Photography, aesthetics of

DOI: 10.4324/9780415249126-M035-1
Version: v1,  Published online: 1998
Retrieved May 24, 2024, from

References and further reading

  • Batkin, N. (1991) ‘Paul Strand’s Photographs in Camera Work’, Midwest Studies in Philosophy 16, ed. P. French, T. Uehling and H. Wettstein, Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 1991.

    (Combines philosophical analysis of photographic representation with critical reflection on an important moment in the history of photography.)

  • Bazin, A. (1967) ‘The Ontology of the Photographic Image’, in What is Cinema?, vol. 1, Berkeley, CA, and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, a translation of selected essays from Qu-est-ce que le cinéma? 4 vols, 1958–65, Paris: Éditions du Cerf.

    (Advocates a version of the reality thesis.)

  • Currie, G. (1991) ‘Photography, Painting and Perception’, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 49: 23–9.

    (Argues that the mechanicity thesis does not support the reality thesis.)

  • Scruton, R. (1981) ‘Photography and Representation’, Critical Inquiry 7: 577–603; repr. in The Aesthetic Understanding, New York: Methuen, 1983.

    (Argues that photography is a representationally and expressively impoverished form.)

  • Snyder, J. and Allen, N.W. (1976) ‘Photography, Vision and Representation’, Critical Inquiry 2: 143–69.

    (Argues against both the likeness thesis and the mechanicity thesis, without distinguishing between them very clearly.)

  • Walton, K. (1984) ‘Transparent Pictures. On the Nature of Photographic Realism’, Critical Inquiry 11: 246–77.

    (Argues that the mechanicity thesis supports the reality thesis, while importantly clarifying both.)

Citing this article:
Currie, Gregory. Bibliography. Photography, aesthetics of, 1998, doi:10.4324/9780415249126-M035-1. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Taylor and Francis,
Copyright © 1998-2024 Routledge.

Related Searches


Related Articles