Postman introduces the idea that it is a “custom to speak of photography as a language” and as a way of presenting to the world. Living in an era with such constant progression, this can only prove to be true. Postman demonstrates that photography is a language, but in no way does it compare with the actual written word. He says that photography has “no syntax” and deals only in “particularities,” and “concrete representation”. In a way, Postman can be correct. A picture is a picture. If it is not faked, it is a still in time. Someone was present at that time and moment to watch this event happen. To “snap” this picture. It’s proof. It acts as a “there, look what I just saw”. There is no room for argument because clearly, this picture is fact. We encounter pictures every day and at all moments, hardly do we go about arguing “no, your cat did not just take a nap on that window sill”. That would be completely illogical because the photographer was present to capture this moment. Photography has no syntax because it leaves no room for debate or argument. Photography can express and show, but it is not written language. In written language, we can debate and criticize, argue and accept words. We use that language to provide context and understanding. Susan Sontag makes the point that we are forming understanding by not accepting the world as we see it. Only then can we truly understand. The whole concept sounds pretty cryptic to me, but I can deduct a good meaning from it. By seeing a picture, we are accepting. We are seeing the world and we are accepting it as it is shown to us. However, if the first step to understanding is to not accept the world as we see it, how can a photograph be a basis for an argument?

Now, I’m going to approach the other side of this statement. In present times, everything is captured by a photograph. Everything is posted everywhere for everyone to see. We have sites such as Instagram that broadcast our lives to others miles away, we gain ego points for every “like” we get on a picture. Because these pictures are a part of someone’s life they have meaning. These pictures can represent an individual person. One time in high school I had a self-portrait project. Using no words, I had to describe who I was in a picture. I used symbols, colors, objects. These all had meaning and carried their own syntax. By using colors I was showing my personality, I was even showing my fears and hopes in objects. This picture was me. It was my struggle and my dreams and every atom that makes me in one picture. It left room for debate and critique because it was ambiguous. There is a famous mysterious artist called Banksy. He is centered in New York and graffiti on walls. It isn’t normal graffiti though, its art. It is open to interpretation and leaves so much room for debate. It tackles social and political issues and can hold more power than words.

I believe that photographs can represent abstract ideas and hold their own syntax. With the media and all the new sharing technology, the world can be put to flames with just one photograph that sparks debate.