MattKing
Moderator
And if they are prudent, they will respond by:
1) writing back that they loved working with the curators and hope to work with them again soon; and
2) sending a copy of the letter to the curators.
There's actually a pretty simple way to settle this. Write to the photographers and ask them if they were bothered by seing the photos of the curators next to theirs.
The editor (curator??) if there ever was one, chose to remain anonymous. The book starts with a six-page Introduction by Jack Kerouac, a rambling about American-ness. Then picture after picture until the back cover. I doubt Kerouac ever saw his contribution as curating.A good example of this might be Robert Frank's "The Americans," which went through a very intense editorial process. The editor was somewhat famous, as I remember, but I can't remember his name.
Some subjects are political. Not just in the curator's mind.I've noticed that when seeing exhibits at museums of modern photographers, the curation sometimes tends to be political today in trying to make some statement.
The editor (curator??) if there ever was one, chose to remain anonymous. The book starts with a six-page Introduction by Jack Kerouac, a rambling about American-ness. Then picture after picture until the back cover.
And if they are prudent, they will respond by:
1) writing back that they loved working with the curators and hope to work with them again soon; and
2) sending a copy of the letter to the curators.
I agree that it is useful that another person takes a part, maybe even a leading part, in the selection of images. The reason being that this person is an approximation of the general audience, in the sense that he/she views each image per se, free from the factual and mental context that the photographer is the only one to have, just like the general audience will see it.
And of course there are other equally valid viewpoints.Thank you Mr Steichen for your skillful editorial work, and for letting the artists speak through their images.
I do get that there's an emoji that lightens the comment, but still, I'm not that cynical.
I would use the term “agenda”’rather than “political” but that might just be mincing words. If a show or book does not have a poignant theme or agenda, then they are just a bunch of pictures.
If the curator has a political or agenda different than the photographer, the photos won't get published if they represent an opposite view, even if they are great photos. Have photographers here ever experienced situations like this?
If the curator has a political or agenda different than the photographer, the photos won't get published if they represent an opposite view, even if they are great photos. Have photographers here ever experienced situations like this?
Alan, exhibitions don't happen without the photographer's consent, the heirs consent or the estate's consent. How could the curator possibily have "an opposite view"?
Also, you seem to be confusing curator and editor.
I'm also puzzled by what "an opposing view" could be as far as photographs are concerned. That Ansel Adams hated nature? That Gordon Parks couldn't care less about the civil rights movement? That Winogrand essentially did landscape? We are talking about photographs, not words. Unlike words, which can be subject to multiple interpretations and meanings, with photography, you have the evidence of what is seen. You can add layers of meaning, but in attempting to do so you still have to abide by what is shown and what is seen.
A great example of curation adding a layer of new meaning is the exhibition curated by William Jenkins in 1975-1976 at the George Eastman House titled New Topographics: Photographs of a Man-Altered Landscape.
Does academic criticism go overboard at times? Of couse it does. But that's a whole different subject.
A photographer takes photojournalistic photos of a demonstration showing both sides of an issue. That's what good photojournalists do. Show both sides just like a good writer of journalism. The curator selects only the ones that comport with his political viewpoint. Or the photographer is biased himself and only photographs his viewpoint. Then the curator either denies or accepts the photos for display based on their viewpoints whether they agree or disagree with the photographer.A photo that says nothing isn't likely to be a great photo.
In fact, great photos often say many things at once.
A curator can often find a persuasive narrative in a curated collection of photos, that the photographer barely sensed at the time that the photos were created.
There is a clarity of vision that arises from the distance that a curator enjoys, that can often be lacking in the photographer themselves.
New Topographics is a good example of that - clarity arising from a perception of context, aided by a relatively fresh and comparative approach.
A photographer takes photojournalistic photos of a demonstration showing both sides of an issue. That's what good photojournalists do. Show both sides just like a good writer of journalism.
Irrespective of their actual significance in the process, the decent thing for the curator to do would be to stay humbly in the background, acknowledging that if the artist didn’t exist they would have nothing to work with. (IMHO)
But what if the artist is still there and able to manage his own artistic production/collection/show?
Actually, I didn’t. I just said that would be the decent stance. My guess is actually that the curators were asked for mugshots, and had no idea how they would be used, while the layout editor didn’t know how to make them all the same size.Why presume these people aren't humble?
What you describe, Matt, seems more descriptive of the curatorial role of a gallery, where an artist is presenting their work for the sake of presenting their work and/or offering those works for sale. Curatorial work in a museum, especially with a collection, is broader and definitely involves selection and messaging. I would put published works in the "museum" category for the most part but it might be a true borderline situation. The job title "curator" seems like that of "electrician" where not all electricians actually do all types of electrical work. Context matters, and the amount of credit given the curator vs the artist may rightfully vary also...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?