On Memory

Susan Sontag claimed that photography has an adverse effect rather than fulfilling its purpose: to help people better understand our world. She says that pictures "always hide more than [they] disclose." While I agree with her logic in this argument, I disagree with her claim. In my mind, the purpose of photography isn't to better understand the past, or whatever it was taken of. It is a form of art which is used to convey a certain feeling. Sontag dismisses this as "mental pollution," and to some degrees it can be, but she generalizes this to the entirety of photography. This is the flaw I find in her claim. Pollution is defined as the introduction of a harmful substance into an environment, and I do not find photos of my own memories as a harmful substance.

Photos that goad people into consumerism or make them insecure about themselves is harmful, but this does not define what a photo is. Above is a photo with me and life-long friends I made at a summer camp. This picture represents, to me, the entirety of that summer. I had an amazing experience with these people and the elated feeling that this picture conveys to me is exactly the opposite of how I interpret Sontag's argument.

When Sontag argues about what a photo can convey, however, I again agree with her. Photos can not be used to represent political knowledge due to the ability to skew the images. But, yet again, I disagree  that this is the main purpose of photography. The purpose is to be of sentimental value, which Sontag says is "knowledge at bargain prices." But is it really? If I can look at a photo, such as the one above, and remember the happiness of that memory, is that knowledge at a bargain price? But I guess the old cliché is true, one man's trash is another man's treasure. Sontag may find sentimental value as cheap, but I find photos as a treasure of memory.