User:Mathijs van Oosterhoudt/thesisdraftcurrent

[Introduction missing, but leads up to the first chapter here]

-The Invisible Camera & causation-

Tools are a clear case of 'things' that are ready-at-hand, as opposite to present-at-hand (Heidegger, Time and being, p69). That is to say, it is something we engage with, something we use 'to do', to achieve a goal. We do not directly reflect upon the tool itself, but we see it as a means to something. The tool itself becomes invisible. It relates itself to other tools and 'things', but is nearly invisible on it's own. We do not directly reflect upon the hammer, but rather on it's use, where it derives its meaning from. Present-at-hand is just that: Merely looking, observing and thinking. Both engagements give a different understanding of the object. Such readiness-at-hand can possibly dissapear as the tool loses it's tool-ness: Its ability to achieve its goal. Whether through obstacles, the missing of the tool or simply breaking, it can become visible (Heidegger, p71).

The camera is a perfect example of a tool that is ready-at-hand. We don't see the camera, we see its use. This gives us a deeper engagement with it's tool-ness, but not it's 'thing-ness'. We don't reflect upon it seperate from our interaction with it, not as an object of human creation, but rather as an object to create. It is through that thinking that tools can often be seen as neutral; artefects of technology with no bias. As the classic flawed argument goes; It is what you do with it that determines whether it is good or bad, the tool itself is neutral (Mary Tiles and Hans Oberdiek, p14). The tool merely enables the user with options. This becomes dangerous as it views technology as seperate from human and social influences, when it wouldn't have existed without such human choices. Such thoughts thereby stop us from critically viewing the tool and it's creation. Such technological determinism can often easily slip into any discussion of technology but must be avoided. A camera would not exist, where it not for the human desire to capture on paper what we see through our eyes, or more directly, what was seen on what came before the camera; the camera obscura.It is then interesting, that a tool which aids us in the technology of seeing, viewing, thereby perceiving is not fully seen. To fully comprehend the camera we must dissect it into it's various aspects and players.

Technology is often described in two ways; a means to an end and a human activity. Both can be combined to put the tool at the essence, the tool is a means to an end whilst using it is a de-facto human activity. In other words: Technology is the usage of tools. If we view tools in this way, we can relate a larger field of knowledge and information to the tool, namely that of technology. Heidegger himself refers to the two earlier definitions, and whilst agreeing, puts more importance on the artefects that relate us to technology, viewing the relation between humans and technology as an instrumental one, one of tools.

To discuss such artefects he divides their causation 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. The first two, the causa materialis and formalis, relate to the physical aspect of the camera, whereas the causa finalis and efficiens relates to its more social aspect of human involvement. Which is of course not to say that the physical formation of the camera is void of social influence, rather, they are the result of the social aspect, the casa finalis and efficiens. We will talk about the Causa Efficiens last, as a complete understanding of the other variables is a neccesity to fully understand its role.

-Causa Materialis-

The causa materialis is its materialistic properties. What is it made of? How is it put together? How does it work, in a mechanical sense? In many ways this is linked to the causa formalis, it's appearance and shape, however the distinct difference is that the inner workings of the camera are often invisible to us. Invisible does not go without influence, however, as it's physical functioning defines how we may use the tool and what we may gain from it. It could be seen as what creates possibilities and options, but in another way, it is what defines the limitations of the camera. It limits our possibilities to a pre-defined set of options, a variable set that goes through major changes, influenced by a mix of cultural and technical aspects at any time. Automated exposure in its early days was a luxury, an advanced feature often related to a high cost. Later on, with cheaper electronic consumer cameras taking the market by storm, it became the basis of the camera: Having the option to manually set your shutterspeed became the luxury. Ironic, as programmatically it is simpler to just set a variable to a pre-determined amount and not have to do anything else. Programming such functions out of control of the user is not done because it costs time or material to make it available, rather, the opposite, but it is done to make more expensive cameras seem more appealing. It turns out that rather than making the more expensive camera do more things, it is easier to make the cheaper camera do less, cheap-ifying it. Such choices also determine how it interacts with the medium it captures photographs on, whether that be glass, plastic or a digital sensor. [To be worked out or left out] With the decision of a fixed lens also puts such crucial choices of field of view and possibilities of flash-less indoor photography with its producer. [To be worked out or left out]

The pure materialistic choices also create limitations, such as those created from a light plastic that will undoubtedly lead to planned obsolence rather than repairable camera. Similarly, bare wood in cameras changed early on to black leathered or painted wood, both trendy and cheaper than proper wood finishing. What is interesting about this is that the leather actually did not take well to high humidity in tropical climates, something that might seem like a problem, but wasn't as the amount of people able to afford cameras in these climates were near-nill. The few that did, often travelling there for colinial or other exploitative and touristic reasons, would be able to afford cameras specifically made for this purpose: Often simply alterations of existing cameras but with a pure teak finish, specially treated leather bellows and brass, sold at higher prices, known as tropical cameras. It serves as a clear example of how technological decisions are influenced by the society it is made in. Were it designed by someone within such a climate or would there be a market for cameras within those geographical areas, such a choices would never have been made. A small choice, but it goes without saying that such influences happen on any scale.

Nowadays a mechanical camera is a rarity, only a few exist for a niche market. As electronics have quickly taken over the camera, new ways of using the camera open themselves up to both company and user. While in many ways identical to their mechanical or early electronic brethren, they differ in that they're technically and in their simplest definition run by a computer. A processor runs a unique OS, often accompanied with a short start-up time, an electronic screen and a heap of navigational buttons. Such a way of operating the camera introduces many many new biases, flaws and limitations. As more imagery is used to explain and operate, more possibilities exist for altering the photograph at the time of taking the photo and ways of aiding the user to do so. Image detection algorithms easily show ethnical biases, firmware limitations allow for a better control of planned obsolence or 'cheapification' and electronic contacts at the lens mount give the producer the of the camera the ability to lock the user out of using third party lenses, amongst others.

-Causa Formalis-

The causa formalis is its visual appearance. Intrinsically linked to it's materialistic properties and functioning, it does offer a new area of choice and limitations. Something as simple as the size of the camera can have an immediate impact on the resulting photograph, changing how the photographer holds the camera or whether he holds it at all. Larger cameras may dictate the use of a tripod, changing the way the user thinks about the scene and the time he or she takes to compose the photograph. Another common shaping choice that influence how one sees through the camera is that of the viewfinder. In a Rolleiflex the viewfinder might in fact be a groundglass on the top of the camera, whereas a Nikon F2 might be behind the camera, attempting to get the eye and lens in a close direct line. One can imagine that the Rolleiflex dictates it to be held a lot lower than that of the Nikon F2, creating a viewpoint below eyesight in resulting photograph. Such changes directly influence our perception of the photographed, whether those be people or objects. While the user is the main subject of influence, the subject is also influenced by the visual appearance of the camera. A small camera might seem like a casual tool, rather than that of a professional photographer, possibly catching people off-guard or even lending itself to candid photography, making the subject completely unaware of being photographed in the first place. The shape of a camera is also a tool for marketing the product: Big cameras are often associated with professional photography, in turn associated with good results. While these may be identical to cheaper and smaller point and shoot cameras available on the market, they'll often be able to be sold at a premium simply due to their 'impressive' appearance or 'big' lenses, exploiting the lack of consumer knowledge in this area with misguided specifications.

[Expand]

-Causa Finalis-

The Causa Finalis is the creator of the camera, bringing together the material, the visual and the choices made to create the tool. The creator is not an allmighty uninfluenced player 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. This power ends up making us dependent on them if we are to use a camera that isn't one we made ourselves. 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 (Marx, p836), 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.

-Causa Efficiens-

The causa efficiens is the use of the camera and the creation of its end-result, the photograph, one of which it is easy to understand that it influences us. 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, as well as that a brush is something one could possibly make themselves (In contrast to the camera). 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, as noted before, 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 user has does hold a large degree of power in the entire process, however often this power goes unused for various reasons. Most importantly is the exercise of subversion, applied in a multitude of ways. Regardless of the actual act, at its core it defies or alters the traditional pyramid of power as the user takes control over choices that have already been defined. It challenges a market that has, partially because of this, 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.-

Another way is in that one controls the market of possible existing cameras through their choice of purchase. The producers of cameras follow the interest of the userbase and try to adapt to maximize financial gain. In recent past the rising popularity of analog cameras lead to Fuji releasing a 'vintage'-themed camera, which due to it's popularity in turn lead to most companies releasing a 'vintage' counterpart. [Horrible bit / will talk about this later]

[Expand]

-The scientific camera- [NOT SURE where to put this chapter]

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.

That human role is an interesting one within early scientific camera, where cameras were not often commercially produced for the needs of the individual scientist. This lead to tinkering and the building of cameras with a different goal than financial gain but by a desire to see things in a specific way. If things had to be seen close, a camera had to be created to forfill such a purpose, for instance, one that would capture what one sees through the microscope. On the other hand there were such needs as that of photographing the sky, leading to early wide-angle cameras such as Hill's cloud camera. Many such a camera eventually did find a commercial release, with the design being done already.

-Expand on early DIY / tinker practices of scientific cameras (Or leave out altogether)-

-The history of the camera- [Not sure this is neccesary / has a role in the current format of the thesis...]

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.

[Either expand or leave it alltogether]

-The death of the camera-

Unwritten as of yet. Ending chapter on how the market is shifting and the stand-alone camera is dieing (Over the past 4 years cameras have dropped in sales gigantically, going from close to 2 million sold down to 600 / 800 thousand, continueing its decline while phones with cameras keep rising), what the transition to the all-in-one-tool does to the camera and what we should be careful for, what it does to subversion and what it stops us from doing.

Bibliography (Very rough, to be formatted)

Kouichi Akagi - interview with Yoshihisa Maitani (Asahi Camera magazine (March 2002)).

Martin Heidegger - The Question Concerning Technology

Martin Heidegger - Time and Being

Mary Tiles and Hans Oberdiek - Living in a Technological Culture: Human Tools and Human Values

Marx - Capital

Larry J. Schaaf - Out of the Shadows: Herschel, Talbot, and the Invention of Photography

Walter Benjamin - Little History of Photography

Langdon Winner - Do Artifacts Have Politics?

Jonathan Crary - Techniques of the observer

Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison - Objectivity