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

Scruton makes the claim that in a representation, there is in an importance that needs to be placed on the expression of something. For him photography is not an expression of something, which is"give a voice to a thought about [something's] nature". Photography is rather a sign of something's nature, which helps you infer something about that nature's permanence through an impermanent mode. The problem for him lies in the expression of thought.

Andres Serrano




























Weegee



How does one aesthetically appreciate photography of death?

One of the objections that Scruton makes against considering photography as representational, to the extent that we can consider painting to be one is that photography can only capture a moment. He is well aware that the argument that could be raise against him might be that of portrait painting and so he addresses by saying in painting a portrait the aim of the artist is to, by capturing a sense of time, represent its subject extended in time. He goes on to argue that the creation of this appearance is a creation of thought. The claim seems to be that photography cannot be a creation of thought since that which it captures does not lend itself to much thought at the time of being capture, since it is of course a single moment in that which is being represented.


















My inquiry has to do with how one would or could consider something like photography collages, and whether his objection would still stand? In the collage pictured the subject is definitely not shown as a mere moment and yet it is still a photography to a certain extent, isn't it?
Also, what about slow shutter speed photographs?