ective world and for expressing the singular self.
2 s) j2 B6 j* ]1 W9 x( m* KPhotographs depict objective realities that already
+ c# F! [5 L) V, d7 v9 aexist, though only the camera can disclose them. And & Z3 L) J& b! j. _/ G. B d Q/ t
they depict an individual photographer’s tempera- , M0 n7 K2 o6 D# u1 R
ment discovering itself through the camera’s cropping 5 ], I& M. t4 c9 M8 T( C9 N
of reality. That is, photography has two antithetical 2 N7 f% d( f, {
ideals: in the first, photography is about the world
8 T$ {+ q0 ^! i4 ^& {( {+ }1 band the photographer is a mere observer who counts a+ z' s( k: l A6 [8 i3 L
for little; but in the second, photography is the 2 U3 H3 j/ z: [/ j
instrument of intrepid, questing subjectivity and the
; W0 m8 J; }2 ^* V: K4 Uphotographer is all. . F7 Q, A/ C; g7 K7 \! |, ?
These conflicting ideals arise from a fundamental 6 N3 ^& m8 w0 Z' j9 W) x
uneasiness on the part of both photographers and
; Q" h2 `+ G U! r2 a) }4 L* rviewers of photographs toward the aggressive compo-
& H3 c/ x) o _- O+ @- Cnent in “taking” a picture. Accordingly, the ideal of a
. `0 ^. N6 b% B# T% gphotographer as observer is attractive because it / m4 f0 I z; `1 B. e/ B
implicitly denies that picture-taking is an aggressive
* ~4 C0 V) ^* n/ T& x/ nact. The issue, of course, is not so clear-cut. What
1 i. q Z" t' D8 V+ x/ sphotographers do cannot be characterized as simply ) m4 G7 O$ _' X# s
predatory or as simply, and essentially, benevolent.
, w, U$ G# W' c, g0 A7 l! YAs a consequence, one ideal of picture-taking or the 0 B' Q- Q# O; M. U2 Y& z& d, _
other is always being rediscovered and championed. 2 ]5 N% |% Q; H. x" k. s
An important result of the coexistence of these two
6 [& J$ M8 S1 ]ideals is a recurrent ambivalence toward photog- ( a2 N4 |, q" |: V: ^8 N
raphy’s means. Whatever the claims that photography " T# m3 Y {. H6 j* X# d. o
might make to be a form of personal expression on a
5 a% l0 ^! c# ^- U8 `" npar with painting, its originality is inextricably linked `/ L4 i7 a- `
to the powers of a machine. The steady growth of
# T$ f+ W# r) v, J- ?these powers has made possible the extraordinary # ]% _$ a7 i4 Z
informativeness and imaginative formal beauty of
4 k- D. [' B$ }6 H2 _many photographs, like Harold Edgerton’s high-speed , L( X+ j O" N; @' M9 l
photographs of a bullet hitting its target or of the * o+ z, V. o! \ D3 P& G
swirls and eddies of a tennis stroke. But as cameras ! k, P( X0 c) u
become more sophisticated, more automated, some
. w. c. ~: R4 D, U/ Zphotographers are tempted to disarm themselves or to
; m# J7 |$ ^3 z" d, ^- }suggest that they are not really armed, preferring to # c/ A S' L7 O
submit themselves to the limits imposed by premodern : Q/ B) }& K5 N+ Y' _
camera technology because a cruder, less high- $ [0 R) i( ~6 k9 P! E- X
powered machine is thought to give more interesting
2 O% g3 O' N0 sor emotive results, to leave more room for creative ( |4 @2 ]- J m
accident. For example, it has been virtually a point of
/ R4 \7 h% Z7 U6 _! ~; ?* lhonor for many photographers, including Walker & d# {0 s- k/ \, ~
Evans and Cartier-Bresson, to refuse to use modern
+ ~: m/ }) c$ y7 e# Hequipment. These photographers have come to doubt
$ }' {3 F2 G# z# Othe value of the camera a an instrument of “fast
+ v9 S, p. k- N) _+ Zseeing.” Cartier- Bresson, in fact, claims that the 0 s) q0 _3 `) q% o# j
modern camera may see too fast. 8 K' D/ s$ `* v3 X
This ambivalence toward photographic means 6 x; ^ [7 Q" k) E7 y5 [
determines trends in taste. The cult of the future (of
% z4 H/ ~+ R3 A; K, e! ifaster and faster seeing) alternates over time with the
+ X" t7 P9 ]. n2 H6 k9 |% j0 `wish to return to a purer past—when images had a ( |2 }' g$ z- ^6 r& x$ }
handmade quality. This nostalgia for some pristine 2 N% D# U6 B1 c% \' f9 p# i) f
state of the photographic enterprise is currently wide-
8 y7 P. \ N4 t& k: tspread and underlies the present-day enthusiasm for
/ U# \4 i( G+ rdaguerreotypes and the work of forgotten nineteenth-
6 Y" K2 x4 a, `century provincial photographers. Photographers and 9 P( ]2 ?" v+ `- X) M- N
viewers of photographs, it seems, need periodically to
! n$ W& ~ i& tresist their own knowingness. ! [+ G, Q5 M l S& o& h9 @6 v
6 H( \& M( Y4 n+ y) C0 V5 a! w
21. According to the passage, interest among photo- . }9 |' M: F7 H& ^
graphers in each of photography’s two ideals
' ^; _ w( o# W, A* bcan be described as / d1 J: N" @. u# p
(A) rapidly changing 7 `, J z# s+ e4 O/ O# v$ ^
(B) cyclically recurring " o5 t2 T4 L b+ E
(C) steadily growing
: [7 @: X" w' H; w (D) unimportant to the viewers of photographs
( W. H# k% l8 |; o. Q/ { (E) unrelated to changes in technology |