Photography in the museum or in the Gallery?
Rosalind Krauss 'Photography's Discursive Spaces: Landscape/View.
http:/dm.postmediumcritique.org/Krauss_PhotographysDiscursiveSpaces.pdf
Key Points:
I have found this article challenging to understand. However, following the comments about Atget I have referenced Tod Papageorge's rebuttal of Krauss' stance in Core Curriculum: writings on Photography (2011) pp.15-29 and found more understanding on both the article and about why Atget is now celebrated as Father of Modern Photography. Papageorge gives great insight into the composition of a number of Atget's photographs and truly makes the man and his ART come alive.
What have I learned from reading these articles? Much, but in particular how Atget places us, the viewer in unlikely positions. As in Versailles: Cuparisse par Flamen, where a statue might more usually be photographed from the front, he chooses a side view and gives us information about the place as if we were strolling along and part of the scene. Sometimes he chooses a backview of a statue as if we were on stage as part of the cast. His clever use of lines as in St Cloud. To align these lines means a great deal of careful looking and placing of his camera was undertaken.
(See also notes in Notes on Books)
http:/dm.postmediumcritique.org/Krauss_PhotographysDiscursiveSpaces.pdf
Key Points:
- Starts with comparing two versions of the same image, one by Timothy O'Sullivan, the photograph has a dreamlike arty feel to it, the other, a lithograph, with as much detail as possible brought out so that it informs as a record of the subject (Tufa Domes, Pyramid Lake, Nevada, 1868). This latter published in King Survey Report 1875 - a scientific paper on Geology. Thus Art versus Science in one image.
- In which area should either be displayed - the Art Gallery or the Museum
- The period in which this picture was produced was when the public distribution was by steroscopic viewing (3D but in an isolated area, concentrating the gaze on one image only so different from a gallery wall.) Composition for views were with a central point and, in O'Sullivan's case, diagonal recession giving exaggerated depth and focus. Views were stored in cabinets and could be cross referenced etc. They were used for Geographical purposes as well as entertainment in well off homes. Thus landscape in this period (19th century) was more at home in a museum than an art gallery.
- The Gallery wall signifies inclusion. Paintings began to mimic the wall with a flattening of perspective and use of diagonals. Also huge paintings which were the size of a wall e.g. Monet's Water Lillies.
- The size of an Oeuvre. It cannot be so small as to number 1 as in August Salzmann, nor so big as the thousands of images made by Eugene Atget. Can Atget be considered an artist when the mediocre are included in the whole?
I have found this article challenging to understand. However, following the comments about Atget I have referenced Tod Papageorge's rebuttal of Krauss' stance in Core Curriculum: writings on Photography (2011) pp.15-29 and found more understanding on both the article and about why Atget is now celebrated as Father of Modern Photography. Papageorge gives great insight into the composition of a number of Atget's photographs and truly makes the man and his ART come alive.
What have I learned from reading these articles? Much, but in particular how Atget places us, the viewer in unlikely positions. As in Versailles: Cuparisse par Flamen, where a statue might more usually be photographed from the front, he chooses a side view and gives us information about the place as if we were strolling along and part of the scene. Sometimes he chooses a backview of a statue as if we were on stage as part of the cast. His clever use of lines as in St Cloud. To align these lines means a great deal of careful looking and placing of his camera was undertaken.
(See also notes in Notes on Books)