Digital Media and Indexical Reference - Reconsideration of the Photo-Index Theory from a Peircean Point of View -

Is a digital photography also an index as well as an analogue one? Following Charles S. Peirce, most of contemporary theorists who are looking for what the identity of photography is have been regarding it as a kind of indices. After the advent of digital photo, however, the photo-index theory has begun to be questioned. Since, according to Peirce, the index which is one of the sorts of signs that is classified in terms of its relation with its object, is usually defined as a sign which is physically contiguous to its object, a number of photo-theorists appear to deny a digital photo is not an index. Disagreeing them, I'm trying to figure out why the digital photo could be regarded as the index in such a way as Peirce have thought what the index is. Then, what is the index according to Peirce? Following the specification of Albert Atkin, I consider the 5 features of the indices such as Significatory, Independence, Singularity, Indicatory, and Phenomenological feature. If an index satisfies all these 5 features, it could be regarded as just an index, but if not, it should be called a sort of sub-indices such as proper names or relative pronouns. I think we have to distinguish 2 kinds of digital images concerning if it’s synthesized or not. In the case of the images which is called ‘the original file’, while the synthesized one which has no reference or refer to the virtual reality. However, If we can call all kinds of digital photos the indices, I don’t think the photo-index theory is useful for us to answer the question, “what is the photography?” because Peirce’s concept of the index, according to his Synechism, is too vague and general. Therefore, I propose proceeding to the ontology for the digital media phenomena beyond the photo-index theory.