Changing Places: Rebranding of Photography as Contemporary Art

In this text Moschovi explains the journey that photography has taken to be accepted as a contemporary art form. The way that photography has changed throughout the years has affected the way it is seen from an artistic point of view. It was originally seen as something that would accompany art, or an extension of work already produced by artists. Having little ‘artistic value’ just as a photograph. Alan Bowness (Tate Gallery director in 1982) said at the time that they would not collect the work of artists who are exclusively photographers. He would only exhibit photographic work that was a natural extension of an art piece.

Moschovi talks about Harvey’s political economic theory of ‘monopoly rent’ with specific reference to the art market. This may be described as the ‘ability to realise a monopoly price for a commodity’ (Harvey, 1982, 349). He goes on to explain that a piece of art that is considered prestigious, and exhibited in a specific gallery holds a high monopoly rent, as people will come from all over to view this one piece of art. However, as photographs are more easily accessible, and can be exhibited in multiple galleries at the same time, we reduce the monopoly rent or advantage for these galleries. Does this then reduce the desirability to view the photograph, because it isn’t reputable enough to only be exhibited in one place? Would it be considered the ‘real thing’ if there were multiple versions out there?

Throughout the 80s, as technology evolved, photography became more widely recognised and appeared more frequently in museums. The field expanded to a large array of practices including film, digital, advertising, video and fashion. People started to embrace the ‘anti-art’ movement which saw art museums adopt the ‘return of the real’ and a little less of the traditional as the media started to play a big part in modern life. The demand for more contemporary art came in the eighties after the economic hardship of the 70s, and photography fit the bill, being more affordable and accessible to the masses. Nowadays, photography is exhibited in museums all over the world, appreciated as its own contemporary art form, not simply an extension of traditional art.

Beauty in Photography

Beauty in photography can be subjective. Something that one person may consider to be beautiful, may not have any relevance to someone else. The way we connect to a photo, or a piece of art is personal, we may like or dislike something based on the way we feel about certain subjects or messages that art pieces are trying to convey. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that the work is not beautifully composed.

Of course, reading the piece by Robert Adams, I agree that beauty can be dissected into traditional elements that contribute to overall aesthetic including concept, form, colour, composition, light and splendour. However, individuals all have different opinions about what makes these factors ‘beautiful’ or appealing. Some may enjoy photographs that make you question reality or truth, uncover unique concepts, or reintroduce familiar concepts but in new ways. And some may enjoy more traditional beauty, viewing pieces at face value, without needing to delve deeper into the meaning of art. Simply enjoying them because they are beautiful to look at.

I agree with Adams that overthinking aesthetics can interfere with the creative process. I believe that it’s possible to be distracted from what you really want to portray, if you believe that it might not be perceived as beautiful, if it doesn’t conform to typical photographical beauty standards. However, if it something that you connect with, having created with thought and reasoning, even if it is unconventional, surely that is beautiful?

Robert Adams raised some very interesting points about beauty in the art world. I personally believe that beauty in photography is controversial. Art can be beautifully constructed or executed, but it’s also dependent on the subject and what the image represents, as to whether or not it can be considered beautiful in its entirety. Photographs are viewed by an unknown number of people, and can mean many different things to each one of those people, based on their individual perceptions of beauty.