Black Magic To Black Box

Kevin Hooper Black Magic to Black Box
Black Magic to Black Box

With the advent of digital photography do Flussers terms, such as
Apparatus and Functionary need to be revised?
Prelude
Vilum Flusser was known for his philosophies on the way in which the mediums of
the media were changing and its effects on our societies and cultures. In Towards a
Philosophy of Photography Flusser explains that the technical image is the next
most important development in human history since the invention of linear writing.
Through out his book, Flusser uses esoteric terms such as apparatus, functionary
and program to relate to our society and culture and the roles played by us, and the
objects and systems we employ and the performances we delegate to these objects
and processes, particularly in this case with relevance towards the realms of
photography.
To elaborate on the purpose of this essay, I aim to determine the following; has the
advent of digital photography changed the power relationship between a
photographer and their chosen equipment and have advances in photographic
technologies and practices altered the way in which Flussers terms outlined in
Towards a Philosophy of Photography apply to modern photography?
Defining Flussers Terms

Throughout his book Flusser uses many terms to explain his theories and
philosophies, so how does Flusser define his terms? To make these terms all
encompassing in the context of their meaning Flusser has had to reduce the
elements of what he wanted to say to the base essence of its meaning, to its
simplified, embryonic form.1
1 Vilum Flusser, Towards a Philosophy of Photography (Reaktion Books 2000), p21

FDP 203 Critical Investigations
Apparatus
Apparatus is one of the more complex terms Flusser uses, and has referred to the
language of Latin from which the majority of European languages are derived. The
word apparatus has its roots from the Latin word apparare meaning to prepare.
Flusser is using the definition of apparatus as an object that simulates thought or
something that is in a state of preparedness for its purpose or function, such as the
camera or a computer.2
Functionary
The term functionary has been used quite simply compared to apparatus in that it
has been used in a more self-explanatory fashion. The term functionary has been
defined as someone who uses the apparatus and allows the apparatus to perform its
function or acts as a function of an apparatus.3
Program
Flussers term of program is mostly used in context with reference towards the
specific coding that defines the apparatuses parameters of its usability.4 For
example, to take a photograph of a fast moving subject with the intention of
eliminating the impression of motion a camera may need to use a shutter speed of
1
/8000 of a second, however if the camera has a maximum shutter speed of 1/4000 of a
second the shot will not be possible as the ability to do so is beyond the parameters
of the cameras programing.
2 Flusser, Towards a Philosophy, p21

The Apparatus
Throughout his rhetoric Flusser is attempting to inform the reader of the changes in
the power relationship between new technologies and their human handlers. He also
highlights the fact that this is not a recent occurrence but started with the industrial
revolution. Flusser states that Previously the tool was the variable and the human
being the constant; subsequently the human being was the variable and the machine
the constant.5 This statement means that prior to the revolution the workers tools
would change to suit the workers task but the task would remain the same therefore
so would the worker, but post revolution the machine would outlast its operators or
they would have to learn new skills to allow the machine to function. Is this still
true? And is the same true for the camera as for the machine?
If the use of a camera is used in the same context, then with the technology that was
available in the few years before publication, the camera had to be the constant as
once the camera apparatus was in its final manufactured state, its parameters were
set by its program, it could not perform more then it was built to do. The operator
or functionary would have to learn as much as they could with regards to their
apparatus and push its limits and their own technique to obtain quality images.
In the advent of digital imaging and software over mechanical mechanisms,
software can be updated via firmware updates from the manufacturer, the
apparatuses program can be expanded and its parameters broadened, the program of
the apparatus is no longer a constant. Another factor of the modern camera is the
automatic and semi-automatic control options such as program mode, aperture or
shutter priority, that allow the apparatus to regulate its own program and present the
best options to the functionary. Also with the introduction of anti-shake or image
stabilisation technologies being utilised into the body or lenses of digital camera
systems is this another step towards this apparatus becoming a form of artificial
intelligence as Flusser also suggests.


So is the camera a tool6, or a machine7? Is it possible for an apparatus to be both?
Cameras are employed in situations for gathering evidence of crime scenes or to
provide documentation of artworks amongst other things, both are arenas where
artistic license and creativity are largely irrelevant. Under these circumstances the
camera could be considered a tool. However Flusser also begs the question; Is the
camera then a machine because it appears to simulate the eye and in the process
reaches back to a theory of optics? A seeing machine8
Is the camera then a seeing machine? This then leads to the question of what would
be the definition of seeing? If this were to be interpreted as the relaying of visual
stimuli would a telescope be a better example? Or because a camera is able to
produce a photograph to be viewed it allows others to see what has been recorded?
Another option then arises, as a camera is a recording medium is it not then more
apt if it is likened to thought, as Flusser outlines in his definition of apparatus, or
could it also be argued that it is a machine for the fabrication of the essence of
memory and/or imagination?
When referring to images and their significance, whether photographic or not, and
the process of abstracting from reality onto a two dimensional surface and how we
as humans perceive these images, Flusser claims that This specific ability to
abstract surfaces out of space and time and to project them back into space and time
is what is known as imagination.9 What Flusser means by this is that imagination
makes us, as humans want to recreate scenes from reality as images, and in doing so
we recreate and decode them with our own individual thought processes.
The image creator has used their imagination to create an image that means
something to them and the viewers imagination decodes the image. However, if the
camera apparatus can only capture what is predestined in the four dimensions of
time and space or reality, and within the programs parameters of the apparatus
would a constructed image/scene containing semiotic meanings transcend the
parameters of the apparatuss program?
6
7
8
9
Tool: a simulation of an organ of the body in the service of work.

Machine: a tool that simulates an organ of the body on the basis of scientific theory.
Flusser, Towards a Philosophy, p
Flusser, Towards a Philosophy, p

When McLuhans thinking on current media mediums is applied to Flussers theory
of functionary, apparatus and technical image regarding the limiting factors of
media, he states that The restraints are always directed to the content, which is
always another medium.10 McLuhans reasoning suggests the parameters of the
apparatuses program are superfluous. If the medium of photography is the technical
image, then the images content could be represented by the medium of Flussers
term of imagination, which then becomes the restraining factor.
Techniques such as high dynamic range or HDR can be used to boost the dynamic
range of the apparatuses sensor to create a series of images that lie within the
parameters of an apparatuses program and then be amalgamated to create a final
image that is outside of these parameters. More recent camera models such as the
Canon 5D mkIII have started to include such techniques into their apparatuses
program but this is achieved by the same methods used in software externally to the
cameras program.
In relevance to this Flusser talks about the camera as the apparatus and its ability to
spit out photographs11 and the resulting images, but not the photographic process
as a whole, unless he is specifically referring to Polaroid cameras spitting out
photographs. The phrase spit out photographs12 is referring to the cameras
production of photographs. However, Flusser would seem to have missed out on a
vital aspect in the production of photographs; the darkroom and its digitised
equivalents such as Capture One or Adobes Photoshop and Lightroom. In the case
of amateur photographers who may have taken their film to be processed and
printed at the local chemists this may not be relevant, but in the case of professional
photographers who are known to hire expert darkroom practitioners or todays
digital equivalent to bring out the most in the foundation image. Flusser also seems
to have separated the way an image is taken via the apparatus and how the end
result of the image is created.
10 Marshall McLuhan Understanding Media, The Extensions of

Manhttp://beforebefore.net/80f/s11/media/mcluhan.pdf p337


The methods of creating an individual image negative or digital file may or may not
be restricted by the parameters of the apparatuses program but it is certainly not the
case when the final image is being amended in post processing, as with the HDR
technique, images can be combined to create images outside of the apparatuses
program, this applies to film based and digitised photography.
Two examples of this are Jerry Uelsmann and Michal Karcz. Uelsmann created
montages in the pre-digital era from multiple negatives to produce surrealist
images, which were mostly untitled such as untitled 197612 and untitled 199013
while Karcz14 is a completely digital artist and creates his works using Adobe
Photoshop. These examples further McLuhan thoughts that allude to the
imagination being the limiting factor of a photographic image and not the program
of the apparatus as Flusser suggests.
Further on, Flusser adds to his theory on the relationship between the apparatus and
the functionary stating that the camera is such a complex apparatus that those who
use it will never truly understand what it is capable of due to this complexity, that
its parent program gives way to multi-layered sub programs that require the
photographer to act as a player and a functionary.15 This thought or definition of the
term apparatus could easily reflect digital cameras with all their added peripheral
programs that are not related to the parent function of the apparatus, such as live
view, colour space options, HDR, bracketing, etc. All these programs can be added
to or expanded to an extent via firmware updates, this causes the program
parameters to aggrandise. Modern cameras can dictate that the functionary acts as
an enabler in that the camera in an automatic mode and just needs its shutter fired
or can be a complex game where the apparatus can be manipulated to achieve a
desired output.
12 http://www.uelsmann.net/#
13 http://www.solwaygallery.com/jerry_uelsmann_exhibition.html
14 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2386904/Dream-come-true-Mantransforms-stunning-fantasy-worlds-conjures-sleep-reality-computer.html
15 Flusser, Towards a Philosophy p31
The Functionary
In Flussers writings there is no mention of differing levels of functionaries due to
competence with photographic apparatus. Although he does exclude repetitive
photographs that contain so new information so could be taken to mean the
exclusion of casual snappers such as holiday-makers and novice users who are not
producing anything different or creative,16 it can only be assumed that the term of
functionary applies to all camera users.
Flusser claims that it is appropriate to refer to photographers as functionaries as
they have a kind of symbiotic relationship with their apparatus in that the
photographer is neither the variable nor the constant17 Flusser also defines an aspect
of the apparatus and functionary relationship as the manipulation of the input and
output of the apparatus by the functionary in that the operator can manipulate the
input to achieve the desired output without knowledge of how the apparatus
transfers or uses the input information to achieve the output information. This could
be suggesting two things:
1. That being a functionary is a matter related to epistemology and that if the
operator has knowledge of the cameras inner working they cease to
become a functionary, if this is what is being suggested, what would a
functionary then become? An Apparatus adept? A Functionary
ascendant?
2.
Flusser could also be suggesting that because the operator can possess no
control over the transformation of input to output but is able to still create
the desired objective within the parameters of the apparatus program it is
irrelevant to be a functionary or that the parameters are irrelevant. Zizek
once claimed that we feel free because we lack the very language to
articulate our unfreedom.[sic]18 I use this statement in the sense that with

18 Slavoj Zizek, Welcome to the Desert of the Real, http://rebelslibrary.org/files/zizek_welcome.pdf p2

the advent of digital cameras the parameters of the apparatuses game have
become so vast or accepted that we no longer feel confined by them so no
longer feel restricted in our photographic endeavours.
However, Flusser claims that the apparatuses program is designed to be greater then
the ability of the photographer to master it, otherwise the game would be over too
soon. The program needs to be bigger then a photographers ability so as to
encourage them to play and explore its possibilities.19 Flusser also goes on to claim
that;
No photographer, not even the totality of all photographers, can entirely get to the
bottom of what a correctly programmed camera is up to. It is a black box,20 | no one
can own apparatus in the sense that human beings program apparatuses for their
own private purposes. | The question of ownership of the apparatus is therefore
irrelevant; the real issue here is who develops its program.21
There are two photographic artists that have abandoned convention with regards to
the functionary status to their apparatus. The first being, Miroslav Tichy, who came
to photography from a background in fine art. He never bought a commercial
camera product but instead created his own camera like apparatus as this was his
hobby. As a result, when out taking photographs subjects entertained his antics
because they did not believe that he was really taking pictures of them. The only
program that was out of Tichys control was that of the film being used. Tichy
constructed the mechanisms employed to function the camera, he even ground his
own lenses so there was no lack of competence or understanding between Tichy and
his apparatus construct.22
The second being after Flussers time and of the digital age is Adam Magyer, a
Hungarian born photographer and a technology enthusiast who like Tichy, moved
22 MessyNessy, The Reclusive Peeping Tom Photographer and his Cardboard
Camera 6th June 2013 (http://www.messynessychic.com/2013/06/06/the-reclusivepeeping-tom-photographer-and-his-cardboard-camera/) [25th March 2014]

away from convention and constructed his own apparatus but in this case there was
a great deal of programming in the form of software coded by Magyer, himself. He
claims that he spent six years teaching himself two coding languages to be able to
program his apparatus to achieve his goals.23.
Flusser claims that Power has moved from the owner of objects to the programmer
and the operator.24 So in line with Flussers own reasoning, Magyer owned his
apparatus in the truest sense. Unlike Tichy, Magyer used some prefabricated parts
of equipment in the construction such as the lens and sensor but the final result was
unique in that the program for his apparatus was entirely coded by the functionary.
Magyers provocation to build his own apparatus came when the offerings of
modern consumer brands could not offer what he needed to realise his ideas and the
apparatus that could, was of an industrial nature and extremely expensive. Later in
his career Magyar invested in equipment but continued to program his own
apparatus.
23 Joshua Hammer in Matter, Einsteins Camera: How One Photographer is Hacking the Concept of
Time, /https://medium.com/matter/88aa8a185898/ [7th March 2014]
10

Conclusion
In conclusion, I found it extremely difficult to argue against the terms of Flusser.
However I had attempted to follow Flussers example by raising some objective
points for and against by way of questions, hoping this would provoke thoughts on
the subject when supporting evidence was lacking. The point regarding the term
apparatus that did arise again and again was that of the relationship between the
apparatus and functionary and the power dynamic of the two. Also that a large part
of the photographic process in the way of the darkroom had been omitted, I mention
the darkroom over its digital incarnation as it was relevant at the time of writing.
I would find it hard to believe that Flusser had not considered this aspect of the
process. Could this be a case of Flusser not being a practicing photographer caused
him to overlook this, or that it was considered and deemed superfluous. I would
consider the darkroom and its digital equivalent the other half of the photographic
journey. It is my opinion that Flussers term of apparatus remains unchanged in the
advent of digital photography.
However, I do feel there may come a time when the line of the apparatus,
functionary relationship blurs to the point of being unsure which we are, whether
this will be of a cyborgian nature or due to apparatus with a higher level of
automation. I think the role of a functionary is easier to argue, or more specifically
the relevance of being a functionary. Im more inclined to agree that the program of
modern cameras is more then enough to meet the needs of most photographers and
that the imagination is a bigger limiting factor on what can be accomplished with
modern photographic equipment and software.
11
Bibliography
Carl Solway Gallery,
http://www.solwaygallery.com/jerry_uelsmann_exhibition.html
Untitled 1990
Flusser, Vilum , Towards a Philosophy of Photography (Reaktion Books
2000),
Hammer, Joshua, in Matter, Einsteins Camera: How One Photographer is
Hacking the Concept of Time, https://medium.com/matter/88aa8a185898
Hebnarova, Jena, http://www.tichyfotograf.cz/en/miroslavtichy-home.html
McLuhan, Marshall Understanding Media, The Extensions of Man
http://beforebefore.net/80f/s11/media/mcluhan.pdf
MessyNessy, The Reclusive Peeping Tom Photographer and his Cardboard
Camera
http://www.messynessychic.com/2013/06/06/the-reclusive-peeping-tomphotographer-and-his-cardboard-camera/
Uelsmann, Jerry, http://www.uelsmann.net/#
12
Untitled 1976
Williams, Amanda and Michel Karcz, Mail Online,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2386904/Dream-come-true-Mantransforms-stunning-fantasy-worlds-conjures-sleep-reality-computer.html
Zielinski, Siegfried, and Vilum Flusser + others, Philosophy of Photography

vol.2 No.2 (Intellect Journals 2011), pp191-209
Zizek, Slavoj, Welcome to the Desert of the Real, http://rebelslibrary.org/files/zizek_welcome.pdf
13

Black Magic To Black Box

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Black Magic To Black Box

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Kevin Hooper Black Magic to Black Box