What's So New about the “New” Theory of Photography?

This article considers the shift currently taking place in philosophical thinking about photography. What I call “new” theory departs from philosophical orthodoxy with respect to when a photograph comes into existence, a difference with far‐reaching consequences. I trace this to Dawn Wilson (née Phillips) on the “photographic event.” To assess the new theory's newness one needs a grip on the old. I divide this between “skeptical” and “nonskeptical” orthodoxy, where this turns on the theory's implications for photography's standing as art. New theory emerges as a response to skeptical orthodoxy (Roger Scruton) in particular. I divide new theory in turn between “restrictive” (Paloma Atencia‐Linares) and “permissive” (Dominic McIver Lopes) responses to skeptical orthodoxy and raise challenges for both. The restrictive version arguably divides what does and does not count as strictly photographic in arbitrary ways; the permissive version rules in images that are not obviously photographs and faces two difficulties individuating photographs. I conclude by noting several questions that need to be addressed before new theory clearly has the upper hand over orthodoxy. These concern its ability to account for photography's epistemic capacities, the extent to which it constitutes an advance over “nonskeptical” orthodoxy (Kendall Walton), and whether new theorists have yet to be new enough when it comes to photographic agency.