Photographic Theory An Historical Anthology Edited by Andrew E. Hershberger WILEY Blackwell“This edition frst published 2014 Editorial material and organization © 2014 Andrew E, Hershberger [Blackwell Publishing was acquited by John Wiley & Sons in February 2007. Dlackwells publishing program has been merged with Wiley global Scientific, Technical, and Medical busines to form Wiley-Dlackwell Registered Office ‘John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Susiex, POLY 8SQ, UK Earl Offs 390 Main Street, Mallen, MA 02148-5020, USA, ‘9600 Garsington Road, Oxfond, OX4 2DQ, UK. “The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, POI 85Q, UK For detail of our global editorial offices, for customer services and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book pleate see our website at www: wiley.com/wiley-blackwel ‘The right of Andrew E. Hershberger to be identified as the author ofthe editorial material in this work has been aserted in accondance ‘with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Al rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, of uansmitted, in any Form or by any ‘mca, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents ‘Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formas clectronic books ‘content that appear in print may nor be available in Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks, All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service maths trademarks or registered trademarks of their spective owners.The publisher is not asociated ‘with any product or vendor mentioned inthis book, Limit of Libilty/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publiher and author() have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make ‘0 representations of warranties with respect tothe accuracy or completeness ofthe contents of this book and specifically disclaim any {implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. Iti sold on the understanding thatthe publisher is not engaged in rendering profesional services and neither the publisher nor the author shall be lable for damages arising herefrom. If professional advice cor other expert assistance is required, the services ofa competent professional should be sought. Libary of Congress Caaleging-in-Publicaton Data ISBN 9781405198462 (hardback) ISBN 9781405198639 (paperback) ‘A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Cover image: Berenice Abbott, Broadway and Rector from Above, 1935. © Berenice Abbott/Commerce Graphics (Cover designer: Cyan Design Set in 10/12p¢ Bembo by SPi Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India Printed in Malaysia by Ho Printing (M) Sdn Bhd 1 2044.11 Excerpts from Museum Without Walls André Malraux, 1947 In 1929, the Spanish surrealist painter Salvador Dali surmised:“Photography can put together the most complete, scrupulous, and emotionally stirring catalogue mankind has ever been able to imagine” (Dali 1929, 35). The photographic “catalogue” Dali “imagined” sounds somewhat analogous to the musée imaginair, or imaginary museum — translated as “museum, without walls” — later theorized by French writer André Malraux (1901~1976). Famously inspired by his correspondence with the German intellectual Walter Benjamin — while Benjamin worked on his now legendary 1936 esay, “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility” (Benjamin 1936a [trans. 1968]; 1936b {trans. 2008}) — Malraux too became fascinated with photographic reproduction and its impact upon specific art works, upon their uniqueness or “aura,” and upon art museums generally, In Malraux's estimation, the enormous quantity of increasingly high-quality photographic reproductions, including 1940s color reproductions, resembled a new mega-museum “without walls” one that would clarify create, and/or distort relationships between works of art as never before. In making this argument, Malraux would engage not only Benjamin’ thoughts, but also André Bazin’ an admirer of Malraux's earlier writings (Bazin 1945; Friday 2005, 341)." Above a Benjamin had argued about reproduction in 1936,"it enables the original to meet the recipient halfway,” the reproduced work “leaves its site to be received in the studio of an art lover” (Benjamin 1936b (erans. 2008), 21-22). Similarly, Bazin claimed in 1945:“"The photographic image is the object itself, the object freed from the conditions of time and space that govern ie" Bazin 1945, 14). While simultaneously questioning that notion, Malraux added that reproduction “frees us from the necessity of tentative approach to the past” (23). Summarizing their differences on this point, Hal Foster has observed that whereas Malraux believed photographic reproduction enables a grand synthesis of all arts “into one meta-tradition of global styles,” Benjamin believed it “shatters tradition and liquidates aura" (Foster 2002, 93). ‘Malraux, André. 1947 [trans. 1949]. Excerpts from Museum Without Walls, by A. Malraux, trans, Stuare Gilbert, 18-52. New York: Pantheon. Photographic Theory: An Historical Anthology, First Edition. Edited by Andrew E, Hershberger. Editorial material and organization © 2014 Andrew E, Hershberger. Published 2014 by Blackwell Publishing Led.EXCERPTS FROM MUSEUM WITHOUT WALLS I Photography, which started in a humble way as a means of familiarizing those who could not buy engravings with acknowledged masterpieces, seemed destined merely to perpetuate established values. But actually an ever greater range of works is thus being made available, and the vast resources of camera technique are steadily enlarging the field of art expe- rience, lo the mere reproduction of the landmarks of the master-piece the significant work, and for the simple pleasure of the eye the subtler one of knowl. €@ggpAn carlicr generation thrived on Michelangelo engravings; now we are given photographs of lesser masters, likewise of folk paintings and arts hitherto ignored; in fact, everything that can be brought into line with what we call a style is now being photographed. [..-] Who, in 1750, would have dared to set up Van Eyck against Michelangelo? Italian painting and antique sculpture were more than mere painting or mere sculpture; they were the peak-points of a culture which still held undisputed sway of the imagination. Neither Watteau nor Fragonard wanted to paint like Raphael, nor did Chardin; but they did not think themselves his equals. There had been a Golden Age, now defunct, of art. When at last, in Napoleon’s Louvre, the schools joined vigorous issue, by dint of masterpieces, the old tradition remained all-powerful. What was not Italian was judged, as a matter of course, in terms of the Italian hierarchy. To speak Italian was the chief condition of entering the Academy of the Immortals (even if the artist spoke it with Rubens’ accent). In the eyes of critics of the period a masterpiece was a canvas which held its own in the august company of masterpieces. But this august company, to the mind of that age, was much like the Salon Carré. Velasquez and Rubens were tolerated in it by grace of their compromise with Italianism — Rembrandt, 4 magnificent, disturbing figure, hovering on the outskirts —, a compromise whose true aspect was to reveal itself unequivocally after the death of Delacroix as nothing but academicism. Thus a rivaly of works between themselves replaced their former 165 rivalry with a mythical perfection. But in this Debate with the Illustrious Dead, in which every new masterpiece was expected to state iS case, when challenging the privileged élite of Art, the test of merit and patent of nobility was — even when Tealian authority began to wane — the common measure of the qualities those time- honoured works possessed. Its scope was narrower than at first sight it seemed to be: that of the three- dimensional oil-paintings of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. debate in which Delacroix had his say; but not Manet. Photographie reproduction was to aid in changing the tenour of this debates by suggesting, then impos ing, a new hierarchy. The question whether Rubens was universally admired because he proved himself Titian’s peer in some of his less Flemish canvases loses much of its point when we examine an album containing In short, the most significant work by the inventor of a style. And just as the masterpiece triumphant in the struggle with the myth it conjured up of its own perfection, and then the masterpiece acclaimed as such in an august company of its peers, took their place beside, and indeed sometimes were ousted by, the most telling work of each of the great artists, so now another class of work is being included: (€HR68t 1 | approachsothespast By revealing a style in its entirety — just as it displays an artist's work in its entirety — i forces both to become positive and acquire significance166 And the new masterpiece is classified as such, not 36 against its rivals, but as the leading member of @ family. Thus the angle from which a work of sculpture is Photographed, the focussing, and, above all, skilflly adjusted lighting, may impart violent emphasis to something the sculptor himself merely hinted at Then, again, black-and-white photography tends to intensify the “family likeness” between objects that have but a slight affinity. With the result that very different objects of the same epoch — the Middle Ages —:a square of tapestry. a stained-glass window, miniature, a picture and a statue, when reproduced on the same page, become members of a family They have lost their colours, texture and natural dimen- sions (the statue has also lost something of its vol- ume); each, in short, has practically lost its individual ity — but their common style is by so much the gainer. There is another, more insidious, effect of repro- duction. In an album or art-book, the majority of the illustrations are usually of much the same size and format. (Exceptionally, a sixty-foot Buddha, hewn in an Asiatic cliff, may be shown in reproduction four times the size of a Tanagra statuette.) Thus, because their dimensions on the page are practically the same, very different works of art lose their relative scale. A miniature seems to belong to the same family as a stained-glass window; as tapestry and painting. The art of the Steppes was a highly individual art; yet ifa gold or bronze plaque from the Steppes be shown above a Romanesque bas-relief, in the same format, it becomes a bas-relief. Thus reproductions can free a style from the limitations which make it seem a minor art | result, the imperfect finish of the smaller work, due to its limited dimensions, produces, in enlargement, the effect of a bold style in the modern idiom. anpré MALRAUX, 1947 Romanesque goldsmiths’ work links up qyigh sculpture ofthe period, and reveals its true signige in sequences of photographs where reliquarig, satues are given equal dimensions, ‘True, sequences figure solely in specialist reviews. Bog reviews are made by artists, for artists — and q fail o take effect. Inthe realm of what Ihave called ittions arts fragment is king. Does not the Victory of Samonee® suggest a Greek style divergent from the true Greek, sryle? The effect that many ancient works prodges on us is die to an element of mutilation in whee cance and there those bo noe was patently intended t0 be a perfect whole 4p Khmer statuary there were many admirable heads gn conventional bodies; these heads, removed fiom the bodies, are now the glory of the Guimet rm [J Clasical aesthetics proceeded from the frag. ment to the whole; ours, often proceeding from the whole to the part, finds an invaluable ally in photo. graphic reproduction. Moreover, colour reproduction is coming into its For the last hundred years art history (if we except the specialized rescarch-work of experts) has been the history of that which can be photographed. No man of culture can have failed to be impressed by the unbroken continuity, the inevitability, of the course of Western sculpture, from Romanesque to Gothic, and from Gothic to Baroque. But how few cultured persons are aware of the parallel evolution of | the stained-glass window, or of the dramatic changes in Byzantine painting! The reason why the impression that Byzantine art was paralysed so long prevailed is, simply, that its drawing was conventional — whereas its life-force, genius and discoveries were recorded in its colour. It needed years of research, ranging from Greek to Syrian convents, from museums to private collections, from picture-sales to antique shops — and therewith a prodigious memory for colour — before a man could claim familiarity with Byzantine painting. Until quite recently its history was the his- tory of its drawing — and in it drawing counted notEXCERPTS FROM MUSEUM WITHOUT WALLS eal We may be sure chat drawing will ultimately Jose the supremacy conferred on it by black-and- white photography. What photograph led all modern ainting 10 gravitate towards Goya's Burial of the Sardine? A reproduction was all the more effective since in it the colour of the original was more sub- rdinated to the drawing. And Chardin henceforth ‘will not fight Michelangelo without means of defence.' The painting of the whole world is about to per- meate our culture, as sculpture has been doing for a century. ‘Asa result of photographic juggling with the dimensions of works of art, the miniature is by way of acquiring a new significance. Reproduced “life size” on the page, it occupies about the same space as a “reduced” picture. The minutely detailed style which, apart from its execution, distinguishes the miniature frot che picture jars on us no more than stimace” imposed on the full-sized picture by its diminution. Thus the Limbourg broth cers’ Tits Riches Heures du Duc de Berri do not assume the look of frescos, but seem naturally akin to Flemish paintings. And here, again, we have a fictive art, since the subjects used by the Limbourgs and even Fouquet for the miniature were such as they never used, never ‘would have dreamt of using, for a picture. (But their does the faint style is none the less significant for that.) (1 Reproduction has brought forth the whole world’s sculpture. LEiSiniGiEipieaaCee red masreR intures, frescos, stained glass, tapestries, Scythian jew~ cls, pictures, Greek vase paintings, have all become “colour-plates.” In the process they have lost their properties as objects. But likewise they have gained something — the utmost significance as to style that they can possibly acquire. It is hard for us to realize the gulf between the performance of a Sophoclean tragedy with the instant Persian threat and Salamis looming on the horizon of the bay, and the effect we get from reading it; nevertheless we vaguely feel the 16 | difference. I We might almost call them not “works” but “moments” of art. But this in the fullest sense they are; with a few exceptions — works whose outstanding genius sets them outside the ‘main historic stream. All these objects, varied as they are, speak for the same endeavour; as though an unseen presence, the spirit of art, were urging all on the same quest, from miniature to picture, from fresco to stained-glass window, and then, at certain moments, it abruptly indicated a new course, parallel or even diametrically opposed to the former. Like flotsam brought together and borne forward by time's dark river all these works, diverse though they are, seem to be moving in the same direction. | ‘or a style whose successive developments are familiar ceases to be an abstract notion and takes on the aspect of a living being working out its destiny. It is reproduction, and reproduction only*, that has imp imaginary super-artists, each of whom has a recon- dite birth, a varied life, including triumphs and con- cessions to the lure of the luxurious or the meretri- cious, a death-agony, and a resurrection — such being the life-history of these super-artists we call styles. And by endowing them with life, reproduc tion has brought out their significance. Il168 awpré MALRAUX, 1947 Notes 1 There are few works by Chardin in Italy; in France, Germany and the United States there is not 2 single Michelangelo. One wonders how many of those who ‘might have been ingluenced by one or other artist had seen their works, And, they did, at what age? Galleties which exhibit reproductions (such as the Plaster-casts and copies in the Musée de la Fresque) have the same effect, for they, too, bring together Widely dispersed works. They have more feedom of choice than other att galleries, since they need not acquire the originals. The competition between originals, due to their confrontation, is here replaced by a seme of vital continuity. emphasing chronological sequence in which galleries of yy which serve an historical purpose, usually copies. They have more immediacy than are immune from that virus of the are inevitably"“features" style at the expense of owing to the absence of volume and, in my the uniformity of colour and reduced reproductions, and, above all, to theie py ‘unbroken sequence — which bring 3 much as an accelerated film makes a plane cour eyes. diphy he alban book whet hich individuals many casey size of ye Oximity soe to i “ive bela