The main idea from Walter Benjamin’s book “Little History of Photography” is that photography as an art has a “spark of contingency” that other art forms lack. Due to this “spark of contingency,” the author includes that photography is magical because even if a photo was taken decades ago, viewers could still connect with the subject in the picture. The author further defends his argument by comparing the photographs and portraits. He asserts that an image in a painting can fade with time, and the only thing left is the fame of the artist who made it. On the other hand, for a photograph, no matter how old it is, the moment captured plus the subject can still create memories to the viewer or communicate a message about the moment the photograph was taken. Benjamin also argues that artists can paint the subjects as they prefer by adding and subtracting certain features. However, in a picture, the subjects are presented as they are without alterations. The author also uses the work of Sander “people of the twentieth century” and the work of David Octavius Hill “Newhaven Fishwife” to defend his argument.
Sander’s photographs “People of the Twentieth Century” is a collection of black and white photos where each is placed in its frame. The images show German civilians distinguished through their social classes in that each individual in the photograph represents the profession they hold. Sander’s work did not become popular due to his fame as a photographer, but because each picture communicated a different message to the viewers (Benjamin, 520). Therefore, the photographs make the viewer have the urge to know more about the subjects in the pictures and what they represented.
David Octavius Hill’s photograph “Newhaven Fishwife” presents a woman with a headscarf holding a basket. Based on this photo, Benjamin asserts that the picture is magical because it makes the viewers want to know more about the woman, such as her name and who she was. He further argues that anyone can take a photo and capture a moment, but it is the subject in the picture that tells the story and keeps the viewer wondering (Benjamin 510). The viewer will always look at the “spark of contingency” in a photo, something that a portrait cannot deliver or show.
Based on the two photographs, Benjamin argues that they are proof of the fact that photography has the power to capture what other types of art cannot. In this case, a depiction of life, according to the author, is “magical” and makes the viewer determined to know more about the subjects in the photos (Benjamin 510). The viewer will look into the subject and wonder what was happening when the photograph was being taken. In addition, such photographs imaginatively transport the viewer to the period when the photograph was taken. Thus, photography makes the viewer exist both in the present and the past as they can think back to the time that the photograph was taken.
From the two photographs “Newhaven Fishwife” and “people of the twentieth century,” it can be argued that the former has a stronger defense of Benjamin’s view on the power of photographs than the former. David’s photo is discussed more in detail in the book, and the author uses it to show the readers how the picture [resented “the spark of contingency.” The author has also included a photo of the work that provides the reader with an illustration of what he is talking about. However, the author does not provide any evidence of Sander’s work that he describes, and the reader is therefore left to imagine the description of the artwork.
From a personal perspective, it can be argued that the author’s assumption on the power of photography is convincing. The photographs that Benjamin uses to illustrate his views are proof of this argument. For example, David’s picture was taken decades ago, yet, from a viewer’s observation, it is still possible to view the photo and see the moment captured at that time. The picture also tells a story of when the photo was taken and provides some information about the image’s subject. For instance, it is possible to derive from the picture that the woman’s occupation, which in this case is a fisherwoman and her background. This provides proof to Benjamin’s argument that the photographs make the viewer critically observe the subject in the picture and ask questions concerning the subject. It also shows that art through photographs focuses on the artist and the subject in the image. Thus, the subject in the photo is as important as the artist who made it.
According to Benjamin, photography cannot be silenced because it makes the viewer ask questions about the photograph (Benjamin 510). Unlike photographs that capture the initial moment of the subject, paintings are prone to edition as the artists can paint the subjects as they deem fit. The pictures of Sander and David prove this argument and depict the exact moment when the photographs were taken. David’s photograph, however, provides a clear illustration of this argument.
Benjamin argues that photographs are powerful than paintings because of their ability to offer a “spark of contingency.” He emphasizes his points by using Sander and David’s photos, which provide evidence of photographs’ magic. However, even though the author has offered solid arguments on the power of photos, his statements are subject to critical review since photographs have their disadvantages, which can be used against the perception of their efficiencies.