[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
ART, AND WHY IT IS SO DIFFERENT " 71
artist-photographer often views the professional as an uncultured, if
not illiterate, hack who churns out commercial crap like an inferior
tradesman. Both viewpoints are misguided.
It would be instructive for every reader to sit in on a discussion about photog-
raphy with top-flight professionals, such as a group of documentary photog-
raphers, followed by a visit to a graduate seminar at a university program in
art-photography. I confidently predict that the areas of mutual interest would
be nil. It would be difficult to realize that both groups were talking about the
same medium. Yet the documentarians could meet with a group of profes-
sionals from a widely different area of specialization and find most points in
common; the art photographers could meet with a group of print-makers
(such as lithographers) and also find most points in common.
For those readers who wish to understand the critical language and
aesthetic issues in much of art photography, it is recommended that
you read art-oriented books of appreciation and theories of structural-
ism, formalism, post-modernism and various other -isms of aesthetics.
The basic principles of photography do not apply or, to be more spe-
cific, their application is not very helpful.
However, there is one fundamental difference between the vast majority of
photographs and the small area of art-photography which will help to guide
viewers in the right direction. Most photographs, as we have seen, place
emphasis on the subject matter seen through the window of the print; most
art-photographs place emphasis on the idea of the image reflected from the
mirror of the print, to use John Szarkowski s terminology. What this means is
that much of art is concerned with problems of perception, aesthetic theo-
ries, subjective attitudes of the artist and so on. The emphasis has shifted
from the subject to the artist and/or to the process by which photographs are
made. They are not intended to be of something but about ideas. And it is
helpful to have a prior knowledge of these art ideas when attempting to
understand the images.
As a rule, critics are no help in this regard. Their words are often so
obtuse that I suspect they too are baffled by the image and hide their
72 " ON LOOKING AT PHOTOGRAPHS: DAVID HURN & BILL JAY
bewilderment behind a barrage of art-jargon. And do not forget that
much art-photography has no specific meaning which will be unrav-
eled given enough prior knowledge of aesthetic issues. There is no need
to feel intimidated when confronted by an unintelligible mixed-media
image, because the simple fact may be that the work is stylistically bril-
liant but utterly devoid of meaning. Its sole function is to act as decor
although artists would cringe at the word. I do not. It seems to me
that making pleasant objects with which to adorn a room is a reason-
ably honorable occupation.
The fact remains that art-photography is a very minor area of pho-
tography at large, in spite of its recent over-exposure in the medium,
and that it relies primarily on art-issues rather than on photographic
principles.
At this point we should face another important aspect of the medium and
how it differs from art-as-commodity, and often causes discomfort to the
gallery market: so many wonderful images of the past were taken by un-
known photographers. If asked who was the most prolific and best photogra-
pher in history I would facetiously answer Anon.
I would not be so facetious, yet answer the same. When I compiled a
recent travelling exhibition of my own collection of prints, which I
have already mentioned, the unknowns hold their own alongside the
others. No question about it. That sort of juxtaposition would be highly
unlikely, I think, in an exhibition of paintings which included Renoir,
Matisse, Degas, and so on.
I have just been looking through the massive tome, A New History of Pho-
tography, edited by Michel Frizot, and was struck at the number, and quality,
of the anonymous images reproduced. It is difficult to imagine that a history
of any other visual medium would celebrate the unknown amateur to such a
degree. This is an awkward problem for the art market because it runs counter
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]