Question: What about 'representation' means that it must be something other than a mere moment?

Scruton’s idea of ‘representation’ focuses strongly on the existance of the photographed object in comparison to the created objects depicted in painting (the example that he uses). He makes the point that when viewing a painting, there are three points of representation. One being the intentional object of sight, which is the representation that the viewer is meant to see symbolized by the painting. The represented object is loosely based on the painters intention, the mode in which the painter used to portray their symbolism. And then there is the material object of sight, which would constitute as the painting as a whole. Scruton claims that when we view a painting, we can then make an inference as to what is being represented and what the intentions are.

This photograph, "Dali Atomicus" is Philippe Halsman’s (photographer) reference both to the new atomic age (physicists had recently announced that all matter hangs in a constant state of suspension) and to Dalí’s surrealist masterpiece “Leda Atomica” (which hangs on the right, behind the cats, and unfinished at the time). In 1941 Halsman met the surrealist Salvador Dalí and they began to collaborate in the late 1940s.

I don’t think that Scruton is claiming that a mere moment isn’t capable of representation. Rather he is implying that with photography, one is limited to photographing the existing world as is, and therefore leaves no room for artistic intent unless the photographer “becomes a painter of sorts”. His argument supports the fact that a photograph is simply a captured moment in time and although that moment may have represented the general feel of the times, or the like, it is not the photograph itself that is representational, it is the moment. The photograph has just captured a moment and provided the photographer with a hard-copy of that moment.
I would argue that Scruton’s ideals for what the essence of photography is, is skewed. His definition seems to only capture the very basics of what photography is capable of. There must be some artistic merit in the ability of a “good photographer” to choose their targets carefully and with the right timing to capture the intent that they are going for. Even in staged photographs, there are techniques used with lighting, shutter speed, exposure time, and a variety of other methods, many being specific to the art of photography and cannot be attributed to painting or other art forms. I would argue that one could find representation in the art of photography itself. Photographers often put themselves in the way of danger to capture photographs, with this the idea of having a hard-copy of a moment in time which would be otherwise inaccessible to most people, there is room for actual emotional responses since the depictions in the photograph are known to actually exist. In the next section we discuss the problem of evoked emotional responses from fictional characters. When viewing a painting, there needs to be some level of suspended awareness of reality in order to evoke a true emotional response. With a photograph, we are able to allow actual emotional responses because the photographed moment is known to actually have taken place at one time.


Question:

What would Scruton say about film as a visual art?