Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. Fascinating investigation into the temporality argument in photography - and your framework to consider a more interdisciplinary approach in considering the relationship between time and photography is relevant and necessary.  Here are a few suggestions to augment the ideas expressed:

1. Lines 44-84 - academic expression could be honed even further here, letting the research idea be the focus and limiting the use of personal pronouns. Perhaps instead of 'I will' - you could shift to 'this paper will'.

2. Line 112 - Some repetition of an earlier line - perhaps change the syntactical arrangement - Perhaps: 'As with Fake, they, too, believe....

3. Lines 233 - 237 Font size issue (might just be on my copy)

4. Section 4 - could benefit from a topic sentence that precedes the first 'we shall' sentences.

5. Line 399 - is the word 'own' needed' - If so, then may want to rewrite something along the lines of ' and for the first time, got their own king…'

6. Lines 625-626 - perhaps 'the remainder of the article will....'

7. lines 714-716 - referencing confusion as it is difficult to ascertain which idea(s) belong to which reference.

8. line 745 - perhaps reword to 'As quote earlier...'

9. Reference list inconsistencies

Overall - tighten the academic language throughout, avoid contractions (line 683 example) and be sure to italicise book titles in the document (again, my version might not have formatted your document perfectly, so apologies if this was not an issue).

As mentioned above - this is a wonderful contribution, and these adjustments will make these ideas even more relatable and accessible.

Author Response

Response to Review #1

Thank you for your kind review and helpful suggestions. I appreciate your constructive and neatly numbered input. I have responded to them all below.

Unfortunately, the lines given for the script do not quite match the script I have been sent, but I have tried to locate the relevant references in the text and address them accordingly.

1. Thank you for this input. I have moderated personal pronouns, especially in the introduction and occasionally during the course. I have also clarified the research idea both initially and in some places along the way. I hope it works better now.

2. Unfortunately, as the line numbers do not match and the phrase used is not quoted, I cannot locate this particular repetition of an earlier line. I have read thoroughly through the manuscript, looking for unnecessary repetitions. I will also pay attention to this in the next step in the manuscript process.

3. Font size issues have now been adjusted.

4. The last sentence (and paragraph) before section 4 indicates the topic of the coming section. I also tried to adjust the first sentence under section 4 to read, "Before we examine the relationships between photography and time more specifically, we shall broaden the scope of photographic practices," but I changed it back for linguistic reasons. I hope that this is OK.

5. Thank you for reading this text so carefully. The word 'own' is, in fact, needed (they had a king with Sweden and before that with Denmark for hundreds of years). They also had plenty of kings (of their own) before the 1530s, so it was not the first time they had their own king, but the first time in modern times (the first time in nearly 400 years). So, this is the best phrase I have found so far.

6. OK, thank you. I have changed this as per your suggestion.

7. I have read this carefully to see where the confusion arises. The only potential confusion I find is when a reference is part of a quotation (Kohn, 2016: 3). I will change the referencing style later in the process (if the article is to be published in this journal). I will then see if I can remove this potential confusion.

8. I tried to reword it to 'As quoted earlier...' but the rest of the sentence became harder to read. I have clarified the argument that follows this statement.

9. At the next step in the process, I will look at reference list inconsistencies (I have to adjust the reference technique).

I have gone through the text and clarified the argument in strategic places. I have yet to identify where in the text there are contractions (I cannot locate the example referred to in line 683), but I will be aware of this during proofreading. Book titles will be italicized (this disappeared during a software conversion).

Again, thank you for your great feedback on my article. I appreciate this.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article revisits photography’s relationship with time, through the lens of Paul Ricoeur’s theorisations on temporality, also drawing upon C.P. Snow’s account of the two cultures of art and science together with the insights of Maynard and Wilder’s discussion of photographic uses in the natural sciences. The article’s strength lies in questioning whether the discursive shift, from considering the photograph’s relationship to the past, with all its connotations of loss and death, to more contemporary thinking of the photographic image as a networked continuous present, unnecessarily narrows down the breadth of our understanding of photography. The article makes a contribution to current thinking through its consideration of Ricoeur’s account of historical time, particularly generational succession, as a means of overcoming the distinction between nature and culture and thus allowing a more complex view of the operations of photography. The article considers examples in the use of photography in science to distinguish between registration and representation and goes on to reconsider the aesthetics of the decisive moment, concluding that interdisciplinary viewpoints, including those from philosophy will be crucial ingredients in understanding the future of technical imaging.

The article as currently formulated has several weaknesses, which with judicious amendment could present a stronger case. Firstly, the characterisation of the shift to ‘presentness’ in photographic discourse is slight and reductive. There is a world of difference between interest in the ubiquity of the image in social media uses (Hand) and the relational nature of the image’s circulation in networks (Rubinstein and Sluis). The former continues a social interest in vernacular photography, whilst the later, questions whether the computational image can still be considered to be photography. The article would be improved by defining what it includes under the term photography and how, if at all, this differs from the use of the term image. The privileging of time in relationship to the discourse of the contemporary technical image, precludes one of its most central features, that of its vastly increased scale, which has been another way of considering temporality. Additionally, focus upon the materiality of image technologies, has opened discussion of deep time. It is therefore not true, as the article claims, that ‘no one has critically viewed the temporal dimensions of today’s photographic conditions’. (line 187). I would draw the author’s attention to; Andrew Dewdney’s (2022) Forget Photography, Goldmiths/MIT Press, which includes and extensive discussion of photography and temporality, drawing upon Ricouer’s notion of historical time; Joanna Zylinska’s (2020) NonHuman Photography,  which centrally considers temporality in relationship to changes in image technologies and Ingrid Hoelzl and Remi Marie’s (2015) Softimage – Towards a New Theory of the Digital Image. Intellect Press, which discusses temporality in relationship to the networked image received as a locational signal. These criticisms do not take away from the value of philosophical thinking about time as an important means to understanding contemporary imaging and the technical and aesthetic practices of photography. Indeed the article would be much improved if it were more specifically and narrowly focused upon Ricoeur’s problematic of time with, for example, in relation to an expanded explanation of Kittler’s conception of mediation. Alternatively, it could confine itself to discussing Ricoeur’s notion of historical time in relationship to its account of photography used as a scientific tool and the problematic of the many photographies. In both of these ways the article would be more consistently theoretical. In this particular respect I would recommend deleting the section on the decisive moment (line 730-784 and the section on Barthes (line 786-808). As it stands the jump to photographic discourse (from line 480) is guilty of the very generalisations it claims to want to avoid. My view is that the article is stronger when discussing philosophy, than it is in discussing photographic discourse. The argument made for interdisciplinarity understanding is good, but ignores the fact that photo-discourse strays across many boundaries of art, aesthetics, media and technology as does image under current conditions.

Author Response

Response to Review #2

Thank you so much for taking the time to review my article and allowing me to make improvements. I appreciate it. Based on the general feedback provided at the top of the review, some areas could be improved, but they are not requirements. I believe these specific points are outlined in the text below the table. In dealing with the criticism outlined in the text step by step, I aim to address the broader proposals mentioned in the overall review. I hope my understanding of the connection between the table and the written text is accurate.

The critique is organized into two large sections. The first indicates how the project is perceived and outlines what is considered the article's strength. In the second large paragraph, reviewer # 2 addresses what they believe to be the article's weaknesses. The reviewer suggests three books and presents some suggestions for changes to the text's structure and argument. For my response to these inputs to be clear and comprehensible, I have chosen to reproduce the text of Reviewer #2 in the order in which it is available and divide it consecutively into manageable sections.

Paragraph 1

Reviewer #2: The article revisits photography’s relationship with time, through the lens of Paul Ricoeur’s theorisations on temporality, also drawing upon C.P. Snow’s account of the two cultures of art and science together with the insights of Maynard and Wilder’s discussion of photographic uses in the natural sciences. The article’s strength lies in questioning whether the discursive shift, from considering the photograph’s relationship to the past, with all its connotations of loss and death, to more contemporary thinking of the photographic image as a networked continuous present, unnecessarily narrows down the breadth of our understanding of photography.

Author: Thank you. This general presentation of the article shows that the project is relatively well understood, which I greatly appreciate. Let me emphasize that my criticism of the discursive shift focuses on the conception of time and that both photography and time and the relationship between photography and time are unnecessarily narrowed in the said discourse.

Reviewer #2: The article makes a contribution to current thinking through its consideration of Ricoeur’s account of historical time, particularly generational succession, as a means of overcoming the distinction between nature and culture and thus allowing a more complex view of the operations of photography. The article considers examples in the use of photography in science to distinguish between registration and representation and goes on to reconsider the aesthetics of the decisive moment, concluding that interdisciplinary viewpoints, including those from philosophy will be crucial ingredients in understanding the future of technical imaging.

Author: I am grateful that Ricoeur's contribution to the conception of historical time is appreciated in the context of photography. Let me emphasize that his entire apparatus of "reflective instruments" (and not just the second bridge) is offered to be able to discuss the relationship between photography and time in more dynamic and complex ways. After the article expands the scope of photographic practices so that not only time but also photography can be considered across arts and sciences, the article works through a heterogeneous selection of photographic practices to show how such an interdisciplinary apparatus provides rich opportunities for discussing a great many different types of photographic practices in terms of time. In conclusion, when I briefly thematize the future of photography, the importance of this interdisciplinary approach is emphasized to meet the challenges we face (among other things conceptually). It is not generally about technical images; it will be a far more comprehensive term. In contrast, it concerns the future of photography as a technical image.

Paragraph 2

Reviewer #2:

The article as currently formulated has several weaknesses, which with judicious amendment could present a stronger case. Firstly, the characterisation of the shift to ‘presentness’ in photographic discourse is slight and reductive. There is a world of difference between interest in the ubiquity of the image in social media uses (Hand) and the relational nature of the image’s circulation in networks (Rubinstein and Sluis). The former continues a social interest in vernacular photography, whilst the later, questions whether the computational image can still be considered to be photography. The article would be improved by defining what it includes under the term photography and how, if at all, this differs from the use of the term image. The privileging of time in relationship to the discourse of the contemporary technical image, precludes one of its most central features, that of its vastly increased scale, which has been another way of considering temporality. Additionally, focus upon the materiality of image technologies, has opened discussion of deep time. It is therefore not true, as the article claims, that ‘no one has critically viewed the temporal dimensions of today’s photographic conditions’. (line 187). 

Author: Let me start with the end. Perhaps all these critical remarks culminate in the sentence: "It is therefore not true, as the article claims, that 'no one has critically viewed the temporal dimensions of today's photographic conditions'. (line 187)." This is a very unfortunate phrasing. Thank you so much for discovering it. It has now been changed, so it should be clear that I am criticizing the temporal dimension in the discourse as mentioned earlier, i.e., the claim of a shift from the past to the present. I have looked through the article to see if several wordings need to be adjusted so that this project appears clear and precise.

The discussed discourse is extensive and heterogeneous, and I do not mean to reduce everything to the same thing. I only go into the part of this discursive shift that is about temporality and the relationship between time and photography. I do not refer to photography and image as synonymous. In this discursive shift, I stress that much of what is not primarily about time and photography is good and interesting. I also refer to sound critical discussions of several of these dimensions. It is such a critical discussion of the conception of time in this discourse that I call for. I don't generally write about technical images, which I consider a much more extensive notion. I could define photography, but have chosen to characterize it, with Maynard, as a family of technologies. That said, in the scope of photographic practices and the discussions of the examples towards the end (not least in the discussion of the decisive moment in the meeting with computational and AI-enhanced photography), a long series of intricate factors emerge that I believe we must take into account when we discuss what to include or relate to as family members in the heterogeneous family of photographic technologies. I have not addressed the question of deep time specifically. Still, I believe it can be discussed in relation to Ricoeur's overall apparatus of "reflective instruments" (then perhaps especially the first and third bridges). Many other questions about photography and time are not specifically discussed here (for example, Yanai Toyster has written a wonderful article about the idiosyncracies of speed which, among other things, is about the history of shutter speed). I think that this can also be related to Ricoeur's concept of "third time", but I have not gone into all these intricate questions and concentrated on a societal concept of time that can go across the arts and sciences.

Reviewer #2: I would draw the author’s attention to; Andrew Dewdney’s (2022) Forget Photography, Goldmiths/MIT Press, which includes and extensive discussion of photography and temporality, drawing upon Ricouer’s notion of historical time; Joanna Zylinska’s (2020) NonHuman Photography,  which centrally considers temporality in relationship to changes in image technologies and Ingrid Hoelzl and Remi Marie’s (2015) Softimage – Towards a New Theory of the Digital Image. Intellect Press, which discusses temporality in relationship to the networked image received as a locational signal. 

Author: Thanks for these three book tips. I have read all three of them and also reviewed them when writing this article. Andrew Dewdney's book is excellent. His use of Ricoeur is with reference to the book "Memory, History, Forgetting", which is certainly interesting but does not offer the complex apparatus across arts and sciences that I am looking for here. The other two discuss relevant topics in relation to photography and time, as do many other authors, such as Michelle Henning in Photography. The Unfettered Image, Tomáš Dvořák and Jussi Parikka's Photography Off the Scale, and Kris Belden-Adams' Photography, Temporality and Modernity, which I considered including, but I ended up setting aside because they do not engage critically with the discourse that claims a shift from the past to the present. Many other photo theorists are drawn in, especially towards the end when I discuss concrete photographic practices.

Reviewer #2: These criticisms do not take away from the value of philosophical thinking about time as an important means to understanding contemporary imaging and the technical and aesthetic practices of photography. Indeed the article would be much improved if it were more specifically and narrowly focused upon Ricoeur’s problematic of time with, for example, in relation to an expanded explanation of Kittler’s conception of mediation. Alternatively, it could confine itself to discussing Ricoeur’s notion of historical time in relationship to its account of photography used as a scientific tool and the problematic of the many photographies. In both of these ways the article would be more consistently theoretical. In this particular respect I would recommend deleting the section on the decisive moment (line 730-784 and the section on Barthes (line 786-808). As it stands the jump to photographic discourse (from line 480) is guilty of the very generalisations it claims to want to avoid. My view is that the article is stronger when discussing philosophy, than it is in discussing photographic discourse. The argument made for interdisciplinarity understanding is good, but ignores the fact that photo-discourse strays across many boundaries of art, aesthetics, media and technology as does image under current conditions.

Author: Thank you again for appreciating the value of philosophical thinking about time as an essential means for understanding photographic practices. The proposal to focus on Ricoeur and relate this to a more expanded discussion about Kittler's concept of mediation is an entirely different article. It is difficult to see how a discussion of Kittler's concept of mediation would improve this article. On the contrary, I think it will create more trouble than it is worth, not least because Kittler, in that context, is more concerned with storage than experience and will not recognize - or at least cannot easily be combined with - the phenomenological dimension of Ricoeur's philosophical hermeneutic - which is essential for understanding Ricoeur's fundamental perspective of bringing together a philosophy for the external world with a philosophy for human experience.

I am not sure if I comprehend what is meant by "the problematic of the many photographies" in the alternative proposal, but to discuss Ricoeur's notion of historical time in relationship to its account of photography used as in science will set aside the entire discursive shift from photography as associated with the past to the present, which is the framework for this article. Ricoeur's concept of time cuts across the arts and sciences, and I argue that a concept of photography should also do so. We need a complex concept of time and a far more heterogeneous and complex perception of what can be considered photographic practices. The question of the many photographies is discussed in the conceptual framework (sections 3 and 4) and, not least, in the many discussions around photography and time in the analytical discussion section (section 5).

Unfortunately, there is a mismatch between the line references in this review and the line references in the manuscript I have been sent. Therefore, I cannot locate where there should be a "jump to photographic discourse (from line 480)". However, the claim that the article (or this particular place in the article) should be "guilty of the very generalizations it claims to want to avoid" is surprising. This perception may be due to the unfortunate phrase pointed out above. I argue for expanding the perspective on both time and photography. I am not arguing with this to say that everything is the same, neither when it comes to photography nor when it comes to time. On the contrary, I am calling for a heterogeneous concept of time that is flexible enough to allow it to be used to discuss many different types of phenomena and many kinds of photographic practices. Similarly, I argue for discussing many different types of photographic practices in all their heterogeneity.

Both the discussion of the decisive moment and the section on Barthes are part of this heterogeneity. The discussion of the decisive moment connects rhetorically and argumentatively back to the opening. I discuss this in section 5 to show that the conceptual and analytical distinctions I have introduced will provide a more qualified discussion of this aesthetic ideal. Firstly, a distinction between recording and display is needed. Secondly, it is helpful to distinguish analytically between chronos and kairos and also understand that kairos combines the time of physics with the time of experience if we can say it with Ricoeur. Furthermore, the discussion about the decisive moment is used to show that we must collaborate across academic disciplines to qualify ourselves for the challenges that photography is now facing: we must collaborate with researchers from, for example, computer science and informatics to gain a better understanding of the future photography, when the camera is not only computational but also AI-enhanced. This example is, therefore, crucial to this article's argument. I have now clarified this argument. As for the section with Barthes, I have also clarified the argument. I am referring to the place in Barthes' text where he most clearly writes his perspective on the relationship between photography and time into a social and societal perspective on time. This is important not only or primarily to understand Barthes's concept of time, but to get a better grasp of the social and societal concept of time that lies in Ricoeur's conception of a "third time". It is not only today's photographic practices that are too poorly understood when it is claimed that today's photo points to the present or the future. Also, the claim that one before linked photography to the past is flawed, and it is not only because one then takes into account a very narrow range of photographic practices (and overlooks, for example, scientific and bureaucratic uses of photography) but also because one has too limited a concept about time. Barthes's section is one of many to show this.

I thank you for the positive feedback on the philosophical perspective in this article. Let me conclude by stressing that I in no way wish to underestimate the fact that photographic discourses cross academic disciplines (and also far beyond academia, to galleries, photography clubs, bureaucratic institutions, etc.). On the contrary, I appeal to an awareness of this when I seek to expand this interdisciplinarity to include academic resources from several academic faculties. I hope that this is now clear in the article.