The Extent of Realness

In Karen Barad’s Diffractions: Differences, Contingencies, and Entanglements that Matter, she talks about reflexivity- the examination of one’s own beliefs, judgments, and practices during the research process and how these underlying factors may have influenced the research, which brings out questions regarding authenticity and realness in the research results. In the article, Barad points out that diffraction has been widely used as a metaphor for describing the methodological approach to the relations of “relations of difference and how they matter”. In Tristan Garcia’s “The Photographic Real”, she points out the situation that photography has become the dominating purveyor of the real in our representations. However, there is this about when a photograph is taken, could the photographic image be considered as reality? Both authors discuss the definition of realness and explore means of representing realness. The greatest extent of realness is achieved when admitting some of the drawbacks of these approaches.

From both authors, realness is hard to grasp so they have come up with scientific tools to represent realness. For Barad, diffraction is a way of acknowledging the realness of matters that are not easily identifiable. In classical physics, “diffraction patterns are simply the result of differences in overlapping waves”. The research topic for Barad is “building diffraction apparatuses to study the differences of the entangled effects make”. For instance, when light is transmitted through a slit. A pattern of alternating light and dark lines can be observed. It is worth noticing that such a scenario does not create a solid shadow or black area, the diffraction result creates outlines around the light beam edges. Therefore, diffraction proves that these black lines exist. Before the introduction of diffraction, scientists implement the method of reflection to display thoughts as a “critical method of self-positioning”. Diffraction calls for people to notice the differences that one tends to have when thinking and when these differentiated thought methods may lead to results. To put on a closer definition, diffraction patterns are “patterns of difference that make a difference”. In this way, though the differences are not captured by the eyes normally, there is this exhibition of difference provided by diffraction which proves the realness of these changes.

The same is true in Garcia’s essay about the representation of photographs that provide proof of realness. Conventional paintings are acknowledged as “not related to the object represented but to the subject performing the representation.” The objects depicted in a painting might be the purpose of it, but not the material cause of the representation. The author of the painting would alter the subject to represent his or her ideas. On the contrary, the photographic device is the represented object. The public accepts photography’s “given real” and believes that there is this “casual continuity between what is photographed and the photograph of it.” The shared belief is that “what is essentially given in the photographic image is Nature.” Photography is composed without the hand of the man as it is a “nature writing of light” so there are fewer alternations. Photography is the exact natural form of the things-the object with the finest details projected onto a canvas. In this way, photography has been accepted as a representational tool of realness.

However, questions have been brought up as both the method of diffraction and photography have flaws in capturing realness. I would like to explore more in detail about these two carriers: the diffraction moment and the photographic lens. In the diffraction experiment, there are constantly two objectives: one is to learn about the substance which passes through the grating while another one is to learn about the grating itself. For the photographic lens, there are studies about the final photograph, and debates about what has been changed when photons pass through the lens.

The two-slits experiment is brought up by Barad to support the point that diffraction may have some neglected aspects in capturing how matters behave. In the experiment, the top slit is attached by springs while the bottom slit is attached to the frame. It is astonishing to notice that the particles hardly hit the screen on the other side. Moreover, the particles go through the diffraction grating one at a time when there are no obstacles. This is because “under some circumstances, matter exhibits wavelike behavior”. The result is counterintuitive since particles are not waves and therefore shall not have the effect of superposition. Therefore, we can’t say that diffraction proves the realness of how photons behave. One can only agree that diffraction proves the realness of differences.

There are some major differences between diffraction and reflection in general terms. Diffraction started from a diffraction pattern and looks and differences and relationalities while reflection starts at a mirror image and explores sameness and mimesis. Diffraction is about making a difference in the world by “taking responsibility for the fact that our practices matter.” When reflection is about representation by “finding accurate representations about the gaze from afar”. Diffraction’s subject matter is not fixed and is accounting for how practices matter while refection’s subject matter is fixed to reflect on representations. Therefore, diffraction is an acknowledgment of the differences in practices and how they matter in the results. We do not necessarily alter the practices, we learn about the phenomena--“about specific material configurations of the world’s becoming”. Diffraction is a practice of knowing the differences and making specific worldly configurations. When doing science experiments, the practitioners hope to have both the methods and results objective. However, objectivity is not achieved by having a mirroring representation, but rather by acknowledging the material entanglements that are involved in the experiments.

Likewise, a photograph is also a representation of what was there when admitting some flaws of representing realness. Photographs ceased to capture the qualities of the object and turn to prove that the objects existed or were there. Photography carries people’s hope of “resurrection into aesthetic affectivity.” When people die, the photos become proof that the person has existed. The photographs here do not represent the object’s materiality, but a proof of an object’s existence at the moment when the photo was taken. Photography is also linked to casualty. For instance, when one sees smoke, there is an indication of fire. Therefore “what is real in photography is not what was, but the imprint of what was.” The object in a photograph may have lost reality since it was in the past. However, the photograph has conserved something from this encounter. The fourth ontological retreat would be Photonic Imprint. Some things can never be imprinted on a photograph such as emotions. What is real is not what is captured, but those “remain at a distance, forever separated in its fleeting presence”. The ontology raises the definition of realness in different phases and there might not be an answer to it. The outstanding point is that “there does exist a real continuity between the photographed and the photography-which is not a material continuity”.

The given real of photography is information. One shall consider that photographs consist of abstracted information between a bundle of particles and a sensitive surface. The approach considers that the photographs capture the relation between certain materials elements instead of the material elements themselves. Photographs extract luminous information from the objects. When one looks at a photograph, one is looking at an event. However, when the photographs are considered as an event, they cease to conserve real information about the past.

In conclusion, the diffractive methodology enables one to return to the start and raises more questions for quantum physics. Realism can be understood in the realm of quantum physics interpretation. Interesting questions about the entangled objects, objectivity, and authenticity are raised and talked about when implementing the diffractive methodology. To expand on merely physics practices, diffraction is not only a material-discursive practice but also can be related to everyday life as a critical practice as diffraction calls people to notice the differences in scientific experiments to achieve realness to the greatest extent. Similarly, the result of a photograph involves representation. Photograph in a way is not “absenting something present, rather than as the presentation of something absent”. In the photographs, there is this absence of the singular presence of matter. When looking at a photograph, everything that is not luminous is abstracted and becomes absent. However, the absence of something will always be presented by image. A conclusion of understanding photography would be acknowledging matter is absent so that there isn’t a complete realness in the photographs. What is being presented is information derived from the object and the events. Still, acknowledging the drawbacks and flaws of photographs bring people to the nearest edge of realness.

References:

1. Barad, Karen Michelle. Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Duke University Press, 2006.

2. Tristan Garcia - The Photographic Real. Glass Bead, https://www.glass-bead.org/article/the-photographic-real/?lang=enview.