Fantastic Photographs [antikvár]

FANTASTIC PHOTOGRAPHS When Susan Sontag states in On Photography (1977) that "No subject is better suited to Surrealism than photography," she is purposely adopting a point of view that differs radically from most widely acccpted notions found in works on photography. Why does she make this striking assertion? Probably to ensure our reexamination of and conclusions about photography, conclusions we have arrived at too hastily and which, except in rare cases, continue to be regarded as criteria not only by the public but also by art critics. To deny photography all expressive value, to attribute to it only negative qualities such as "absence," "instability," or "duplication of reality," or to say that it oscillates between two extremes—pure documentation and desire—probably amounts to avoiding the true problems. By doing this, we are submitting to the influence of a long series of social and historical prejudices that have confined photography to a very restricted domain. It is not my intention here to retrace the different stages of the invention and spread of photography. Rather, 1 would like to emphasize that the commonly accepted definition of photography as "a method of faithfully reproducing reality" (in which the word "reality" is taken in its narrowest sense) is most inadequate. Rsr the past 150 years this definition has never ceased to be contradicted by the facts, and the pictures in this book are proof of what 1 am saying. But it is difficult to eradicate accepted ideas, and the myth of photography as a faithful documentation of reality is still widespread today. In fact, the only justification for this very narrow concept of "objectivity" is the Establishment (which manipulates it) and commercial outlets, which use it as a quick and economical matrix of impressions. This function of photography as a method of reproduction is one of the principal reasons for its social existence. The metaphoric use of photography, which removes it from the realm of documentation, has no place in the established means of production and distribution, not only because a nondocumentary photograph is a difficult product to control, but also because it demands an intellectual effort to be understood; but above all because until now painting and sculpture have satisfied the demands of the market. It is no coincidence that many nonspecialized galleries have shown a sudden interest in photography: it is the result of too much conceptualism on the part of artists, who prefer the idea of the work to its realization, thus producing fewer works for the market. It is also the result of the diminishing fervor of avant-garde movements. The recent sudden interest in photography is really very surprising. We should beware of the new label that has been attached to photography: instead of documentation, it is now ART—and once again, it is the dealers who have given it this definition. The fact remains that for many of us photography has become a part of our reality; it can no longer be relegated to simply functioning as a mirror. Carole Naggar is correct when she says "it is no longer possible to imagine a world without photography." This also means—and our experience confirms it—that nearly all our contacts with the world are channeled by way of photography.