Arles: Curators more important than Photographers ?

[MattKing]

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.

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.

 

[bernard_L]

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.

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.

That was a single-author photo book. Now to the other extreme: Family of Man. Steichen and his team selected photos from "over two million photographs". Down to 503 photographs arranged in the page layout in a meaningful way. The concise introduction by Steichen basically states that in slightly longer form. No philosophy or aesthetic elucubrations. Thank you Mr Steichen for your skillful editorial work, and for letting the artists speak through their images.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

 

[bernard_L]

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.

Some subjects are political. Not just in the curator's mind.
This is political:

DEBI CORNWALL

Over the last decade, Debi Cornwall has been investigating the fictions fueling America’s idea of itself. Her vivid, formally composed color documentary photographs serve more to provoke than to inform, inviting a closer examination of how state...

www.rencontres-arles.com

this also, even if the selection of images on the web site does not make it obvious:

CRISTINA DE MIDDEL

Journey to the Center is a series that borrows the atmosphere and structure of the Jules Verne book Journey to the Center of the Earth to present the Central America migration route across Mexico as a heroic and daring journey rather than a runaway. In...

www.rencontres-arles.com

and this, conversely, might have been political, except that the author chose to de-contextualize his images:

STEPHEN DOCK

In an image-driven society, wars have inevitably become wars of images. The issue of war representation, amplified by the crisis of photojournalism, the digital revolution and the proliferation of new distribution channels, lies at the heart of Echoes....

www.rencontres-arles.com

Taking an example outside Arles. The work of Edward Burtynsky.

Photographs — Edward Burtynsky

Browse through photographs from each of Edward Burtynsky's series — including Tailings, China, Oil, Water and the latest from Anthropocene.

www.edwardburtynsky.com

There is no need for a curator to see it is deeply political. And for those viewers who see these scenes as unfortunate collateral consequences of economic activity, no curator's text is gong to change their mind.

 

[BrianShaw]

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.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

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.

Not so. The Americains was first published in France by Robert Delpire as Les Américains, and it contained texts, chosen by Alain Bosquet, by Simone de Beauvoir, Erskine Caldwell, William Faulkner, Henry Miller, and John Steinbeck. The American edition, with the intro by Kerouac, came later.

Delpire reissued this first edition in 2022.

And yes, in the case of photography, the role of the editor, notably in helping the photographer with sequencing, is very similar as that of curator.

I fail to understand the hostility towards this trade that pops up here in there in this thread, as well as the generalizations about their work. As with any other trade, there are some excellent curators, some ordinary ones, and some bad ones. Seems to me pretty narrow-minded to lump everybody in the same bag. One just has to look at the catalogue of the most recent Robert Adams exhibition — American Silence: The Photographs of Robert Adams — to see how essential the role of curator is. There are many more examples.

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 do get that there's an emoji that lightens the comment, but still, I'm not that cynical.

At any rate, Les rencontres d'Arles is such a unique event — we really should wish that there'd be many more like it — that criticizing a few photographs on their website seems to me like "une tempête dans un verre d'eau".

 

[bernard_L]

Out of a remark on the size of the curator's portrait on the Rencontres website, arose a lively discussion. I found it interesting. Please note that I am not one-sidedly negative about the role of editors/curators; for the record:

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.

Thank you Mr Steichen for your skillful editorial work, and for letting the artists speak through their images.

And of course there are other equally valid viewpoints.

 

[MattKing]

I do get that there's an emoji that lightens the comment, but still, I'm not that cynical.

Not purely cynical, but certainly there is some potential self-interest involved.
It is just a really good idea to have a good relationship with any curator you have worked with, or might work with in the future, or who might talk with other curators.
The artist-curator relationship can be really positive and worth fostering.
But as curators can also be gate-keepers, why miss an opportunity to give the good ones props, and have them made aware of that?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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?

 

[Arthurwg]

BTW, you can get a master's degree in "Curatorial Studies" at Bard. My favorite trend is the mixing of old and new, as for example, "de Kooning & Soutine," a show at the Barnes Foundation (2021), and beyond that, a grouping of unrelated items with no immediate or obvious connection.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

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.

 

[Arthurwg]

He did get equal billing once in a while .

View attachment 376476

Yes, billing but no portrait. I do own his wonderful four-volume set of Atget, which was my obsession a few years ago.

 

[MattKing]

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?

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.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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 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. 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.

Why does this sound so unusual? I've seen it in museums and other galleries.

 

[BrianShaw]

It’s not unusual, Alan… it’s human nature. What’s unusual is the thought that anyone is really unbiased or equally biased.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

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.

This is a common misconception about journalism. A journalist's commitment is to the truth, not to "show both sides of the issue". And a journalist's commitment is to tell the story of what is happening in front of him/her — to go in depth into that story, as much is possible, with the information given to him and the one he can find out by research. And his duty is to be fair. Some times the story he has to tell is about one side — the one he happens to be witnessing, the people he happens to be interviewing, the people who are part of the story he's telling — and his/her duty is to tell that story as fairly and truthfully as possible, which may mean trying to figure out if all that is said is truthful or not.

This in no way means telling both sides of the story. Some times a story that has to be told only has one side — you're in a war zone, a school has been bombed, children have been killed. There's not two sides to this. There's just what happened. That's your story. Your duty is to tell it as truthfully as possible. There's a protest in the town of X against pollution of the water supply, same thing. You're first duty is to report on what's happening. To tell that side.

Now it's the duty of both the the media — and the journalists who belong to it — to be balanced. So yes, the "other side" will be asked questions : why was this school bombed? Why has there been no solution regarding the water supply? Sometimes you get an answer, sometimes you don't, sometimes the answer is just bullsh*t. And this you also have to tell or show. Being balanced is not the same as "showing both sides".

Perfect example is climate change. There are no "two sides". There is science, just one side. Same thing with the Earth: it's round, it's been proven round, and you don't need to interview a flat-earther everytime you make a reference to the Earth's roundness.

That said, the world being as complex as it is, sometimes there are three, four, five sides. Sometimes your role as a journalist is to reveal the complexity.

I'll take this one further: there are no sides. Reality is not a coin — one side and its opposite. There are only points of view, there is only perspective.

If journalism was about "telling both sides", it'd be an easy job. It's not. Not today.

 

[snusmumriken]

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)

 

[Philippe-Georges]

I do understand the indisputable necessity of Curator to 'manage' a collection/show of the work by a deceased artist.
But what if the artist is still there and able to manage his own artistic production/collection/show?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

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)

Good chance that's exactly what they do. It's the organisers of Les rencontres d'Arles who decided to put their photos on the website, not the curators themselves. Why presume these people aren't humble?

But what if the artist is still there and able to manage his own artistic production/collection/show?

Because that's not how a museum works.

Moreover, when the artist is alive, it's a collaboration. The role of the curator is to best present the work of the artist. And the curator has the knowledge to do that whereas the photographer hasn't. How would he know on which wall this or this photo works best? How would he know which lighting would work best? Which distance from one photo to the other? Should these two photos be put side by side or one on top of the other? Which sequence works best? Which framing to use that works best with the photos? What text should be put on the wall next to the individual photos? Just title and date? A bit of context? What text of presentation should be written in order to give visitors a general understanding of what they are about to see? How should the photos be hanged? Does one of the photos belong to another museum and needs to be borrowed?

A curator has the expertise to answer all these questions and more.

Putting on a show is an extremely complicated endeavor, it's not just a question of hanging photos on a wall. No artist has the time, energy and knowledge to tackle all that's involved in it.

 

[snusmumriken]

Why presume these people aren't humble?

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.

 

[MattKing]

So - I've worked with a curator who assisted with a group show. That curator was more involved with hanging and presentation and promotion than image choice, but their contributions were invaluable.
Who else contributing to this thread has either worked as a curator, or worked with curators?

 

[BrianShaw]

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...

 

[Alex Benjamin]

If you want to have a good idea about how a major exhibition is organised, and what kind of collaborative relationship there is between photorapher and curator, listen to this conversation between photographer Robert Adams and curator Sarah Greenhough, with Aperture executive director Sarah Meister. Sarah Greenhough curated the latest Adams retrospective American Silence

Photographer and curator go in depth about their work together starting at the 9:39 minute mark.

 

[Peter Schrager]

I saw the adams show in D.C and was,quite disappointed. His work actually looks better in books as the prints were quite dismal
Not the curators fault

 

[MattKing]

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...

Ironically, the description I provided referenced a show in a not-for-profit public gallery that specializes in bringing together a very large community with a large number of disparate artists based in and around that community.
The sale of Art is very low down their priority list - for many shows, it isn't on the list. Support - not always financial support - of Artists and their specialized communities stands much higher. As does education.
So yes, curating takes many forms. But all those forms have organizing at their core.