The colloquium titled What is Photography?, hosted at the Centre Pompidou in 2015, brought together some of the most prominent scholars, curators, and critics in the field of photography to reflect on one of the medium’s most persistent and profound questions. Organized by Clément Chéroux and Karolina Ziebinska-Lewandowska, two leading figures in contemporary photographic theory and curatorship, the event served as a platform for both historical reflection and forward-looking analysis. The discussions examined the evolving nature of photography, with a focus on its ontological shifts, particularly in light of digital transformation.
Photography, since its invention in the early 19th century, has consistently been the subject of ontological debates, with scholars, artists, and critics grappling with the question of what photography truly is. This question resurfaces during periods of technological and cultural transformation, prompting both existential and practical inquiries into the medium’s status. In recent years, the digital revolution has once again thrust photography into the spotlight, challenging traditional notions of indexicality, representation, and truth. As a result, the re-emergence of the question, “What is Photography?” is timely, especially considering the deep interconnection between contemporary art, technological advances, and visual culture.
The event took place against the backdrop of the Centre Pompidou’s long-standing engagement with avant-garde art and theory, making it a fitting venue for such a critical discourse. Key figures such as Joël Snyder, Philippe Dubois, and Jacqueline Guittard, alongside curators like Ziebinska-Lewandowska, contributed rich perspectives on the past, present, and future of photographic theory. Each participant brought their unique approach to understanding how photography has been historically framed and how these frameworks must adapt in the context of the post-digital world.
This colloquium was not just an academic exercise; it was an intellectual gathering that delved into the philosophical underpinnings of photography, questioning its role as an art form, a tool of documentation, and a cultural product. The speakers highlighted significant moments in photography’s theoretical development—from the critical reflections of figures like Walter Benjamin and André Bazin to contemporary debates on digital imaging and artificial intelligence.
Moreover, the colloquium explored the tension between the photograph as an objective record and its increasing detachment from reality, particularly as photographic technologies become more embedded in everyday life and more capable of manipulation. By investigating these complex dynamics, the event provided attendees with a rich tapestry of ideas, illuminating the ever-shifting boundaries of photography as both a medium and a form of expression.
As the discussions unfolded, the colloquium also revealed that the question of What is Photography? is no longer solely about the technical or material aspects of the medium. It is a question deeply tied to human experience, cultural production, and philosophical inquiry, pushing the boundaries of how we perceive and interact with images in the digital age.
In this synthesis of the event, we will explore key contributions from the main speakers, examining how their insights shed new light on photography’s ontological status in the 21st century. From Joël Snyder’s critique of the indexicality in photography to Philippe Dubois’ reflections on the transition from image trace to image fiction, the following sections will weave together the different threads of discourse that were central to this event.
Framing the Discussion on Photography’s Ontology
The colloquium at the Centre Pompidou, a gathering of prominent theorists and curators, focused on one central question: What is photography? This inquiry, both historical and contemporary in its framing, invites reflection on photography’s nature, its relationship with truth, and its evolving role in the art world. The ontological status of photography has been subject to intense scrutiny since its inception, with debates revolving around whether the medium serves as a mirror of reality or a constructed interpretation of the world.
A Historical Inquiry into Photography’s Evolution
Photography’s journey as a medium began with its invention in the 19th century, emerging as a revolutionary technology that captured images of the world with unprecedented fidelity. Early discussions about photography often centered on whether it could be considered an art form. Notably, figures like Charles Baudelaire and Alfred Stieglitz expressed concerns about the medium’s potential to replace traditional artistic methods of representation.
As the colloquium highlighted, photography has always been viewed through two lenses: as a documentation of reality and as a form of creative expression. In the 19th century, theorists like Baudelaire regarded photography with skepticism, seeing it as a mechanical reproduction of the visible world that lacked the interpretative depth of painting. However, by the early 20th century, figures like Alfred Stieglitz began advocating for photography as an art form, arguing that photographers could manipulate composition, lighting, and subject matter to create images that carried emotional and aesthetic weight. Stieglitz’s work with the Camera Work journal, alongside photographers such as Paul Strand and Edward Weston, solidified photography’s standing within the fine arts community.
The colloquium’s discussion traced these debates through the key moments of the 19th and 20th centuries, including the influential work of Walter Benjamin, whose 1931 essay “A Short History of Photography” provided critical insight into the changing nature of photography as a technological medium. Benjamin’s reflections on the “aura” of photographs, their mechanical reproducibility, and their impact on mass culture opened the door to new interpretations of photography not just as a record of the past, but as a medium deeply intertwined with modernity and the forces of industrialization.
Between the 1850s-1860s, the rise of gelatin silver processes and other technical advancements made photography more accessible and versatile, leading to its adoption by amateur and professional photographers alike. The interwar period, especially in the 1920s and 1930s, saw a resurgence of interest in photography’s artistic potential, with László Moholy-Nagy and other members of the Bauhaus school viewing the medium as central to the modernist experiment in visual culture.
By the 1970s and 1980s, the ontological question took on new dimensions with the emergence of postmodern thought. Critics such as Rosalind Krauss and Roland Barthes introduced frameworks that reconsidered the nature of the photographic image in light of theories of the sign. Barthes’ 1980 text, Camera Lucida, solidified the view of the photograph as an inherently melancholic object, encapsulating what he called the ça a été (that-has-been)—a statement about the inextricable link between the photograph and a moment in time that has passed, forever out of reach. This period marked an intense reflection on the “truth” of photography, culminating in what some have called an ontological moment for the medium.
The Return of the Ontological Question in the Digital Age
The ontological debate around photography faded somewhat in the late 20th century but resurfaced forcefully in the digital era. With the transition from analog film to digital sensors, and from prints to pixels, the core of photography’s identity began to shift. The colloquium at the Centre Pompidou revisited this resurgence, asking why the question “What is photography?” has become so urgent again in the 21st century.
A major part of the contemporary crisis stems from the introduction of digital technologies, which have fundamentally altered how images are produced, distributed, and consumed. As Philippe Dubois pointed out during his talk, the shift from a chemical process that directly captures light on film to a digital process that converts light into data undermines the traditional notion of photography as an indexical medium—one that physically touches and captures the real world.
This change has led many theorists to question whether digital photography can still be considered “photography” in the classical sense. Exhibitions such as What is a Photograph? (2014) at the International Center of Photography (ICP) in New York and Photography Is at the Art Institute of Chicago in 2014 reflect this uncertainty. Both exhibitions explored the implications of digital manipulation, computer-generated imagery, and the increasing use of photography in non-traditional contexts, including Instagram and other social media platforms. The curators of these exhibitions, much like the participants at the colloquium, raised questions about whether the boundaries between photography and other forms of visual representation, such as painting and video art, are still relevant in an era where images are infinitely reproducible and easily manipulated.
The digital age has thus reopened the ontological debate, asking not just whether digital photographs are still “real” photographs, but whether photography as a whole retains its claim to truth. In an era where images can be altered with the click of a mouse, the ontological status of photography has become more uncertain than ever before.
Keynote by Joël Snyder: Critiquing the Indexicality of Photography
Joël Snyder’s keynote at the colloquium brought forth a critical and thought-provoking examination of one of the most central concepts in photographic theory: indexicality. Traditionally, indexicality has referred to the unique relationship that a photograph maintains with its subject — the physical connection between the image and the object it represents. This idea, deeply rooted in the work of theorists such as Charles Sanders Peirce and Roland Barthes, underpins the assumption that a photograph is a direct imprint or trace of reality. Snyder, however, challenged this notion, arguing for a more nuanced and skeptical understanding of the photograph’s connection to the real world.
Snyder’s Division of Motivations Behind Photography Theory
At the outset, Snyder divided the history of photography theory into two broad camps, each driven by distinct motivations. On one side, there are theorists who view photography as a medium intrinsically tied to reality — a visual index that provides direct evidence of the world. This perspective, deeply influenced by André Bazin and Susan Sontag, posits that photography holds a privileged relationship with truth, capturing moments as they truly existed in time and space. For these theorists, photographs are fundamentally different from other forms of representation, such as painting or drawing, because of their indexical link to reality.
On the other side, Snyder identified a second group of theorists who approach photography not as a transparent window into reality but as a medium shaped by cultural, political, and artistic strategies. These theorists, including figures like Rosalind Krauss and Victor Burgin, argue that photography is a construct that reflects the choices, biases, and intentions of the photographer. Rather than serving as objective documents, photographs are embedded in broader systems of meaning and power, and their interpretation is contingent on context, culture, and ideology.
Snyder’s distinction between these two camps laid the groundwork for his critique of indexicality. He argued that the former group, which views photographs as inherently truthful, often relies on misleading analogies, such as photographs being compared to footprints, fossils, or shadows — material traces of objects that confirm their presence. For Snyder, these analogies are insufficient to capture the complexity of photographic representation. Instead, he contended that photography is far less stable and reliable as an index of reality than these theorists suggest.
The Complexities of Representation
A key element of Snyder’s critique was his analysis of the analogies frequently used to describe photography’s indexical nature. He pointed out that theorists like Bazin and Barthes often likened photographs to physical imprints — fingerprints, fossils, and shadows — which imply a direct and unmediated connection to the subject. However, Snyder argued that these analogies overlook the intricate processes involved in photographic production. Unlike a footprint in the sand or a fossil preserved in rock, a photograph is the result of multiple layers of mediation: the choices made by the photographer, the technology of the camera, the chemical or digital processes involved in developing the image, and the cultural conventions that shape how photographs are viewed and understood.
One of the most compelling examples Snyder used to illustrate his argument was the work of Walker Evans, particularly his photographs of industrial America during the 1930s. While Evans’ images are often celebrated for their documentary realism, Snyder challenged the assumption that these photographs offer an unmediated view of reality. Instead, he emphasized how Evans’ framing, choice of subject, and aesthetic decisions shaped the viewer’s understanding of the images. Far from being neutral records of the world, Evans’ photographs are constructed representations that reflect the photographer’s artistic sensibility and the cultural context in which they were produced.
Snyder also addressed the technical side of photography, questioning the assumption that the camera captures reality in a purely objective manner. He argued that the physical process of making a photograph — whether through film or digital sensors — involves transformations that complicate the notion of indexicality. For example, the way light interacts with the camera lens, the settings chosen by the photographer (such as focus, aperture, and exposure), and the post-production editing process all contribute to the final image. These layers of mediation undermine the idea that a photograph is a direct imprint of reality, suggesting instead that it is a constructed image shaped by both technical and human factors.
Moreover, Snyder critiqued the idea that the physical connection between a photograph and its subject guarantees its truthfulness. He pointed out that photographs can be manipulated or staged to convey a false impression of reality. In today’s digital age, this issue is even more pronounced, as software like Photoshop allows for seamless alterations that can distort the truth of an image without leaving any trace of manipulation. Snyder argued that this capacity for photographic manipulation calls into question the very notion of photographic truth, challenging the assumption that photographs inherently serve as evidence of the real.
Questioning Photography’s Relationship to the Real World and the Role of Indexicality
Snyder’s talk ultimately called for a reevaluation of the relationship between photography and reality. He argued that while photographs may maintain some degree of indexicality — in the sense that they are connected to the objects they depict — this connection is far from straightforward. Photographs do not offer a transparent view of the world but rather a mediated and constructed representation shaped by a range of factors, from technical processes to cultural norms.
In critiquing indexicality, Snyder sought to move beyond the binary of photography as either a truth-telling medium or a tool for deception. Instead, he urged for a more complex understanding of photography that acknowledges both its potential to capture aspects of reality and its capacity for manipulation and distortion. This view aligns with contemporary approaches to photographic theory, which emphasize the fluidity and instability of photographic meaning in the digital age.
In conclusion, Snyder’s keynote provided a vital counterpoint to traditional theories of photography that have relied on the concept of indexicality. By challenging the assumption that photographs offer an unmediated view of reality, he opened the door to a more nuanced and critical understanding of photographic representation. His critique resonated with many of the broader themes of the colloquium, particularly the ongoing debate over photography’s role in the digital era and the ways in which new technologies are reshaping our understanding of truth, authenticity, and representation in visual culture.
Philippe Dubois on the Transition from Image Trace to Image Fiction
Philippe Dubois’ presentation at the colloquium offered a profound re-evaluation of photography, focusing on its evolution from the traditional idea of the photograph as a trace of reality to a more contemporary understanding of the photograph as a potential fiction. He explored the dramatic shift in photographic theory that has emerged in response to technological advancements, particularly the rise of digital photography, which has transformed how we think about the relationship between image and reality. Dubois’ reflections addressed how these changes have altered photography’s ontological status, moving it away from notions of indexicality and toward more complex, imaginative, and fluid interpretations.
Theoretical Shifts in the 1980s: The Rise of the Photographic
Dubois began by framing the theoretical landscape of the 1980s, a period in which the concept of the photographique emerged as a central concern. This was an era when scholars were deeply invested in defining what makes photography distinct from other forms of image-making. Roland Barthes’ influential text Camera Lucida (1980), with its notions of punctum and studium, had a major impact on how photography was understood. Barthes’ idea of the ça a été (“that has been”) emphasized the unique relationship between a photograph and its referent, claiming that photographs serve as a direct imprint or trace of reality, forever bound to the moment they depict.
For Barthes and other theorists of this era, photography’s truthfulness and authenticity were tied to its ability to record and document the real world. The photograph was seen as an objective witness, its indexical nature making it distinct from other forms of representation, such as painting or drawing, which are more obviously mediated by the artist’s hand. This approach, Dubois argued, culminated in an almost ontological view of photography — an assertion that photographs have a unique, essential connection to the real world.
However, as Dubois pointed out, the very strength of this ontological argument also led to its eventual unraveling. The more that theorists tried to essentialize photography as an unmediated trace of reality, the more the medium’s inherent ambiguities and contradictions came to light. The very idea of photographique became a battleground for debates about representation, truth, and manipulation, especially as photography became increasingly incorporated into the fields of contemporary art and mass media.
Digital Photography and the “Post-Photographic” Era
The transition from the image trace to the image fiction has been largely driven by the advent of digital photography. Dubois argued that the rise of digital technology in the 1990s and 2000s marked a turning point in how we understand photography’s relationship to reality. Unlike traditional film-based photography, which depends on a chemical process to capture light from the real world, digital photography involves the conversion of light into data, which can be easily manipulated, altered, and transformed. This shift from an analog to a digital process has radically destabilized the photograph’s status as a trace of reality.
Dubois referred to this new stage in photographic theory as the “post-photographic” era, in which the photograph is no longer tied to the indexical model of representation. In this era, photographs are no longer necessarily tied to the real; they can be created, manipulated, or entirely fabricated within a digital framework. This shift has profound implications for how we think about photography’s truthfulness. No longer can we assume that a photograph represents something that actually existed in the world. Instead, photographs can now be understood as part of a broader, more fluid spectrum of images that includes everything from realistic representations to abstract fictions.
One of the most striking examples Dubois used to illustrate this point was the increasing prevalence of digitally manipulated images in contemporary media. From Photoshop to CGI (computer-generated imagery), digital tools have made it possible to alter photographs in ways that were previously unimaginable. This capability to manipulate images challenges the very foundation of the indexical model, as it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between photographs that depict the real world and those that are entirely fabricated.
As Dubois explained, the shift toward digital manipulation has not only transformed the technical aspects of photography but also its cultural and philosophical significance. In the post-photographic era, the emphasis is no longer on whether a photograph is a true representation of reality, but rather on how it functions as an image within a particular context. Photographs are now seen as part of a broader visual culture in which the boundaries between the real and the fictional are constantly being blurred. This has led to new forms of visual expression, where photographs are used not just to document the world but to create new, imaginative, and often fictional worlds.
Moving from Ontology to Usage
A significant aspect of Dubois’ argument was his call for a shift in focus from the ontological status of photography to the practical and creative ways in which photographs are used. Rather than asking, “What is photography?” Dubois suggested that it is more productive to ask, “What can photography do?” This pragmatic approach shifts the emphasis away from abstract philosophical debates about the nature of the photograph and toward a consideration of how photography operates in different contexts, from artistic practice to social media.
In the post-photographic era, Dubois argued, photographs are no longer seen as fixed, stable objects but as dynamic, mutable images that can be repurposed, reinterpreted, and reshaped in countless ways. This shift in focus opens up new possibilities for understanding the role of photography in contemporary culture. For example, in the world of social media, photographs are often used less as representations of reality and more as tools for communication, self-expression, and identity construction. In this context, the truthfulness of a photograph is less important than its ability to convey a certain message or emotion.
Dubois also highlighted the importance of photography in contemporary art, where artists often use photographs in experimental and conceptual ways. Many contemporary photographers, such as Jeff Wall and Cindy Sherman, have embraced the possibilities of digital manipulation, creating photographs that challenge traditional notions of reality and representation. These artists use photography not to document the world as it is, but to construct new, fictional realities that question the very nature of photographic truth.
In conclusion, Dubois’ presentation at the colloquium marked a critical intervention in the ongoing debate about the role of photography in the digital age. By challenging the traditional concept of photography as a trace of reality, Dubois opened up new avenues for thinking about photography as a fluid, dynamic medium that can encompass both reality and fiction. His argument for moving from an ontological to a pragmatic understanding of photography reflects the broader shift in photographic theory away from questions of truth and authenticity and toward an exploration of how photographs function in contemporary culture. In this new era of the image fiction, the photograph is no longer bound by the constraints of the real but is instead free to explore new, imaginative, and creative possibilities.
Jacqueline Guittard: Revisiting Roland Barthes and the Truth of the Image
Jacqueline Guittard’s presentation at the colloquium offered a nuanced and insightful re-examination of Roland Barthes’ seminal work on photography, Camera Lucida (1980), where he explored the ontology of the image. Barthes, a towering figure in semiotics and literary theory, ventured into the philosophical depths of photography, using deeply personal reflections to arrive at a theory of how photography interacts with truth, memory, and subjectivity. Guittard’s exploration delved into the emotional power of the photograph and the theoretical underpinnings of Barthes’ concepts such as punctum, studium, and ça a été (the essence of a photograph being that it has captured something that was there).
Through a careful synthesis of Barthes’ work and her own theoretical contributions, Guittard positioned Barthes’ ideas within the larger framework of the colloquium’s central question: What is photography? Her presentation highlighted the emotional and phenomenological dimensions of photography while offering a fresh interpretation of Barthes’ philosophical inquiry.
Barthes’ Phenomenology of the Image
Guittard revisited Barthes’ Camera Lucida, focusing on his two central concepts: studium and punctum. These terms describe the dual affective and intellectual responses a viewer experiences when encountering a photograph. For Barthes, the studium refers to the general, cultural, or political interest a photograph might evoke — the broad, historical, or social meanings we attach to images. It is the way we process a photograph on an intellectual level. However, it is the punctum that truly defines Barthes’ emotional engagement with photography. The punctum is the unexpected detail that pierces or wounds the viewer, a small, often personal element that transforms the photograph from a mere image into something that holds deep personal significance.
Guittard explained that Barthes’ theory of photography moves away from traditional semiotics, where images are decoded as signs and symbols, and instead ventures into the realm of phenomenology. In Camera Lucida, Barthes sought to explain the unique essence of photography, an essence that lay not in its ability to communicate meaning in a structured way, but in its raw power to evoke a subjective, personal response.
Guittard emphasized that for Barthes, photographs are deeply tied to memory and temporality. Barthes famously called photography the “certificate of presence,” arguing that the photograph, more than any other medium, is capable of attesting to the existence of what it depicts at a particular moment in time. This is where the concept of ça a été comes in — Barthes’ assertion that the photograph always points to something that has been. The temporal dimension of photography, as Guittard noted, is one of its most powerful qualities; it constantly reminds us of what is irrevocably past, making it a tool not only for recording the real but for mourning what has been lost.
Guittard’s presentation also explored Barthes’ reflections on photography as a means of confronting death. The photograph, for Barthes, is closely linked to mortality because it captures a moment that is forever gone. Barthes’ personal quest to find a photograph that truly captures the essence of his late mother was a poignant example of how photography, through punctum, can evoke not only memory but the sense of loss that accompanies the passage of time. Guittard noted how Barthes’ deeply personal engagement with photography gives it a unique emotional dimension in his work.
The Emotional Power of Photography
Guittard built on Barthes’ concept of punctum to explore the emotional power of photography in greater depth. She explained that for Barthes, the punctum in a photograph is not something that can be universally identified or shared; rather, it is something intensely personal, often tied to individual memories, emotions, or experiences. This personal connection gives photography its extraordinary emotional resonance.
A striking example that Guittard referenced from Barthes’ work is his discussion of a photograph of his mother as a child, the famous “Winter Garden Photograph,” which is never shown in Camera Lucida. For Barthes, this image was filled with punctum because it encapsulated for him the essence of his mother’s being. Guittard noted that Barthes’ decision not to share this photograph with his readers reflects the private, almost sacred nature of the emotional response it provoked in him. This refusal to show the photograph underscores Barthes’ belief that the emotional power of photography is, at its core, a deeply subjective experience — one that cannot be fully communicated or intellectualized.
Guittard highlighted how Barthes’ personal engagement with photography, particularly in relation to memory and loss, has shaped the way we think about the medium today. While earlier theorists, such as Susan Sontag and André Bazin, focused on photography’s objectivity and its ability to represent the world as it is, Barthes shifted the conversation toward a more personal, introspective understanding of the medium. Photography, for Barthes, is not merely a record of reality; it is a vessel for emotion, memory, and subjective experience.
Through Guittard’s exploration, it became clear that Barthes’ legacy lies in his ability to articulate how photographs operate on both an intellectual and emotional level. The studium and punctum are not mutually exclusive but are intertwined in the way photographs move us. While the studium gives the photograph its cultural or historical context, the punctum provides the emotional depth that makes a photograph resonate with an individual viewer.
How the Punctum Challenges Objective Truth in Photography
One of the most compelling aspects of Barthes’ theory, as discussed by Guittard, is how the concept of punctum complicates photography’s claim to objective truth. In traditional photographic theory, especially in the work of figures like Bazin, the photograph is often seen as an objective record of reality, a direct imprint of the world. The photograph’s indexicality — its direct connection to the object it depicts — has long been understood as a guarantee of its truthfulness.
However, Barthes challenges this assumption by asserting that the emotional impact of a photograph is not something that can be objectively measured or universally agreed upon. The punctum, in particular, is a deeply personal response that varies from viewer to viewer. What strikes one person in a photograph may be entirely insignificant to another. This subjectivity, Guittard argued, undermines photography’s claim to objective truth and suggests that photographs are as much about the viewer’s perception as they are about the reality they depict.
Guittard emphasized that for Barthes, the punctum represents a kind of rupture in the photograph’s claim to objectivity. It is the point where the photograph ceases to be merely a representation of the real and becomes something more — a personal experience, a memory, a feeling. This rupture is what makes photography such a powerful medium, capable of moving us in ways that are difficult to articulate.
In concluding her presentation, Guittard reflected on the continued relevance of Barthes’ ideas in contemporary photographic theory. In an age where digital manipulation and altered images have become commonplace, Barthes’ emphasis on the emotional and subjective power of photography remains a vital counterpoint to discussions of photography’s truthfulness. While digital technologies have undoubtedly changed the way we think about photographs as representations of reality, Barthes reminds us that photography’s true power lies in its ability to evoke personal and emotional responses.
In Guittard’s view, Barthes’ work on photography continues to offer profound insights into the ways we experience and interpret images. His theory of punctum challenges us to think beyond the surface of the photograph and consider how it interacts with our memories, emotions, and subjective experiences. In doing so, Barthes provides a framework for understanding photography not as a static, objective medium, but as a dynamic and deeply personal form of communication.
In sum, Jacqueline Guittard’s presentation reaffirmed Roland Barthes’ enduring influence on photographic theory. By revisiting Camera Lucida and exploring its key concepts, Guittard demonstrated how Barthes’ work continues to shape our understanding of photography’s emotional, phenomenological, and ontological dimensions. As photography evolves in the digital age, Barthes’ reflections on memory, loss, and the personal resonance of images remain as relevant as ever, offering a powerful lens through which to examine the nature of the photographic image today.
The Role of Curatorial Practice in Shaping Theories of Photography
The exploration of photography as an art form is not limited to the images themselves; it also extends to how these images are presented, interpreted, and contextualized in exhibitions and galleries. The role of curatorial practice, particularly in shaping the theoretical landscape of photography, cannot be overstated. Curators such as Karolina Ziebinska-Lewandowska have played a pivotal role in influencing the dialogue around photography by framing exhibitions that highlight specific theoretical issues, questioning the ontology of photography, and shaping how contemporary audiences engage with photographic works.
During the colloquium, several discussions focused on how curators are not merely organizers of exhibitions but active participants in the theoretical development of photography as an art form. They engage with both historical and contemporary debates, offering new interpretations and framing questions that challenge traditional views. By selecting, arranging, and presenting photographs in particular ways, curators influence how these images are perceived, experienced, and understood, thereby contributing to broader theoretical conversations.
Insights from Karolina Ziebinska-Lewandowska
Karolina Ziebinska-Lewandowska, curator at the Centre Pompidou, provided valuable insights into how curatorial practice intersects with photographic theory. Ziebinska-Lewandowska’s curatorial work, including exhibitions like Qu’est-ce que la photographie? (What is Photography?), reflects her engagement with the ontological questions surrounding photography in the digital age. She approaches curating as a way to probe deeper into the nature of photography, asking not only what a photograph is but also how it operates within contemporary culture and art.
In her exhibitions, Ziebinska-Lewandowska has consistently emphasized the evolving nature of photography. She considers the medium’s historical context, its materiality, and its contemporary digital iterations. In doing so, her exhibitions encourage viewers to think critically about the changes photography has undergone and how these changes impact the way we understand and engage with photographs.
During her presentation, Ziebinska-Lewandowska highlighted the importance of selecting works that challenge preconceived notions about photography. For instance, in her work with contemporary artists, she seeks out pieces that blur the boundaries between traditional photography and other forms of visual art. This curatorial approach not only expands the viewer’s understanding of what constitutes photography but also raises important theoretical questions about the medium’s future in an increasingly digital and post-photographic world.
Moreover, Ziebinska-Lewandowska’s curatorial philosophy emphasizes the relationship between photography and the other arts. By situating photography within a broader artistic context, she allows for an interdisciplinary dialogue that enriches both the theoretical and aesthetic understanding of the medium. Her approach underscores the idea that photography cannot be fully understood in isolation but must be considered in relation to other artistic practices, media, and cultural phenomena.
How Curatorial Practice Reshapes the Question of Photography’s Ontology
Curators like Ziebinska-Lewandowska, through their exhibitions, actively engage with the ontological questions that have long surrounded photography. One key aspect of curatorial practice is the ability to curate thematic exhibitions that focus on specific theoretical questions, such as the essence of the photograph, its role as a representation of reality, and the impact of technological advancements like digital photography on the medium.
For example, the exhibition What is Photography? posed the ontological question directly, inviting viewers to contemplate the very nature of the medium. By juxtaposing historical photographs with contemporary works, the exhibition created a dialogue between the past and the present, allowing visitors to see how the theoretical concerns of earlier photographers — such as the indexicality of the image — differ from or align with the concerns of contemporary artists who work with digital and post-photographic technologies.
Ziebinska-Lewandowska’s curatorial choices often challenge the traditional notion that photography is a transparent window onto the world. Instead, her exhibitions highlight the constructed and mediated nature of the photographic image, encouraging viewers to question the relationship between photography and reality. By selecting works that experiment with the boundaries of the photographic medium — such as those that incorporate digital manipulation, artificial intelligence, or mixed media — she complicates the notion of photography as an indexical representation of the real world.
This curatorial approach is not limited to photography’s relationship with reality but also extends to its materiality. Ziebinska-Lewandowska’s exhibitions often include works that draw attention to the physicality of the photograph itself. By emphasizing the medium’s tactile qualities — the paper, the ink, the texture — she challenges the notion that photography is merely a dematerialized digital image. In doing so, her curatorial practice opens up new avenues for theoretical exploration, particularly in relation to the materiality of digital images in the contemporary era.
The relationship between curatorial practice and photographic theory is symbiotic. Curators like Ziebinska-Lewandowska not only respond to existing theoretical debates but also actively shape these debates through the exhibitions they create. By selecting certain works, arranging them in specific ways, and framing them within particular thematic contexts, curators influence how viewers engage with and understand photography. In this sense, curatorial practice is not simply about displaying works of art; it is about creating a space for theoretical inquiry, fostering dialogue, and challenging viewers to think critically about the medium.
In conclusion, the role of curatorial practice in shaping theories of photography is profound. Curators like Karolina Ziebinska-Lewandowska play a crucial role in expanding the theoretical horizons of photography by framing exhibitions that question the nature of the medium and its relationship to the real, the digital, and the material. Through their curatorial choices, they create new spaces for theoretical exploration, challenging traditional views and opening up new possibilities for understanding photography in the contemporary world.
The Ontology of Photography in Contemporary Art
The question of photography’s ontology—its essence, purpose, and role in relation to reality—has always been central to understanding the medium. In contemporary art, where photography is no longer seen merely as a tool for documentation or capturing reality, its ontology has been profoundly redefined. The digital revolution, the rise of conceptual and post-conceptual art practices, and the hybridization of media have all contributed to this redefinition, challenging traditional theories and opening up new debates about what photography is, what it does, and how it relates to other forms of artistic expression.
This section will explore how contemporary artists have engaged with the question of photography’s ontology, looking specifically at their use of the medium to explore issues of representation, materiality, and interaction with the real world. Through these explorations, contemporary artists are not only questioning what photography is but also what it means in a world where the boundaries between reality and fiction, the material and the digital, and the artist and the viewer have become increasingly blurred.
Examining the Works Presented
During the colloquium at the Centre Pompidou, several artworks and artists were discussed, each contributing a unique perspective on the ontology of photography. The reactivation of Julius Koller’s work by Rikrit Tiravanija, presented as a joyful game of ping-pong, was one such piece that challenged traditional notions of photographic representation. The artwork, part of an exhibition focused on the concept of play in art, introduced the idea of photography as a participatory and performative act, rather than a static, objective representation of reality.
This artwork, and others like it, demonstrates how contemporary artists use photography to engage viewers in a dialogue about the act of seeing and the act of being seen. Rather than presenting photography as a passive medium, contemporary practices often treat it as an interactive space where the boundaries between the artist, the viewer, and the subject are continuously negotiated. Tiravanija’s reactivation of Koller’s work, for instance, transformed the photograph from a fixed image into a living, participatory experience, emphasizing the relational nature of photography.
Other contemporary works discussed at the event highlighted the ways in which photography intersects with new technologies. For example, artists using artificial intelligence, 3D modeling, and digital manipulation create works that blur the line between the photographic and the painterly, the real and the virtual. These pieces challenge the traditional ontology of photography, which has often been tied to its indexical relationship with reality. In a digital age where images can be constructed, manipulated, and simulated with ease, the question of photography’s truth-telling capacity has become more complex and ambiguous.
Photography, Game, and Play
The colloquium also explored the concept of play in relation to photography, particularly through the curatorial lens of contemporary exhibitions like the one featuring Rikrit Tiravanija’s work. The idea of play, both as a theme and as a method, reframes the discussion of photography’s role in representing reality. Play introduces an element of unpredictability, fluidity, and interaction that challenges the static and objective qualities traditionally associated with photography.
This concept of play is particularly relevant in contemporary photography, where the boundaries of the medium are constantly being pushed. Artists are using photography not just to document reality but to create new realities, to simulate and manipulate images in ways that invite viewers to question what they are seeing. The performative aspects of photography are brought to the forefront in these practices, with the medium becoming less about the act of taking a picture and more about the process of engagement, interaction, and transformation.
Play also speaks to the relationship between photography and time. Traditional photography is often thought of as a medium that captures a specific moment, freezing time in a single frame. However, contemporary works that incorporate play introduce a temporal fluidity, where the image is no longer tied to a single instant but instead unfolds over time. This temporal dimension is especially evident in digital photography and video art, where images can be looped, manipulated, and altered in real time, creating new forms of engagement with the viewer.
The discussions at the colloquium underscored how these playful approaches to photography challenge the very foundations of its ontology. In this context, photography is no longer a neutral medium that passively records reality. Instead, it becomes an active, dynamic process where the creation, manipulation, and reception of images are all part of the artistic act. The role of the viewer also shifts in this context, as they are invited to participate in the creation of meaning, rather than passively consuming a pre-determined narrative.
How Contemporary Artists Challenge Traditional Ontologies
Contemporary artists are constantly challenging the traditional ontology of photography, particularly its historical association with indexicality—the idea that a photograph is a direct imprint of reality. This concept, famously articulated by theorists like Roland Barthes and Charles Sanders Peirce, positioned photography as a medium that had a unique relationship with the real world, a “trace” of something that once existed.
In the digital era, however, this notion of photography as a trace of reality has been questioned. Artists working with digital technologies can create images that have no direct referent in the real world. These images are often constructed entirely through software, combining elements of photography, painting, sculpture, and other media to create hybrid works that challenge the viewer’s perception of what is real and what is imagined.
For example, artists like Thomas Ruff and Jeff Wall use photography in ways that disrupt the traditional expectations of the medium. Ruff’s digitally manipulated photographs question the authenticity of photographic representation, while Wall’s large-scale, staged photographs blur the line between reality and fiction. Both artists engage with photography’s ontological questions by pushing the boundaries of what a photograph can be, what it can represent, and how it can be experienced by viewers.
Another important aspect of contemporary photography is the way it engages with materiality. In contrast to digital images, which can often feel disembodied and immaterial, many contemporary artists are returning to the physicality of the photograph as an object. Photographers like Tacita Dean and Wolfgang Tillmans emphasize the material qualities of photographic prints, experimenting with different processes and techniques to draw attention to the tactile, sensual nature of the medium. In doing so, they remind viewers that photography is not just an image but a physical object that occupies space and time.
These artists, and many others, are expanding the definition of photography in contemporary art, moving it beyond its traditional associations with truth, documentation, and indexicality. Instead, photography is being reimagined as a flexible, hybrid medium that can encompass everything from digital simulations to physical prints, from interactive installations to performance art. This expanded definition of photography challenges viewers to reconsider their own assumptions about the medium and its role in contemporary visual culture.
The ontology of photography in contemporary art is no longer a fixed or static concept. As artists continue to experiment with new technologies, materials, and methods, the boundaries of the medium are constantly being pushed and redefined. Contemporary photography is no longer simply about representing reality; it is about creating new realities, questioning the nature of images, and engaging viewers in a dynamic, interactive process.
Through their work, contemporary artists are challenging the traditional notions of photography’s relationship to the real world, its materiality, and its truth-telling capacity. In doing so, they are opening up new possibilities for what photography can be and how it can be understood. The question of photography’s ontology remains central to these explorations, but the answers are becoming increasingly complex and multifaceted in the context of contemporary art.
Conclusion
The colloquium at the Centre Pompidou opened up a rich and multifaceted conversation on the ontology of photography, revisiting longstanding debates while also addressing contemporary shifts driven by digital technologies, artistic innovation, and evolving curatorial practices. The event made it clear that while the question “What is photography?” has been posed for nearly two centuries, the answers remain dynamic, changing as the medium itself transforms. By synthesizing the discussions from leading theorists, curators, and practitioners, we can better understand how photography continues to evolve both in theory and in practice.
The Relevance of the Ontological Question Today
As Clément Chéroux pointed out in his opening remarks, the resurgence of the ontological question surrounding photography—particularly in light of digital advancements—reminds us that photography is far from a settled medium. Historically, the ontological debate arose during moments of technological or cultural transformation, whether in the 1850s during the early industrialization of photography, in the interwar modernist period, or again in the 1970s and 80s when postmodernism and conceptual art questioned the very notion of photographic truth.
Today, this question is again at the forefront, driven by the rise of digital imaging, artificial intelligence, and algorithmic art. As new technologies continue to blur the line between photography, video, and other visual arts, the relevance of understanding what photography is becomes even more critical. Yet, as the speakers at the event emphasized, the real value lies in recognizing that the answer to this question is constantly evolving. Photography is no longer just about capturing the world as it is, but about creating new worlds, constructing narratives, and inviting viewers to engage with images in new ways.
Photography as an Ongoing Dialogue
One of the central themes that emerged from the colloquium is that photography should be understood as a dynamic dialogue between the past and the future, between analog traditions and digital experimentation, between the artist and the viewer. Whether through the theoretical perspectives of Joël Snyder, who critiqued the indexical relationship of photography to reality, or Philippe Dubois’ exploration of the shift from image trace to image fiction, the event highlighted how photography is as much a conceptual tool as it is a visual medium.
Curators like Karolina Ziebinska-Lewandowska and artists engaging with contemporary art practices further emphasized that photography’s role extends beyond merely documenting reality. Instead, it functions as a site for critical reflection, play, and even activism. Exhibitions such as What is a Photograph? show how contemporary photographers are breaking away from traditional categories, using photography to explore abstraction, materiality, and interactivity.
This ongoing dialogue ensures that photography remains a relevant and important medium for understanding both the world around us and the evolving ways in which we interact with images. As technology continues to evolve, so too will photography’s role in visual culture, pushing us to continuously rethink what photography is, what it can be, and how it shapes our perception of reality.
Final Reflections on the Continued Importance of Questioning Photography’s Nature
The colloquium at the Centre Pompidou made it clear that photography is not a static medium tied to its origins in the 19th century. Instead, it is an ever-evolving form of expression that, through continuous questioning, opens up new ways of thinking about images, technology, and human interaction. The event demonstrated that photography, both in theory and in practice, must always be viewed as a fluid, adaptable medium that responds to cultural shifts, technological advancements, and artistic innovation.
Whether through Barthes’ exploration of the emotional and phenomenological aspects of photography, Dubois’ critique of its ontological shifts in the digital age, or Snyder’s critical perspective on indexicality, one thing remains clear: photography’s essence is not fixed. It is a constantly unfolding dialogue between what has been and what is to come. As long as photography continues to evolve, so too will the conversations surrounding its ontology. The future of photography lies not just in its ability to document the world, but in its potential to challenge and reshape the ways we understand reality, fiction, and the power of the image.
In conclusion, photography remains a vital and complex medium that sits at the intersection of art, technology, and theory. Its ontological questions are not simply academic; they reflect deeper cultural anxieties and hopes about how we see, represent, and engage with the world. And as long as artists, theorists, and curators continue to push the boundaries of the medium, the debate about photography’s nature will remain as urgent and compelling as ever.