Perhaps I am being unfair on Clarke in my previous blog - his chapters on 19th century photography and Landscape photography are much less pompous and sound summaries. He waxes lyrical sometimes but generally sticks to a reasonably objective and concise.
The 19th century saw photographers such as Talbot, who was really the father of photography insofar as one exists. I like The Open Door; as Clarke says, it could have been a painting.
Clearly many of the photogrpahers were people of their times: Fenton reinforces the upper class mores with his images, seeking to ignore the reality of life in the countryside and even selective imagery of the Crimean War, a sort of stiff upper lip photography.
Interesting that Jabez Hughes distinguished between Mechanical photography (simple representation); Art photography (more conscious involvement of the photographer in arranging and modifying the subject matter); and High Art photography ("whose purpose is not merely to amuse but to instruct, enoble and purify"). This has resonance today in the distinction between the happy snapper taking images of family friends, and holidays; the more serious photographer who can see that a more satisfying and challenging image can be obtained by being more involved; and the photographer who is consciously trying to send a message. Like all classification, it is imperfect but it makes sense.
Clarke draws some basic distinctions between Landscape photography in England and in the US. English landscape photography was traditionally (and arguably still is to a large degree) about the picturesque, loosely defined as the depiction of rural life as idyllic and Arcadian. In 18th century Art the term was used in a derogatory way to signify pretty rather then beautiful. Fenton;s landscapes were of this ilk.
In the US, several early photographers were also explorers of the new country, much taken with its vastness and emptiness - the images of O'Sullivan and William Henry Jackson were typical of the genre. Magnificent images for the time, they especially seem to emphasise the space. Clarke claims too that there was a transcendentalist tradition in US landscapes - a spiritual depiction of the great scenery presented to us by God.
I am less convinced by Clarke's appraisal of 2oth century landscape photography, perhaps he does not have sufficient space to set out enough comparative material. He makes the point that UK landscape photography has moved on to use man made intrusion onto the landscape as the main subject for photographers such as Moore and Parr.
Have read two chapters of Michael Freeman's book - The Photographer's Mind. It is a more practical book than Clarke's; I like Freeman's idea of democratic photography - he acknowledges the ease with which anyone can pick up a camera as opposed to a paintbrush or musical instrument say and the consequently high participation level in photography. His style is less pompous and academic; amen to that I say because the notion that photography is high art is undemocratic - it tries to set the academic apart from the rest of us. He elicits six charactersitics of a good photograph:
- Understands what generally satisfies;
- Stimulates and provokes;
- Is mulit-layered (works on more than one level);
- Fits the cultural context;
- Contains an idea;
- Is true to the medium
Freeman divides his book into three: intent,style and process and this seems a very simple and memorable triumvirate. It should be a good and challenging read.
