No Photos Allowed
You may have read or at the very least be aware of the comments surrounding the recent article by Jonathan Jones in The Guardian on 13 November titled’ Flat, soulless and stupid: why photographs don’t work in art galleries’.
The piece has been circulated on social media, particularly on Facebook with 9467 shares (to date 26/11/14). The article itself attracted 385 comments.
So much has been already written and commented on directly about the article so I am not writing a response to, or commenting on the content. However I am far more interested in how photography got to this point in time.
Since photography was announced to the world in 1839 there has been a continuous debate on is it art or is it science. Linked to this debate is the place of photography on a gallery wall. The Victorians were quick to start exhibiting the new medium and a variety of photographic salons sprung up across Europe, and by the early 20th century many rival Salons were established. (The term and format of the Salon taken from the painting salons, which date back to 17th Century France.)
However it is to America that we look for the establishment of a canon of western photography. Starting with Alfred Stieglitz in his independent gallery, and then taken through a succession of curators at the Museum of Modern Art, New York
Photography’s passage from the European art world into the museum can be tracked starting with Alfred Stieglitz, to Beaumont Newhall, Edward Steichen and John Szarkowski. The establishment of the Curator of Photography at MoMA allowed for a development of a distinctly American canon of photography and in turn was hugely influential on establishing photography as a distinct field within the art world. There is not space here for a full discussion of this progression from Stieglitz and its impact on photography. For further reading do look at ‘The Judgment Seat of Photography’ Christopher Phillips, this is a key text for any photography student to read and is included on several reading lists.
It is important to remember that museums and galleries do function differently as gatekeepers to the establishment of photographic art. It is by being placed on the museum wall that often confers the final status of allowing the images to enter a photographic hall of fame. The function of the gallery is to introduce these images for possible selection. The Paris Salon’s of the 18th Century sparked much debate and comment and that is the place of our galleries now. It is through this debate that art (of all forms) moves and evolves.
The social historian of art knows that the values of a society can be gained from cultural references. In our modern age these cultural sources need also to encompass social media.
The quick proliferation of comments reacting to this article tells us far more about our attitude to the subject than the content of the article.
Is it too simplistic to say that just some photography is Art ? Anyway, I’m not sure that some photography being honoured with the title Art confers some great blessings for which photographers all should be truly grateful. Why does it matter? Let’s call it Photography and be done with it!
Hmm… let’s ditch the “A” word altogether then – painting is painting, sculpture is sculpture… Art is what it is intended to be, so perhaps there is a point at drunken Facebook snapshots not being “art”, but then again, why not? If a toilet can be “art”, or a smile (as in “Disappearing music for face” by Shiomi/Ono) then why not? Some people will appreciate them, I’m sure.
see his latest comment on the Lik photo sale http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/dec/10/most-expensive-photograph-ever-hackneyed-tasteless?CMP=fb_gu
Art for art sake, money for God sake! Here he is enticing advertisers with his view that photography is the Art of our time! http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2013/jan/10/photography-art-of-our-time
Oh well remembered John
It would, I think, be feasibly consistent to hold the view that … ‘Photography is the art of our time; but I don’t believe that applies to large scale, meaningless black and white landscapes, produced purely to realise an inflated market value. They have no place on the wall of a serious art gallery and are certainly not worth millions of dollars’. Not, I stress, that I have one jot of sympathy for Mr Jones!
Agreed Stan, but I am starting to understand Mr Jones’ method.
To produce an article start with:
‘Photography is…’
then add a random noun. Depending on mood you can then add a negative.
Forthcoming articles include:
Photography is Dead
Photography is the Future of Mankind
Photography has killed our belief in Father Christmas
Yes, Gareth; I’d look forward to ‘Photography is not real’ – that would challenge his intellect! 🙂
Mishka Henner has done a book called “Photography is!” which contains lots of different interpretative statements about the medium. It is quite interesting yet I consider Henner is actually being satirical by presenting the arguments in such a disorderly manner!
http://www.mishkahenner.com/filter/bookshop/Photography-Is-10
Like your thinking Gareth *ponders a comparable list for future blog posts*
There something happening but you don’t know what it is, do you Mr Jones?
You put your eyes in your pocket
And your nose on the ground
There ought to be a law
Against you comin’ around
Mr jones, of course.
What’s wrong with large scale b&w landscape images?????
The quote was large scale “meaningless” black and white landscapes. “Genesis” springs into mind.
Nothing! Unless they are ‘meaningless’ and ‘produced purely to achieve an inflated market value’. Hence my ‘quote’. (Frankly, even then, nothing wrong with them so long as we recognise them for what they are.)
As far as I can tell, Jones only comments to get traffic. The fact that what he says appears to be misinformed and sometimes quite incorrect is entirely beside the point. Traffic is one thing though, reputation is another and I feel that he has his reputation, and it wouldn’t get me to buy the Guardian, but a free news platform is another matter. So do they care? (they have a slot to fill, someone needs to fill it and cause enough of a stir to get others to visit the site)
It probably also needs to be said that it’s not just photographers he has a go at, with his comment about Maggi Hambling being “if she’s a painter, I’m Rembrandt” – always feels like he just bigs up the Baroque and ends up saying “my Dad’s bigger than your dad…” I’m trying to stop reading his stuff. “Trying” I said, the Guardian appears to have won!
“Who is he anyway?”, I said to myself; so I looked him up. He isn’t any kind of visual artist but a journalist. In which case I would be expecting him to really make me think about the arguments with stimulating phrases, as opposed to bringing out all the old chestnuts.
Sean O’Hagan’s really rather good riposte to Mr Jones
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/dec/11/photography-is-art-sean-ohagan-jonathan-jones?CMP=fb_gu
I agree with his reference to “dead horses”, however it’s all grist to the mill for the sales desk, think of the traffic!
True, but I have a lot more time for O’Hagan than Jones.
Perhaps the London Evening Standard is looking for a new Art Correspondent and Jones is applying for the job!
I hope so Peter, its time he moved on from The Guardian
I like Jones’ article because it exposes the attitude of many towards the photograph; it might also be read as a parody!
In haste, having read the Guardian piece, but not everything here: I take his point about THAT photograph, but that hardly covers the use of all photography in the sphere of art. What of Bernd and Hilla Becher’s Water Towers, which sit happily in any survey of Conceptual Art. Ed Ruscha’s ‘Every Building on Sunset Strip’ is a pioneering artists’ book. OCA tutor Dawn Woolley uses photography to undermine advertising strategies (particularly in relation to how women are represented).
To ally a medium with ‘art’ is simplistic. Here is the news: not all paintings or drawings are art.
I do agree that the piece in question has little to contribute to the discourse of contemporary art. Its function is primarily decorative, not critical.
Also, ‘art’ is simply a descriptor. In the same way that gruel and lobster thermidor are both ‘food’, the word ‘art’ confers no value on the thing. To call something ‘art’ isn’t to ascribe a value. It isn’t inherently good or bad, in either quality or effect.