Index, Icon and Symbol
American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914) introduced the symbol/index/icon triad as a tool of analysis at the core of semiotics (discipline which studies signs and their meanings).
Extrapolated to photography and images as ‘signs’ of their represented ‘reality’, this tool has been widely discussed by photography theorists in the context of its supposed claim to authenticity.
Is an image ever a ‘true’ reflection of reality, is it an indexical, iconic or symbolic depiction of the subject?
I argue that such categorisations need not be mutually exclusive when it comes to photography and that an image can be altogether, to some degree, indexical, iconic and symbolic but ultimately, there is no absolute truth and reality that we can speak of.
To me, photography is a profound exploration of the subject in front of the camera that starts well before the camera is even picked up and continues to evolve through every single viewer’s perception of the resulting image.
For portraiture, the complexities are even greater than with other genres of photography depicting inanimate objects. How can we even begin to claim that we have the absolute truth of what a person looks like? The relativity of perception and interpretation is vast.
Let’s start with a very simple example. Nobody will ever see themselves in the same way others do, and I do mean this literally, before even speaking of the interpretation of what we see in our minds (and therefore, before filtering the raw sensorial information through our own judgement, cultural references, stereotypes, prejudices, self-confidence etc).
I am talking of the fact that usually a person forms an image of themselves by looking in the mirror. What they see is effectively a mirrored image of what we see. When captured on camera and then visualised by its subject, the image is often unfamiliar because it is a mirrored reflection of what they are used to. It is in fact a well-known ‘trick’ for portrait photographers to ‘flip’ the images horizontally when editing client-commissioned portraits, thus giving the subject a representation of their selves that is closer to their version of reality and therefore less liable to rejection. Whose version is a ‘true’ indexical representation of reality then?
The images above of Sienna are simple actor headshots I took in my studio. What happens when we have a different representation of Sienna, where the image is more ‘constructed’ to include symbolism that conveys other aspects relative to the reality represented: for example the purity of childhood expressed through using the colour white, the presence of the teddy bear, hair in pony tails, the ribbons in her hair, on her nightgown and around teddy’s neck. Is it important from an authenticity standpoint that these artefacts actually belong to Sienna (they don’t) or is it important that this is captured just before Sienna goes to bed (it isn’t)? Does the symbolic nature of the artefacts used, that many viewers will be able to relate to, detract from the indexical nature of this being a representation of Sienna? Ever more so as she is an actor therefore often depicted in character, a facet of her reality no less true than her wearing, say, a school uniform?
What happens when photographers go one step further and use digital technology to create images that are less impressionistic and more abstract, such as this example below of a self-portrait from Hungarian digital artist Flora Borsi? Is this a less authentic image of herself because it has been digitally manipulated for the purpose of conveying a message, a feeling, an emotion, and not a ‘true reflection’ of herself in a more traditional interpretation?
Obvious parallels are to be drawn with the visual art of painting and the work of abstract, surrealist and expressionist artists such as Picasso, Dali, Miro, Bacon.
Perhaps it is high time to change the narrative that believes authenticity in photography only runs skin-deep.
Flora Borsi. 2018, from Recent Artwork VI
