Photography in the museum or in the gallery?

In this exercise I looked at Krauss's essay on "Photography's discursive spaces" and Tod Papageorge's lecture notes on "Eugine Atget, A winter's tale" I was aware of Atget, having researched him for a previous course although I found it useful to revisit his work. I also looked at the work of O'Sullivan as a landscape photographer in preparation for reading Krauss's essay.

Eugine Atget - born 1857, spent his early years as a sailor and tying to become an actor. Took up photography at the age of 40 and spent 30 years perfecting his craft. Atget's style developed to use contrasts, foreground detail, highlights and shadows, form and the viewing perspective. His acting and painting experience may have helped form his ideas. 

James Borcoman, in describing the viewing experience of Atget's work suggests that people referred to Atget's work as looking through a door or window. "The ambiguity between the vicarious (experienced through the feelings or experience of another)and the actual experience creates a tension in the viewer that gives photography its unusual quality as an artist's medium, that lends to photography its mystery. Often enough, the more the photograph appears to function as a mirror, the more the mystery deepens. It is at this point, too, that a photographer's style may be at its most elusive sensed, but indescribable." (http://www.masters-of-photography.com/A/atget/atget_articles3.html accessed 27/3/15) I  thought this was a good perspective from which to look at the two essays although I had not considered photography in this way before.

Rosalind Krauss, art critic, begins her paper by showing the reader two similar images of Tufa Domes, Pyramid Lake, Nevada. One image (a) is taken as a photograph by Timothy O'Sullivan in 1868. The other (b)is a lithographic copy of the same photograph used in "Systematic Geology" by Clarence King in 1878, some 10 years later. (Discrepancy over dates in her paper)

In order to fully understand the beginning of Krauss's discussion, one must realise that O'Sullivan and King were both part of a survey taking place after the American Civil War to document the "geological and topographical exploration of the territory between the Rocky Mountains and the Sierra Nevada Mountains including the routes of the Pacific Railroad. ("http://americanart.si.edu/collections/search/artist/?id=3600) accessed 27/3/15. According to the Smithsonian American Art Museum, King influenced O'Sullivan heavily with his images and as a result O'Sullivan made scientific and more personal, arty  images which helped entice settlers to this part of America.

Both of these images are different. In (a), the detail of the rocks are less well defined. Krauss observes the rocks as shapes which become "functions of design"and describes the space as being flattened. In (b), Krauss describes the rocks boring(banal) because the viewer can see every little detail. Krauss argues that these two photographs belong to "different domains of culture" and uses them because they illustrate "representations within two separate discursive spaces". She describes the first as art and the second as topography. 

(a) Timothy O'Sullivan, Tufa Domes, Pyramid Lake (Nevada) 1868 

(b) Photolithograph after O'Sullivan, Published in King Survey 1875 

 Krauss explains that these images are both different because they are intended for different uses and therefore should be viewed in different discursive spaces - thus she would prefer to see the dreamy image (a) in an art gallery or museum and with (b) she identifies it as being restored to its original detail for inclusion into a geographical survey so it belongs to the geology discursive space.

Krauss explores the use of exhibition space in the 19th century where photographs and paintings were hung on the wall of an art gallery which she describes as "aesthetic discourse". She describes the advent of landscape images as being a "flattened and compressed experience of space" and cites two further different examples. She questions whether landscape should be hung on a museum / art gallery wall or whether it could be viewed in another way.

To change the viewing perspective in the 19th century, photographers made stereoscopic views. (Two images to viewed side by side in a stereoscope make them appear 3 dimensional). Krauss defines view as "speaks to the dramatic insistence of the perspectivally organised depth" to which she places O'Sullivan in the category of making views because of his "tendency to compose around the diagonal recession and centering of the view."  Krauss  indicates that stereoscopic view is of a "higher power" and belongs to a different  discursive("perspectival") space than topography and art. When the view is observed through the stereoscope, the action removes visual distractions (which would be present at a gallery) like a trip to the cinema allowing the viewer to concentrate on the image. 

Timothy O'Sullivan Stereoscopic view of Tufa Domes Pyramid Lake (Nevada)

She discusses the copyright / credit of the images and mentions that the 19th century photographer (operator) took the photographs for stereoscopes which were published by a company who took the copyright and authorship for them. She questions that if the operator is working for someone else, how credible is he as a photographer?  She seems sceptical that if O'Sullivan's work was for a stereoscope and he did not exhibit photographs, could he be classed as a photographer in his own right? She questions whether photographers who do not have a  lifetime collection of their own work (an oeuvre) have credibility? If Krauss labelled O'Sullivan as a landscape photographer, (which in my opinion he belongs to) could she see him as an artist with a vocation who measured his success and failure and looked at improving his work? In fact, he died not long after in 1882. 

Steroscopes were kept in drawers or cupboards in the Victorian homes and brought out occasionally for the family to enjoy the views. In my opinion, by the very nature of its use, it took art to the people who did not visit art galleries. The discursive space for this type of art / photography is one which is still around through collectors and ironically has found its way into museums such as the Edinburgh Camera Obscurer to allow the public to admire the optical illusion of 3d view photography. Having looked through them at several images, agree with Krauss's comments about the enhanced viewing experience.

To search on Google (a modern discursive place developed after the article was written) for "Tufa Domes, Pyramid Lake" takes 55 seconds and finds 16,880 results including several stereoscopic, sepia and black and white images. This is art in a public space which is not fixed to a gallery wall but still classified today as art. So perhaps in 1982, art had to be hung in a museum but now there are more modern methods of displaying art. Art also appears in newspapers; in fact most newspapers have cultural pages, and an article on O'Sullivan's landscapes appeared in the Daily Mail in 2012. 

Going back to Krauss's point about an oeuvre being a lifetime's work, she moves on to discuss an exhibition by Eugine Atget, a 19th century French photographer, whose lifetime of work was edited and displayed over 4 years at the Museum of Modern Art. She argues that 10,000 pieces of work were numbered by him and the code was broken by Maria Morris Hambourg, who worked for the museum.  Originally, I was confused by the point Krauss was trying to make.  Did Krauss see Atget as a View Maker who is making images as a representation of the landscape and culture around him and perhaps if he had narrowed his work down himself, she would see him as a photographer? However, in Szarowski's description of a photographer, Krauss concurs that Atget was self improving, revisiting his work and making more artistic representations of the same subjects so he fits into the category of an artist with an oeuvre. Papageorge, on the other hand takes issue with Krauss  as she states that Atget did not sift through his oeuvre of work, but I think he has misread what Krauss was trying to say. Krauss explores this in her essay by relating and expanding Szarovski's comments and making her own assumptions about Atget fitting into the genre of an artist.

Papageorge's essay, on the other hand, suggests that Krauss had missed the point of the exhibition of Atget's work at MoMA. He states that she visited the museum during the first year of a four year period. Krauss seems to understand the work of Atget, and Papageorge doesn't imply what she would miss, and as Atget was only part of the inclusion of Krauss's essay, I am not sure if the timing of the visit mattered too much? He argues that she would have learnt more biographical information and how he formed his ideas. Maybe Krauss felt she knew enough about Atget to include him at this point.  Papageorge implies that Krauss did not publish any further critiques on Atget. I don't see that this matters either. He questions the statement Krauss made about Atget having produced 10,000 pieces of work when he believes it was only 8500. I think it is still a large volume of work am not sure how critical an extra 1500 were. and perhaps this is Papageorge finding fault with Krauss.

In Krauss's essay the ideas are formed as an entirety, and though I found it difficult to read in the beginning, in my opinion she qualifies her statements. This essay was written 23 years ago and technology has changed since the first publication. Ideas change too and so does the way in which exhibitions are executed. So to answer the question of whether art belongs in a museum or a gallery, I think it is more about making it accessible to people and  so presentation does not have to be limited to a museum or art gallery. I have seen examples recently where art has been taken to the streets of Nottingham or presented on a billboard (see exhibitions - Les Monighan). 

In the beginning I was unclear over the terms of art gallery and museum - so I have defined an art gallery as a place where an artist displays his or her work with the intent to sell it. The artist works with the seller to enable them to understand the work so it can be sold on the artist's behalf to the collector who then understands it. In a museum, the art is displayed with a description. However, museums do run talks around the work or artist to the public, and a body of work or exhibition can be moved from one place to another. Atget's work was displayed in a museum (MoMA) although it is a contemporary museum and so I see why Krauss questioned whether a contemporary museum was the place to display 19th century photographs. 


Sources
Krauss, R (1982) Photography's discursive spaces Landscape/View, Art Journal Vol 42, No 4, The Crisis in the Discipline (Winter 1982) pp311-319

Papageorge,(2011) Core Curriculum,Writings on Photography,Eugine Atget, A photographer's tale, Aperture pp15-29

References
http://www.masters-of-photography.com/A/atget/atget_articles3.html accessed 27/3/15
http://americanart.si.edu/collections/search/artist/?id=3600 accessed 13/3/15

Bibliography
http://www.nga.gov/feature/atget/work.shtm accessed 13/3/15
http://www.atgetphotography.com/The-Photographers/Eugene-Atget.html 13/3/15
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2149899/The-American-West-youve-seen-Amazing-19th-century-pictures-landscape-chartered-time.html accessed 27/3/15
Krauss, R (1982) Photography's discursive spaces Landscape/View, Art Journal Vol 42, No 4, The Crisis in the Discipline (Winter 1982) pp311-319
Papageorge,(2011) Core Curriculum,Writings on Photography,Eugine Atget, A photographer's tale, Aperture pp15-29
http://www.masters-of-photography.com/A/atget/atget_articles3.html accessed 27/3/15