http://www.digitalparlor.org/sp07/blakesley7/taxonomy/term/55/0 en http://www.digitalparlor.org/sp07/blakesley7/node/325 <p>In an execptionally short essay (2 pages) Geoffrey Batchen, who teaches the history of photography at U. New Mexico posits that there is a critical difference between analogue and digital photography that I think is extremely interesting when considering rhetoric and truth claims.</p> <p>Some quotes:<br /> "Let's Begin with a basic proposition: what photography gave to modernity was not vision, but touch (or, more precisely, vision as a form of touch). And let's test it against another: this embodied type of vision is what is at stake in the current shift from photographic to electronic media." Essentially, a photograph exists because an object existed, light touched that object then touched chemicals on paper and left an imprint of, not the idea of the object, but of the object's physical presence. (See also Andre Bazin's The Ontology of the Photographic Image and Walter Benjamin's, well, lots of Benjamin).</p> <p><a href="http://www.digitalparlor.org/sp07/blakesley7/node/325">read more</a></p> http://www.digitalparlor.org/sp07/blakesley7/node/325#comment Rhetoric and technology photograph What is visual rhetoric? Analogue versus digital Sun, 25 Mar 2007 10:09:38 -0400 Adryan 325 at http://www.digitalparlor.org/sp07/blakesley7