ARTIFICIAL PRESENCE

Philosophical Studies in Image Theory

Lambert Wiesing
Translated by Nils F. Schott

STANFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

STANFORD, CALIFORNIA
 Stanford University Press
Stanford, California

English translation © 2010 by the Board ofTrustees of the

Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved.

Artificial Presence: Philosophical Studies in Image Theory was originally published in

German under the title Artifizielle Prilsenz: Studien zur Philosophie des Bi/des
© Suhrkamp Verlag Frankfort am Main, 2005.

The translation of this work was supported by a grant from the Goethe-lnstitut
which is funded by the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any

means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording •
. . . . . . , or 1n any
111fon11atton storage or retrieval system without the prior Written permission of
Stanford University Press.

Printed in the United States of America on acid-free, archival-quality paper

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Wiesing, Lambert.
[Artifizielle Prasenz. English]
Artificial pn:sence: philosophical studies in image theory/ Lambert Wiesing;
translated by Nils F. Schott.
p. cm. - (Cultural memory in the present)
"Originally published in German in 2005 under the title Artifizielle Priisenz:
j
1 Studien zur Philosophic des Bildes."
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 978-0-8047-5940-3 (cloth : alk. paper)
ISBN 978-0-8047-5941-o (pbk. : alk. paper)
r. Image (Philosophy) 2. Art-Philosophy. I. Title. II. Series: Cultural
memory in the present.
B105.l47W5413 2oro
m'.85-dc22

2009018393
Contents

Preface lX

Translator's Note Xt

Image Studies, Image Theory, and the Concept

of the Image
2 The Main Currents in Today's Philosophy of the Image 8
3 When Images Arc Signs: The Image Object as Signifier 24

4 What Could "Abstract Photography" Be? 60

5 Windows, TVs, and Windows Again 80
6 Virtual Reality: The Assimilation of the Image
to the Imagination 87
7 Plato's Concept of Mimesis and Its Concealed Canon l02

8 What Arc Media? 122

Notes 135

Glossary 1 47
 What Could ''Abstract
Photography" Be?

We have two ways to think about abstract photography, a topic that

has not been studied sufficiently. These possibilities are distinct-albeit,
most of the time, just implicitly-in the way they put the question. We
can ask What is abstrctct photography? but also What could "abstract photog-
raphy" be? These are two markedly different ways of thinking about ab-
stract photography, and we have to differentiate.
The first question, What is 1tbstract photography?, is concerned with
empirical matters of fact. There are objects that can be subsumed under
the concept "abstract photography," a concept probably first used pro-
grammatically by Alvin Langdon Coburn in 1916. 1 When we ask, What
is abstract photography?, we want to study these objects in more detail, for
example their particular properties or their miscellaneous variations. We
want to know who made these things and when; perhaps we also want to
know why they are called what they are called. We will quickly notice that
a competent answer to the question What is abstract photography?can only
be given by someone who is familiar with its history and contemporary
practice, presumably a historian of art or of photography. The criterion of
whether the historian gives a right or a wrong, a good or a bad, answer will
always be created by the facts. The answers are measured by whether they
correspond to reality-whatever we may mean by that. 2
The second question, What could "abstract photography" be?, is asked
 What Could "Abstract Photography" Be? 61

much more rarely. It is concerned in principle with possibilities of thought

and is thus categorically distinct from the first question. It is therefore
hardly answered by empirical or historical knowledge but primarily by
variations in fantasy and logical argumentation. This is obvious, for the
question What could "abstract photography" be?is no longer concerned with
the description of empirical realities but with the discovery of conceivable
possibilities; it is concerned with the concept of abstract photography. The
problem has shifted: what is foregrounded is not what something is but
what something could be. In this respect the history and current practice
of abstract photography can at best be a tool in getting to know possibili-
ties of abstract photography-guided by the simple principle that what
is actual must also be possible. Yet conversely-and this is decisive-we
cannot find in actuality an overview of the totality of possibilities. There
is no guarantee whatsoever that everything that is possible has been made
actual. Empirical actuality can therefore no longer be the criterion by
which we judge whether the question concerning the conceivable varia-
tions [Ausgestaftungsforrnen] abstract photography could create is answered
correctly or wrongly, well or badly. When we are concerned with the pos-
sibilities of interpreting a concept, only logical soundness, imagination
[Vorstelfungskraft], and completeness determine the value of our argu-
ments. That is why we are dealing with a question that is no longer primar-
ily discussed in art history but in philosophy and in artists' programmatic
statements. These, at least, are the typical places for experimenting with
possibilities of thought and making them explicit. When we deal with
possibilities of thought, attention is no longer directed to what is meant
by a concept but to the concept itself. In the end, when we ask What could
"abstract photography" be?, we study the sense of a concept, and in this
concern we encounter the intention of numerous aesthetics or programs
written by artists. For artists share this with the philosopher: they are less
interested in the present works of their colleagues than they are in new,
unknown, as yet not elaborated possibilities of this kind of photography.
That is why the answer to the question What could "abstract photography"
be? may well enter the realm of the visionary and the utopian.
The questions What is abstract photography?and What could "abstract
photography" be? should not be played off one another; they are not an
alternative. Neither question is the right or even the "real" one. We may,
62 What Could "Abstract Photography" Be?

personally, consider answering one of the two questions to be important,

but answering one question can in no case replace working on the other.
Since the question What is abstract photography? in particular has been
answered convincingly according to the criteria named above, it is well
worth an attempt to turn, for once, to the question What could "abstract
photography" be?

The concepts "abstract" and "photography"

In the composite "abstract photography," the adjective abstract serves

the purpose of determining a particular form of photography. Fortunately,
it is beyond debate that this closer determination is meant in the sense of
a classification and not in that of an evaluation. The adjective abstract is
not used to evaluate but to describe. The concept "abstract photography"
is therefore of a completely different nature than are, for example, the con-
cepts "political photography," "beautiful photography," or "creative pho-
tography." For what is political, beautiful, or creative depends to a high
degree on conceptions of morality, norms, and values. That is why it is not
possible to discern in the photograph itself whether it is political, beauti-
ful, or creative. Yet this is precisely what is not to be the case for abstract
photography. The abstract is a classification without any evaluation that is
oriented toward specific properties of this kind of photograph-and these
properties, precisely, arc what we have to determine.
The concept "photography," taken in the widest sense, denotes the
processes that produce permanent images by means of optical systems
and the action of electromagnetic rays, especially of light, on materials
that react to this effect. Photographically produced products are always
traces that can be explained physically and chemically. Photographs are
what they arc on the basis of relations of cause and effect: they are the per-
manently visible result of manipulated radiation. So much for the wider
meaning of the concept. A much more narrow sense of "photography"
understands it as the technical production of figurative images of a thing
by means of the optical transformation and conservation of traces oflight.
In this narrow sense of photography, it is primarily determined by its rela-
tion to an object, a relation based on resemblance: photography produces
calculable images of visible objects.

J
 What Could "Abstract Photography" Be? 63

We can distinguish between a wide and narrow meaning of the con-

cept "abstract" as well. In the most general terms the concept "abstract"
indicates that something is independent, detached, and without associa-
tion. The property of being abstract is a property of precisely those phe-
nomena that arise from abstraction. In this very wide sense of "abstract"
there is no indication of what has been detached from what. Thus Hegel,
for example, calls a concept abstract if it is thought without associating it
with other concepts. In the much more narrow yet also much more com-
mon meaning of the concept "abstract," however, that which is abstracted
from is unambiguously defined: something is abstract if it does not bear
any relation to visible, concrete objects. Abstraction, then, is no longer a
disregard of anything whatsoever but a disregard of a discernible associa-
tion to an object. A theory is abstract, in this sense, if it does not deal with
the visible lifeworld; a picture is abstract, in this sense, when no visible
object can be discerned in it.
Against the backdrop of these reflections on the concepts "abstract"
and "photography" we can understand why it is at least conceivable that
the combination of concepts that is "abstract photography" be thought
of as a contradictio in adiecto. For such is indeed the case if we think the
two concepts in their narrow meaning. If by photography we understand
picturing visible objects by means of cameras, there can be no abstract
photography, because this would demand an abstraction from the visible
object, the picturing of which, however, is essential to photography in
the narrow understanding of the term. This example helps us deduce a
fundamental connection between abstraction and photography: it is only
possible for us to speak of abstract photography if the concept "photog-
raphy" denotes for us a phenomenon with contingent properties. We can
only abstract from something that which is not considered to be essen-
tial to this something. If nothing inessential is present, nothing can be
abstracted. It is for this reason that every successful abstraction is also
always a reduction to something essential. It follows from the very con-
cept that every abstraction results from an intent to direct attention to
those characteristics of a thing that are judged essential. This fundamen-
tal connection, precisely, is valid, without restriction, for the particular
case of abstraction in photography. Like all abstractions, abstraction in
photography must be a reduction to essential aspects, that is, in this case,
64 What Could "Abstract Photography" Be?

a reduction to the essential characteristics of photography. For whatever

abstract photographs may look like, they too are conceivable as abstract
photographs-and this is not an empirical but a logical insight-only
if they abstract from something that is not essential to photography. If
they abstracted from something essential, the result would no longer be
a photograph. Someone who understands by photography the technical
production of figurative images cannot therefore call nonfigurative pho-
tography "photography." This, however, means that abstract photography
becomes possible only if the concept "photography" has not already been
reduced in such a way that abstraction is no longer possible, that is, only
if the concept of photography that is presupposed still maintains a dimen-
sion that allows for abstraction.
One understanding of photography that allows for abstraction can
be articulated as follows: the concept "photography" denotes processes
that produce permanent images by means of optical systems (cameras)
and the action of light on substances that react to this effect. If we start
with this common understanding, there are two points where a series of
questions comes in: Does this definition include inessential characteristics
of photography? Is it not possible to forgo one of the listed properties of
photography? What of this usual understanding of photography may be
left out without our being forced to stop talking about photography? These
two points arc, first, the process of production (i.e., the taking of photo-
graphs) and, second, the product (i.e., the photograph produced); they can
be examined as to whether they contain nonessential components.

Abstractions in the process of photographic

production

If we start with the production process, the question What could

"abstract photography'' be? is answered by naming the kinds of photog-
raphy that skip parts of the common process of production. In this re-
spect the part of photographic production that is most often discussed and
judged to be "superfluous" is without a doubt the lens, even the camera as
a whole. We can think of abstract photography as photography that tries,
without complete cameras, to preserve as visible traces the action of light
on substances sensitive to light. These purely formal reflections on the
 What Could "Abstract Photography" Be? 65

concept of abstract photography coincide-could it be otherwise?-with

the history of this kind of photography. Indeed, we call abstract photog-
raphy those areas of experimental photography that try to produce pho-
tographs by means of a reduced process of production. The classic exam-
ples of abstract photography especially work deliberately without cameras
or parts of cameras: Alvin Langdon Coburn's Vortographs (fig. 1), Chris-
tian Schad's Shadographies, Man Ray's Rayograms, Gottfried Jager's Pin-
hole Structures (fig. 2). All of these examples-no matter what they look
like-are examples of abstract photography merely by virtue of their ab-
stracting from components of the taking of photographs. We could even
say that to a considerable extent the history of abstract photography ap-
pears as constantly working on the question And what else can we do with-
out in the production ofa photo? There are answers of different degrees of
radicality: while the cliche verre does without a camera, it does not do
without a kind of negative. In this technique a glass plate is covered with
soot or a similarly opaque layer; then, as in drypoint, a sketch is scratched
onto it. Afterward, this glass plate serves as a kind of negative for photo-
graphic copying and enlargement processes. The cliche verre thus abstracts
from the camera but not from the negative-which suggests the next step
of abstraction: the photogram. The photogram additionally abstracts from
the detour via the negative. Objects are placed directly on the photograph-
ic paper and influence the light falling onto it, leaving traces to be devel-
oped. Yet even this can be escalated: the so-called l11mi11ogram abstracts
not only from the camera and the negative but also from the "pictured ob-
ject" [Abbildungsgegenstand] of the photogram. In the case of the lumino-
gram directed and manipulated light shines directly onto the photosensi-
tive paper, without detours through or transformations by a lens, without
reflections or shadows from an object.
When we look at this series of conceivable abstractions, we notice
that there is an immanent hierarchy inscribed into the techniques of cam-
craless photography: from the abstraction from the lens, via that from
the camera as a whole, from the negative, from the object influencing the
path of the light, to the most radical form of abstract photography, which
clearly approaches the limits of no-longer-photography: the chemigram.
Herc, it is exclusively combinations of chemicals on photosensitive pa-
per, for example of developer and fixer, that lead to the development of
66 What Could "Abstract Photography" Be?

FIGURE 1. Alvin La ngd o n Cob urn (USA 1882- 1966 GB): Vottograph, 19 17. New
gela tin sil ve r print, 30.6 x 25.5 c m , ca. 1960. L. Fritz ,ruber Coll ection , Muse um
Ludwi g, Co logne. © Geo rge-Eas tm an- House, Rochester, NY.

visible form s und er normal li ght cond iti ons. The chemi gram practices a
techniqu e rhar raises rhe ques tion whether it docs nor absrracr from an
essenti al characteristi c of phorography, namely from des igning and form -
in g rhe li ght shining onto rhe paper. Gott fri ed Jage r, in any case, does nor
want ro do without this characreri sri c in a defi niti on of photography: " Ir is

j
 What Could "Abstract Photography" Be? 67

FIGURE 2. Gottfried Jage r (D 1937): Lochbfendenstruk111r (Pinh ole Stru ctures)

3.8. 14 r: 2.6, 1967. Light graphic. Gelatin silver print, 50 x 50 cm. Coll ect ion of the
arti st. © VG Bild-Kunst, Bonn/ Prof. Gottfri ed Jager, Bielefeld.

th e princ ip le of rhe ana logy betwee n the cause and the effect of the li g ht.
Photos are brought about by electromagnetic radiation being cha nnel ed
a nd fi xed o n a material sensitive co rad iation. T hi s proposition applies for
simp le ca mera p hocographs, as we ll as for the most abst ract light co mposi -
tion s. Both are the direc t resu It of a physica l i ncerplay of ca uses and e ffects
char th ey p ic ture each in their own way." 1 H ere we see once again char rhe
a nswe r to the question What could "abstract photography" be? a lways de-
pends o n one's opinion about what phocography is as such. If phocographs
indeed "a re brought about by electromagnetic radi ation bein g c ha nn eled ,"
68 What Could "Abstrttct Photography" Be?

as we just saw, then the chemigram either crosses the boundary of what
can be abstracted or it constitutes an extreme kind of interpretation of this
characteristic. In this particular case the decision is particularly difficult
to make, for the chemicals themselves do indeed sit on the photo paper
like an object and act as a light-absorbent and thus light-channeling me-
dium, as is the case for the objects used in the photogram. Yet if this rest
of channeling of light were to be essential to a chemigram, we would not
be dealing with an autonomous form of abstract photography, just with a
variant of the photogram. Yet photograms and chemigrams can very well
be distinguished conceptually: the techniques of the photogram influence
the path oflight from the source onto the light-sensitive material, whereas
the techniques of the chemigram influence the effects oflight on the light-
sensitive material. In the case of the chemigram a photo is thus produced
because electromagnetic radiation is channeled and formed in its effect by
the photographer. Here, as in the case of every photo, we have the fixed
trace of a controlled cooperation of light and light-sensitive material. This
is exactly what we should not overlook: in the case of the chemigram
we precisely have not abstracted from an essential component of taking
photographs, namely from the fixation of a trace of light. It is very well
possible to think of dispensing with this fixation, as is the case for so-
called flux or fluid images. Differently disposed light-sensitive substances
arc exposed to nonformed light and lefr to this process; what we get is a
continuously developing, nonstopped chemigram. Where the light shows
what kind of effect might well have been influenced, yet if we demand-
as we have just said-that in a photo, channeled radiation is "fixed on a
material sensitive to radiation," we have to say that this fixation is missing.
Though flow images are conceivable and indeed familiar from Sigmar
Polke's work for the 1986 Venice Biennale, they do not fall under the con-
cept of abstract photography because they are no longer photographs at
all. In this extreme form of abstraction the photograph is reduced to the
mere sequence of a chemical process and is thus dissolved in a conceptual,
albeit not a chemical sense.
If we are to judge cameraless photography to be a form of abstract
photography, we are well advised to state precisely why this is to be the
case. We can think of two reasons. First, we could say that cameraless pho-
tography is abstract because it abstracts, during the taking of photographs,
 What Could "Abstract Photography" Be? 69

from the use of important components of the common process of tak-

ing photographs. In this case cameraless photography necessarily leads to
results that can be addressed as abstract photography. According to this
understanding, if we know that a photo was produced without a camera,
we know that the photo must be abstract even without having seen it. This
result is more than unsatisfactory, for if we speak of abstract photography,
we should also address characteristics of its products. That is why, second,
we can be of the opinion that cameraless photography leads to abstract
photography because there are no figurative images of objects discernible
in its products. Yet this second reason is distinct from the first in that it is
no longer possible to sustain the thesis that cameraless photography always
and in every case leads to abstract photography. In many photograms we
can clearly and distinctly discern objects; the results are not abstract. The
cliche verre is a photo-supported graphical technique that, like every etch-
ing, allows for figurative photographs of objects. Gottfried Jager's Pinhole
Structures arc produced by an apparatus that, in terms of its principles of
construction, is similar to the traditional camera obscura and thus could
have produced figurative images as well. In short, if we want to consider
not only the process of production but also the works, the concepts "cam-
eralcss photography" and "abstract photography" can by no means simply
be equated. Photography without a camera in most cases, yet not necessar-
ily, leads to photographs we call abstract because they do not display an
object. And conversely we must make note of the possibility of producing
abstract photographs with a camera. Therefore, we must conclude that
from the perspective of phenomenology and work aesthetics, the process
of production is negligible; rather, as announced, the products of abstract
photography must be examined as to what about them is contingent and
thus capable of being abstracted from.

Abstractions in the photographic product

In the case of an abstract photo it is relatively easy to say what it is

not: it is not a figurative picture. An abstract photograph is a thing, in
most cases a piece of paper, which was produced phototechnically and on
which there are visible forms. These forms, in turn, can also be perceived
by the viewer as an image object, an image object, however, that either

L
70 What Could "Abstract Photography" Be?

bears only very vague and modest visible resemblance to real objects or
none at all. The abstract photo delivers no image object that-as is the
case in the so-called figurative picture-could be referred by means of its
resemblance to an existent or a fictitious object. Yet how does chis negative
description help? Saying what an abstract photo is not does not answer the
question What could abstract photographs be?The problem of abstract pho-
tography, remarkably, is not the simple statement that it does not display a
recognizable object, but the giving of reasons why and what for an abstract
photo abstracts from the depiction of a familiar object. The solution to
chis problem is related to the phenomenon, already presented above, that
every abstraction happens in order to direct attention to something that
is judged to be essential. When we abstract, we disregard something and
thereby show that we chink we can disregard it. Thereby, in turn, we show
that what we disregard, from our point of view, cannot be essential, since
essential things can, in principle, not be disregarded. That is why every
abstraction always leads to an exhibition of what is deemed essential; every
abstracting turn away is linked to a visualizing turn toward. This, howev-
er, means that abstract photography is only conceivable if its works forgo
picturing discernible objects in order to make something else all the more
clearly discernible. In the end the question What could "abstract photog-
raphy" be? is not answered by saying that it is nonfigurative photography.
This nondisplay can only be a necessary but not a sufficient characteristic
of abstract photography since photographs arc conceivable chat do not dis-
play any object and yet are not abstract photographs. On wrapping paper
that is produced with photographic means we might see pretty shapes but
not discern objects, yet the wrapping paper is not abstract photography
since this paper does not forgo displaying something for the sake of some-
thing else. Or let us imagine we developed and enlarged the unusable be-
ginning of a common film negative that has accidentally been exposed to
light: we would not get an abstract photo. We even have to go so far as to
say chat nondisplay cannot be the concern proper of abstract photography
but only a way of doing something else; if this something else-whatever
it is-is not actualized, nonfigurative photography is not abstract photog-
raphy. The question that stood at the beginning, What could "abstract pho-
tography" be?, has to be translated more precisely: What could be reasons for
producing photographs in which we cannot discern objects? Several answers
are conceivable; what follows is a presentation of three of them.
 What Could "Abstract Photography" Be? 71

Abstraction for the sake ofstructures of visibility

One answer to the question What could be reasons for producing pho-
tographs in which we cannot discern objects?that immediately presents itself
is the following: these photographs are meant to demonstrate that with
the medium of photography we can refer to something other than just ob-
jects and that this happens in figurative images as well. If abstract pho-
tography abstracts from picturing things for this reason, it is an emphatic
self-reflection in the medium of photography. With the means provided
by photography, abstract photography wants to answer the question of
what a photo is, and to this end it produces photographs that display what
in figurative images is an essential, albeit restricted, not independent, part.
This part is the "how" of the photo, the formal structures of a photograph
that make it possible for a figurative photograph to do what it does, name-
ly display an object. Every photograph comes about by means oflight trac-
es being developed into visible forms on a piece of paper. Yet these visible
forms, their figures and internal relations, serve a purpose: they exist not
for their own sake but to allow something to become visible, to display
what they themselves are not. When we look at a figurative picture, we
would not say we were looking at forms and colors. Even though the forms
are what we sec, our gaze, our intentional attention, is directed toward the
image object. Yet this image object is only visible because there arc forms
and colors, even though these do not as such enter the gaze of the normal
viewer. This does not, however, mean that they could not be made visible.
This is one reason for abstraction: the abstract picture can forgo display-
ing a thing in order thus to show how a photo displays an object. Looking
at the image object demands that we overlook the infrastructure. That is
why an abstract photo could be a photo that tries to display the otherwise
overlooked structures themselves. Something overlooked is being thema-
tized. If an abstract picture forgoes displaying a thing for this reason, the
forms and colors in the abstract photo are something fundamentally dif-
ferent from the forms and colors on a wallpaper: they are the forms and
colors that this medium can also use for the depiction of objects. Every
photo-that is, the figurative photo, too-comes about in a process of
structure formation. And precisely because this is the case for objective
photographs as well, abstraction from the objectivity of photographs is a
reduction of the picture to the very aspect that is essential to photography

L
72 What Could "Abstract Photography " Be?

as a whole, essenti al because no kind of photography ca n forgo it: we ca n-

not create a photo that does not develop vis ible st ru ctures. T he stru cture
a nd forms we see in abstract photog raph y, accord in g to thi s und ersta nd-
in g, are the stru ctures a nd form s that co uld di splay so methin g but di spl ay
nothin g. We could also say that the abst ract photo presents itself as a po-
tenti al figurative photo, for it relates to th e fi g urat ive pict ure the way a n
in complete part relates to the whole. T hi s interpretation applies no t o nly
to abstract photograph s but, from t he point of view of ph eno meno logy at
lease, to abstract im ages in general. Rom a n I nga rden, for one, expl icirl y
underlines thi s point: "[ merely want to ca ll attention to the fact that a,
so to spea k, non-representational pi cture enters in to the structu re of ev-
ery prese ntation al picture as a n indi spensa ble co mponent of it." In every
fi gurat ive picture there are structures t hat a re liberated in th e ab tract pi -
ture. T hi s mea ns that the abstract photo is a kind of ex periment fo r th e
q ues tion What makes a photograph possible?T he procedures, already men-
tioned , of reducin g the conven ti onal process of production acco rd well
w ith th is qu as i-medi a theo reti ca l self- und ersta ndin g; so, too, howeve r,
does abstract ca mera photography th at radica lly co nce ntrates o n ma cro
a nd mi cro stru ctures (as does, for exa mpl e, the work of Ca rl St rtiwe [fig.
3]). In thi s las t case the structures of photog raphy a re a lm ost li tera ll y put
under t he microscope by mea ns of photogra phy; what h appens, th e refo re,
is what, metapho ri ca ll y, is th e conce rn of abstract photography as a who le,
na mely the isolat io n a nd em ancipation of photographi c sur face stru ctures .
Yet thi s also mea ns, a nd thi s is decisive, th at the stru ctu res in a n abstra t
picture thu s und ersrood ca nn ot be merely orn a mental fo rm s becau e t hey
do indeed have mea nin g: even thou gh they do not refe r to objec ts, t hey
yet ca n be used to refer to th e structure of ot her poss ibl e photog raph s that
di spl ay objects. Seen th is way, abst ract photograph y is, as Gottfried Jager
aptly puts it, a "photography of photograph y": "In it, th e photo pro ess is
broken clown in to its elements, components a nd st ru c tures . .. . No lo nge r
t he 'what' o r the 'who' a re at the fo cus of interes t but the ' how.'" 5

Abstraction far the sake ofvisibility

A second a nswe r to the quest ion What could be reasons far produc-
ing photographs on which we cannot discern objects?, a n a nswe r th at doe
F I GU R E3. Carl Scr(.i we (D 1898- 1988): Ein Kristal! ist geb01n·1 (A C: rysrn l w~s
Born), 1946. Mi crophocograph . C rystals of asparagin e acid . Gelarin sil ver vin -
tage print, 54.7 x 43.8 cm. Kunsrha lle Bielefeld. © VG Bi ld-Kunst, Bonn/ Prof.
Go ttfried Jager, Bielefeld.
74 What Could "Abstract Photography" Be?

not present itself as immediately as the first, is the following: these pho:
tographs are meant to show that photographs can be images chat do no.
have to refer to anything at all. This thesis can be formulated differe nd Y·
. b · ages
ab stract Ph otograp h y ts meant to show chat photographs can e 11:1' c
th
that are not signs. Everything that is used for referring is a sign, and 10
fir st answer the structures indeed are used to refer to something: they e)(-
emplify the possibilities of photographic picturing [Abbilden]. The st nw
tura 1 f,ormattons
· · an a bstract photograph in the first answer are us ed as
m
signs: they stand for how something can become visible in a photo, Yet
does it have to be this way? We could think of an escalation: does the turf!
away from the object have to be a turn toward the "how" of photographic
displaying? It can be; that is not the question. But can the turn away fro~
the object not also be linked to a turn to something other than the "how
of displaying? This question concerns the sign character of abstract ph~-
tography. It is easily conceivable that an abstract photo also fulfill semi-
o t'1c purposes. Th'1s 1s
· not surpnsmg,
·· 1'f on Iy b ecause every o b'Ject a nd thus

also every image can be used as a sign. Yet, once more, the opposite, coo,
is at least conceivable, namely that an abstract photo forgoes displaying _a
familiar image object in order to consciously create an image object that is
not to be used as a sign at all. What is to be created is, as it were, an image
object that refuses the obvious use as a sign for a thing chat bears visib~c
resemblance to it because this image object docs not, at least not in chis
way, bear resemblance to any known real thing. .
In the case of a figurative image we construct an object whose vw
ibility we are familiar with, for example an exclusively visible house. In
the abstract photo, however, we are concerned with constructing objects
from pure visibility, objects that bear no resemblance to real things but arc
simply new, visibly determined objects, just as we are capable of construct-
ing both familiar and new objects outside of images. If we understand
abstract photography in this sense, then the medium of photography is
not used for picturing [abbilden] or visibly reproducing something but for
forming [bilden] and visibly producing something. The medium becomes
a tool for the generation of an artificial object. The concept of generative
photography aptly captures this understanding of the sense and purpose
of abstract photography: "It's not giving reality to a concept, it's presenting
a reality-that's photography." 6 Yet we have to be careful: the concepts
 What Could "Abstract Photography" Be? 75

"generative photography" and "abstract photography" are not identical:

abstract photography can be generative, but it does not have to be, as the
first answer has shown. The first form was unambiguously nonfigurative;
it was concerned with the infrastructure of the image. Yet the generative
form of abstract photography is itself figurative-not in the sense that
it pictures an object but in the sense that it generates an actual object,
albeit a nonphysical object with the sole property of being visible. The
image object is understood as an abstract sculpture but not because a real
abstract sculpture has been photographed; by means of the photographic
medium new, concrete, albeit exclusively visible, sculptures are created.
Hence generative photography relates to abstract photography the way an
incomplete part relates to the whole, and this is why generative photogra-
phy can also be called concrete photography: something concrete is cre-
ated. It is important to note, though, that what is meant, of course, is not
the photo paper as a concrete object in the normal sense of the term but
the object visible on the paper. Luminogrctms, as they were produced, for
example, in the 1950s by Peter Keetman (fig. 4), make this kind of abstract
photography graspable. All we have to ask when we turn to this kind of
photography is, What do we see in them? We see an object whose precise,
usually intricate, appearance we may well be able to describe precisely yet
an object that has nothing but just such an exclusively visible appearance.
Pure visibility has become the only thing present; we arc dealing with a
new object of pure visibility that bears no resemblance to an existing real
object and cannot even be thought as a real object. Since we have not pre-
viously known an object that looked like this, we have created, by means
of a photograph and in a sense as simple as it is fundamental, a new object
sui generis. Put more effusively: in abstract photography, the world grows
richer not in semblance [Schein] but in being [Sein].

Abstraction for the sake ofobject art

A third answer to the question What could be reasons far producing

photographs on which we cannot discern objects? is the following: these pho-
tographs are meant to show that photographs do not have to be images at
all. This answer might be shocking, for it abstracts from something widely
regarded to be self-evident, namely that photographs arc always images.
76 What Could "Abstract Photography" Be?

FI GURE 4. Peter Keetman (D 1916-2005): Schwin.gungsfigur 995 (Light Pendu-

lum Figure 995), 195 1. Ca mera lu minogra m. Ge latin sil ve r vintage print, 17 .4 x
23.4 cm. Gottfri ed Jage r Collection, BicleFelcl © Stifrung F. C. G undlach Fou n-
dation , Hamburg.

T hat thi s is almost always the case is beyond doubt ; almost eve rythin g
chat is produced photographica lly is an image. Yet here, too, the d ecisive
quest ion ca n only be Does it have to be this way, or can we also think of it
differently? Co uld it not be chat the use of photog raphy for th e product io n
of im ages is a contin genr- albeic w id espread- use? Could we not think
of photographs that are not im ages? We have here a qu est io n th at ta rgets
th e center of abstract photography. Abs tract photography makes it its pro-
gram to produ ce photographs that abstract from the contin ge nt pro perties
of the medium in ord er to emphasize its nonco ntin gent propert ies; thu s,
it mu st of course ask itse lf if not perh aps t he picto ri al cha racte r as a w ho le
is cont ingent fo r photography. A lvin Langdon Coburn, fittin g for a first
ancesto r, may have been the first to suspect thi s, sin ce he citi ed hi s 1916
programm atic essay on abstract ph otography The Future of Pictorial Pho-

j
 What Could "Abstract Photography" Be? 77

tography. Coburn 's t itle sugges ts that hi s concern is a photography rhar is

to be pi cto rial a nd precisely no r nonp icto ri a l. Yer if not hing else were co n-
ce ivable, then Coburn would nor have had to spea k ex plicitly of "pi ctori-
al photography"; then th e co ncept "picto ri al photography" (wh ich, by rh e
way, appea rs frequently .in current debates) would be a pleo nas m . Bur iris
precise ly not logica ll y necessa ry that th e products of abstract photog rap hy
be pi ctu res, or eve n im ages . Coburn rhus suggests rhar he is co nce rned
with a certa in kind of abstract photog raphy. We could also approach rhe
probl em ra ised here from a nothe r a ngle: wh at is rhe next hi ghest genus to
the co ncept "abstract photog raphy"? T here a re rwo equ ally co nceivable
candidates, "abstract im age" a nd "abstract a rt." Is the mea ning of the con-
cept "abstract photography" co nta ined in th e mea nin g of rh e concept "ab-
stract im age" or in rhe mea nin g of the co ncept "a bstract a rc ," o r in equ al
parts in both ? [f abstract ph otog raph y und ersta nd s itself to be a pa rt of
abstract arr, rh en we do i ndeecl have to pay attent io n ro rhe fact chat no r
every im age is a work of arc a nd ch ar, conversely, not every work of a rc is
a n im age. In consequ ence it is very wel l co nce ivable char abstract pho tog-
raphy in its abstract io n co uld strive for rhe product io n of obj ccrs that are
ph otographs but not images . T he turn away fro m the dep iction of an ob-
jec t in a photog raph thu s ca n also be und erstood so rad ica lly as to lead
to a turn away generally fro m ch c produ ct io n of im ages . In thi s case rh e
techniqu es of photog raphy a re employed no t in o rd er to produ ce im ages
but to produce things, objects, o r parts of in stall ation s- yet thi s in turn
is don e with t he intenti o n of pointin g at a poss ibili ty chat ph otogra phy of-
fe rs. In rhi s sense iri s co nceivable char t he place of pi cto ri al [biLdmiifsigJ
photog raphy be filled by a n a rt istic [kunstmdfsig] photog raphy. G iven rhe
deve lopment of arr in the twentieth ce ntury, chi s step very mu ch see ms to
sugges t itself, for a rtists exa mine photog raphy nor only as to how to cre-
ate a rti st ic images bur also as ro how to create nonpicto rial a rt. Twe nri er h-
century a rt is to a la rge ex tent characte rized by the di scovery char tech-
ni ca lly produced objects ca n have the sta tus of a rt. Wh at in obj ect a rt is
dee med a rt is nor a n im age but precise ly a concrete object. We a rc here
dea li ng with works of art that a re not im ages . Abstract photog raphy, t hen,
is a cont ributi on to object art wh en it uses photograph y no t fo r the pro-
d uct io n of im ages but precisely for rhar ofobjects. These works of abstract
ph otography still fir the concept of generative and co ncrete photography.
 78 What Could "A bstract Photography" Be?

5.
F IGU R E orcfricd Jager (D 1937): Cmukeil (Grays ale), 1983. Ph oto object.
Uniqu e gelatin sil ver paper, 25 x 25 cm. Co ll ection of rh e arri sr © 2007 by V
Bild-Kunst, Bonn/ Prof. Gottfried Jager, Bi elefeld .

Yet we mu st also sec t hat th e co ncept here acquires a mea ning different
from the one we o utlined above. For now it is no longer th e produc tion
of a co ncrete object in th e im age, that is, the ge nerat io n of a thing from
pure visibility, we a re dealin g with; it is the produ c tion of a thing that , like
a ny norm al thin g, ca n be to uched a nd smelt. T he exa mpl es for such an
understanding of abstract photography a re num erous, bur o ne must suf-
fi ce: Gorrfr ied Jage r's 1983 GraukeiL[G ray Ca rd] (fig. 5). In rhis work no
picturing [Abbi/den] of a nythin g ta kes pl ace; it is no t abo ut the pi ctoria l
produ ction of a purely pic toria l vis ibili ty but exclus ively about rh e u se of
the photograph in the materi al se nse as part of a n in sta ll ati o n. In GraukeiL
the photo paper, w hich in objec tive photography usua lly di spl ays three-
dimensiona l things, beco mes three-dim ensio na l itself: th e m ate ri al th at
displays takes th e pl ace of w hat is pictori a ll y di spl ayed . T he photo paper
 What Could "Abstract Photography" Be? 79

as a rea l obj ect ousts the im agin a ry image obj ect- a nd t hus ousts the im -
age from a work of a rt.

Wh at could "abstract photograph y" be?

Answerin g the ques ti on What could "abstract photography" be? lead s

to at leas t three poss ible concepti ons. It is possible to fo rgo di spl ay in g a
thing th ro ugh photography, first, fo r th e sa ke of im age- imm a nent struc-
tures; second , for th e sake of mere vi sibility; a nd , third , fo r rhe sa ke of
obj ect a rt. Wh ateve r th e h isrory a nd rea lity of abstract photograph y may
look like, it ca nnot but co nform to the possibiliti es- but it does so un a m-
bi guously o nly in the ra rest of cases. Wh at ca n a nd should be cl ea rl y sepa-
ra ted co nceptua lly is in rea lity mos t o f th e ti me indi sso lubly bl end ed , a nd
it is no t ra re for such blendin g to co nstitu te th e appea l of a thin g. T hi s is
pa rti cul a rl y tru e fo r wo rks of art th at very often ca nn ot eas il y be catego-
ri zed , th at refuse to be ca tego rized , or that fit seve ral catego ries at once.
Yet- a nd thi s rea lly is decisive- thi s reca lcitra nce of rea lity towa rd clea r
ty po logies d oes not tes tify aga in st the necess ity cl ea rl y to sepa rate co ncep-
tu all y fund a me nta l possibl e co nceptions- it merely spea ks fo r a rt.