User:Mathijs van Oosterhoudt/thesisupdate
INTRODUCTION
...Incomplete...
This thesis aims to take a critical look at how cameras are constructed and how design choices influence not only our usage of them, but also the photos they create.
A tool is a way to interact with technology, but is not objective. It brings a certain bias with it: The way it is shaped and the way it works amongst others change our perception of said technology and thereby the end-result. Considering the importance of photographs in our current image culture, it becomes a necessity to understand such a bias: The choices made by inventors, designers, engineers and executives throughout the history of the camera undoubtedly changed our perception of photography, but almost always goes unnoticed or unremarked. Driven by the need for profit in order to compete with various other companies, their choices might not always be what we would want or desire, in a way creating a capitalistic camera. Furthermore, most of today's cameras' principles are based on those of the first thirty to forty years of cameras made: The mirror in a contemporary SLR camera even stems from that of the camera obscura. While DIY solutions were an option in the past, it has become increasingly hard to understand the current camera, a necessity to subvert it.
CHAPTER 1 How cameras influence us
... [ intro & more here ]
Heidegger divides the causation of technology into four different causes (1977, p.289): The causa materialis, formalis, finalis and efficiens. Using the example of a silver chalice, he explains the materialis as the material cause: The silver that the chalice is made of, this is the material, the physical. The causa formalis its shape, the visual. The causa finalis it's creator, bringing together the causa materialis and formalis to form (Or reveal) the chalice, becoming it's origins at the same time. The causa efficiens that of its function, that being of its use in religious practices in the case of the chalice.All of these causes are neccesary for the object to become what it is. Without its material it wouldn't exist, without its shape it wouldnt resemble what it is, without its user it wouldn't be created and without its creator it wouldn't exist. Each cause of the tool influences us in a different way and each can be dissected seperately. With a camera, the physical is that of the material, but also that of its inner functions, such as its gears and circuit boards. That that determines how the camera can be used, dictating its operation and setting limitations. The physical influences the possibilities of the visual, but the possibilities within that determine the physical shaping of the camera: its size, how it is held and what it may look like. The creator is the one that makes these choices, influenced him or herself by various things. The efficiens is that of the user, how the camera is used and what it produces.
Talk about causa materialis / formalis here.
A logical consequence of how a tool influences us is that of its process or result, the causa efficiens. The way one uses a brush determines to a certain extend the size of the stroke and various other factors of the painting. This may seem like something that is easily taken for granted or insignificant, since one has the power to choose which brush one uses, but is not that straight forward. While one might choose which brush to use, it is still limited to the choice of brushes are available. Thus, this places part of that control over the stroke with the manufacturer of the brush. The same holds true for the camera, but with a higher significance due to the role photographs play in society and perceived authority. It has changed our perception of our surroundings and ourselves and continues to do so. The role of the photographer is dominant in choices regarding the photograph, but his or her decisions are, in turn, influenced or limited by that of the camera. What can be seen through the viewfinder or what fits the frame decides what we put in the frame or in older cameras with waist level finders, the height we have to hold the camera to even see the image deciding our viewpoint. In more modern cameras, the addition of digital operating systems allows for even more influence on us and our photographs, whether it is such methods of aiding the user as smile detection or that of facial recognition, often with a heavy social or racial bias, such as in the case of HP's facial detection algorithms not recognizing people with a dark skintones. In another case it was Nikon's smile detection, which would show a "Did someone blink?" notification as it was trying to time the right photograph for the user.
The creator, the causa finalis is not an uninfluenced actor either. In rare cases the creator of the camera is its user, but in general it is a power taken out of our hands and held by the companies that produce cameras. Companies are quite logically pleased with this manner of control, as it makes us dependent on them if we are to use a camera. Of a variety of influences on such companies, one is a major player, it is what runs a company and what has been set as their goal: Financial gain. The current capitalistic systems in place have caused an enormous amount of technical innovation and production due to the need of competition, but as we develop and research such technologies, we do so to serve the system. A crude example would be that of a technology that would make working in a factory more enjoyable; if it would not drive up the profit, it would not be researched or developed. Thereby it is the profit which that decides which features are developed and many other choices made within the company. Different companies design in different ways, whether its done by design teams or singular designers aided by engineers, but the market viability is of great concern, often leading to changes in the original design plans. In one such famous case, Maitani, one of Olympus' most famous designers in the past, was asked to design a new SLR system. This was 1970, and Olympus wanted to compete with the other big brands such as Canon and Nikon. Maitani, working on his own and free from the problem that haunts most team-based designs (That of creating the most agreed upon, thereby the most average), created a revolutionary system of blocks with each their own function. One could assemble their own camera exactly to one's need, whether you required an optical viewfinder, SLR viewing, waist level finder, 35mm film back, Polaroid back and so forth. The financial and marketing department of the company were less pleased, asking for "development of the same camera as the other maker's best seller." (Maitani & Akagi, 1999).
A similar issue could be noted in a recently developed camera by Ricoh, who proudly presented their prototypes of the new Ricoh GXR at the CP+ Camera and Imaging Show in 2010. The idea was simple, sensors continuously get better, but there's nothing wrong with the physical body, buttons and processor of the camera once already purchased. By allowing users to change the sensor, one could not only upgrade at a later stage to a newer and better sensor, but also to different lens mounts. Prototypes with a Leica mount and even one where the camera functions as a back for a Hasselblad were presented. Rumor has it that later in production, it was thought of as not commercially viable. Due to the camera relying on other brands' lenses and with no need to re-buy the body when it got better, the margins for profit were low. The camera did still reach the market, but instead of having interchangeable sensors, each sensor was paired with a different lens. Instead of having the option to upgrade your sensor, you now needed to have a different sensor for each lens: A camera planned to become the counter to planned obsolescence became one of the most prominent examples of it.
Whilst the influence of such goals might come at the expense of the consumer, it also inherently possesses the ideologies present within these large scale companies. Winner describes how, while often overlooked or ignored, in the social shaping of technology, the ideologies of its creator do transfer to the 'thing' of creation, whether inherently visible in some cases or less so, in others. "first are instances in which the invention, design, or arrangement of a specific technical device or system becomes a way of settling an issue in a particular community. Seen in the proper light, examples of this kind are fairly straightforward and easily understood. Second are cases of what can be called inherently political technologies, man-made systems that appear to require, or to be strongly compatible with, particular kinds of political relationships." (Winner, 1980 p.123). The former instance applies to the use of camera in modern society and photojournalism, where there seems to be a commonly accepted thought that those privileged to own a camera or photograph as their living have the right to photograph those who cannot easily represent themselves in photographs. The latter instance however is of larger interest, as the way the camera is currently constructed and distributed fits within a neoliberalist view of the economy the market works in. However, the technology itself does not have to be, if applied differently.
Furthermore, photography as a technology is not only significant for cultural use, but the camera is and has been used as a scientific instrument since it's invention, early on often seen as a tool that exemplifies "how observation leads to truthful inferences about the world" (Crary, 1988, p.3). Where in a pre-photographic era scientists would illustrate what they saw through the microscope on paper via a camera obscura, leaving out "irrelevant details" (Daston and Galison, 2010, p.?) leading to biased registration, the camera could do this differently. It could capture that what was being witnessed through the microscope in such detail that no such thing had to be left out, setting in an era of mechanical objectivity: "The insistent drive to repress the willful intervention of the artist-author, and to put in its stead a set of procedures that would, as it were move nature to the page through a strict protocol, if not automatically." (Daston and Galison, 2010, p.121). They note that this strive for objectivity is in fact heavily influenced by how the scientist sets up the scene, chooses what to register and how said results are used (The human role in the protocol). They ignore, however, the human role of the creator of the machine; the camera.
-Expand on early DIY / tinker practices of scientific cameras-
CHAPTER 2 The history of the camera
This is different from the early years of the camera, where both its development and that of photography raised hand in hand. "In this early period subject and technique were as exactly congruent as they become incongruent in the period of decline that immediately followed" (Benjamin, 1931, p.517). Technology was often developed to the needs of the photographer, or by the photographer itself. The latter was possible due to the simplicity of the camera at this stage. It is not illogical that this first period of inventions were the most original; not only did these photographers and inventors have no preconceived notion of what a camera should look like, rather were driven by what it had to do, but they were also driven less by the need for sales. If round daguerreotypes needed to be made, a round camera was made. This changed with the quick onset of mass production of cameras and their commercialization. What is surprising (Or unsurprising to some), however, is that most cameras produced since that period are based on those first few ideas and concepts, developed little further. Even the cameras we use today are very reminiscent of the first few inventions. The Kodak Brownie is almost identical to the first commercial camera ever made (The Giroux Daguerréotype), simply smaller and cheaper to produce. The principle of the single lens reflex system is even based on that of the mirror in the camera obscura. The major changes in camera history appear when the medium changes, the method to capture the photograph, rather than by actual change within the camera. Changes can be found when daguerreotypes went to printable glass plates (Gelatin), to large flexible roll film, to smaller roll film (35mm) and the advent of the digital sensor. This reluctance to changes can be attributed to need for commercial viability: A camera made to serve a large market needs to appeal to as many people at the same time. That doesn't mean it serves the mass amount of people using cameras equally well, but a camera that serves a niche amount of users extremely well is less viable than that of serving the mass 'acceptably' well. As we are used to what was before, it is easier to repeat rather than to change.
The first commercially produced camera came in the era of the Dagguerotype, a process invented made by Dagguere based on Niepce's findings. Daguerre had patented his process, hoping to capatilize on anyone using, producing or selling dagguerotypes. It shouldn't come as a surprise then, that the first commercial camera was sold by Dagguere himself: Due to the patent, he was able to limit anyone else from making devices that would use his process, making his the only option. The French government, however, soon realized the importance of his invention, and acquired the patent in return for a lifetime pension. The goal of this was to make the invention accesible to all (A 'gift to the world'). What was unbeknownst to the French however was that Daguerre, before the French had freed up the patent, also acquired a British patent. This meant that, while Dagguerotypes were eventually free to be made, used and sold everywhere in the world, this was not the case in England. The story goes that Daguerre had hoped the same would happen what had happened in his home country, and that the British government would also opt for a buy-out of his patent, 'preventing this important discovery being fettered or limited by individual interest or exertion' (History of Photography, January 1980, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 53–9). This never happened, leading to a competitive market of patents and different processes in England. One of the most well known is that of Henry Fox Talbot, who created the Calotype. Often criticised for his harsh patents and continious law-suits to those not paying his licensing fees, it was only in private letters to friends and family that he has admitted to never wanting to patent the calotype, but rather the pressure of the times and economic system in place leaving him little choice (Out of the Shadows: Herschel, Talbot, and the Invention of Photography, Larry J. Schaaf). It wasn't until the 1850s that the first truly free process came along: The Collodion process. Its inventor, Frederick Scott Archer, had purposely published his findings without patenting, thereby making it a free for all, yet stopping anyone else from patenting it due to the official publishing date. Sadly, his choice was a sacrifice: He didn't make a single penny off of his invention and eventually died six years later, broke and in poor health.
-Continue history of camera here.
CHAPTER 3 How to subvert the camera (And how has this happened in the past)
Missing a lot still, got notes.
......This control is one that can be subverted in various ways. It's a market that has, through the years, build itself as an impenetrable fortress for most individuals after the advent of electronic and eventually digital cameras. That does not mean we should stop trying, but possibly take a step back and continue where the market has left the individual creator of the camera out. Continuing from where we still understand the camera, we can find ways of creating them, subverting the existing ones and open up the possibility of the self-made camera once more, thus giving the power of the camera's influence to that of its user. -More! Write about recuperation is present even in tools and objects, in this case the camera.-