[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
of photographs were not intended to, and do not comfortably, fit into
this special arena. Therefore some jarring occurs (from both sides) when
photographs are exhibited and sold as fine art. Second, the definition
of what constitutes art has dramatically changed since photography s
invention. Therefore the type of image which was originally consid-
ered artistic is vastly different from the ones which now are promoted
as fine art. Third, the vast majority of photographs throughout the
medium s history have been those that emphasise subject matter (and
downplay individuality of authorship), that have been utilitarian, mass-
reproduced and functional in society, whereas fine art tends to empha-
size originality, uniqueness, the vision of the genius-artist, and its iso-
lation from any utilitarian function.
At the next level of photographic appreciation it is necessary to take some of
the implied assumptions in these principles and attempt to clarify them. One
of the problems which quickly will be encountered is that the assertions will
not allow themselves to be neatly packaged into discrete bits, each following
the other in a logical, linear sequence.
There is a good reason for this difficulty.
Students of art history are well aware of the convenience in assigning
names to styles in chronological order: neo-classicism romanticism
impressionism post-impressionism cubism and so on. Such
categorization may not be ideal but it is a useful guide for the neo-
phyte.
Unfortunately no such categories can be used in photography. Photog-
raphy of merit is a mixture of antithetical concerns and styles. More so
ART, AND WHY IT IS SO DIFFERENT " 61
today than at any time in the medium s history, widely different styles
and attitudes comfortably cohabit the field of photography and pro-
duce a plethora of diverse images, all of which could be considered as
having merit.
By and large, then, photography is bereft of styles, groups, move-
ments, collectives. To be more accurate, such stylistic movements, when
they do exist, do not play such crucial roles in the development of
photography as they do in painting. As Susan Sontag has written in
On Photography: What is most interesting about photography s ca-
reer & is that no particular style is rewarded; photography is pre-
sented as a collection of simultaneous but widely differing intentions
and styles which are not perceived as in any way contradictory.
She is right: it is true, it is interesting, but it is also inconvenient for the person
attempting to understand what photographs look like and why they look that
way.
In photography we must, at the outset, change one basic assumption
otherwise all else becomes impossibly confusing. We must discard the
notion that history is linear and consecutive. Photography did not
progress along the trajectory of a spear thrust. It was more like the ex-
plosion of a grenade, throwing fragments of varying shapes and sizes
into a multitude of directions.
A more peaceful, and perhaps accurate, analogy is that photography has
grown organically, from a perfectly formed and complete, albeit small, entity
to the multi-tentacled and frighteningly complex monster which has now en-
gulfed our society. And like all complex organisms, each body-part has a
separate and specialized function. How else can we see bland bank surveil-
lance photographs as part of the same medium as artfully arranged fashion
illustrations?
I am beginning to envy the writers of technical how-to-do-it books. There
is a simple test for each one of their assertions: if the picture came out, it
was good advice: if it didn t, then it was bad advice. No such assurances
62 " ON LOOKING AT PHOTOGRAPHS: DAVID HURN & BILL JAY
and simple tests can be made in any discussion on the appreciation
and understanding of photographs. I am sure that the previous chap-
ter has left lying around a few bones of contention which will be
hotly disputed by the readers. On the whole, however, I think most
serious photographers would agree, at least on the basic principles. In
the following chapter, no consensus of agreement will be found or ex-
pected.
As this discussion of photography, and its meaning, deals with more prob-
lematic issues, so the inevitable divisions of attitudes become more pro-
nounced. But this book would not be complete without delving into these hot
spots, even at the risk of burning fingers. Working on the principle: nothing
ventured, nothing gained, here are a few notes as the basis for discussion
and debate.
For the first couple of decades following photography s birth there was little
or no discussion concerning the art status of the new medium. Photography
was not merely art, it was the finest art. It fulfilled the dream of artists since
the Renaissance: the direct transcription of reality. Note well, emphasized
Jules Janin, editor of the influential magazine L Artiste, that Art has no con-
test whatever with this new rival photography, it is not a coarse mechanical
invention...No. It is the most delicate, the finest, the most complete repro-
duction to which the work of man and the work of God can aspire.
Artists, too, were enraptured. The painter Eugene Delacroix wrote in his jour-
nal: How I regret that such an invention arrived so late, I mean as far as I
am concerned & They [daguerreotypes] are palpable demonstrations of
drawing from nature, of which hither to we have had only imperfect ideas.
Paul Delaroche, one of the most respected artists of the day, declared that
the [photographic] process completely satisfies art s every need, as the
results prove.
In response, some of the best known painters of the time abandoned their
palettes and reached for cameras. Many of the finer photographers of the
early period of the new art were originally painters and their photographs
ART, AND WHY IT IS SO DIFFERENT " 63
hung proudly alongside paintings in exhibitions and salons. These included
Roger Fenton (who studied with Paul Delaroche), Gustave LeGray, Oscar
Rejlander, Henry Peach Robinson, David Octavius Hill, and a host of others.
Before long, however, a growing rift widened between painters and
photographers. Ironically, the very same ability which initially brought
photography its art status (the faithfulness with which it transcribed
reality) eventually led to its rejection as a fine art (the production of
mere records). If photography was to regain some of its lost prestige as
an art, so many practitioners argued, it would need to deny its inherit-
ance as the ideal medium of record-taking, and follow painters in the
direction of image-making. Selection from the real world would have
to give way to the synthesis or creation of a picture.
Oscar Rejlander was the earliest apostle of this new photographic
creed when, in 1857, he constructed an ambitious allegorical picture
called The Two Ways of Life from over 30 separate negatives, printed
with painstaking care into a single combination print. The result was
a deliberate attempt to directly compete with academic painting; it
was, and remains, a rare historical curiosity. Rejlander abandoned
composite pictures two years later. Henry Peach Robinson became
the leading prophet for the new idea, preaching that photography
should abandon reality and aim for artificiality and sentimentality.
By the turn of the century, printing processes were available which allowed
the photographer more control over the appearance of the image. The gum-
bichromate process allowed the photographer to produce images in color,
on rough-textured art papers, which were very similar in appearance to crayon
drawings, pastels or water-colors. The photographer could even introduce
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]