INFORMATION TO USERS While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this manuscript, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. For example: • Manuscript pages may have indistinct print. In such cases, the best available copy has been filmed. • Manuscripts may not always be complete. In such cases, a note will indicate that it is not possible to obtain missing pages. • Copyrighted material may have been removed from the manuscript. In such cases, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, and charts) are photographed by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each oversize page is also filmed as one exposure and is available, for an additional charge, as a standard 35mm slide or as a 17”x 23” black and white photographic print. Most photographs reproduce acceptably on positive microfilm or microfiche but lack the clarity on xerographic copies made from the microfilm. For an additional charge, 35mm slides of 6”x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography. 8710036 Pettibone, John Mahlon DECONSTRUCTING THE DECONSTRUCTORS: THE POLITICS OF ANTI­ PHOTOGRAPHIC CRITICISM (A METACRITICAL ANALYSIS) The Ohio Stale University Ph.D. 1987 University Microfilms International300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 Copyright 1986 by Pettibone, John Mahlon All Rights Reserved PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V 1. Glossy photographs or pages______ 2. Colored illustrations, paper or print_______ 3. Photographs with dark background _Z \ Illustrations are poor copy_______ 5. Pages with black marks, not original copy_______ 6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page________ 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages 8. Print exceeds margin requirements _______ 9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine________ 10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print_______ 11. Page(s)_____________ lacking when material received, and not available from school or author. 12. Page(s) seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows. 13. Two pages numbered . Text follows. 14. Curling and wrinkled pages 15. Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed as received 16. Other University Microfilms International DECONSTRUCTING THE DECONSTRUCTORS: THE POLITICS OF ANTI-PHOTOGRAPHIC CRITICISM (A METACRITICAL ANALYSIS) DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By John M. Pettibone, A.B., A.M., M.S.P.A., M.A. ***** The Ohio State University Winter, 1987 Dissertation Committee: , , Approved by Prof. Kenneth Marantz Prof. Dan Boord US' Prof. Jonathan Green Prof. Kenneth Marantz, Advisor Prof. Clayton Lowe Chairman, Dept, of Art Education Copyright 1986 John M. Pettibone All rights reserved. This dissertation 1s dedicated to Allan Sekula, whose critique of the photographic medium first stimulated my Interest 1n this area of criticism. 11 VITA May 10, 1930 ...................................................Born -- Highland Park, Michigan 1952.......................................................................... Bachelor of Arts, College of Literature, Arts & Sciences University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1955 ..................................................................... Master of Arts, Dept, of Sociology, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 1968-70 ................................................................ Adjunct Faculty, Xavier University, Cincinnati, Ohio 1970 .....................................................................Master of Science 1n Public Administration, The Ohio State University, Columbus. 1980-82 ................................................................ Fellow 1n Social Policy, The Academy for Contemporary Problems, Columbus, OH. 1981-83 ................................................................. Graduate Teaching Associate, Dept, of Photography 4 Cinema, The Ohio State University, Columbus. 1983 ..................................................................... Master of Arts 1n Photography 4 Cinema, The Ohio State University, Columbus. 1984 ..................................................................... Graduate Research Associate, Dept, of Photography 4 Cinema, The Ohio State University, Columbus. 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page VITA 111 CH. I BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM: RATIONALE AND STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY........................... 1 CH. II CONCEPTS OF PHOTOGRAPHIC AESTHETICS AND CRITICISM: A SHORT SOCIOCULTURAL HISTORY ............................................. 9 CH. Ill CRITICISM: THE DECONSTRUCTIVE METHOD ................................ 38 CH. IV PHOTOCRITICISM AS THE POLITICS OF THE LITERATI: POSTMODERNISM, POSTSTRUCTURALISM, ROSALIND KRAUSS . 51 CH. V PHOTOCRITICISM AS THE POLITICS OF ICONOCLASM: THE NEO-PLATONIC CRUSADE OF SUSAN SONTAG ...................... 121 CH. VI PHOTOCRITICISM AS THE POLITICS OF CLASS STRUGGLE: THE MARXIAN/FOUCAULTIAN CRITIQUE OF ALLAN SEKULA . 151 CH. VII PHOTOCRITICISM AS THE POLITICS OF LEFT LITERATURE: THE RECEPTION OF JONATHAN GREEN'S POPULIST MYTHICISM.............................................................................................175 CH. VIII SUGGESTIONS FOR NEW RESEARCH AND CRITICISM: A NEW STRUCTURAL PARADIGM FOR PHOTOGRAPHIC THEORY . 224 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................... 281 1 v CHAPTER I : BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM; RATIONALE AND STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY Crowding out, usurping, supplanting, 1s what language (criticism, theory) does to experience (art) .... And yet we want 1t. -- Rosalind Krauss This study will explore the current state of academic photocr1t1c1sm and of the development of photographic theory. It will argue that the present states of these two aspects of the academic scene are potentially damaging to the field of photographic higher education, especially 1n Its current weakened condition. This study will show the current dominance, 1n the academic arena of criticism, of critical writing which 1s essentially anti- photographic. It will examine the basis of this criticism 1n political and linguistic theory: theory that mandates the political rejection of photography along with the political rejection of the society which produces that photography; theory that reduces photography from the elevated status of a fine art to the denigrated status of mere data for political and/or linguistic analysis; theory that makes the epistemologlcal assumption that meaning Itself can arise only from language, not from vision. 1 2 This study will argue that an essentially hostile base of contemporary academic photocr1t1c1sm cannot logically have any other effect than to discourage the entry, Into photographic academia, of potential students and faculty whose Interest lies 1n celebration of the medium as an art form. At the same time, ant1-photograph1c criticism can only encourage the academic Involvement of students and faculty whose Interest 1s 1n political and theoretical opposition to the field Its e lf and to the society which supports 1t. From this perspective, the present decline 1n Interest 1n art photography programs, as well as the current Ideological conflict within those programs, can be more easily and completely understood. Finally, this study will suggest that one of the causes <: * the current hegemony of ant1-photograph1c writing 1s a vacuum of accepted "theory of photography." It will argue that there 1s now an absence of a customarily accepted paradigm, or taxonomy, of photography theory; a lack of a recognized structure of alternative theoretical approaches which can facilitate teaching, research, and criticism; a need for an eclectic theoretical paradigm which can provide an effective counter-claim to the aggressive demands of political and linguistic theories for sole recognition as "the" theory of photography. These demands Inevitably create academic battlegrounds of Ideological warfare, warfare that 1s accompanied by Interpersonal and 1ntraorgan1zat1onal conflict. 3 The problem of ant1-photograph1c criticism and 1t,s consequences are now topics of frequent attention and Intense concern 1n the Informal, professional circles of photographic academia. However, their mention 1n the professional literature, and on the agenda of professional conferences, 1s nearly unknown; so 1s consideration of the nature of "photographic theory." These are the problems to *e addressed by this study. In doing so, this study will develop certain responses designed to be helpful 1n understanding and ameliorating them. This study will provide a metacrltlcal analysis of the contemporary dominance of academic/intellectual photocr1t1c1sm by photographic applications of theory based 1n radical politics and 1n radical linguistics. In these theoretical perspectives, photography Is reduced to mere data for conceptual analysis, political or linguistic. While such photocrltlcal thinking has, undeniably, at least some validity, such criticism becomes 1n effect anti- photographic: when political theory rejects the whole of contemporary society and