Susan Santag

Why is it a problem for Sontag that photography aestheticizes all that it captures? Give examples of photographs that Sontag might argue aestheticize in a problematic way and discuss why you do or do not agree with Sontag on this issue?

The idea of taking pictures of beautiful things has obviously occurred to everyone, on the contrary the idea of taking pictures of the ugly and grotesque has perhaps only appealed to the more artistic photographer. Where a beautiful image can be breathtaking and leave you feeling like you actually were there when this image was created, a disturbing image might make more of an impact in your brain; make you think, want to react, or evoke some type of emotional response. Taking pictures of the ugly I feel can be anything from street photography to straight up pictures of garbage, dead animals, and recombined human parts.

Sontag discuss the works of Arbus insofar as how they had a profound and reactive effect both on the viewer and the art world. Arbus work, much like the work of Joel Peter Witken and later Terry Richardson further deconstructed the ideals behind the socially acceptable. Rather, these specific photographers turned their back on the glamourous and opted to show less conformist ideals of a moralist society.

What does Sontag mean by the “heroism of vision?”

The ideology behind the “heroism of vision” is one that reverberates throughout our cultural understanding of what we deem socially significant and visually important. Yet, even in our overly saturated world, we choose to see what we want. In my opinion, true heroics are when you break away from the normalcy of everyday society and try to incorporate a deeper sense of awareness when shooting photography.

Sontag states that, “ insofar as photography does peel away the dry wrappers of habitual seeing, it creates another habit of seeing.” What are the “habits of seeing” that you have encountered in your experiences in looking at photographs?

Sontag’s...