migtex
Don't eXchange Freedom!
Excerpt from an article...
"WHAT IS WRONG WITH PHOTOGRAPHY
By A. F. BUCKNELL
So much has been said within recent years deploring the level of photography, that it might be assumed that dissatisafaction is no longer confined to a few. But this is not so; complacency still has most in its paralysing grip. Surely, they say, there is not much to worry about; of course a good deal of bad work is turned out, mainly portraiture, but the general level is pretty good—look at the periodicals, look at the annuals, look at the exhibitions.
Well, look at them. Take stock with a refreshed and quickened spirit and what do you really see? Monotony, sterility, conventionality, mediocrity—seldom relieved by brilliance and often sinking to deplorably low levels.
The exhibitions, large and small, have little to distinguish them one from another, nor from their predecessors of the past ten years. They are pleasant shows which offend little; solid, dignified but uninspired. Set out in any one of them seeking with the eyes of an editor a dozen fine pictures and see how difficult that is. Compare their catalogues over a period of years and search for signs of progress, or even of change, which is characteristic of all that lives abundantly. Search for some reflection or expression of the spirit of the times; you will find fashions, yes, but these treatments and styles have no spiritual relation with the world around them, they are the exercises of those who live in a closed photo¬graphic world. -
Exhibitions are needed, not to interest or instruct the general public, though they may well do that to great profit, but to refresh and stimulate the artist. How often in our exhibitions is such stimulation to be found ? How much is new, vital, arresting; what is there to catch the breath for a moment at the first impact? The Export Exhibition organised by the Institute of British Photographers last autumn seemed refreshing and was widely praised: it had a new emphasis and^a different style, but was it really worthy of the subject? How high—or how low—was its percentage of greatness? Rea1, the exhibitions are pleasing. But is that good .enough? Is it?
Some blame the judges. They make good whipping boys and they cannot answer back, but it may be a dangerous illusion to suppose that the judges reject the masterpieces. Before the war the prints for one annual exhibition were chosen by. three-independent panels of judges: one. was made up of "photographers, one of painters and sculptors and the third represented the general public. That was a very good idea and it was interesting to compare their choice, but it did not produce great exhibitions. Why not blame the exhibitors? A year or two ago the Royal Photographic Society, the London Salon and the Institute of British Photographers combined to make an exhibition of two hundred superb examples of British photography. There were no irksome limitations; two hundred odd exhibitors were asked to submit their best pictures, new and old : it did not matter if they had been exhibited before and they covered all branches of photography. At the first sifting of the entries the organisers regretfully abandoned the quest, blamed the war years and postponed their excellent project indefinitely. Look at the Annuals. It is true that they derive largely from the exhibitions, but not all of them exclusively, and they have a wider range and are more selective. Are they much more exciting? Are they larded with great pictures? Would anybody notice if the date on the cover or title page was altered?
Look at the work being turned out on every side. Portraiture shall come first because its state is the worst. Surely never since the beginning of photography has so much bad portraiture been churned out and have so few inspired portraits, been made. During the war, portraitists performed a service of no mean measure striving to meet an insatiable demand born of love and fear. Most strove honourably, hemmed in by great difficulties of staff and material shortage and indeed performed miracles of output and promptness. Who would condemn the falling off in quality that such conditions imposed? There were others who exploited the situation, with no care for quality, intent upon collecting from an uncritical public as many guineas as possible while the extraordinary demand persisted. There are many still to-day callously clinging to their belief that portraiture means easy money and, very ignorant of the use of their tools, selling trash. Tens of thousands of prints produced by these persons betray an utter lack of craftsmanship and are not even approximately accurate maps of faces. No carpenter with so little knowledge of his tools, no bootmaker so clumsy, could hope to survive a few weeks; and indeed these photo¬graphers, product of the war and the aftermath of war, will hardly survive many years unless they are prepared to discipline themselves and learn. All who care for quality and honesty in photography should strive to bring to an end this unhappy state. This lowest stratum of portraiture does not come within the scope of this article, for it is a passing thing and what is wrong-.is patent; it is a complete lack of any care for the rudimentary principles of photography,…"
THE BRITISH JOURNAL PHOTOGRAPHIC ALMANAC 1948 - Pag 125 😱
Found last weekend on a street fair - Feira da Ladra - in Lisbon for 1 € 🙂
comments welcome!
"WHAT IS WRONG WITH PHOTOGRAPHY
By A. F. BUCKNELL
So much has been said within recent years deploring the level of photography, that it might be assumed that dissatisafaction is no longer confined to a few. But this is not so; complacency still has most in its paralysing grip. Surely, they say, there is not much to worry about; of course a good deal of bad work is turned out, mainly portraiture, but the general level is pretty good—look at the periodicals, look at the annuals, look at the exhibitions.
Well, look at them. Take stock with a refreshed and quickened spirit and what do you really see? Monotony, sterility, conventionality, mediocrity—seldom relieved by brilliance and often sinking to deplorably low levels.
The exhibitions, large and small, have little to distinguish them one from another, nor from their predecessors of the past ten years. They are pleasant shows which offend little; solid, dignified but uninspired. Set out in any one of them seeking with the eyes of an editor a dozen fine pictures and see how difficult that is. Compare their catalogues over a period of years and search for signs of progress, or even of change, which is characteristic of all that lives abundantly. Search for some reflection or expression of the spirit of the times; you will find fashions, yes, but these treatments and styles have no spiritual relation with the world around them, they are the exercises of those who live in a closed photo¬graphic world. -
Exhibitions are needed, not to interest or instruct the general public, though they may well do that to great profit, but to refresh and stimulate the artist. How often in our exhibitions is such stimulation to be found ? How much is new, vital, arresting; what is there to catch the breath for a moment at the first impact? The Export Exhibition organised by the Institute of British Photographers last autumn seemed refreshing and was widely praised: it had a new emphasis and^a different style, but was it really worthy of the subject? How high—or how low—was its percentage of greatness? Rea1, the exhibitions are pleasing. But is that good .enough? Is it?
Some blame the judges. They make good whipping boys and they cannot answer back, but it may be a dangerous illusion to suppose that the judges reject the masterpieces. Before the war the prints for one annual exhibition were chosen by. three-independent panels of judges: one. was made up of "photographers, one of painters and sculptors and the third represented the general public. That was a very good idea and it was interesting to compare their choice, but it did not produce great exhibitions. Why not blame the exhibitors? A year or two ago the Royal Photographic Society, the London Salon and the Institute of British Photographers combined to make an exhibition of two hundred superb examples of British photography. There were no irksome limitations; two hundred odd exhibitors were asked to submit their best pictures, new and old : it did not matter if they had been exhibited before and they covered all branches of photography. At the first sifting of the entries the organisers regretfully abandoned the quest, blamed the war years and postponed their excellent project indefinitely. Look at the Annuals. It is true that they derive largely from the exhibitions, but not all of them exclusively, and they have a wider range and are more selective. Are they much more exciting? Are they larded with great pictures? Would anybody notice if the date on the cover or title page was altered?
Look at the work being turned out on every side. Portraiture shall come first because its state is the worst. Surely never since the beginning of photography has so much bad portraiture been churned out and have so few inspired portraits, been made. During the war, portraitists performed a service of no mean measure striving to meet an insatiable demand born of love and fear. Most strove honourably, hemmed in by great difficulties of staff and material shortage and indeed performed miracles of output and promptness. Who would condemn the falling off in quality that such conditions imposed? There were others who exploited the situation, with no care for quality, intent upon collecting from an uncritical public as many guineas as possible while the extraordinary demand persisted. There are many still to-day callously clinging to their belief that portraiture means easy money and, very ignorant of the use of their tools, selling trash. Tens of thousands of prints produced by these persons betray an utter lack of craftsmanship and are not even approximately accurate maps of faces. No carpenter with so little knowledge of his tools, no bootmaker so clumsy, could hope to survive a few weeks; and indeed these photo¬graphers, product of the war and the aftermath of war, will hardly survive many years unless they are prepared to discipline themselves and learn. All who care for quality and honesty in photography should strive to bring to an end this unhappy state. This lowest stratum of portraiture does not come within the scope of this article, for it is a passing thing and what is wrong-.is patent; it is a complete lack of any care for the rudimentary principles of photography,…"
THE BRITISH JOURNAL PHOTOGRAPHIC ALMANAC 1948 - Pag 125 😱
Found last weekend on a street fair - Feira da Ladra - in Lisbon for 1 € 🙂
comments welcome!
