Reading Response #6

When discussing early photography, I think the author brings to light an interesting point – that these early photographers did not see themselves as artists. Only later curators, art critics and other influential individuals in the art world raised their photographs to the status of art by displaying them in galleries. However, these individuals determine which of these photographers become key figures in the development of art photography and who does not make the cut. Photography’s history spans periods of colonialism, racism and gender inequality and I wonder how curators factor in the oppression of different people in deciding which artists they support and promote. It would be very easy for curators to perpetuate the power roles rather than subvert them and show alternative photographic practices from anyone other than the affluent white male. I was excited to read about the many different contemporary shows embracing heritage and gender but I hope that curators continue to look back to photography’s history and expand upon the canon of iconic photographers. I think this is especially important for the big art galleries rather than just the small ones looking at one specific type of art. On page 294, I really love the concept of the show Shifting Focus. The curator encourages women to actively look when viewing the art, and therefore, they subvert the male gaze.

I really enjoyed the author’s connections between modernity and the fundamental nature of the camera. Modernity reflects the growth of capitalism, the development of technology and advancements in science. Photography encapsulates all of these ideas. The camera itself is a commodity while the taking of pictures commodifies its subject. Also, it was seen as an important technological development rather than artistic development when it first came on the market. Its technical nature makes it the perfect medium for capturing the insensitive cutthroat world of modernity. It is interesting to me that Baudelaire and other early writers responded to the camera as unable to capture artistic expression because of it is mechanical. I think this is what helps it fit so perfectly into contemporary culture. What better way to deal with questions of identity, technology, commodities etc that through a machine that actually represents a part of this modern society? Also, the author shows how later Russian artists used the medium because of its democratic nature and ability to reach large amounts of people to instigate social and cultural change.

Q. Do you think photography/ art in galleries perpetuates cultural elitism as discussed on page 302. On the one hand, artists want to make some sort of comment but often art becomes deeply theoretical or assumes a viewer of a particular culture/ race/ social background etc for it to become understandable. Also consider that even by putting the work in a gallery context, the work is shown to the specific viewers interested in seeing that particular type of art.