The text, written in 1977, makes a single passing reference to digital photography as an unlikely and unsuitable alternative to film photography. Given the state of modern photography, do you thing the text is still at all useful?

The text argues that all photography is inherently perverse and "naughty" because it makes photographic viewers into voyeurs. While this may be true of intimate portraiture, do you feel like a voyeur when viewing, say, an 1899 photograph of the Eiffel Tower? Discuss.

The text mentions pornography on only a few occasions and in essence merely as a nod to its existence. Given today's widespread—nearly pervasive—pornographic images, do you feel that the text failed to anticipate the allure of pornography? Why or why not?

Sontag states "[p]hotography is a . . . heroic copulation with the material word" (p. 30). What do you think this statement infers...