“[Writers on photography have] difficulty in accepting the fact that luck is a great and powerful force in photography; we tend to be interested only in intention, because it makes the enterprise feel more important.” ~ John Szarkowski
I RECENTLY CAME ACROSS A SITE–HERITAGE AUCTIONS / Photography Signature Auction–THAT CURRENTLY HAS 512 photographs available at auction. According to the site event description, this auction:
….”presents an extraordinary opportunity to acquire works by some of the most celebrated photographers of the 20th century. Headlining the sale are important offerings from Irving Penn, Robert Frank, Ansel Adams, Richard Avedon, and Peter Beard, each representing a distinct and influential vision within the medium. Spanning both black-and-white and color photography, the auction encompasses an impressive 512 lots that reflect the depth and diversity of the photographic tradition. Collectors will discover breathtaking landscapes, iconic portraits, dynamic studies of American life, intimate nudes, and other captivating subjects.”
The description is woefully deficient in mentioning the number of “celebrated” photographers represented in the auction; names such as Smith, Abbott, Cartier-Bresson, Shore, Salgado, Erwitt, Haas, Wegman, Weston, Stieglitz, Frank, Arbus, Strand and many others. Each of the works has a small roll-over enlargement which presents an expanded view of the work, a rare opportunity–but only until October 3–to view all these photographs together in one place.
Upon viewing the work, most of which would be considered to be great photographs, my impression was that I needed to re-evaluate my idea of the honorific phrase of [that’s] “a great photograph”. That is, even to the point of questioning whether or not there is such a thing as a “great” photograph.
Seeking an answer to that question is rife with pitfalls. First and most probably foremost is ITEM #1 - the fact that “great” for one person can be not-so-great for another person, aka: one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Then there is ITEM #2 - who the hell’s job is it to decide what is great or not-so-great? Academics? The Unruly Masses? The Art World Gatekeepers?–I guess it all depends on whether one is a proponent of MOMA or, conversely, Jean Shepherd’s Museum of American Slob Art. And, ITEM #3 - just for laughs, let’s just throw in, amongst many other pitfall possibilities, the BIG QUESTION, what exactly is Art/art anyway?
All of that aside, and, considering Szarkowski’s observation that “… because it makes the enterprise feel more important”, iMo, all the words it would take to give even the vaguest suggestion of what constitutes greatness in a piece of photographic art would be spent primarily in support of implying that making photographs is an “important” undertaking; a supposition that I am not eager to accept.
I mean, seriously, when viewing all of the “great” pictures in the auction, is anyone left with the impression that any of them are important in any way? Important, that is, outside of the Art World?
That is not to write, that the photographs are not very good photographs but, in fact, are they that much better than many of the very good photographs being made today by no-name picture makers? Nor is it to write that I would not drive 300-400 miles to view an exhibition of such photographs or an exhibition of a a single celebrated photographer cuz I have and still would do so. And, to be perfectly clear, I would go to the same effort to see a group exhibition of photographs made by no-name, unknown pictures makers whose work was harvested from the web.
All of that written, I’m guessing–cuz I’m not really certain–that my point here is that I’m hesitant to use the appellation “great” loosely. Got to think about more, especially when it comes to describing a single photograph. FYI, I have no inhibition against using it to describe a body of work, an accomplishment that is well worth a few accolades.