Early photo theory.
Here is something fun to think about: Niepce, Daguerre, and Talbot all avoided claiming photography as an invention or process of man. Each one of them claimed photography as originating from and produced by nature. As a medium centric in elements and optics from nature, “the images are pressed by natures hand” says Talbot. Daguerre said that “the daguerreotype is not an instrument which serves to draw nature; but a chemical and physical process which givers herself the power to reproduce herself.” Niepce spoke of his attempts “to fix the images which nature offers, without the assistance of a draughtsman.” But how does this idea hold up today in the digital age? The only part of the process that still remains is the capturing of light. Digital photography can only be considered photography as much as painting can in photoshop. You could even think of it as the reinterpretation of light. Welcome to the post-photography age.
The odd thing is that perceiving photography as discovery and not an invention gave it a certain distinction in the industrial age. In the time of inventions such as the railroad and telegraph, and steel was breathing new life into architecture, the modern age was beginning. This interpretation of photography made it more difficult to be accepted as an art form. In a way photography reinforced the eighteenth-century idea of what you see is truth and separate from ones thoughts and feelings. This made it difficult to see a photographer as an interpreter of ideas or of having a vision.


