Exercise: Analyse an essay on photography

Chapter 34 pages 380-386 of The Photography Reader - The Vertigo of Displacement by David A. Bailey and Stuart Hall is the final essay to be analysed. It seems much easier to read than previous essays but having said that there are still sections which make me stop and think “you could have put that in 3 words not 20!” and still a fair few “isms”.

I felt I had a lot to say about this essay so will cover the questions posed in the coursework during my ramblings and trying to work through personal feelings and impressions which formed my responses to these.

As a whole, The Vertigo of Displacement was very interesting but also challenging on several levels for me. In many respects I could identify with a huge amount of it but was also annoyed by some parts, this annoyance made me question why was I annoyed, what did that say about me and my own cultural upbringing and attitudes? Would this affect my review of the essay and it made me more aware that what Liz Wells had intimated, with regards to people’s baggage influencing exhibition reviews, was totally justified.

In one sentence: The essay is concerned mainly about the representation of blacks in photography and how this and the number of black photographers had changed in 1980's Britain.

Born in Croydon into a multicultural society, possibly described as from a working/middle class white background, lucky to have open –minded non racist parents who didn’t indoctrinate me with stereotypes, I accepted people as people and never saw the colour of their skin. It was only as I got older that my eyes were opened to the overt and institutionalised racism which existed, and I was horrified. Having said that I still get angry when terms like “institutionalised racism” and “empiricist” get bandied about because I want to yell “we aren’t all like that” but then I have to accept that a lot of essays, whilst pin pointing specific artists or incidents, do work with generalisms and sadly society does suck when it comes to discrimination/representation in its many forms. Historically in art/photography blacks were represented in certain ways, for example as slaves serving the upper classes, as interesting, exotic cultures through National Geographic or in documentary form as an influx of immigrants during the 1950’s. The 1980’s saw a shift in these practices which Bailey and Hall sought, through this essay, to discover how it had happened.

Thinking about the extent that the arguments are limited to Britain in the 1980’s and the usefulness of other references, this is where the narrowness of the essay grated slightly. I had to keep reminding myself that the reason only blacks and the 1980’s kept being spoken about was that it was an essay to do with the change in black photography during this period. Although it wasn’t written from a point of view that blacks and black photographers were the only ones who suffered discrimination or where there was an obvious shift in perceptions, I was still shouting in my head “but we also needed more poor/women/openly gay/disabled/insert minority photographers.” Then reminded myself yet again, these were not apparently areas up for debate but why not a nod? Another limitation of the essay was the geographical area under discussion. The coursework states the argument is limited to Britain but for me it pointed the finger mainly at England: Bailey and Hall referring to “Englishness” and the GLC (Greater London Council). Were other parts of the UK going through similar changes or were the influences taking place in London via the GLC the only ones that mattered? Or were these alone strong enough to affect the entire country? Having been to the Figures and Fictions: Contemporary South African Photography exhibition in 2011 @ V&A museum attitudes and influences have altered across the globe (although F&F deals with work produced 20 years later than the 80’s) it would have been interesting to know if there were any other outside influences.

Becker, when writing about the tabloid press acknowledges influences from the US and also touches upon other publications so I do think it would have been useful to refer to related movements in other countries as well, not just comment on the south-east of England. The GLC was well-known for supporting minority groups and it was a running joke (rightly or wrongly) that you wouldn’t qualify for a grant unless you were a single-parent, one-legged, black lesbian. Ken Livingston was the leader of the GLC during the 80’s, in favour of and a strong supporter of the recognition of gay rights and measures to address inequality faced by women and ethnic minorities. It seems odd to me, living and working in London during the 80’s, that policies which were treated as a joke by some, and introduced by a man described by the Sun newspaper as "the most odious man in Britain" are being cited as an important factor in the development of black photography. Good to know they worked!

Much of the discussion is set within a larger socio-political framework (of or pertaining to the interaction of social and political factors) do I feel this is justified by the evidence presented? This is another area where I find my own stance and personal experiences, my grandparents at one point lived in Brixton, may temper my reply. Being a Londoner of “that generation” I am fully aware of the socio-political atmosphere at the time- and historically - and can read between the lines of what has been written or fill in the gaps where not much has been evidenced. From the evidence given there is no real background provided to the unrest in London at the time, the riots, the resentment of positive discrimination, the ridicule of  political correctness, (which is still ridiculous at some levels even now). Any evidence provided seems anecdotal, there are no citations used or referencing to validate the arguments made. Some comments are vague: “institutions, academic bodies, black individuals” where, which ones, what makes them good examples? Bailey, Hall, Armet Francis and Vanley Burke all trace back to the West Indies - Jamaica or Bahamas - it would be interesting to know if the black population at the time was largely of this heritage, I suspect it was although many Ugandans and Nigerians were starting to settle due to political unrest across the world.

This link gives an interesting potted account of black community history in London

http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/things-to-do/visiting-the-city/archives-and-city-history/london-metropolitan-archives/Documents/visitor-information/21-black-caribbean-community-archives.pdf

Knowing what I do, having experienced first-hand London in the 1980’s I can totally agree with their justification for the shift being based around the socio-political. On trying to distance myself from that knowledge I think their writings heavily suggest it but they don’t provide validation.

Finally we come to eligibility – should you be black to photograph black subjects? A wider implication of anti-realism and the increase in black photographers was the possibility and need for critics to be honest, to have the ability to be negatively critical of bodies of work created of//by black photographers. My simple answer to eligibility is no, you don’t have to be black to capture black subjects, a conclusion that Bailey and Hall also reach. They do so, and correctly in my opinion, by exploring the fact that people just aren’t the sum of the colour of their skin. They are influenced by their social class, gender, sexuality, occupations and personal experiences. American photojournalist William Eugene Smith was neither Welsh nor a miner but has been accredited for taking “one of the most significant images of 20th Century Wales". Don McCullin was in the RAF during his national service, never a soldier but his war coverage is second to none.

Bailey and Hall also justify this conclusion by citing work by Robert Mapplethorpe and Rotimi Fani-Kayode. Both photographed black men, one was black the other white, both captured black male masculinity, both were gay, both died from complications of AIDS. I can understand why they chose to use Mapplethorpe, he was a friend of and influenced Fani-Kayode, he was a white photographer capturing black subjects but playing devil’s advocate surely if talking about a shift in the portrayal of blacks within the UK it would have been better example to show a change in how a British white male did or did not undertake this shift?according to the essay critics even now will try to argue that Mapplethorpe shows submission and therefore doesn't break some of the ideas surronding the portrayal of blacks. A possible implication of choosing Mapplethorpe is that Fani-Kayode was influenced by an American rather than the socio-political changes within the UK which partially undermines the argument.

They also fail to tell us that Fani-Kayode was from a wealthy family of Nigerian heritage. Born in Lagos, Nigeria in April 1955, the second child of Chief Babaremilekun Adetokunboh and therefore part of a prominent Yoruba family, they moved to Brighton in 1966, after a military coup and the ensuing civil war. Rotimi attended a number of private schools before moving to the USA in 1976 to complete his education. He read Fine Arts and Economics, gaining a BA, at Georgetown University, Washington DC and gained an MFA at the Pratt Institute, New York in Fine Arts & Photography. Whilst in New York, he became friendly with Robert Mapplethorpe and later admitted to Mapplethorpe's influence on his work. Returning to the UK in 1983 he lived in Brixton with his partner Alex Hirst until his death in 1989. A co-founder of Autograph ABP - a British based, international, non-profit-making, photographic arts agency I don’t think Fani-Kayode is good example of how under-privileged, disenfranchised black photographers were given opportunities to thrive or be influenced by the changes in Britain even if he is a good example of a black photographer portraying aspects of black/gay/culture.

If we believe that certain sections of society can only photograph “their own” we limit the creative possibilities of photography and the chance to see from an outsider’s perspective. Where do you draw the line of how you define things? Just because cultures/situations/places are seen from a different point of view does it make the portrayal wrong? It helps to have an understanding of a topic to both capture it and write about it. Something that I become increasingly aware of the more I read, the more I write the more I photograph.

Sources/References

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3012347.stm

http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/f/figures-and-fictions-contemporary-south-african-photography/

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-10947074

http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/things-to-do/visiting-the-city/archives-and-city-history/london-metropolitan-archives/Documents/visitor-information/21-black-caribbean-community-archives.pdf

Becker, K. E. (1990). Photojournalism and the Tabloid Press. In L. Wells (Ed.), The Photography Reader (pp. 291-308). Oxon, England: Routledge.

Exercise: An Essay on Reviewing Photographs

The problem with catching up is the bits you keep looking at and think "I'll do that later" have to be done at some point... just done the Karin E Becker analysis and realise there is the next one on Words and Pictures: on reviewing photographs by Liz Wells to do followed by The Vertigo of Displacement by David A Bailey and Stuart Hall. They don't have to be done together but bearing in mind the next thing I have to do is write my own critical review it can only be helpful...guess what I'll be doing over the next few days?

There is this love/hate relationship I have with photography essays. I love to broaden my mind (read into that fry my brain totally) discover new ways of looking at life in general but loath the non-comprehension of what I am reading. It’s not so much the not understanding where authors are coming from rather the vocabulary they use and the overly long sentence structures. By the time I get to the end of a paragraph with only one full stop I have to think where did that start again? Liz Wells’ style is a lot easier to read than most but even so I had to read the essay through several times to make sure I understood what she was putting across and what her stance was.

It is reassuring that when glancing through other learning logs I am not the only person to be flummoxed by some of the writings.

In order to answer some of the questions I thought I ought to clarify in my mind what some of the terms meant. If anyone else out there feels the need to know, read these articles which I think helped slightly.

http://www.contemporary-art-dialogue.com/postmodern-art.html

http://www.contemporary-art-dialogue.com/history-of-modern-art.html

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/Ask-an-Expert-What-is-the-difference-between-modern-and-postmodern-art.html

Words and Pictures: On reviewing photographs By Liz Wells (Wells, 1992)

Wells opens the chapter by informing us that the essay was originally written as a commission for a newsletter targeting regional photo-practitioners. The aim of the essay was to reflect upon the role of the critic in relation to photographic exhibitions and consider if they were taking into account the changes happening within photography.

The main argument would appear to be the responsibility of the critic to “adequately describe visual objects” when they may only have limited and inadequate secondary sources and possible bias depending on academic knowledge or leanings towards certain art movements. Their reviews matter because they will exist for a longer period than the exhibitions themselves and will eventually form the materials used by archivists and academics and record different eras and contexts. There is also some emphasis on the conflict of writing reviews for an exhibition when taking into account publicity required, monetary gain and photographers anxious for a “good” review.

Do I consider the essay’s title a fair indication of the contents of the essay? If just called “Words and Pictures” the title would be rather ambiguous, it could suggest captioning or titles, however with the subtitle “on reviewing photographs” it does suggest that the topic is in relation to the discussion of what words are used when reviewing images. It doesn’t give any clues as to the direction or opinions of the author.

Wells does cite other authors however much of the article comes across as written from a personal point of view and from personal experience as a writer/critic. I found her criticism of Bill Jay odd? He had commented that a criticism should do one or more of the following “introduce you to photographers of who you were unaware; expand your appreciation of a photographer’s work; place the image in the context of photography’s history; place the images in the context of the artist’s culture;…throw light upon the creative/artistic process…above all else (be) useful” (Jay, 1992)

She asks useful for what? To me he meant useful in informing the audience of something they may not know or presenting facts which they can either agree or disagree with. Is this an outdated idea, does it suggest the critic is relying on familiarity?

Wells brings into her debate context and differing art movements and how, particularly in Britain (where photography was accepted as an art form to be critiqued and discussed at a later point than in Europe) archives began to be deemed important and a suitable vocabulary deemed necessary to discuss the subject. I am in total agreement with her that some of the vocabulary is too elitist and an immense amount of work written about photography is so unobtainable to the everyday practitioner. I just want to learn and understand without the need for a thesaurus at my elbow thanks!

To what extent do I feel she relies on Postmodernist doctrine? I found this question tricky to answer. Whilst I feel she has a definite post-modernist bias does she rely on it? Are all her arguments underpinned by this doctrine? She points out that critics need to take into consideration the changing face of photography, both in the multi-media world we live in and the way photography itself has progressed to encompass other art forms. Is this doctrine or reality? However Wells does also discuss Modernism and a brief history of the development of how art was viewed. She does give both sides of the argument and as a writer a good article/essay should do this? Therefore it can be said that you rely on both points of view to give a balanced debate allowing your audience can make up their own minds? Having said that I think she does write more pro Postmodernism and maybe does rely on this to make her essay work. I feel like I am sitting on the fence with this bit?

At one point Wells states that good writing should be “well-informed, purposeful and engaging” surely to do this the writer needs to employ some of the “menu” Jay suggests? This leads onto the final question of how important do I believe it is for a critic of photography to have deep knowledge of the practice of photography. Simple answer is no, I don’t. If writing to teach people how to take certain images then it may be important to know in greater detail what camera was used, film, f-stop but this could be supplied by public relations officers or curators. But is that what a critical review should have to contain? Do film critics need to understand every aspect of film-making to tell us what they thought worked or not about a film? Do theatre critics need to understand every nuance of lighting, writing or staging to tell us what a play was about or if it had any emotional resonance? No, they don’t. We expect them to have some understanding, to be able to compare one show against another perhaps but a deep knowledge, no we don’t. The same should be true for critics writing about photography, yes they should have some knowledge possibly a good level of understanding or how else can they be reliably informative. Also they should be able to frame discussions using photographic vocabulary but not so much that people glaze over. As with any topics writers should keep up with modern trends and technologies both for creating and presenting work but that does not mean they have to have deep knowledge. Critical reviews of exhibitions are important if they are to form historical archives but reviews are not intended to be academic critical essays full of citations and references.

References

Jay, B. (1992). Occam's Razor. In L. Wells, Words and Pictures: On reviewing photography (1992) in The Photography Reader Ed. Well, L (2003)(p. 431). Oxon: Routledge.

Wells, L. (1992). Words and Pictures: on reviewing photographs. In The Photography Reader (pp. 428-434). Oxon: Routledge.

Exercise: An Essay on Photojournalism

One of the four essays that I need to analyse is Photojournalism and the Tabloid Press, by Karin E. Becker. I have read this essay and made some initial notes and jotting and will write it up again at a later date.

my pencil jottings and initial thoughts

*update* Essay read, analysis written 19/8/13

Photojournalism and the Tabloid Press by Karin E Becker

Chapter 28 within The Photography Reader, pages 291 – 308 (The Photography Reader, 2003) is a revised version of a paper originally presented at a seminar in Yugoslavia in May 1990, we are not advised as to what or when the revisions were but not sure that matters as the essay contained therein is very detailed and is being judged on what it currently is, rather than what it was before, but I thought it interesting to note that it has been amended from its original form.

As with all academic essays, the writer begins with a statement of intent, a thesis, several paragraphs outlining the “uncomfortable” history of photojournalism within the western press and how the use of photography is skewed more toward the “popular” rather than the “serious” press; that the “consequences of this position (are) evident…in the pages and discussion of the tabloid press.” Tabloids are dismissed as “merely popular”. (p291)

As a brief summary: Becker sets out to examine the link between photography and its relationship with the tabloid press by examining several distinct areas and stages in her argument- all under subheadings within her essay-  and wishes to prove one way or another if it is correct to assume that the photography of the tabloid press is merely entertainment and “popular” and seemingly concludes by saying that yes, tabloids treat their photographs/photojournalism in a different manner but in most respects they still report news and provide a vehicle for discussing said news so are they inferior or less serious? I shall write slightly more in depth with regards to her conclusion after dealing with the main stages raised within the essay.

The early picture press - (p292-293)
This section discusses the launching of illustrated, weekly magazines in the early 1840’s. To form an aspect of her argument Becker provides many examples of publications of the time e.g. the Illustrated London News, L’Illustration, Illustrierte Zeitung and Harper’s Weekly to name a few. She cites other authors and their publication’s (Hassner 1977:Taft 1938), (Johannesson 1982) (Carnes 1940: 15) to name a few, which give academic weight to her argument.

According to Becker and other authors, these magazines did on occasion illustrate their news but technology dictated that these were in the form of wood engravings carved by craftsmen from drawings provided by “on the spot” artists. Sometimes, but rarely, these engravings were made from photograph, However, more often than not photography was dismissed as too “stiff” and the technology unreliable. This meant that the press established “patterns of visual reporting” and, as with a lot of early photography, journalistic or otherwise, the conventions of the art world were placed upon it.

I felt in part that this section provided an interesting historical background as she mentions that photojournalism can trace a heritage to a limited number of “prestige periodicals” the reason given being the seriousness of the topic covered (the Spanish-American War). The lack of use originally of any form of illustration was due to the problems with technology and cost. With the introduction of industrialization and advertising these were no longer an issue, photography was being used more and yet there was no evidence that it helped sell more copy. However you could also argue that this was the establishment of a weekly photographically heavy publication rather than daily tabloid news.

The tabloid = sensationalism = photography – (p293-295)
This section deals with daily newspapers and their deadlines being prohibitive to the use of either illustration or photographs. Later on there were exceptions to the rule; the “yellow press” of the US “where pictures were seen as key to successful and sensational coverage” Becker seems to hint that it is this period in time, the 1920’s, where tabloid journalism and associated photographs of violence and sex scandals made for a “low point for the press”.  I am not sure if the morals and ethical standards of the era made for the gutter press or if the press photography encouraged the readership of the scandals? Whichever, there must be a general agreement that both then and now tabloid newspapers tend to break the rules of ethical and moral guidelines <coughs News of the World> however with the Leveson inquiry (LEVESON INQUIRY:Culture, Practice and Ethics of the Press) it has become more apparent that the broadsheets are not as innocent as they claim to be, but that breaks away slightly from the topic of photography, although quite a few reputable news photographs have been tainted with the ignominy of Photoshop, for example Reuters photographer Adnan Hajj. (BBC News Channel, 2006)

However returning back to the historical aspect of photojournalism Becker, via Taft, informs us that the “sensationalism of the tabloid press was intensified by photographs of events… which are trite superficial, tawdry, salacious, morbid or silly” (Taft 1938:448) which provides evidence to support initial ideas that photojournalism in the tabloid press was populist. She further explores how photography was banned from judicial and legal proceedings leaving publications no choice other than to fabricate images, citing (Hassner 1977:282; Kobre 1980:17), or sneak into events such as the public execution of Ruth Snyder to provide illustration for their text. The supporting text and headlines were as “sensational” as the images thus linking the two together. Again using a citation from Taft, Becker informs us he claimed that “prodigious and free use of photographs…defeated their own object…of disseminating news..” he paints a picture of the audience glancing at the images, taking what information they glean from the pictures and disregarding the written journalism. He goes on to say “These criticisms and abuses the pictorial press must meet and correct if it to command the respect of intelligent people.” (Taft 1938: 448-9) Becker uses this citation well to support the growing idea that the tabloids are not for the intellectual elite and the inclusion of photographs in a story implies it is dumbed down for the entertainment of the popular masses.

The daily press ‘supplements’ the news – (p295-296)
Becker further supports the theory within this section by outlining how publications gradually started to recognise photography as an acceptable medium in some instances yet were still wary over the tabloids “abuses of press credibility” making it harder for photographs to be viewed “as a medium for serious news”. In order to get around this problem they created weekly supplements to work alongside daily news “while insulating and protecting the newspapers primary product from being downgraded by the photograph.” Again she uses citations to strengthen points being made.

The picture magazines legacy – (p296-297)
Yet more evidence pointing to the growing disparity of photography and certain types of photojournalism becoming more acceptable, e.g. the photo essay and documentaries of famous and non-famous people, being welcomed into the art world and considered “high culture” whilst this continued to exclude the tabloid press. More academic citations were used and from a variety of authors.

The contemporary domain of the tabloid – (297-298)
Here, rather than looking at attitudes towards the photography itself, Becker examines how the photographs are taken and used in the tabloid press. She concludes that while the front pages are similar to the “elite” in respect of a main headline and main photograph, the approach of reporting the news itself was “distinctly different.” The photographs used in the tabloids were awkward, invariably “garish” and revealing.

Plain pictures of ordinary folk – (p298-299)
Once more Becker looks at the photographs used in tabloids to show how they are used to inform or illicit emotion rather than just report news. Ordinary people are presented in recognisable settings yet will be holding a prop or displaying expressions which help convey the story. Although taken to present informality care and attention is given to lighting and framing and subjects usually the photographs provide eye contact between subject and audience. There is a nod given to the id shots reserved for tragic or criminal events and the candid shots taken at an event. Whilst not providing a strong argument for or against the theory with regards to tabloid photojournalism, Becker is providing background information which implies that the images in the tabloid press are not of high value or exceptional importance and are taken/presented in a way that whilst factual, appear to be manipulative.

Celebrities – (p299-300)
Becker examines how celebrities are presented, either “behind the scenes” to make them appear “just like us” whilst making us feel we are being given a “privileged” view of their lives, performing or candid. Candid shots fall into two categories, those being controlled by the star and those which are unguarded and snapped by the paparazzi. She accepts however, that the paparazzi images are not as frequent as one might expect. We are informed via a citation (Sekula 1984: 29) that less technical compositions are more common in the tabloids news coverage because of “the theory of the higher truth of the stolen image”. They don’t care if the picture is naff; it tells a story and the more naff, the more believable!

The news event – (p301-302)
Here, Becker defines the different ways news is defined and represented pictorially within the tabloid press. Candid shots maybe from an unscheduled event or planned as in a press conference, they tend to show people unmasked and revealing a certain truth. Technical flaws are overlooked and this seems to have become “conventions of the tabloid style” in producing authentic images. More import is placed on the common people that the political leaders causing the issues affecting them, tabloids traditionally do more crime reportage therefore use a lot of id shots but these tend to be smaller than that of the victims. Disaster coverage will focus on the photographer and how the shots are achieved and with all stories there is an “impossibility of seeing the photographs independently from …the text” She therefore is once more backing up a theory that the photojournalism of the tabloid press is brought down to a certain level by the standard of its writing and presentation and the public perception that tabloids are down-market, informational fodder rather than a higher class epistle.

Reframing the picture in words and layout – (p302-303)
More commentary and citations which confirm that photographs have little meaning without their settings; where they appear and how they are presented. The text in the tabloid press tends to be more dramatic, large in relation to page size, and sensationalist. More often than not the text will be a contrast to the ordinariness of the image, with the text illustrating the image rather than the other way round; direct quotes are employed giving voice to the person portrayed. Once more the photographer is held up as the first person in certain circumstances and this “contradicts the ideal role of the journalist as one standing apart from the events” Becker holds that this adds to the sensationalism of a story, the fact that it could not be told within the confines of usual reportage. She reminds us that the style of the tabloids is not the fault of the photographer but the way the editorials are constructed with odd sizing, montages, re-touching, directional arrows and black bands over the subject’s faces/eyes. Broadsheets or the elite press tend to stick to the usual conventions of rectangular proportions and established guidelines we associate with “photographic truth”.

Conclusions – (p304-305)
Outside of the daily press photojournalism has attained the status of popular art, tabloid press does not employ these conventions. The tabloid photographers are not revered as artists rather “impulsive individuals, consumed by events”. Tabloid photojournalism is a contradiction to the elite and to itself. It presents factual images in ways that should support the reality and credibility of the photographs but due to framing and sizing prevent the very thing it set out to do. Becker recognises the issues of pigeon-holing tabloids as merely popular. They may be popular and appear anti-elitist but not “merely”, the photography under discussion does work to report serious news.

My conclusions
This was a difficult essay to read in some respects. There was information overload at several points and I had to read it several times before I could work out if Becker was writing subjectively or objectively. In the end I chose objectively. Nowhere did she write “I think…I believe…my opinion is…” She sets out an idea that photojournalism in the tabloid press is considered trivial and merely popular, then provides many examples as to why this could be so, the arguments are well presented, historic background is provided with examples of publications and over 30 references are used throughout the essay. These academic references add weight to any points she is making. Becker contrasts the use of photographs in other publications and at first I thought this detracted from her argument, stating that photojournalism was used seriously in weekly publications, but having re-read these sections I am more inclined to think they bolster it due to them being weekly not daily publications and the way that these publications presented the images. Having weighed up the evidence she reaches a conclusion which in essence admits that it isn’t that easy to say “yes” or “no”; tabloid photojournalism flies in the face of the establishment and many journalistic conventions but does provide reliable accurate news despite the sensational presentation. Due to the amount of research undertaken for this essay, the acknowledgement that different cultures have slightly differing approaches to reporting but she was examining a narrow band within the aspect of “tabloid” press I think Becker argued her case well.

Bibliography

BBC News Channel. (2006, August 19). BBC News Middle East. Retrieved August Monday, 2013, from BBC News Channel: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5254838.stm

Becker, K. E. (1990). Photojournalism and the Tabloid Press. In L. Wells (Ed.), The Photography Reader (pp. 291-308). Oxon, England: Routledge.

LEVESON INQUIRY:Culture, Practice and Ethics of the Press. (n.d.). Retrieved August 19, 2013, from The Leveson Inquiry: http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/

Various. (2003). The Photography Reader. (L. Wells, Ed.) Oxon, England: Routledge.

Slightly intrigued as to how the press of today still operates within these historical views I purchased a copy of The Sun and The Daily Telegraph…and yes they still seem to follow the same conventions ;o)

Tabloid.....

"Elite" broadsheet

Reading about Photography Exercise: Analyse an essay

Analysis of Understanding a Photograph - John Berger

Understanding a Photograph – John Berger is an essay written in 1972 which sets out to dispute the idea that photography should be considered art.

His main arguments are:

• Unlike paintings and sculptures, photography has not moved into the realms of being ‘preserved in sacred isolation’ in museums and therefore has not been made mysterious to exclude the masses.
• To have a value as ‘Art,’ art must have a monetary value and is only valuable as property or props which indicate a certain lifestyle.
• Photographs have no value as they are not rare and can be easily reproduced.
• Photography is everyday; the fact everything can be photographed and continually would render it meaningless. The only message a photograph has is that the photographer thought the scene worth capturing.
• Photographs are considered ‘good’ only when properly composed yet this composition is merely an imitation of paintings. True composition cannot happen in photography unless studio shots.
• Photography is a popular medium used mainly for the production of mementos.
• Due to it’s representation of realities photography is merely a weapon which needs to be understood only to enable us to use it politically.

According to Berger (1972) paintings and sculptures as an art form are dying. This he argues, is due to their consideration as property; becoming isolated, available only to the elite. However, in contradiction to this painters and sculptors are still producing bodies of work. Statues are erected in public spaces and not all are shut inside museums to be considered the preserve of the ‘nobility’. With the development of the Internet art is available to a much wider audience.

Aaron Schuman, editor of SeeSaw magazine and Charlotte Cotton, curator and head of the Wallis Annenberg Department of Photography, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, recently discussed the direction photography is taking. Cotton talks about elitism only being an issue when attributed to a ‘high-art version’; if a common understanding, part of a ‘collective culture’, it takes a different form, being ‘self elected elitism rather than the elitism of an establishment.’

Berger’s (1972) stance that photographs have not yet reached the levels of being displayed in museums and considered as ‘property’ is no longer valid. Since 1972 more museums have photographic archives, and specialised museums have opened, for example The Museum of Photographic Arts, The Canadian Museum of Contemporary Photography, National Media Museum and the Museum of Modern Art. 

Another argument is that mass production removes value, Berger (1972). Nonetheless the Mona Lisa's monetary value and artistic integrity has not altered despite being reproduced. The same can be said of photographs. In May 2011 Cindy Sherman's "Untitled" (1981) sold at auction for $3,890,500.00. There will be an original, authenticity being one way value is attributed, it is just more difficult to prove. But even so each image has its own unique path to being created.  Admittedly a photograph is taken using a mechanical process but there are variables, settings can be altered, light experimented with and artistry applied. Value can also lie in social, cultural and aesthetic worth.

It was Benjamin (1936) who argued that original pieces had an ‘aura’ and that the physical setting, usually within the homes of the ruling elite, made them even more distant from the masses and that reproduction diminished this aura and therefore value. Many of Berger’s arguments are based upon his and Benjamin’s Marxist outlook on how art is perceived/stored or shown to the ruling classes/proletariat. Most of the arguments within Understanding a Photograph echo points raised by Benjamin but this is not referenced.

Berger’s writing style is easy to read, he does not use overly technical jargon or flowery vocabulary, the essay is presented as his opinion with no academic evidence or references being given.

In a similar vein Berger (1972) points out that a photograph is testimony to what someone has deemed worthy of recording. The possibility exists that this event or subject can be photographed continually which he argues would render it meaningless. However each photograph would be individual, taken from an alternative perspective, the audience can read into it their own interpretations, discover diffferent messages therefore enabling it to retain meaning.

Berger (1972) points out that photographers mimic the composition of paintings and only images considered as good follow these rules. Paintings follow the Fibonacci ratio, but this ratio occurs in the natural world therefore it can be argued that it is art, in whatever form, imitating life. These rules of composition make an image more pleasing to the eye, easier to read, make them have more impact but art evolves. It was not until the 15^th Century that the Florentine architect Fillipo Brunelleshi created the first painting known to make use of linear perspective. Picasso and Matisse tore up the rule book yet again. Why can’t photography do the same?

Since when has ‘art’ merely been produced for the sake of being ‘art’? Photographs, it is true, are used on the whole by people capturing ‘mementos’, family, friends and holidays but they are also used to capture historic events, to convey a precise moment in time, emotions and possibly to deliver a message. The extravagant court portraiture of the Tudor period was used mainly for politics, to show the health and wealth of the nation/monarch or the latest triumph in battle. The fact that it was a popular medium used mainly for producing a political or religious message never detracted from the fact it was ‘art’.

The dawn of the digital age has changed how images can be manipulated and images can be changed to represent many things. It is difficult to argue now that photographs only pin down one moment in time. This is so dependent on the particular style or genre of photography.

As to the use of photography as a weapon? This accusation could be put to many aspects of day to day life. Propaganda rears its ugly head in many forms of art, written or visual.

Having argued against most of Berger’s points I can’t say resolutely that he is wrong in his initial statement that photography should not be considered art. I just don’t think the issues raised to back his arguments have stood the test of time. In a recent article in the British Journal of Photography David Campany, a writer and academic, was asked the question ‘what is the relationship between photography and art?’ He replied, ‘I don’t have a clue anymore.’ This makes me feel better that I too, have reached no solid conclusion.

Any drawing is a drawing, but are all drawings art? All photographs are photographs, but are all photographs art? Returning to the original question, is photography art, to be honest I am not sure. Having been to the Shadow Catchers exhibition, photographic techniques can definitely be said to produce works of art. However, I have also seen photographs exhibited that I have viewed and questioned ‘what makes that art?’ It would appear, as with most works of art, the answer is subjective. As far as I am concerned there is an artistic approach to photography, and, as with any piece of art, it can succeed or fail with its message/ability to stir emotion. I have also reached the conclusion I don't know enough about art to argue against some of the comparisons he makes with regards to paitings versus photographs.

An observation made by Schuman was that maybe photography is pushed as art because ‘it’s scary for institutions to promote a visual medium as something other than ‘Art’.’ Cotton and Schuman spoke in detail of changes in photography and of losing the idea of considering the photographer as an ‘artiste,’ this freedom would allow photography to just ‘be’, that ‘it’s finally come into its own.’ Maybe we should allow photography to stand on its own two feet and just ‘be’.

References and Research

Balcomb, R. (2001) Is photography art?[online] The Scream Online Magazine of Art. Available from: http://thescreamonline.com/essays/essays06-01/rsb_photo_essay.html
[Accessed 19 July 2011]

Benjamin, W. (1936) The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction [online] Marxist Internet Archive. Available from: http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm
[Accessed 19 July 2011]

Briot, A. (n.d.) Reflections on photography and art. [online] The Luminous Landscape. Available from: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/Reflections-Introduction.shtml[Accessed 19 July 2011]

Cotton, C & Schuman, A. (2011) What's next: Aaron Schuman and Charlotte Cotton: in conversation [online] Seesaw Magazine. Originally published in FOAM:Whats Next?#42 http://www.foam.org/whatsnext Available from: http://seesawmagazine.com/whatsnextpages/whatsnext.html  [Accessed 18 July 2011]

Payne,O. (2008) A history of perspective in art [online] Op Art. Available from:

http://www.op-art.co.uk/history/perspective.php [Accessed 19 July 2011]

Smyth, D. (2011) Is photography art? [online] 1854 A blog by the Editors of BJP. British Journal of Photography. Available from:
http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/blog-post/2038062/photography-art
[Accessed 19 July 2011]