Here below there are extracts of some past reflections. (with some adjustments).
 

Over the course of the last four years, the photographic medium became
a dominant and persistent component of my cross-disciplinary artistic practice.

I have been using photography not only as a creative tool for investigation,
exploration and expression, but also for documentation. However, it was only
recently I started to question the role of the camera and its implications within the
photographic process.

....
By looking at seminal works within the literature on photographic theories, I seeking to shape the ground from which my research on photography and  and its performativity takes inspiration. I examine the photographic process with focus on the camera device and the elements that potentially define it as a phallocentric medium, relating to issues of power, intrusion and control.

 

[extracts from Literature review]

Whilst there is a broad theoretical understanding of the medium of
photography, cultural debates around the status of the photographic image in the 21st
century, and analysis of the different ways to look at photography and photographs,
there is less concerning the powerful role of the camera.

...
Starting with Roland Barthes, his book “Camera Lucida: Reflections on
Photography” (1984), according to Geoffrey Batchen (2009), appears to be one of
the most influential works written in regards to the photographic process and “the
most quoted book in the photographic canon” (2009, 1). However, when Barthes
explains the components engaged during the photographic event he does not include
or refer to the camera as one of the indispensable elements during the act of
photographing. Instead, he refers to the Operator (photographer), the Spectator (the
viewer of the photograph); the eidolon (the person or the thing photographed) and
the photograph. In this case, the camera has been neglected from the photographic
discourse remaining a passive tool in the hands of the Operator.

Furthermore, I looked at the seminal works such as Susan Sontag's “On
Photography” (1979) and Vilem Fusser's “Towards a Philosophy of Photography”
(1983), which include insightful analysis and commentary around the camera and its
characteristics.
Flusser develops his philosophy on photography, focusing on the
interrelation between photographer and camera. He does not separate the
photographer from his camera as the writer cannot be separated from his typewriter
or a painter from his canvas and brushes. According to Flusser the apparatus holds
power over the photographer who “no longer transcends the camera, but is devoured
by its greedy function. He becomes the camera’s extended automatic shutter release.
His behavior is an automatic function of the camera itself” (1983, 42). Within the
gesture of taking a photo, the camera does what the photographer wants and s/he
does what the camera is programmed to do. This implies that the camera is not just a
passive tool but can also exercise power over the person who holds it.

                 “The Latinate term “apparatus” stems from the verb apparare, which
                   is to “prepare”. Latin also contains the verb “praeparare,” however; the
                   difference is one of the prefixes: “ad” and, “prae”. The most available
                   translation for "apparare" in English would be “to make ready” (Flusser,
                   1983, 15)

To speak about the photographic camera, Flusser uses the term apparatus,
highlighting its aspect of “readiness”. The photographer in possession of this object
ready to spring in action, gives the impression of “someone lying-in-wait. This is the
ancient act of stalking which goes back to the Palaeolithic hunter in the tundra”
(1983,23). His actions such as loading, capturing, shooting are linked to the actions
of a hunter who is preparing a foray with the camera in his hand, functioning as a
predatory tool. In this game of hunting, the photographic subject assumes the role of
the pray while the photographer has the power and control of the situation remaining
safe behind his camera-weapon.

This predatory characteristic has also been discussed by Sontag, in her
book, “On photography” (1979), describing the camera as a gun “that’s as automated
as possible, ready to spring” (1979, 14) by pulling the trigger.

Sontag points out further aspects of the photographic process, related to
issues of power, control, voyeurism and sexual fantasy, including in the discourse
the impact the camera has on the photographic subject. According to the author, the
photographer holds in his/her hands a device that enables him/her to control and
“turn people into objects that can be symbolically possessed” (Sontag, 1979, 14).
The camera becomes a signifier of power and control in the way that makes it clear
who has the ultimate decision of how a situation or a person will be captured and
fixed in a photograph. Holding the camera finds its parallelism with “holding the
power”.

A recent example of the camera as signifier of power and control can be
seen in the field of the photojournalism and the picture of the 4 year old Syrian girl
who, according the photojournalist Osman Sagirli, ”surrendered” when he pointed
his camera at her because she assumed it was a gun (Hall, 2015). In this case social
media promotes the powerful role of the camera making explicit its association with
a predatory weapon.

Furthermore, Sontag, in regards to the aggressive character of the camera,
asserts that “the camera doesn't rape, or even possess, though it may presume,
intrude, trespass, distort, exploit, and at the farthest reach of metaphor, assassinate-
all activities that, unlike the sexual push and shove, can be conducted from a
distance, and with some detachment” (1979, 13). On one hand the camera becomes
the shield of the photographer who can “safely” remain invisible and unexposed
whilst taking a physical distance from the whole situation. On the other hand it
enables him to penetrate and intrude into the personal spheres creating an
uncomfortable and uneasy feeling for other human subjects. The possibility to stay
hidden behind the camera and look through the lens without being noticed parallels
the actions of peeping-Tom and sexual voyeur. The taking of a photograph, as
Sontag affirms, sets up a “chronic voyeuristic relation to the world which levels the
meaning of all events” (1979, 11). Sontag, also, speaks explicitly about the camera
as phallus outlining the “central fantasy connected with the camera”:

“The camera as phallus is, at most, a flimsy variant of the
inescapable metaphor that everyone unselfconsciously employs. However
hazy is our awareness of this fantasy, it is named without subtlety whenever
we talk about “loading” and “aiming” a camera, about “shooting” a film”
(1979, 13).

Following Sontag's train of thought, a stereotypical expression during
photo-shooting of “make love to my lens” affirms the proposition that the camera
lens can be seen as a sexual metaphor of the penis; a fantasy-machine for visual
pleasure and ultimately as a phallic symbol, influencing the relationship between
photographer-subject.
In summary, from looking at Flusser and Sontag's works, several
observations emerge that the photographic camera (a) has an active role and holds
the potential to control the photographer's actions (b) has a predatory quality and
might function as a weapon at photographer's hands, which brings him in a position
of power over the subject- target, (c) can become an intrusive and voyeuristic
medium, (d) finds its connection with sexual politics as phallic symbol.

​

....