Commerce is devouring its offspring
Photography as an art form has been shrouded in controversy for quite some time; even today the Brockhaus dictionary considers it only in a very broad sense as one of the fine arts. Where do those resentments come from that deny photography the acknowledgement as an artistic discipline like paintings or sculptures?
“Photography is a craft. Many want to turn it into an art form, but we are simple craftsman who must do their work well” remarked Henri Cartier-Bresson.
And the art theorist Charles Pawel clearly noted in the 1960s: “The artist creates reality, the photographer sees it.” 1
Back then, photography had established itself after its tender beginnings as part of Art Nouveau in styles such as Bauhaus, Dadaism and Pop Art.
Curators and gallery owners started showing an increasing interest in photographs of Edward Steichen and alike, but it was not until the 80s and 90s that a distinct market for photography originated, a sort of commercial hype.
Can photography therefore be considered an art form? Because an ever increasing number of the photographers, collectors and investors consider it to be sellable? Because photography turned into an investment object, equal to shares, businesses, real estate, ships or steel?
Naturally it is absurd today to dispute photography as an established art form; it has been viewed in museums, as part of collections and galleries for many decades now.
Scientists also see a need to be part of a visual media science discourse since we live in an era that is deeply influenced by the media, advertisement, and the internet.
Art photographers create an iconographic zeitgeist-archive. But what about the potential threat that commercialism and zeitgeist have already devoured photography as an art form?
Naturally artists want to sell their art and live off being an artist, but a market for art in this shape has never existed before. Therefore it corresponds to a need for fame, money and financial security, to manufacture photographs that conform to the laws of the market and that are sellable.
This development has nothing to do with art, but with commerce; with magazines that deal exclusively with PR-oriented art market topics and popular photographers like David LaChapelle, who imitate the aesthetics of a music video and consider an artificially created picture to be art, and see them as the movers and shakers of the scene.
The market for photography in the US has been experiencing a boom, especially in recent years. An elite group of photographers are part of this movement and are being celebrated by a media who lack the critical distance that journalists ought to have. Essentially there is a commercial system that constantly fertilizes itself and is under the influence of lobbyists who have brutal financial interests and who consider artists to be replaceable as long as they generate profit. The danger lies exactly here; that one fine day the bubble will bust like it did in the days of the New Economy. There are no indications of this development at this point in time because the growth potential of a global art market for photography is immense.
1 Charles Pawel, “Das optische Zeitalter”, Olten/ Freiburg i. Br., 1963, page 58.
Translated by Alexandra Burt
“Photography is a craft. Many want to turn it into an art form, but we are simple craftsman who must do their work well” remarked Henri Cartier-Bresson.
And the art theorist Charles Pawel clearly noted in the 1960s: “The artist creates reality, the photographer sees it.” 1
Back then, photography had established itself after its tender beginnings as part of Art Nouveau in styles such as Bauhaus, Dadaism and Pop Art.
Curators and gallery owners started showing an increasing interest in photographs of Edward Steichen and alike, but it was not until the 80s and 90s that a distinct market for photography originated, a sort of commercial hype.
Can photography therefore be considered an art form? Because an ever increasing number of the photographers, collectors and investors consider it to be sellable? Because photography turned into an investment object, equal to shares, businesses, real estate, ships or steel?
Naturally it is absurd today to dispute photography as an established art form; it has been viewed in museums, as part of collections and galleries for many decades now.
Scientists also see a need to be part of a visual media science discourse since we live in an era that is deeply influenced by the media, advertisement, and the internet.
Art photographers create an iconographic zeitgeist-archive. But what about the potential threat that commercialism and zeitgeist have already devoured photography as an art form?
Naturally artists want to sell their art and live off being an artist, but a market for art in this shape has never existed before. Therefore it corresponds to a need for fame, money and financial security, to manufacture photographs that conform to the laws of the market and that are sellable.
This development has nothing to do with art, but with commerce; with magazines that deal exclusively with PR-oriented art market topics and popular photographers like David LaChapelle, who imitate the aesthetics of a music video and consider an artificially created picture to be art, and see them as the movers and shakers of the scene.
The market for photography in the US has been experiencing a boom, especially in recent years. An elite group of photographers are part of this movement and are being celebrated by a media who lack the critical distance that journalists ought to have. Essentially there is a commercial system that constantly fertilizes itself and is under the influence of lobbyists who have brutal financial interests and who consider artists to be replaceable as long as they generate profit. The danger lies exactly here; that one fine day the bubble will bust like it did in the days of the New Economy. There are no indications of this development at this point in time because the growth potential of a global art market for photography is immense.
1 Charles Pawel, “Das optische Zeitalter”, Olten/ Freiburg i. Br., 1963, page 58.
Translated by Alexandra Burt
posted by Photography Collection at
3:50 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home