provided by "photography". In the first chapter of photography, there is a saying: "the moral connotation of photographs is actually very fragile."

This sentence has been passed in "photography". It has been enlarged in "pain about others", becoming the end point of various examples cited frequently in the first chapters.

Woolf's bravery and unwelcome reconsideration of the root cause of war in "San Ni Ni", the great French director Abel's attempt to prevent war through the doomsday horror war images is biased in Sontag's view. At least, he did not see the moral complexity contained in the photographs.

In the following chapters, Sontag described the long history of painful images in detail.

From sixteenth Century, Hall Cius's "Dragons devoured Cadmus's companion", to seventeenth Century's Jacques Carlo's "war's misery and misfortune", to the early nineteenth Century, the famous series of printmaking of Spanish painter Goya, "disaster of war", to the photo of Crimea war, which was recognized by Roger Fenton, the first war photographer in history.

In these detailed and vivid narrations, Sontag did not forget to insert her tagged moral reflection. Usually these reflections will strengthen the images she describes and let them eventually break and deform, deviating from the original expectations of the photographer: "all convey a certain degree of horror and destruction, generally have an epic style, and often describe some consequences."

"The photographer's intentions do not determine the meaning of the photo. The photo will have its own destiny. This fate will be determined by the strange ideas and allegiance of its various groups."

In the seventh chapter, I think it is the key to understand this book. In this chapter, Sontag gave her reasons for writing this book.

First of all, Sontag elaborated on the two well-known concepts of Photography: first, the attention of the public is left to the attention of the media; two, in an image saturated world, it should be an important thing, but the effect is decreasing, and ultimately it is difficult to arouse our conscience.

This is what Sontag himself discussed in photography, but now I can't help dissenting them. That is to say, Sontag wrote this book based on his early doubts.

In "photography", Sontag, with the assertion of a energetic middle-aged man who is resolute and decisive, such as "photographs can not create moral standpoints, but they can strengthen certain positions" - is replaced by an old people's hesitant and cautious tone in "pain for others": is that so?

That's what I thought when I wrote this article.

I'm not so sure now. "

From another angle, it can be said that Sontag in his later years preferred to observe the world from a moral perspective instead of using the perspective of "art" in his early years.

It is hard to say whether these two perspectives are high or not. Sometimes, the artistic perspective also contains moral concern, while moral care makes us feel warm. At this point, wisdom does not seem important.

On the basis of her early assertion, Sontag finally derived the tendency she really wanted to attack, "a more radical and cynical tendencies" and felt that there was nothing to defend.

Needless to say, this is the postmodern trend of thought that deconstructs everything.

Sontag refutes this view with pungent brushstrokes, which is no stranger to Sontag's refutation. As early as the middle and late 90s of last century, in some interviews, Sontag expressed a similar view: "in the past thirty years of my past writing, interest has become so poor that the simple defence of serious views has become an antagonistic move."

What do intellectuals say about post-modernism?

They play with these terms without facing the reality. "

The intellectuals here refer to some post-modern scholars represented by French scholar Baudrillard.

When we talk about it, we have to mention a dispute between Sontag and Baudrillard in the early 90s of last century. To some extent, the pain of others is the product of this dispute.

We know that from April 1993 to the end of 1995, Sontag spent nearly two and a half years in Sarajevo, where she also directed Beckett's famous drama "waiting for Godot" (about the experience of Sontag in "waiting for Godot in Sarajevo"). However, Sontag's action aroused the criticism of Baudrillard. He wrote in the Liberation newspaper of France: "these weak and undamaged Chiiz Zunlooki are sunbathing in their own good conscience under the warm sun."

He added: "all these basic ideas: responsibility, the objective cause of history, the meaning and absence of it all disappear or disappear."

In view of Bo Delia's seemingly profound views, Sontag has responded fiercely in many talks, and even attacked Bo Delia as "political idiot".

But Mr Baudrillard's remarks represent the views of a large number of intellectuals who have never really been defeated, and have not really escaped from Sontag's mind.

This "pain about others" is exactly a written answer by Sontag to this dispute. In the seventh chapter of the book, Sontag's historical objective and meticulous description of the painful images before he takes off, and turns a positive return to the view of Baudrillard (which can smell the controversy): "it assumes that everyone is an onlooker."

It insists stubbornly and not seriously that there is no real suffering in the world.

Dange, it is a good thing to let people expand their consciousness and realize that there is endless suffering in the world that we share with others.

Moreover, because in the previous chapters, Sontag had cleared up the superficial image moralism, and her attack on the popular postmodern theory appeared more precise and accurate, and she would not easily confuse her views with other sentimental theories of morality.

In this book, Sontag continues to follow the principle of "I respect reality and complexity" which she has repeatedly stressed.

At the end of the book, Sontag showed her outstanding narrative ability, vividly depicts a picture of her thought depth and power. The great photo taken by Canadian photographer Jeff Wall in 1992 is "the dead soldier talking".

This is obviously a fantasy photo shoot. It describes the scenes of thirteen Russian soldiers on the hillside. The atmosphere is warm, cheerful and brotherly. But we can clearly understand the author's fierce anti war attitude and attitude, and his painful attitude.

Sontag did not hesitate to elaborate on this picture because the picture actually contained Sontag's uncompromising attitude towards the complex of war for pain and conscience.

I really want to see this picture, but the Chinese version, like the original English version, respects Sontag's opinion and does not match a picture. It remains in my imagination, perhaps more perfect.

In the most severe sense, we can not say that the photo presents pain, but at least it can refract pain, just like water can refract everything. As for whether we can restore everything in the water, it has nothing to do with water, but is related to our conscience and our art, as long as our conscience is sincere enough, art is sharp enough and "good".