441

 MISE-EN-SCÈNE IN PHOTOGRAPHIC SPACES FROM
PRODUCTION SET TO EXHIBITION SPACE


This paper analyzes the intricate relations between realism, agency, and control in photographic representation and the spaces of photographic production, texts, and exhibition in the history of photography. In the prevalent practice of staged photography in the art production, the level of the photographer’s involvement, especially in the production of a specific mise-en-scène and/or postproduction process of editing, increases the degree of agency of the photographer. Accordingly, the spaces of photographic production and exhibition as well as spatial and contextual features of photographic images gain new prominence to the extent that these spaces largely open themselves to the design ideas and the control of the photographer. Focusing on the mise-en-scène of the photographic work of Gregory Crewdson, Jeff Wall and Thomas Struth, the study explores the role of the spatial and contextual
v
details of these artists’ photographs in the production of meaning in photography through significant theories about photography.
Keywords: History of Photography, Photographic Studio, Image, Museum, Mise-en-scène.
v i

Bu makale, fotografik temsilde gerçekçilik, faillik ve kontrol arasındaki karmaşık ilişkileri ve fotoğraf tarihindeki fotografik üretim, metin ve sergileme alanlarını analiz etmektedir. Sanat üretimindeki yaygın sahnelenmiş fotoğraf pratiğinde, fotoğrafçının özellikle belirli bir mizansenin üretimi ve/veya üretim sonrası kurgu sürecine dâhil olma düzeyi, fotoğrafçının faillik derecesini artırır. Buna göre, fotografik üretim ve sergileme mekânları ile fotografik imgelerin mekânsal ve bağlamsal özellikleri, bu mekânlar kendilerini büyük ölçüde fotoğrafçının tasarım fikirlerine ve kontrolüne açtığı ölçüde yeni bir önem kazanmaktadır. Gregory Crewdson, Jeff Wall ve Thomas Struth'un fotoğraf çalışmalarının mizansenine odaklanan çalışma, bu sanatçıların fotoğraflarının mekânsal ve bağlamsal detaylarının fotoğrafta anlam üretimindeki rolünü fotoğrafla ilgili önemli teoriler üzerinden araştırıyor.
vi i
Anahtar Kelimeler: Fotoğraf Tarihi, Fotoğraf Stüdyosu, İmaj, Müze, Sahneleme.
vi ii
DEDICATION
To myself
ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Assist. Prof. Dr. Ekin PİNAR for her invaluable patience and guidance. This endeavor would not have been possible without her support.
I would like to thank the jury members Prof. Dr. Belgin TURAN ÖZKAYA and Prof. Dr. Özgür BAYRAM YAREN for their contributions and remarks. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to Assist. Prof. Dr. Sevil ENGİNSOY EKİNCİ for her guidance since the beginning of my Bachelor’s. Furthermore I would like to express my gratitude to Ali TAPTIK for helping me gain valuable insight towards the relationship between architecture and photography. I would also like to thank the faculty of Middle East Technical University's History of Architecture Department for their courses which helped me to shape my interest in architectural history.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to my mom, dad, brothers and their wives for their endless support. I could not have undertaken this journey without their belief in me. I would also like extend my sincere thanks to my friends, who have been a constant source of inspiration and motivation. Your unwavering support, late-night study sessions, and shared laughter provided the balance and encouragement I needed.
x
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLAGIARISM ....................................................................... iii
ABSTRACT ........................................................................... iv
ÖZ ....................................................................................... vi
DEDICATION ..................................................................... viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................... ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................... x
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................... xii
CHAPTERS
1.INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 1
1.1 Aim and Rationale of the Study .................................................... 4
1.2 Scope, Framework and Overview of the Chapters............ 5
2.PHILOSOPHY OF PHOTOGRAPHY ...................................... 7
2.1 Automatism, Agency, and Digitalization ................................. 7
2.2 Painting and Photography ............................................................. 13
2.3 Analog to Digital .................................................................................. 19
2.4 Photography and Space .................................................................. 25
3.THE PHOTOGRAPHIC STUDIO ......................................... 32
3.1 A Space for the Photographer ..................................................... 32
3.2 From Camera Obscura to Photographic Studios .............. 34
x i
3.3 Creating a Mise-en-Scène in the Studio ................................ 50
3.4 The Case Study: Gregory Crewdson ........................................ 62
4.THE IMAGE ...................................................................... 71
4.1 A Space for the Image ..................................................................... 71
4.2 From Darkroom to Lightroom...................................................... 73
4.3 Creating a Mise-en-scène in the Image ................................ 88
4.4 The Case Study: Jeff Wall ............................................................ 100
5.THE MUSEUM ................................................................. 109
5.1 A Space for the Viewer .................................................................. 109
5.2 From a Library to MOMA ............................................................... 111
5.3 Creating a Mise-en-scène in the Exhibition Space ....... 128
5.4 The Case Study: Thomas Struth ............................................... 140
6.CONCLUSION ................................................................ 149
REFERENCES .................................................................... 155
A. CURRICULUM VITAE ..................................................... 165
B. TURKISH SUMMARY / TÜRKÇE ÖZET ............................ 166
C. THESIS PERMISSION FORM / TEZ İZİN FORMU ........... 183
xi i
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: The first surviving photograph, by Joseph Nicéphore Niépce, in 1826 using a camera obscura, in Saint-Loup-de-Varennes, in France. Source: Niépce, the Earliest Photograph. Retrieved April 25, 2023, from World History Encyclopedia: https:// www.worldhistory.org/image/17208/the-earliest-photograph-by-niepce/ ............................................................................... 26
Figure 2: The first published illustration of a camera obscura, by Dutch scientist Rainer Gemma-Frisius. Source: Peter Pollack, The Picture History of Photography: From the Earliest Beginnings to the Present Day, (1977): p.10. ............................................... 35
Figure 3:Engraving of the large camera obscura, constructed by Athanasius Kircher in 1646, in Rome. Source: Peter Pollack, The Picture History of Photography: From the Earliest Beginnings to the Present Day, (1977): p.10. ............................... 36
Figure 4: The first surviving photograph, by Joseph Nicéphore Niépce, in 1826 using a camera obscura, in Saint-Loup-de-Varennes, in France. Source: Niépce, the Earliest Photograph. Retrieved April 25, 2023, from World History Encyclopedia: https:// www.worldhistory.org/image/17208/the-earliest-photograph-by-niepce/ ............................................................................... 37
Figure 5:The first photograph which captured a human, by Louis-Jaques-Mandé Daguerre in 1839, in Paris Boulevard, in France. Source: Peter Pollack, The Picture History of Photography: From the Earliest Beginnings to the Present Day, (1977): p.10. ................................................................... 40
Figure 6:An advertisement of Chase's Daguerreuotype Rooms, not dated. From Archives of Modern Conflict OR National Gallery of Canada. Source:http://www.luminous-lint.com/app/vexhibit /_THEME_19thc_Studio_Interiors_01/6/1/443426896390449520521/ ................................................................................... 42
Figure 7: Illustration of a photographic studio for portrait photography, in 1864 "Les merveilles de la science: ou Description populaire des inventions modernes" By Louis Figuier (Paris, Furne, Jouvet et Cie, Editeurs, 1864). This engraving is in the section on “La Photographie“ p. 97. Source: http://www.luminous-lint.com/app/vexhibit/_THEME_19thc_Studio_Interiors_01/6/35/6865617706343516969845108/ .............................................. 42
xi ii
Figure 8: Photography studio with electric light in1883. In the section "Artificial Light and its Application to Photography", Fig.10 is on p.115 of "The Progress of Photography since the Year 1879" by Dr. H.W. Vogel (Philadelphia, Edward L. Wilson, 1883). Source: http://www.luminous-lint.com/app/vexhibit/ _THEME_19thc_Studio_Interiors_01/6/55/545522368345044840760290/ .............................................................................. 45
Figure 9: Display of the Photographic Studio Equipment, 1865. Tintype, 1/4 plate, hand-colored, Cornell University Library. Source: http://www.luminous-lint.com/app/vexhibit/_THEME_19thc _Studio_Interiors_01/6/11/2635502447515265438167/ ................ 54
Figure 10: George Cruikshank's cartoon representing Richard Beard making a daguerreotype at the Royal Polytechnic Institution in London, in 1842. Source (describing the illustration): John Hannavy, “Studio Design and Construction (1840-1900), in Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, (2007): p. 1355. Image source: https://www.photohistory-sussex.co.uk/Sussexearly ....................................................... 55
Figure 11: Small glazed studio, in 1863; with a background behind the sitter's chair. Published in "Traité Général De Photographie" by D.V. Monckhoven (Paris: Librairie de Victor Masson et Fils, 1863). Source: http://www.luminouslint.com/app/ vexhibit/_THEME_19thc_Studio_Interiors_01/6/45/33458132348343325864109/ ............................................................. 56
Figure 12: Tableau of Xie Kitchin as the Damsel in distress and St George and the Dragon by Lewis Caroll. The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles. Source: Stephen Petersen, “Tableau,” in Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, (2007): pp. 1373-1375. ...................................... 57
Figure 13: Hippolyte Bayard, Autoportrait en noyé (Self Portrait as a Drowned Man), in 1840, from University of California, San Diego. Source: https://www.artstor.org/2018/09/12/ fake-news-the-drowning-of-hippolyte-bayard/ .................................. 58
Figure 14: Hippolyte Bayard, Autoportrait en noyé (Self Portrait as a Drowned Man) (verso), in 1840, from University of California, San Diego. Source: https://www.artstor .org/2018/09/12/fake-news-the-drowning-of-hippolyte-bayard/ ................................................................................ 58
Figure 15: Gregory Crewdson, Untitled (Brief Encounter) from the series Beneath the Roses, (2006). Digital carbon print, 144.8x 223.5 cm, Gagosian Gallery. Source: Gregory Crewdson: Brief Encounters, Dir. Ben Shapiro, (2012). ............... 64
Figure 16: A still from the documentary Brief Encounters, showing the crew removing the traffic signs. Source: Gregory Crewdson: Brief Encounters, Dir. Ben Shapiro, (2012). ............................... 67
xi v
Figure 17: A still from the documentary Brief Encounters, showing the crew removing the traffic signs. Source: Gregory Crewdson: Brief Encounters, Dir. Ben Shapiro, (2012). .............................. 67
Figure 18: A still from the documentary Brief Encounters, showing the crew rearranging the interior of the restaurant. Source: Gregory Crewdson: Brief Encounters, Dir. Ben Shapiro, (2012). ............................................................................... 67
Figure 19: A still from the documentary Brief Encounters, showing the crew deciding on the costume of the man inside the car. Source: Gregory Crewdson: Brief Encounters, Dir. Ben Shapiro, (2012). ................................................................... 67
Figure 20: A still from the documentary Brief Encounters, showing Crewdson and his team using a large-format analog camera. Source: Gregory Crewdson: Brief Encounters, Dir. Ben Shapiro, (2012). ............................................................. 68
Figure 21: A still from the documentary Brief Encounters, showing Gregory Crewdson in the exhibition space deciding the layout. Source: Gregory Crewdson: Brief Encounters, Dir. Ben Shapiro, (2012). ............................................................. 69
Figure 22: The photograph of the naturally lit darkroom studio of Geor-ge Bacon Wood, in 1887, from The Library o Company of Philadelphia. Source: Kenneth Finkel, “The Darkroom Studio” in History of Photography, 8:2, (1984): p. 76. ............... 74
Figure 23: Plan drawing of a darkroom. Source: See: Lake Price, “Operation Room,” in A Manual of Photographic Manipulation: Treating of the Practice of the Art, and Its Various Applications to Nature, (1868), p. 77. ........................... 77
Figure 24: Photograph of a darkroom showing the enlargers, the sink, and other apparatuses. Source: Steve Anchell, “Planning a Darkroom,” in the Darkroom Cookbook, (2008): p. 2. ................ 78
Figure 25: Diagram of a darkroom. Source: Steve Anchell, “Planning a Darkroom,” in the Darkroom Cookbook, (2008): p. 6. ................ 78
Figure 26: Portable darkroom in 1873, In "The Silver Sunbeam (Eighth edition)" by J. Towler (New York: E.& H.T. Anthony & Co., 1873), p.472. Source: http://www.luminous-lint.com/app/ vexhibit/_THEME2_19thc_Itinerant_photographers_01/6/56/298551887296345232695303408/ ......................................... 79
Figure 27: A mobile darkroom. Source: Dennis Curtin & Joe DeMaio, “Introduction,” in The Darkroom Handbook: A Complete Guide to the Best Design, Construction and Equipment, (1979): p. vii. ....................................................................... 79
xv
Figure 28: Richard Beard, The Portrait of a Young Girl, in 1842-1850. Source: Mutual Art website; https://www.mutualart.com/ Artwork/PORTRAIT-OF-A-YOUNGGIRL/2C0B8496E624AE31 E1A30E973A65131B .............................................................. 81
Figure 29: Antoine Francois Jean Claudet, The Portrait of Mrs. Andrew Pritchard, in Morocco, in 1847. Source: Victoria and Albert Museum website; https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/ O1075390/mrs-andrew-pritchard-morocco-daguerreotype-antoine-claudet/ .................................................................... 82
Figure 30: James Clerk Maxwell, the first color photograph of a tartan ribbon, (1861). Vivex print in 1937, from original negatives. Source: Robert Hirsch, “New Ways of Visualizing Time and Space,” in Seizing the Light: A Social Aesthetic History of Photography, (2017): p. 182. .................................................. 83
Figure 31: Johann Carl Enslen, the photomontage of Jesus Christ and an oak leaf, (1839). Source: Victoria and Albert Museum website. https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O1405221 /photograph-enslen-johann-carl/ ............................................. 84
Figure 32: Man Ray, a photomontage named "Observatory Time - The Lovers", (1934). Source: https://www.liveauctioneers.com/ item/152809561_man-ray-observatory-time-the-lovers-1934 ................................................................................... 85
Figure 33: Screenshot of Lightroom Software. ............................................ 86
Figure 34: Screenshot of Photoshop Software. ............................................ 87
Figure 35: Oscar Gustav Rejlander, a version of the image "Two Way of Life,” (1857). Re-printed by J. Dudley Johnston in 1920s. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Source: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/294822#:~:text=The%20Two%20Ways%20of%20Life,onto%20the%20stage%20of%20life. ...................................................... 90
Figure 36: Oscar Gustav Rejlander, another version of the image "Two Way of Life,” (1857). Moderna Museet, Stockholm. Source: https://www.modernamuseet.se/stockholm/en/exhibitions/oscar-gustave-rejlander1/ ...................................................... 91
Figure 37: Peach Robinson, “Fading Away by Henry Peach Robinson,” (1858). Source: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/ collection/search/302289 ........................................................ 92
Figure 38: Hannah Höch, “Untitled (Large Hand Over Woman's Head),” in 1930. "MashUp: The Birth of Modern Culture" at Vancouver Art Gallery. Source: https://www.artsy.net /article/artsy-editorial-hannah-hoch-artist ................................. 94
xv i
Figure 39: Ansel Adams, “Cathedral Peak and Lake,” in Yosmite Natio-nal Park California, (1960). Source: https://www.holden luntz.com/magazine/new-arrivals/ansel-adams-cathedral-peak-and-lake/ ..................................................................... 96
Figure 40: Jeff Wall, Morning Cleaning, Mies van der Rohe Foundation, Barcelona, 1999. Transparency in 4.0 light-box, 187 x 351 cm. Source: See: Michael Fried, "Jeff Wall, Wittgenstein, and the Everyday," Critical Inquiry, 33:3, (2007): pp. 507-508. ................................................................................... 102
Figure 41: A still from the video In the Studio: Jeff Wall, showing Wall and his colleague working on a print. Source: Jeff Wall, “In the Studio: Jeff Wall.” Retrieved from White Cube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqsDAtYKCrI. (2022). ........ 106
Figure 42: A still from the video Jeff Wall at Glenstone Museum, show-ing the lights of the light-boxes opening one by one. Source: Jeff Wall, “Jeff Wall at Glenstone Museum.” Retrieved from Glenstone Museum: https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=s-bqdh3laas. (2022). ........................... 107
Figure 43: William Henry Fox Talbot, “The English Vine (Bryonia Dioica),” around 1839. Source: Science Museum Group selection, https://www.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk /what-was-on/fox-talbot-dawn-photograph#&gid=1&pid=1 ....... 117
Figure 44: Louis-Jacques-Mandé Daguerre, Interior of a Cabinet of Curiosities, 1839. Source: Paul-Louis Roubert, “First Visions: The Invention of Photography,” in Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography, (2014): p. 29. .................................................. 118
Figure 45: Sales room at an auction house on the Rue des Jeûneurs, from Edmond Texier, Tableau de Pairs, 2 vols. in 1853, Pairs: Paulin et Chevalier. Bibliothèque Nationale de France. Source: Paul-Louis Roubert, “First Visions: The Invention of Photography,” in Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography, (2014): p. 29. ................... 119
Figure 46: Hippolyte Bayard, Allegory of Fame, direct positive, in 1839. Collection of Société Française de Photographie. Source: Paul-Louis Roubert, “First Visions: The Invention of Photography,” in Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography, (2014): p. 31. ................... 119
Figure 47: Interior of Crystal Palace during the Great Exhibition of 1851. Source: Gerry Badger, “The Most Remarkable Discovery of Modern Times’: Three Photographic Exhibitions in 1850s London,” in Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography, (2014): p. 38 .................... 120
xv ii
Figure 48: Charles Thurston Thompson, Exhibition of the Photographic Society of London and the Société Française de Photographie at the South Kensington Museum, in 1858. Victoria and Albert Museum, London. Source: Gerry Badger, “The Most Remarkable Discovery of Modern Times’: Three Photographic Exhibitions in 1850s London,” in Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography, (2014): p. 55. ................................................. 122
Figure 49:The Little Galleries of the Photo-Secession: opening exhibition, in 1905. Camera Work No: 14. Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Source: Alessandra Mauro, “Alfred Stieglitz and 291,” in Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography, (2014): p. 106. .............................................................................. 123
Figure 50: The exhibition poster for the Film und Foto exhibition, in 1929, Stuttgart. Gift of the Lauder Foundation, Leonard and Evelyn Lauder Fund/MoMA/Scala. Source: Francesco Zanot, “The Film un Foto Exhibition in 1929,” in Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography, (2014): p. 136. ............................................... 124
Figure 51:The Little Galleries of the Photo-Secession: opening exhibition, in 1905. Camera Work No: 14. Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Source: Alessandra Mauro, “Alfred Stieglitz and 291,” in Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography, (2014): p. 106. .............................................................................. 129
Figure 52: A photograph of 1st room in the Film und Foto exhibition, displaying Sasha Stone and Cami's prints. Source: Francesco Zanot, “The Film un Foto Exhibition in 1929,” in Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography,” (2014): p. 136. .............................................. 130
Figure 53: A photograph of 3rd room in the Film und Foto exhibition, displaying John Heartfield's photomontages. Source: Francesco Zanot, “The Film un Foto Exhibition in 1929,” in Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography,” (2014): p. 13 ................................................. 130
Figure 54: A photograph of the exhibition Photography 1839-1937, in 1937, New York. Source: Museum of Modern Art’s website: https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/2088?installation_image_index=114 .......................................................... 133
Figure 55: A photograph from the Photography 1839-1937 exhibition, showing a large-format camera and images on the wall, in 1937, New York. Source: Museum of Modern Art’s website: https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/2088?installation_image_index=41 ............................................................ 133
xv iii
Figure 56: Herbert Bayer, diagram of the "field of vision," in 1935. Source:https://redmuseum.church/en/bayer-extended-field-of-vision ...................................................................... 135
Figure 57: A photograph of a maquette of the Road to Victory exhi-bition, in 1942. Source: https://www.moma.org/calendar/ exhibitions /3038?installation_image_index=3 ......................... 135
Figure 58: A photograph of room dedicated to Diane Arbus in the New Documents exhibition, in 1967, New York. Source: https:// www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/3487?installation_image_index=6 ........................................................................ 137
Figure 59: A photograph of the exhibition Andreas Gursky, in 2001, MoMA, New York. Source: https://www.moma.org/calendar /exhibitions/170?installation_image_index=56 ......................... 138
Figure 60: A still from the Photographer Thomas Struth: Culture Defends the Freedom of Mind, showing Thomas Struth hanging a print in his studio in Berlin. Source: Thomas Struth, Photographer Thomas Struth: Culture Defends the Freedom of Mind | Louisiana Channel. Retrieved from Louisiana Channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=Hk_Ep9_5lWc, (2022) ....................................................... 141
Figure 61: Thomas Struth, Pergamon Museum 1, Berlin, 2001. Cat. 8001, Chromogenic print, 197.4 x 284.5 cm. Exhibited in KHZ, KND, MSP. Source: Thomas Struth’s official website: https:// www.thomasstruth32.com/smallsize/photographs/museum_photographs_2/index.html .................................................... 144
Figure 62: A still from the Kunst nach 1945: Thomas Struth video, showing a viewer examining the Louvre 3 image from far. Source: Thomas Struth, Kunst nach 1945: Thomas Struth. Retrieved from Stadel Museum: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=9rokqt9yRTI, (2017). .............................................. 146
Figure 63: A still from the Kunst nach 1945: Thomas Struth video, showing a viewer examining the Louvre 3 image up-closely. Source: Thomas Struth, Kunst nach 1945: Thomas Struth. Retrieved from Stadel Museum: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=9rokqt9yRTI, (2017). .............................................. 146
Figure 64: Thomas Struth, National Gallery 2, (2001), London, Cat. 8021, Chromogenic print. 148,0 x 170,4 cm. Exhibited: KHZ, KND, WGI, MSP. Source: Thomas Struth’s official website: https://www.thomasstruth32.com/smallsize/photographs/museum_photographs_2/index.html ......................................... 147
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The medium of photography differs from other visual arts in its unique ways of visualizing the world. It has a cognitive nature of creating a connection between the world and the photographer. Photography’s purported capability to act as a transparent delegate to reality instigated the majority of the questions regarding the nature of medium. The philosophy of photography, which investigates issues of automatism, agency, and intentionality in the medium, highlights the still ongoing debates on photography and its potential to be considered an art form. The philosophers studied the medium by comparing it to other visual arts and their way of representing the world through the hands of the artist.
Since the invention of photography, it has been mostly discussed through the perspective of the overly-analyzed medium of painting. Considering that they both display the world, they were compared in the way they reflect the agency of their artist. The painter’s capability to insert their thoughts and feelings through a paintbrush (pencil, charcoal …) is considered a comprehensible process that reflects their agency. With the choice of subject, colors, composition, etc.; it is commonplace to argue that the painting represents its painter’s intentions at least to a certain degree.
In contrast to the process of painting, to create an image, the photographer uses a camera, which is a mechanical tool. The
2
apparatus of the photographer is much more complex but automatic compared to a pencil or a paintbrush, which makes the process much more mechanical and easier. The degree to which a person’s agency submit itself to the automatism of the photographic process have led theorists to discuss whether the intentions of the photographer can be analyzed through the image. Due to the automatic process, photography has a more direct way of looking at the world, which creates an ambiguous product in the sense of representing the agency of its artist.
With the digitalization of photography, in terms of both the apparatuses in the production and the post-production processes, the comparison between painting and photography deepened. The automatism in analog photography became much more extreme with the invention of digital cameras. Photographers have taken rapid snapshot photography to another level with digital “point and shoot” cameras. The velocity and automatism in digital cameras have opened the aesthetic aspect of the medium to even more heated theoretical discussions. Besides the digitalization of the camera, the invention of programs to edit digital images changed the relationship between the image and the photographer.
The significant theories about photography can be augmented by adding the “space” aspect of the medium. As with any other visual art, photography also has its peculiar way of communicating with the space that it inhabits. In particular, the image has a crucial relationship with the three spaces of the production set, the representational space within the image, and the exhibition space with the photographer acting as a proxy between them.
3
The process of making an image begins in the photographic studio. The choices of the subject, the props, the place, the viewpoint, etc. can be analyzed through the study of the photographic studio that the photographer works in. The setting aspect of the mise-en-scène, whether it is a natural set or an artificial set, can represent the agency of the photographer. In this context, analyzing the spatial aspect of the set provides us with a fresh perspective to understand the process and the intentions of making an image.
After capturing the image, it goes through an editing process. With the technological developments in the medium, the editing space extended to two places: the darkroom and the Lightroom1. In the period that witnessed the shift from analog to digital editing, this change in the characteristics of the editing space changed the textual aspects of the image drastically. Apart from analyzing the difference between using different editing spaces, the spatial reading of the designed mise-en-scène in the image that is produced in different spaces creates diverse discussions to study the intentional relation between the text of the image and the photographer.
In the final process, the photographer may choose to display the images by curating them in specific ways to be exhibited in an exhibition space. In this context, the photographer creates a relationship between the materiality of the image and the space of the exhibition, which is a communicative space between the photographer and the spectator. The controlled narrative of the images is represented to the viewer with certain display strategies.
1 An Adobe program mostly used by photographers to edit their images. See: https://lightroom.adobe.com/
4
This constructed mise-en-scène in the gallery can constitute new discussions to study the intentions of the photographer.
1.1 Aim and Rationale of the Study
The aim of this thesis is to study the mise-en-scènes of the photographic studio, the image, and the museum/gallery space in light of the prominent theories in the philosophy of photography. In the writing of the history of photography, these three spaces are mostly analyzed separately. There are many technical and architectural observations of these spaces, however, studying them through the agency of the photographer provides a new perspective to furthermore understand the relationship between photography and space.
Some of the leading questions regarding these spaces will be as follows: Is photography an automatic medium produced by the act of the camera, or is it an intentional medium made by the photographer? Can the automatism and the intentionality occur at the same time? Does the digitalization of the medium of photography increase or decrease the represented intentionality of the photographer? To what extent does the mise-en-scène of the studio affect the end-product? Does the involvement of the photographer becomes lesser in the digital darkroom? Is the photographer involved in the mise-en-scène of the exhibition space? Although these three spaces may seem discrete from each other for the viewer who encounters with the images in the museum/gallery space, do they also work separately in the mind of the photographer? While the mise-en-scènes of these different spatial contexts are designed individually, do they come together under one narrative, one message; or do they say different things
5
from each other? Is this a linear process from production to exhibition, or is it a back-and-forth process?
Through this study, I aim to emphasize the spatial connection between the spaces of production, post-production, and exhibition. In the history of art and architecture, these spaces are analyzed separately. The architectural histories of the spaces are studied detached from the design choices of the photographer, which exclude the photographer’s processes of creating a photograph. In opposition to this, the history of photography is mostly focused on the relationship between space and image only through the space of the photograph itself; which omits the effects of the designs of the spaces of photographic studios and museum/gallery on the photograph. In this study, as a unique approach, I intend to connect the architectural designs of the studio, image, and exhibition through their relation with the photographer. I analyze the photographer’s effect on the architectural design of the spaces regarding their photographic work processes by researching the architectural analyses of these spaces. By synthesizing the architectural history of the spaces and the history of photography a new approach can be created to analyze the processes of creating a photograph concerning space.
1.2 Scope, Framework and Overview of the Chapters
In this study there are four main chapters to analyze the relationship between the medium of photography and space. The second chapter, which gets into the details of automatism and intentionality in the medium by referencing various photographic theories, creates a base for the analyses of the following chapters that each focuses on one space; the photographic studio, the image and the exhibition space. In each of these chapters there are
6
subchapters to furthermore discuss the special relation to space, the history of the architectural design of the space, the created mise-en-scène in the space and the case studies of digital photography relating to that space.
In the subchapters dedicated to the relation to space, I will introduce the ideas of why those three spaces are unique and how they communicate with its occupants. Then, in each history subchapter, I will go into details of the “firsts” in the medium and analyze how photography, the apparatuses and the architectural design has changed as the technology went under transformation. In the subchapters that analyzes the mise-en-scène of the spaces, I will discuss photographers’ role on the design of the space, and give some prominent examples to put my case forward. Lastly, there will be three case studies for each space; namely images by be Gregory Crewdson, Jeff Wall, and Thomas Struth.
I believe, taking into account the theories of photography from the late 20th century to the early 21st century, which analyze the photographic agency and automatism in the shifting period from analog to digital, we can better comprehend the stakes of the spatial and contextual details of these artists’ photographs. Doing so, this thesis aims to analyze the intricate relations between realism, agency, and control in photographic representation and the spaces of photographic production, texts, and exhibition in the historical period after the rise of digital photography through an architectural perspective.
7
CHAPTER 2
PHILOSOPHY OF PHOTOGRAPHY
2.1 Automatism, Agency, and Digitalization
From the 20th century to the present, controversy over the representational realism of the medium of photography constituted a major issue for the philosophy of photography. The questions “What is a photograph?” and “What is Photography?” have been asked throughout the history of the medium. The dictionary meaning of a photograph is: “a picture that is made by using a camera that stores images in digital form or that has a film sensitive to light inside it.”2 In this definition, a photograph is described through the process of creating an image. Furthermore, in the etymological sense, the word “photography” comes from the merging of the Greek words phos meaning “light,” and graphein meaning “drawing or writing,” which literally translates to “drawing with light.”3 In this regard, Patrick Maynard’s decision to ask the question of “What is photography?” rather than emphasizing “What is a photograph?” is a significant choice to understand the
2 The dictionary meaning of “photograph,” from Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries. See: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/photograph_1?q=photograph
3 The etymology of photography from Britannica and Online Etymology Dictionary. See: https://www.britannica.com/technology/photography https://www.britannica.com/technology/photography
8
medium.4 With this prioritization, we can analyze photography more through the act of the camera and the process of the medium than the end product and its material aspects. According to Maynard, this understanding of “process over product” has specific implications for the medium of photography and can only be explained through the act of creating. Maynard defines photography an “initially if confusedly, allowing nature to ‘depict herself’ through the agency of light.” In order to create a relationship between “nature” and the “light” the photographer uses a camera. The automatic act of the camera turning light into an image is considered the prior action in the process of making an image. Therefore, the apparatus becomes a fundamental element in the attempts to describe the medium. In contrast to painting, the apparatus of photography is a mechanical tool, which draws attention to the unique relationship between photography and technology.
The common understanding of photography being an automatic medium should be considered in relation to the rapid and manifold changes in the technologies of the medium.5 As Maynard puts it in his book The Engine of Visualization: Thinking through
4 Diarmuid Costello and Dawn M. Phillips discusses some of the prominent articles about philosophy of photography by important theorists such as Roger Scruton, Kendal Walton, and Patrick Maynard. In the context of photography and technology they analyze Maynard’s book, The Engine of Visualisation: Thinking through Photography, in which Maynard questions the meaning of photography. For more information see: Diarmuid Costello and Dawn M. Phillips, “Automatism, Causality and Realism: Foundational Problems in the Philosophy of Photography,” Philosophy Compass 4:1, (2009): p. 12.
5 In the book The Photograph Graham Clarke discusses the meaning of photography and how it is read by the viewer. In the first chapter called “What is a photograph?” Clarke discusses the automatism in the medium of photography in relation to the technological developments. For more information see: Graham Clarke, "What Is a Photograph?" in The Photograph, (1997): pp. 11-25.
9
Photography, photography is a technology.6 With this approach, the transformation in the “technology of photography” can be one of the ways to study the role of agency in photography. Regardless of the context, the subject, and the photographer, the way that the camera captures the world changes with technological inventions. This entanglement of the medium with technology led theorists to question photography’s place on the art spectrum.
In the period that witnessed the shift from analog to digital, the transformations of the apparatus become much more complex. As the process gets more and more code and software dependent, the level of doubt about the degree of artistic intention in the production of the image ascends. Most theorists analyze the making of an image by separating the photographer, the subject, and the apparatus, as they seem to work individually. The argument here is that the act of the camera produces an image on its own, and the thoughts of the photographer are peeled from the end product. The assumption that the camera is a tool that communicates with the photographer only through buttons, has led theorists to question how the image could represent the intentions of the photographer. In such discussions, the technological aspect of the camera play a fundamental role in how the medium of photography is perceived.
In contrast to the process of taking a photograph, theorists such as Diarmuid Costello, Margaret Iversen, Carolin Duttlinger and Patricia D. Leighten analyze the level of intention in the post-production process as similar to the intentionality in the painting. They study,
6 In his book Patrick Maynard refers the medium of photography as a technology. By imagining or visualizing the technology of photography, Maynard underlines the automatic aspect of the medium and its effect on the philosophy of photography. See: Patrick Maynard, “The Engine of Visualisation: Thinking through Photography”, (1997).
1 0
the technological change in editing in stark opposition to the technologies of the camera. The tide of agency in-between capturing the image and editing the image creates significant controversies regarding the medium.
At this point, it is necessary to remember the “bearer” of the automatic apparatus and the “editor” of the image. Is the photograph “taken” by the photographer or is it “made” by the photographer?7 Is the image edited to the extent allowed by the darkroom or the digital programs, or is it edited through the agency of the photographer? These two seemingly opposite sides of how one perceives the creation process of an image is an important distinction for analyzing the agency in the medium and questioning the representational aspect of photography. As the previous discussion about the nature of the medium, representation in photography also gave rise to conflicting theories in the philosophy of photography.
Kendall Walton argues that the production of a photograph does not depend on the photographer and her/his thoughts, but it can only record a specific space at a specific time. For Walton photography can therefore be understood as a transparent form of representation with indirect access to the past that the viewer can see through.8 Roland Barthes, on the other hand, challenges such
7 See: Graham Clarke, "What Is a Photograph?" in The Photograph, (1997): pp. 11-25.
8 In Transparent Pictures: on the Nature of Photographic Realism, Kendall Walton argues that the production process of photography bring the question of the intentionality in the medium. Walton uses photography of our dead relatives as an example to prove the transparency in the medium of photography. He says “My claim is that we see, quite literally, our dead relatives themselves when we look at photographs of them.” See: Kendall L. Walton, “Transparent Pictures: On the Nature of Photographic Realism,” Critical Inquiry, 11:2 (1984): p. 252.
1 1
transparency in the meaning of the image, arguing that the meaning of a photograph is layered with linguistic - coded iconic (non-transparent), and non-coded iconic (transparent) - messages.9 Barthes’ semiotic model of photographic analysis complicates the assumption of any direct link between the there-then of photographic production and here-now of looking at the image.10
According to Barthes, the photographer’s choice of framing, distance, lighting, focus, and speed are the aspects that add connotated meanings to a photograph. A certain degree of intentionality is therefore introduced to the process through the technical choices of the photographer. The choices of subject, perspective, and frame are made by the photographer,11 so the end product becomes a proxy to represent the agency of the photographer.
Andrew Higgott and Timothy Wray’s use of the word “representation” introduces a different perspective to such a discussion.12 They state that “the photograph is not a simple
9 In Rhetoric of the Image, Roland Barthes analyzes the messages in a photograph, through the case of an advertisement image. As Barthes explains “If our reading is satisfactory, the photograph analyzed offers us three messages: a linguistic message, a coded iconic message, and a non-coded iconic message.” See: Roland Barthes, "The Rhetoric of the Image,” in Image-Music-Text, (1977): pp. 32-51.
10 Roland Barthes discusses the link between here-now and there-then initiate from the mechanical process of the medium of photography. See: Ibid.
11 See: Ibid.
12 In the book Camera Constructs: Photography, Architecture and the Modern City edited by Andrew Higgott and Timothy Wray, the unique and powerfull relationship between architecture and photography is discussed. For more infromation see: Andrew Higgott and Timothy Wray, “Introduction: Architectural
1 2
representation of an external reality, but constructs its meaning and reconstructs its subject.”13 This analysis does not emphasize the representational relation between the photographer and the image, instead, it underlines the image’s own capacity to represent the “real” world. In relation to Barthes’ theories of the designated meanings of the image, Higgot and Wray’s way of explaining the image’s meaning also implicates the intentionality of the photographer. Through the choices of frame, distance, light, focus, and speed, the meaning of the “moment” is constructed at least to some extent by the photographer. As a result, the subject of the attention is reconstructed in the new context of the image. In this scheme, the image is connected to the real world and how it is seen, though it goes through the filter of the intentions of the photographer, so the end product is not the exact representation of the execution moment. Barthes intimates this contradiction by saying that the image is a “transparent envelope,” which underlines the questionable transparency of the image, and the traces of its maker.14 Then again this metaphor brings concerns about the representation: Does the transparent image represent the world that it captures or the agency of its maker? At this point comparing the terms representation and reproduction in the context of producing an image may afford us a new perspective to analyze the agency in the medium.
Since the birth of photography, inventors introduced several ways to produce an image. The surface, the substance, and the
and Photographic Constructs,” in Camera Constructs: Photography, Architecture and the Modern City, (2016): p.5
13 See: Ibid.
14 See: Graham Clarke, "What Is a Photograph?" in The Photograph, (1997): pp. 11-25.
1 3
technique to create an image changed over years, and so did the terms of what we call “photography” nowadays have varied accordingly. Heliography, one of the early experiments on the road to inventing “photography,” was invented by Nicéphore Niépce. In this technique, the image is created by letting the sunlight hit on the oiled engraving which is placed on a plate coated with a light-sensitive solution of bitumen of Judea and lavender oil.15 Niépce has defined this process of “sun drawing” as an automatic reproduction created by the help of the sun.16 This explanation underlines the lack of intention in the process of making an image and it elucidates the qualms about the place of photography in the art world. The admitted “reproduction” aspect in the medium of photography especially when compared with the representational medium of painting, made its inclusion as a proper medium of art controversial.
2.2 Painting and Photography
The differences between painting and photography constitute one of the most significant debates in the philosophy of photography. One of the most known theorists, Walter Benjamin, discusses the new aspects that photography brings to the art world from the perspective of the reproducibility of the medium.17 According to Benjamin, the “pictorial reproduction” process evolved with the
15 See: Luis Nadeau, “Heliogravure,” in Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set, (2006): pp. 645-646.
16 Graham Clarke, "What Is a Photograph?" in The Photograph, (1997): pp. 11-25.
17 See: Walter Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility”, Grey Room, 39, (2010): pp. 11-37.
1 4
developments in photography. In this sense, the most important distinction between painting and photography is their use of different apparatuses; brush, paint, and hand in the former and, camera, lens, and eye in the latter.18 Photographic camera emancipated the production of the image from the skills of a hand and mechanized the process, introducing a certain degree of automatism.19 The technicality of the apparatus and its automatic aspect brought the issues of “authenticity” with it.20 Benjamin uses the term “aura” to criticize the uniqueness (the authenticity) and the locale (the spatial and cultural aspects) of the artwork. From his point of view, the value of the aura of the artwork changed with mechanical reproduction. The authenticity of an artwork decreases in its mechanically reproduced products. Benjamin argues that the aura of the original work loses its unique “presence in time and space” in the reproduction process meaning that the aura of the original piece cannot be reproduced. In this regard, Benjamin points out the value of art, and how it is changed in the age of mechanical reproduction. As Benjamin explains, there are two values: cult value and exhibition value. These two poles indicate the place of artwork in the uniqueness spectrum in relation to the question of the aura of the artwork. According to Benjamin the most distinct aspect that differentiate these two values is the place
18 In The Work of Art in the Age of Reproduction, Walter Benjamin analyzes the mechanical reproduction of photography by comparing it with painting. I focus on the apparatus change between the mediums, as Benjamin puts it “For the first time, photography freed the hand from the most important artistic tasks in the process of pictorial reproduction—tasks that now devolved upon the eye alone.” See: Ibid p. 13.
19 From Benjamin’s point of view, the apparatus change from hand to eye, from brush to camera brought the issue of automatism in the production process. See: Ibid.
20 See: Ibid.
1 5
and accessibility of an artwork. The cult value requests a certain degree of privacy, usually in a specific place. The relation that the works holds to a specific type of experience at a particular location is what creates the aura in the first place. The mechanical reproduction process shifted this value of the artwork to exhibition value. In contrast to a cult value, exhibition value does away with the fixed and private place of the artwork, making it mobile and public. The reproduction of the work eliminates cult value, therefore the change in the spatial context of the work brings out the new functions that the work can hold.
To exemplify the cult and exhibition values, Benjamin discusses the mediums of painting and photography.21 As Benjamin explains, the shift from cult value to exhibition value parallels the shift from painting to photography. The “aura” of a photograph can be a questionable aspect as opposed to a painting, however Benjamin argues that using a mechanical apparatus comes with its own benefits. As he explains, the things that are undetectable to the naked eye can be represented through the lens of the camera and the automatic process of reproduction. In this discussion, the capabilities of the apparatus and the automatic process are highlighted, yet the photographer’s influence on the value scale of the image is to be debated. To stress this issue, Benjamin significantly asks the question: “How does the cameraman compare with the painter?”22
21 Besides the medium of photography, Walter Benjamin also discusses the aspects of film. However, I will not expand my analysis in that direction. For more information about the relationship with film see: Ibid.
22 In his article, Walter Benjamin more overly focuses on the medium of film, rather than the medium of photography, so he uses the term cameraman. Though in my case, I can change this term with “photographer.” See: Ibid p. 13.
1 6
Unlike painting, where the painter’s degree of control in the representation of a scene is high, the intentionality involved in the production of a photograph is more complex. Following the rise of digital photography, the issues of agency and control in photographic representation became much more complicated thanks to the plastic and protean nature of digital imagery. Roger Scruton argues that there is a difference in the intentionality involved in the processes of painting and photography. For Scruton, as the “ideal painting” approaches the subject as it is, so the intentions of the painter can be seen in the painting. In contrast, the “ideal photograph” is an image of something, so the intervention of the photographer cannot be studied. According to Scruton, there can be a fictional representation in the painting, however, photograph is unable to represent “anything unreal.” So, Scruton’s main argument is that photography, being an unintentional and casual medium, is not a representational art.23
If we associate Scruton’s discussion with Barthes’ analyses, in Scruton’s formulation painting becomes a representational art whereby clear intentions of the painter translates into coded iconic messages; but photography is not a representational art, it has non-coded messages due to its casual process. But what of the photographer’s certain intentions, and agency while taking a photograph, what if they are trying to represent an object/subject in a certain way? The transparent image is seen through the eyes of the photographer. After filtering the subject with the agency of the photographer, the image shifts from representing a denoted
23 In Photography and Representation, Roger Scruton studies the philosophy of photography through analyzing the representationally of the medium. See: Roger Scruton, "Photography and Representation," Critical Inquiry, 7:3 (1981): pp. 577-603.
1 7
message to a connoted message. In other words, contrary to the argument that the image exactly mirrors the reality of the subject, the photographer’s certain interventions while capturing a subject, create a refined reality, therefore the image gains a coded iconic message.
In a similar perspective with Scruton, Kendal Walton also differentiates the representational aspect of painting and photography. Walton argues that the camera and the photographer depicts different things while looking at the subject. The similar argument in Benjamin’s analysis of the difference between the eye and the lens, underlines the photograph’s ability to provide us with realistic visual information. According to Walton, “A photograph is always a photograph of something which actually exists.”24 He continues by saying “Paintings needn’t picture actual thing.”25 In this regard, Walton challenges the representational aspect of the medium of photography by the objectivity of it. As he explains, the distinctive realism in the medium of photography suspends the photograph’s possibility of being a representational art.
Gregory Currie points out that Walton’s perspective on representation misses the point that photography is also a representational art.26 As Currie explains, “representations mediate between us and the world,” and from this perspective, he argues
24 See: Kendall Walton, “Transparent Pictures: On the Nature of Photographic Realism,” Critical Inquiry, 11:2, (1984): p. 250.
25 See: Ibid.
26 In Photography, Painting and Perception, Gregory Currie analyzes the medium of painting and photography, by questioning Walton’s perspective on the representaionality of the mediums. See: Gregory Currie, "Photography, Painting and Perception,” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 49:1 (1991): pp. 23-29.
1 8
that the representation of a thing act as a mediator to perceive the actual thing. 27 Thus photographs are representations of the things that the photographer perceives, however it is a different class of representation. According to Currie, paintings are intentional representations because of the interpretation of the painter; and photographs are natural representations because of photography’s automatic process of capturing the world. With this understanding, the perception of the real subject, and the perception of the photograph signify different things.
This difference of the perception of the real and the image can be associated with Benjamin’s understanding of value. The photographer captures a subject in a certain place, and displays it in another place for the viewers. Considering the exhibition value of photography, the change in the spatial context extends to the perceptual access of the viewer.28 In this regard, the realistic image of one space can be displayed and perceived in another space, creating a mobility of the realistic representation.
Apart from the spatial benefits of the medium of photography, its relationship with time is also a unique aspect to discuss. An image represents a certain space and a certain moment. Thierry De Duve’s comparison between time exposure and snapshot photography is based on the time aspect; he sees a snapshot as a theft that executes the life, whereas time exposure displays an imaginary life that lives on the surface of the photograph.29 Here,
27 See: Ibid.
28 See: Ibid.
29 In Time Exposure and Snapshot: the Photographs as Paradox, Thierry de Duve studies the differences between time exposure and snapshot photography. See:
1 9
snapshot (casual, open to accident and contingency, uncontrolled, and not representational), and time exposure (intentional, controlled, and representational) constitute the two opposite sides of the spectrum of agency in photography. These two sides have different representational aspects. To the extent that digitization of photography brought with it the easy manipulation of images during and after the taking of a photograph, Currie’s clear differentiation of photography and painting no longer holds, as the image begins to get manipulated by the photographer. This is especially true in the case of staged photography that gained visible prominence in the art production of the post-digital era, where the agency is represented in the image in a similar manner to painting.
2.3 Analog to Digital
The digital developments in the late 20th century affected photography not only in a practical ways in but in the ways in which it is theorized as well. Digitalization in the medium created a certain degree of insubstantiality in the accepted theories about the relationship between painting and photography. In this regard, it is important to re-evaluate the previously mentioned theories.
Continuing the discussion of snapshot and time exposure photography, it is possible to draw an analogy between De Duve’s “time exposure” photography and such staged productions, which clearly distinguishes itself from the more mechanical aspects of
Thierry de Duve, "Time Exposure and Snapshot: The Photograph as Paradox," October, Vol.5, Photography (1978): pp. 113-125.
2 0
snapshot photographs.30 Staged photography’s use of artificial mise-en-scène in which a certain narrative unfolds, along with its digitalization of both photographic production and postproduction, brings it closer to the medium of painting than analog photography. Digitalizing the photographic process, with certain apparatuses, strengthens the agency of the photographer vis-à-vis the photograph, as aspects of the image, and especially its mise-en-scène, are carefully designed for an idea to be represented. Furthermore, the postproduction digitalization renders the photograph plastic inasmuch as the photographer manipulates the image in the way they want.
It is important, at this point to distinguish between the concepts of intention and agency: while they may seem similar, they are not entirely reciprocal. As Diarmuid Costello and Margaret Iversen put it: “Intention may require agency, but agency does not require intention.”31 They continue to explain this as the “automatism” that is designated to the medium of photography comes from the mechanical aspect of the apparatus, though this mechanical tool is used by the photographer. Thus, the automatism of the apparatus and the agency of the photographer are depending on each other. This is not to say, therefore, that there is a one-to-one
30 In this paper, I use de Duve’s term “time exposure” as an analogy for staged and digital photography. De Duve depicts time exposure photography as an opposite approach to snapshot photography’s casual approach. In this regard, I associate “time exposure” with staged photography, not in the technical features, but considering its contextual aspects.
31 In Introduction: Photography between Art History and Philosophy, Diarmuid Costello and Margaret Iversen analyze the theories from the philosophy of photography, and in this regard they mention Dominic McIver Lopes and his arguments concerning agency and automatism in the medium. As Costello and Iversen explains, “.., Lopes shows that agency cannot simply be reduced to intention.” See: Diarmuid Costello and Margaret Iversen, "Introduction: Photography between Art History and Philosophy,” Critical Inquiry, 38:4 (2012): pp. 691-692.
2 1
correspondence between the intentions of the photographer and what the final image conveys to its viewers. Yet, the level of the photographer’s involvement, especially in the production of a specific mise-en-scène and/or postproduction process of editing, increases the degree of agency in digital photography especially when compared to its analog counterpart.
In relation to this issue of agency, questions regarding objectivity and subjectivity in photography might also arise. While no photograph can be said to be entirely objective, the medium of digital photography with its plastic qualities, gets closer to the terrain of art rather than that of a document. Yet as Matthew Biro argues the “truthfulness” of the image does not only depend on the use of a certain apparatus.32 From Biro’s perspective, “it is important not to overemphasize the division between analogue and digital photography;” for considering the history of photomontage, both analog and digital photography can be manipulated and change the “real” in the image.33 In this respect, the mechanization of the production process is not the only aspect that changes the objectivity/subjectivity of the image.
In staged photography, therefore, it is the photographer’s design of a mise-en- scène, accompanied by the digital apparatuses, that creates the subjectivity and intentionality in a photograph. According to Carolin Duttlinger, the uniqueness of the process of creating a set for the image breaks the replication and seriality that
32 In From Analogue to Digital Photography: Bernd and Hilla Becher and Andreas Gursky, Matthew Biro studies the truthfulness and objectivity in the medium of photography, by comparing the aspects of analogue and digital photography. See: Matthew Biro, "From Analogue to Digital Photography: Bernd and Hilla Becher and Andreas Gursky," History of Photography, 36:3 (2012): pp. 353-366.
33 See: Ibid.
2 2
arise from the mechanical aspect of the medium.34 By challenging the relationship between Walter Benjamin’s term “aura” and the medium of photography, Duttlinger argues that these are not exclusively opposite, but their relation is more entangled than they seem to be.
With the digitalization of the photographic medium, and designing a set for the photograph the aura of the image begins to resemble the accepted aura of the painting. Furthermore, the process of creating an image comes closer to that of a painter painting in a studio. Both traditional painting and staged photography utilize natural settings or artificial studio sets, people and, props to populate an environment; so they both represent two-dimensionally -a subject or object- within a set frame and lastly, they come together to be represented in an exhibition environment according to a certain discursive narrative.
Such an emphasis on the similarity of painting and staged photography does not necessarily exclude the continuation of the automatism of the snapshot photography in “time exposure” photography. As Carol Armstrong discusses, automatism has been a constant through the history of the medium of photography even though its role and degree of involvement in the photographic processes constantly transformed.35 Yet, even though the notions
34 In Imaginary Encounters: Walter Benjamin and the Aura of Photography, Carolin Duttlinger analyzes the originality aspect in the medium of photography, by studying Benjamin and his arguments about the “aura” of photography. Duttlinger studies the aspects of authenticity and uniqueness in the medium of photography, considering the mechanization in the process. See: Carolin Duttlinger, "Imaginary Encounters: Walter Benjamin and the Aura of Photography," Poetics Today, 29:1, (2008): pp. 79-101.
35 See: Carol Armstrong, "Automatism and Agency Intertwined: A Spectrum of Photographic Intentionality," Critical Inquiry (2012): pp. 705-726.
2 3
of automatism are still present in digital photography, its production processes resemble those of painting more than those of the analog photograph. This aspect shows itself most clearly in the spaces of photographic production and exhibition as well as spatial and contextual features of photographic images to the extent that these spaces largely open themselves to the design ideas and the control of the photographer.
Considering the integration of the mechanical aspect of photography and the agency of painting in digital staged photography, Costello and Iversen question whether the manipulation element creates a new medium of art.36 Designing a tableau, not only through the mise-en-scène of the studio, but also via digitally manipulating an image in the postproduction process, gathers different features of different visual arts. As Sontag puts it, the medium of photography “devours other art.”37 This convergence occurs from the medium’s juxtaposition of, in Armstong’s words, “conscious and unconscious, deliberation and inclination, agency and automatism.”38 From the same perspective
36 In Introduction: Photography between Art History and Philosophy, Diarmuid Costello and Margaret Iversen argue “the birth of a new artistic medium” regarding the cinematic aspect that arises with the digital photography. See: Diarmuid Costello and Margaret Iversen. "Introduction: Photography between Art History and Philosophy," Critical Inquiry, 38:4 (2012): 688-689.
37 In Photography within the Humanities, Susan Sontag discusses the question that if photography is an art, and as she puts it is a “meta-art.” See: Susan Sontag, "Susan Sontag," in Photography within the Humanities, (1977): pp. 110-121.
38 In Automatism and Agency Intertwined: A Spectrum of Photographic Intentionality, Carol Armstrong examines the photographic works of photographers, such as Henri Cartier-Bresson, and William Klein. In this regard Armstrong questions the agency in the images. See: Carol Armstrong, "Automatism and Agency Intertwined: A Spectrum of Photographic Intentionality," Critical Inquiry (2012): pp. 705-726.
2 4
as Costello and Iversen, Armstrong underlines the complex relationship between the photographer and the apparatus by saying that the agency can be interjected into photographic automatism.39
“Time exposure” photography brings together the automated moment of execution with a highly controlled and designed atmosphere, which generates in scholarship terms like “painterly photograph”40 or “cinematographic photograph.” The combination of aspects of painting and photography in the production of a digital photograph frames a tableau captured at a particular moment, as it depicts people in action in a certain mise-en-scène.41 Accordingly, the spatial context of digitally staged photography becomes especially important to the extent that they play a much more significant role in the post-production of meaning as compared to the analogue format.
The digitalization of the medium of photography affected the material aspect of the image in the exhibition space as well. With digital and more evolved apparatuses, the image gains higher quality in the production and post-production processes, thus it can be viewed in a much bigger scale in the exhibition space. In this
39 See: Ibid p.717
40 In Critical Attitudes toward Overtly Manipulated Photography in the 20th Century, Patricia Leighten mentions Weston Naef and Suzanne Boorsch’s show named The Painterly Photograph. In this paper I use the term “painterly photograph” to emphasize the association between painting and digital photography. See: Patricia D. Leighten, "Critical Attitudes towards Overtly Manipulated Photography in the 20th Century," Art Journal, 37:2 (1977-1978): p. 134.
41 In the chapter 2001, Hal Foster associates the manner in the medium of photography with historical paintings, regarding Jeff Wall’s works. See: Hal Foster, "2001," in Art Since 1900: Modernism, Antimodernism, Postmodernism, London: Thames & Hudson, (2004): p. 774.
2 5
regard, the material aspect of an image gains a similar importance as painting, considering its scale and its spatial context in an exhibition.
The three spaces of photography involve production environments (with their artificial mise-en-scène that became a staple of staged photography in the post-digital era), textual spaces created within photographs (where digital post-production especially gains prominence), and exhibition spaces (where digital staged photography tend to be displayed in large, back-lighted, lightboxes, emphasizing the painterly and cinematic aspect of the image and establishing a distinct relation to the surrounding space). From the pre-production to post-production of digital staged photograph until its exhibition, spatial and contextual aspects matter in various ways.
2.4 Photography and Space
Since the invention of the medium of photography, it had a particularly harmonious relationship with architecture. Considering the required exposure time to create an image is not short enough to capture unstable subjects in the beginning of the medium, architecture became the perfect material for photography.42 Though this is not to say that it is not a mutually beneficial relationship. Regarding the representational realism in a photographic image, and how it can truly represent the world in front of the camera without any disruption, architects not only
42 See: Andrew Higgott and Timothy Wray, “Introduction: Architectural and Photographic Constructs,” in Camera Constructs: Photography, Architecture and the Modern City, (2016) , p. 1.
2 6
excessively used photography to represent their buildings, but also to get inspired from the medium.
43
The history of this relationship can be seen even in the first (known) image, created by Nicéphore Niépce, depicting the architectural view from Niépce’s studio in Saint-Loup-de-Varennes. In the attempts of “mirroring” the reality through the apparatus of camera, the most efficient thing to represent was architecture, and beginning with Niépce, other “first” photographers continued capturing the architectural environment as an experimental process to learn the nature of the medium.44
Figure 1: The first surviving photograph, by Joseph Nicéphore Niépce, in 1826 using a camera obscura, in Saint-Loup-de-Varennes, in France. Source: Niépce, the Earliest Photograph. Retrieved April 25, 2023, from World History Encyclopedia: https://www.worldhistory.org/image/17208/the-earliest-photograph-by-niepce/
Through the aid of the camera, the photographer could automatically and realistically create a flat surface of the
43 See: Ibid.
44 In the following chapter on photographic studios, I will mention Daguerre’s first image, where he also captured a “busy” street of France.
2 7
constructed three-dimensional world, which architects also adapted easily for displaying their buildings. Maria Antonella Pelizzari and Paolo Scrivano analyze this relationship between the two disciplines of architecture and photography in their essay Intersection of Photography and Architecture – Introduction through a materialist lens.
45 They touch upon photography’s ability to turn a three-dimensional architectural space into a two-dimensional object. Likewise, Thomas Elsaesser, in his essay “The Architectural Postcard: Photography, Cinema, and Modernist Mass Media,” discusses the way architecture began to be understood through the frame of the photographic image.46 As Elsaesser explains, the medium, which is used for representation, affects both the object and the image; and it becomes a surrogate between the beholder and the architect.47 The main concern here is the representation of three-dimensional space using a two-dimensional reproduction. In this process of the transformation of dimensions opposite concepts come together, such as fluidity and fixity, mobility and rigidity. This conflict becomes more and more intense with the manipulations of size, scale and depth in the post-production process. Yet, this manipulation not only affects the image, but the architecture as well; since the architects use the medium of photography as a tool from which to learn how to design photogenic spaces.
45 I also discuss the change in the dimension through the process of producing image in the fourth chapter of this thesis. See: Maria Antonella Pelizzari and Paolo Scrivano, “Intersection of Photography and Architecture – Introduction,” Visual Resources, 27:2, (2011): pp. 107-112.
46 In his article, Elsaesser mentions the most known visual examples in the history of modern architecture, and how the media also shape the way that the architects design. See: Thomas Elsaesser, “The Architectural Postcard: Photography, Cinema, and Modernist Mass Media,” Grey Room, 70, (2018).
47 Elsaeeser not only focuses on the medium of photography, but also cinema and architectural postcard – as a different but similar medium to photography.
2 8
The impact of the medium of photography on architecture is mostly discussed through the twentieth-century modern architecture. Camera Constructs: Photography, Architecture and the Modern City by Andrew Higgott and Timothy Wray; Photographic Architecture in the Twentieth Century by Claire Zimmerman; Privacy and Publicity: Modern Architecture as Mass Media by Beatriz Colomina; Architectureproduction by Beatriz Colomina are some of the prominent books that analyze the intersection of photography and architecture from various point of views.
48
In these studies, the main focus is the intersection of photography and architecture. As photography changes the site specificity of architectural buildings and makes them mobile and accessible, it has become a crucial medium to represent and advertise the modern architecture. In this process of creating architectural postcards, architecture also altered by the ways in which people perceive through the camera and image.49 The image, consciously or unconsciously, affects the meaning of its subject, and reconstructs the perception of the subject. The flatness of the photographic image affected the design choices of the modernist architects to make a seamless partnership between the thing being represented and the thing representing it.50 The prominent
48 See: Andrew Higgott and Timothy Wray, Camera Constructs: Photography, Architecture and the Modern City, (2016). Claire Zimmerman, Photographic Architecture in the Twentieth Century, (2014). Beatriz Colomina, Privacy and Publicity: Modern Architecture as Mass Media, (1996). Beatriz Colomina, Architectureproduction, (1988).
49 Andrew Higgott and Timothy Wray, “Introduction: Architectural and Photographic Constructs,” in Camera Constructs: Photography, Architecture and the Modern City, (2016) , p. 4.
50 Pelizzari and Scrivano quotes Benjamin Bucloh on the matter of how architecture got influenced by photography:
2 9
modernist architects such as Le Corbusier and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe not only got influenced by the photographic image in the process of designing their buildings in harmony with photography, but also used photographic images by manually manipulating them into the “perfect” visual representations of their architecture.51
Along with this understanding of the “perfect subject” and “perfect representation” relationship, the medium of photography not only captures architecture, but also inhabits it in special ways. From the moment of capturing an image to exhibiting it, the photographer deals with various spatial contexts. Yet, this thesis will focus on the three main spaces with which the image creates a unique relationship: the photographic studio, the image’s space in itself, and the museum/gallery space. Focusing on these spaces, the study questions the intentional or automatic correlations between the photographer and these spaces.
The process of creating an image starts in the production set. In the 19th century, this process more often than not began inside a glass structure, a photographic studio. With certain technological developments in the history of photography, the photographers became more equipped to also carry their “studio” outdoors by designing artificial open-air sets. From the 19th century portrait photography to 21st century cinematographic photography, the aspects of photographic studios changed, yet the photographers’
“Advanced postmodern architects direct their design towards a newly found ability of architectural masses, materials and spaces to yield to the laws of the photographic surface in an endless process of transforming the tectonic and spatial into the spectacular.”
See: Maria Antonella Pelizzari and Paolo Scrivano, Intersection of Photography and Architecture – Introduction, (2011): pp. 108-109.
51 See: Ibid.
3 0
impact on the mise-en-scène of the space remained – even increased.
In the post-production process, again, the photographer sets the scene through various editing steps and techniques in the darkroom or in the darkroom of the digital age, the Lightroom. After the production process, the photographer uses manipulation techniques to create the “perfect tableau,” which is not exactly reached in the production process, but in the post-production process. In this regard, photographer’s control over the space within the image continues, as they design the mise-en-scène of the image through manual modifications.
Lastly, the image gains its materiality in the museum/gallery space. This transformation of a two-dimensional thing into a three-dimensional artwork creates relationships between the image and the museum/gallery space. The photographer designs this communication through planning the physical balance of the images on the walls of the exhibition space.52 With the created mise-en-scène in the museum/galley space, the photographer narrates the relationship between the images and the viewer – at least to some extent.
In the processes from production to exhibition, these three spaces seem separate in the way they interact with the medium of photography and with each other. However, in this thesis, I will question the traces of connections – consciously or unconsciously - created by the photographer. Through these analyses, I aim to
52 In this thesis I am more focused on the position of the photographer in the exhibition process. However, the photographer mostly works with curators in the process of creating an exhibition. They both work closely with the images and their possible layouts in the exhibition space. In this regard, it is not only the photographer who designs the mise-en-scène of the exhibition.
3 1
discuss the intentions of the photographer while they inhabit a place with the apparatuses of photography.
3 2
CHAPTER 3
THE PHOTOGRAPHIC STUDIO
3.1 A Space for the Photographer
The idea of using a designated space to create visual art arose with the medium of “modern” painting during the Renaissance; as the painter needed a place for storing the necessary tools and materials, as well as a place to work with their client in a quiet and private manner. With the invention of photography, and especially the camera, this need continued in the medium of photography, and it was much more required as the process of capturing an image is more complicated than making a painting.
The photographic studio, similar to the painting studio, provides certain apparatuses for the photographer to use, and moreover allows the photographer to have control over the design of the space represented in the image they capture. It is the first place that the studio photographer encounters when they start the process of making an image.53 In this context, the designed mise-en-scène plays a crucial part for analyzing the agency of the photographer.
53 There are many other places that the process of photographing can begin. However for the continuing arguments, this thesis will focus on the staged and designed images, rather than the snapshot and casual photography.
3 3
This space works as a laboratory, as a stage, and as a work of art for the studio photographer.
54 It is the space for the photographer to construct the environment that they want to see. They stage the place, the characters, the props, the light, etc.; and they arrange the distance, the focus, the speed, and initially the frame to capture the perfect tableau.
In the beginning of the history of the photography, there were several characteristics of the photographic studio which were definite and helped the process of taking a photograph. However, in time some of the architectural requirements of a photographic studio changed according to the technological transformations in the medium, which in turn, changed the capabilities of the photographer as well.
With the transformations in the photographic apparatuses, the photographers freed themselves from the limitations of the closed studios, and began to explore more natural settings.55 Nevertheless, this does not necessarily mean that the photographer’s power over the design of the space diminished. Whether the photographer uses an artificial studio, or a casual setting, the mise-en-scène of the space can be altered by the photographer, and this control over the production set plays a crucial role in the analyses of the represented intentionality in the
54 In the first chapter of Hiding Making - Showing Creation: The Studio from Turner to Tacita Dean, Monika Wagner discusses the many different ways to use an artistic studio. Wagner uses the words laboratory, stage and work of art to describe the multifunctional aspect of a studio. See: Monika Wagner, “Chapter 1 Studio Matters: Materials, Instruments and Artistic Process,” in Hiding Making - Showing Creation: The Studio from Turner to Tacita Dean, (2013): pp. 15-30.
55 However, this is not to say that all portrait studio photographers began to experience in the natural setting of street. The studio photography continued to be demanded style, and still has its examples to this day.
3 4
image. However, it is possible to ask whether the constructed reality in the production set always showcase itself in the end-product, and if it has to be visible in the photographic tableau?
3.2 From Camera Obscura to Photographic Studios
Capturing a near likeness of outside world that forms the core of photography has always been a desired concept even before the invention of the camera.56 To create a picture, which is a true and transparent representation of the existing world was the urging thought in the process of creating the medium. With this never-ending ambition for representing the world as it is, artists and scientists aimed to invent ways to reflect the truthfulness of a scene in front of them.
The magical relationship between photography and light was discovered much earlier than the camera itself. There are two main prehistories of photography, both of which centers around the element of light: chemical and optical.57 The chemical prehistory originated with the discovery of sunlight’s effect on certain chemicals; as the chemically coated surface shift from white to black under the exposure of sunlight.58 The optical prehistory goes back a thousand years to the invention of camera obscura, “a room
56 See: Robert Hirsch, “Chapter 1 Advancing Towards Photography: The Rise of the Reproduction,” in Seizing the Light: A Social & Aesthetic History of Photography, 3rd Edition, (2017): pp. 1-26.
57 See: Peter Pollack, “Part One: The Beginnings of Photography,” in the Picture History of Photography: From the Earliest Beginnings to the Present Day, (1977): pp. 11-30.
58 See: Peter Galassi, “Before Photography,” in Before Photography: Painting and the Invention of Photography, (1981): p. 11.
3 5
with a sunlit view.”
59 The basic principle of camera obscura is using a dark room and letting the sunlight go through a small hole, a small aperture, to create a projection of a scene on the opposite wall.60 Although the chemical and optical effects of light was known since the ancient times, the “invention” of photography dates back to the 19th century.
Figure 2: The first published illustration of a camera obscura, by Dutch scientist Rainer Gemma-Frisius. Source: Peter Pollack, The Picture History of Photography: From the Earliest Beginnings to the Present Day, (1977): p.10.
There are various inventions involving different chemicals, surfaces, and apparatuses that contribute to the history of creating a “photograph.”61 However it remains an impossible task to
59 See: Peter Pollack, “Part One: The Beginnings of Photography,” in the Picture History of Photography: From the Earliest Beginnings to the Present Day, (1977): pp. 11-30.
60 See: Peter Galassi, “Before Photography,” in Before Photography: Painting and the Invention of Photography, (1981): p. 11.
61 There is a large history of creating a photograph before –and during- the invention of camera. Many inventors found out that different types of chemicals react to the sunlight, in which they can create images with only surfaces, chemicals and sunlight. For more information about the cameraless photography
3 6
chronologically enumerate all of these inventions; as there were simultaneous developments in different parts of the world. Given the slow communication in the 18th – 19th century, the inventors were unaware of the similar experimentations and discoveries elsewhere. Thus, the history of the medium involves “official” and “unofficial” inventors and inventions; all of which centers on the two principles of the chemical and the optical.
Figure 3: Engraving of the large camera obscura, constructed by Athanasius Kircher in 1646, in Rome. Source: Peter Pollack, The Picture History of Photography: From the Earliest Beginnings to the Present Day, (1977): p.10.
Beginning with the physician and professor Johann Heinrich Schulze, who discovered the light’s effect on the silver salts in 1725, various methods to create photographic images emerged.62
see: Martin Barnes, “Traces: A Short History of Camera-less Photography,” in Shadow Catchers: Camera-less Photography, (2010): pp. 10-18.
62 See: Peter Pollack, “Part One: The Beginnings of Photography,” in the Picture History of Photography: From the Earliest Beginnings to the Present Day, (1977): p.11.
Martin Barnes, “Traces: A Short History of Camera-less Photography,” in Shadow Catchers: Camera-less Photography, (2010): pp. 10-18.
3 7
However, it was not until the 19th century, when Joseph- Nicéphore Niépce, Louis Daguerre, William Henry Fox Talbot, and Hippolyte Bayard developed an image’s chemical and optical relationship with light that the basis of the medium of photography materialized.
63
Figure 4: The first surviving photograph, by Joseph Nicéphore Niépce, in 1826 using a camera obscura, in Saint-Loup-de-Varennes, in France. Source: Niépce, the Earliest Photograph. Retrieved April 25, 2023, from World History Encyclopedia: https://www.worldhistory.org/image/17208/the-earliest-photograph-by-niepce/
The first photograph is most commonly attributed to Daguerre and the name of the process he invented comes from his last name: Daguerreotype.64 Yet, it was actually the French inventor Nicéphore
63 See: Peter Kloehn, “History of Photography Nineteenth-Century Foundations,” in Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set, (2006): pp. 703-704.
64 See: Peter Pollack, “Part One: The Beginnings of Photography,” in the Picture History of Photography: From the Earliest Beginnings to the Present Day, (1977): pp. 11-30.
In the following paragraphs, I will get into the history of photography by mentioning the prominent inventors and inventions regarding the technological developments in the medium of photography. However, this thesis is not focused
3 8
Niépce, who managed to create the first permanent photograph in 1826, before Daguerre’s announcement of the daguerreotype in 1839.
65 Niépce used bitumen of Judea on a pewter plate and a camera obscura to create this image, and he called it “heliography,” meaning sun drawing.66
In 1835, William Henry Fox Talbot, four years before Daguerre’s announcement of his process in the Royal Society, experimented with both large and small cameras, and took a photograph on a paper negative.67 With Daguerre’s announcement, Fox Talbot realized the similarities of their processes, and hurried to the Royal Society to present his “photographic drawings” produced by tiny cameras, and his experimental calotype process of negative/positive paper processes.68
In 1839, the same year as the announcement, Hippolyte Bayard in Paris, exhibited direct-positive prints, and his discovery of fixing
on the history of the methods of creating an image, so I will not get into specific details of many ways to create a photographic image.
65 See: Ibid p.11.
66 See: Helmut and Alison Gernsheim, “The Invention of Photography,” in A Concise History of Photography, (1965): p.9.
67 See: Peter Pollack, “Part One: The Beginnings of Photography,” in the Picture History of Photography: From the Earliest Beginnings to the Present Day, (1977): p. 11.
See: Peter Pollack, “Part Two: Master of the Nineteenth Century,” in the Picture History of Photography: From the Earliest Beginnings to the Present Day, (1977): p. 32.
68 See: Peter Kloehn, “History of Photography Nineteenth-Century Foundations,” in Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set, (2006): p. 704.
For more information about the calotype process see: John Hannavy, “Talbot, William Henry Fox”, in Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography (2007): p. 1378.
3 9
photographs with hyposulphite of soda - which is still used in darkroom processes - was announced to the Royal Society.
69 Apart from Bayard’s important invention of positive paper process, the subject of his photographs are significant as well.70 His Self-Portrait as a Drowned Man (1840), was a sarcastic way of saying he was not recognized as much as he wanted.71
The partnership of Louis-Jaques-Mandé Daguerre and Nicéphore Niépce, beginning in 1826 till Niépce’s dead in 1833, focused on the problem of creating a permanent image with light and chemicals.72 It was Niépce who took the first photograph, however Daguerre was the one who made Niépce’s invention functional with different chemicals.73 Daguerre was able to perfect the process of creating a permanent image by 1837, using solution of salt and hot water to dissolve unaffected particles of silver iodine.74 In the same year, the famously known process “the daguerreotype” was
69 See: Peter Pollack, “Part One: The Beginnings of Photography,” in the Picture History of Photography: From the Earliest Beginnings to the Present Day, (1977): p. 11.
70 See: Ibid.
71 See: Ibid.
72 See: Ibid p. 19.
After Niépce’s dead, in 1833 his son Isidore Niépce became Daguerre’s new partner, fulfilling the partnership contract signed by Louis-Jaques-Mandé Daguerre and Nicéphore Niépce. For more information see: Josef Maris Eder, “Chapter XXIV Joseph Nicephore Niépce’s Death in 1833,” in History of Photography, (1978): pp. 226-229.
73 See: Peter Pollack, “Part One: The Beginnings of Photography,” in the Picture History of Photography: From the Earliest Beginnings to the Present Day, (1977): p. 19.
74 See: Ibid.
See: https://www.britannica.com/technology/photography/Daguerreotype
4 0
established by its inventor Daguerre.75 In 1839, French government bought the rights of the daguerreotype and heliograph, and Daguerre announced and wrote of his process of creating a photographic image.76
Figure 5: The first photograph which captured a human, by Louis-Jaques-Mandé Daguerre in 1839, in Paris Boulevard, in France.77 Source: Peter Pollack, The Picture History of Photography: From the Earliest Beginnings to the Present Day, (1977): p.10.
With Niépce’s heliographs, Daguerre’s daguerreotypes, Talbot’s photogenic drawings and many other processes, the medium of photography became more and more popular, and it became an easier and more accessible option in comparison to painting.78
75 See: Ibid.
76 See: Ibid.
77 Daguerre’s image of the Paris Boulevard displays the architecture of the city. However, there is one specific question that comes to mind: where is the people in the city? It is a view of a busy street, but because the exposure time was at least 10 minutes, the moving traffic left no trace. The two men near the bottom left corner, one apparently having his boots polished by the other, stayed in that place for long enough to be visible in the image.
78 See: Quentin Bajac, “Part One: 1839, the Birth of Photography?” in the Invention of Photography: The First Fifty Years, (2002): p. 13.
4 1
Considering photography’s nature to represent the subject as it is, people started choosing it over painting to produce images of scientific subjects and portraits.
79 As the use of photography increased, photographers’ need of a private space to work in aroused.
Dating of the first studio is a near impossible task given that there is not only one “first” studio, but many, in different parts of the world emerged around the same time. The most known and discussed “first” studios were, however, located in New York and London. In the 19th century, the photographic studios mostly functioned as portrait studios. With the new quick solutions for creating a similar tableaux to portrait paintings, the photographic studios became popular for the people who wanted a rapid and more affordable option compared to painting.80 Inside the glass structures that formed the first photographic studios, the photographic image could be produced without the interruption of the weather.81 In time, due to increasing popularity, portrait photography became a major commercial venture and a mass culture medium.82
See: Christina M. Johnson, “Each Button, Button-Hole, and Every Fold”: Dress in the American Daguerreotype Portrait, the Journal of the Costume Society of America, Volume 31 - Issue 1, (2004): pp. 25-35.
79 See: Ron Callender, “Scientific Photography,” in Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, (2007): pp. 1255-1258.
80 Christina M. Johnson, “Each Button, Button-Hole, and Every Fold”: Dress in the American Daguerreotype Portrait, the Journal of the Costume Society of America, Volume 31 - Issue 1, (2004): pp. 25-35.
81 See: Quentin Bajac, “Part One: 1839, The Birth of Photography?” in the Invention of Photography: The First Fifty Years, (2002): pp. 13-30.
82 See: Ibid.
4 2
Figure 6: An advertisement of Chase's Daguerreuotype Rooms, not dated. From Archives of Modern Conflict OR National Gallery of Canada. Source:http://www.luminous-lint.com/app/vexhibit/_THEME_19thc_Studio_Interiors_01/6/1/443426896390449520521/
Figure 7: Illustration of a photographic studio for portrait photography, in 1864 "Les merveilles de la science: ou Description populaire des inventions modernes" By Louis Figuier (Paris, Furne, Jouvet et Cie, Editeurs, 1864). This engraving is in the section on “La Photographie“ p. 97. Source: http://www.luminous-lint.com/app/vexhibit/_THEME_19thc_Studio_Interiors_01/6/35/6865617706343516969845108/
4 3
Alexander S. Wolcott and John Johnson opened the earliest known photographic studio in 1840 in New York.
83 Inspired by Daguerre’s experiments, Wolcott and Johnson invented a new mechanism that reduced the operation time.84 This camera, which Wolcott and Johnson used for making tiny portraits, used a mirror functioning as the lens; and it became known as the “mirror camera”.85 Using a mirror not only cost less when compared to using a lens, but also it maximized the light reflected to the plate.86 In 1850s, beginning with Wolcott and Johnson’s studio, approximately 200 daguerreotype studios opened only in New York, a trend that other states soon followed.87
In the same year of the opening of their studio, Wolcott and Johnson sent Johnson’s father to England to secure the patent of the mirror camera, and market the invention.88 Richard Beard, who got a license and brought the daguerreotype to England, eventually
83 See: Robert Hirsch, “Chapter 1: Advancing Towards Photography: The Rise of the Reproduction,” in Seizing the Light: A Social & Aesthetic History of Photography, 3rd Edition, (2017): pp. 1-26
See: https://www.britannica.com/technology/photography/Daguerreotype
84 See: Quentin Bajac, “Part Two: Copper, Paper, Glass, 1840-55” in the Invention of Photography: The First Fifty Years, (2002): pp. 31-50.
85 See: https://www.britannica.com/technology/photography/Daguerreotype
See: François Brunet, “Wolcott, Alexander Simon and Johnson, John (active 1839-1844),” in Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, (2007): pp. 1501-1502.
86 See: Ibid.
87 See: Quentin Bajac, “Part Three: The Photographer’s Studio, 1845-75” in the Invention of Photography: The First Fifty Years, (2002): p. 28.
88 See: Ibid.
4 4
started a partnership with Johnson.
89 Beard used the mirror camera as well, and began to work in this commercial world by opening the first photographic studio in London, and in Europe, with John Johnson in 1841.90 In the 1840s, with Beard leading the way, the number of studios in Europe exceeded 50, and they continued to increase in the latter years.91 Some of the prominent studios in Europe during the 1850s were in Paris: Mayer and Pierson, Nadar, Disderi and Petit; in London: Mayall, Silvy, Elliott and Fry; in Munich: Locherer or Haenfstangel.92
With the technological transformation in the medium of photography, photographers were able to expand their vision as they no longer needed sunlight and a closed photographic studio to create an image. The most important inventions to lead this freedom is the artificial light, film rolls and compact-mobile cameras, and finally the digitalization of the apparatuses. With these new developments, photographers moved their “studio” to the streets.93
89 See: Ibid.
90 See: Ibid.
See: John Hannavy, “Beard, Richard,” in Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, (2007): p. 126.
91 See: Quentin Bajac, “Part Three: The Photographer’s Studio, 1845-75” in the Invention of Photography: The First Fifty Years, (2002): p. 28.
92 See: Ibid p.29
93 As I mentioned in the 2.3 chapter, in this thesis I analyze the spatial changes throughout the history of photographic studio. In this sense, I underline the change from closed studios to open studios of streets. As with the technological developments in the medium, the photographers had the sufficient conditions to experiment in the street. Yet, this is not to claim that studio photography was abandoned, they still continue to function to this day.
4 5
In the beginning of the 19th century, the photographers had limited work hours considering their need of sunlight. This dependence on the sun was reduced with the introduction of artificial lighting in 1850s, however not many portrait photographers took up on this new technology due to economic and technical limitations.94 In 1857, John Moule patented “Photogen” light source, which is a burning powdery mixture of antimony, sulphur and potassium nitrate, and introduced it as a “rival to the sun.”95 The first commercially successful flash was invented by Alfred Brothers in 1864, which was embraced by the itinerant photographers.96 It was not until Henry Van der Weyde in 1877, the artificial light was used in the photographic studios.97
Figure 8: Photography studio with electric light in1883. In the section "Artificial Light and its Application to Photography", Fig.10 is on p.115 of "The Progress of Photography since the Year 1879" by Dr. H.W. Vogel (Philadelphia, Edward L. Wilson, 1883) Source: http://www.luminous-lint.com/app/vexhibit/_THEME_19thc_Studio_Interiors_01/6/55/545522368345044840760290/
94 See: John Hannavy, “Studio Design and Construction (1840-1900), in Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, (2007): pp. 1355-1357.
95 See: Ibid.
96 See: Ibid.
97 See: Quentin Bajac, “Part Three: The Photographer’s Studio, 1845-75” in the Invention of Photography: The First Fifty Years, (2002): p. 28.
4 6
The desire to visually represent the public life began with painting in the 19th century; and as the medium of photography evolved it became a quick and efficient replacement. Starting with the itinerant photographers in late 1880s, the captured subject was beginning to leave the closed space of the photographic studio. Before the invention of hand held cameras, the public scenes were captured with large-format cameras; such photographers such as
Eugène Atget, for instance, used a large-format camera to take photographs of Paris streets in 19th-20th centuries.98 However, as the cameras became more light-weight, the genre of photojournalism (a more professional style) and street photography (a more casual style) became more popular.
The camera accessories got smaller and lesser as the camera became portable, which allowed the medium to become more accessible to the less professional users.99 Since the 1850s, inventors constantly managed to minimize the size of the camera, so that it could be hand-held easily.100 Yet, it was in the 1870s-80s when the hand-held cameras became commercial and popular.101 In 1881, Thomas Bolas invented and patented the “detective
98 See : https://www.britannica.com/art/street-photography/After-World-War-II
99 See: Ibid.
In the beginning, the professional and amateur or studio and portable cameras were not discrete from each other. They were marketed together as studio and field camera to expand the user profile. For more information see: Michael Pritchard, “Camera Design: 4 (1850-1900),” in Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, (2007): pp. 248-249.
100 In this thesis I am not trying to focus on the camera history, in this regard for more information about the camera history See: Colin Harding, “Camera Design: 5 Portable Hand Cameras (1880-1900),” in Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, (2007): pp. 249-251.
101 See: Ibid p. 250.
4 7
camera,” which is a box-form plate camera that can be hand held.
102 Bolas used this term to describe the mobility and anonymity of his camera. This invention surpassed the other similar camera inventions.103 In 1883, William Schmid designed the first commercially successful detective camera.104 Yet, the success of Schmid’s camera, along with the continuing developments in the hand-held cameras were not yet sufficient enough to make the medium efficient for using it in a snapshot manner.
In 1854, Joseph Blakery Spencer and Arthur James Melhuish invented a practical solution to use a band rather than a sheet of glass or paper.105 Spencer and Melhuish placed this band in an attachment in the camera called a “roller slide” or “roll holder” to use it for several exposures.106 In 1850s and 60s the development regarding the roll film continued, however it was not widely used until the commercial roll holder designed by George Eastman and William H. Walker in 1884.107 In 1888, George Eastman invented a camera named “The Kodak,” to be used with the successful roll film invention.108 The camera had a roll holder for long rolls of sensitized paper.109 This apparatus made the medium accessible to
102 See: Ibid.
103 See: Ibid.
104 See: Ibid.
105 See: Colin Harding, “Roll Film,” in Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, (2007): pp. 1206-1208.
106 See: Ibid.
107 See: Ibid.
108 See: Colin Harding, “Camera Design: 5 Portable Hand Cameras (1880-1900),” in Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, (2007): p. 250.
109 See: Ibid.
4 8
people from various backgrounds regardless of their income or their knowledge about photography.110 After this success, Eastman continued working under the known trade name “Kodak,” and continued introducing newer versions of mobile cameras.111 In 1900, the first Brownie camera was introduced; and this portable and compact camera with a roll-holder became the popular apparatus for snapshot photography.112 The success of Kodak camera and film rolls cannot be denied, though it was the Leica 35mm camera, which lead the genre of street photography in the 1920s.113 Considering the mobility and the quick response of the camera, Leica quickly became the to-go apparatus for the photographers to capture scenes in the streets.114 The prominent street photographers, such as André Kertész, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Walker Evans, Dorothea Lange, Lee Friedlander, Helen Levitt, Berenice Abbott, and many more used Leica for their street shoots.
In the late 20th century, digital cameras began to substitute analog cameras.115 This transition from analog to digital was less about generating images with better qualities than it was about the more
110 See: Ibid.
111 See: Ibid.
112 See: Ibid.
113 The genre of street photography began with the more professional genre of photojournalism. With the portable, small cameras photojournalists were able to move around easily, and capture the scenes outside. By taking advantage of this freedom of movement, more photographers began to capture “artistic” scenes in the streets.
See: Gerry Badger, “The Genius of Photography: How Photography Has Changed Our Lives,” (2014).
114 See: Edgar Gómez Cruz, “Chapter 30 Mobile Street Photography,” in the Routledge Companion to Mobile Media Art, (2020): pp. 324-334.
115 See: Andrew Atkinson, “Camera: Digital” in Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set, (2006): pp. 217-219
4 9
efficient use the digital cameras afforded.116 From the end of the 20th century to nowadays, digital cameras evolved to a great extent in terms of their capacity, quality, and function.
In 1981, Sony introduced the original still video camera Mavica (Magnetic Video Camera), a video camera which takes single shots as photographs, and this system was subsequently applied to most of the compact digital cameras.117 After this development, other camera manufacturers like Canon, Kodak and Nikon followed in the steps of Sony’s by marketing digital cameras to professional users, mostly photojournalists.118 With the digitalization of the medium, the photojournalists’ work process became more efficient, as the digital cameras allowed them to send the images directly to their computers and edit the images, without the interruption of the darkroom processes.119 Apart from the professional users as photojournalists, the street photographers also began to adapt to the advantages of digital camera’s easy and portable aspects.
The mutual relationship between photography and space can be analyzed through the transformation of the medium from camera obscura to the digital camera, from the glass cage to the street photography.120 Beginning with the use of the camera obscura to create an image, there has existed a need for a space for the scene
116 See: Ibid.
117 See: Ibid.
118 See: Ibid.
119 See: https://www.britannica.com/technology/photography/Photography-c-1945-to-the-21st-century
120 This is not to say that the transformation of photographic production space stops here. However, in this thesis the main concern is the transformation from closed space of photographic studio to open space of street as a set.
5 0
to appear. In response, the image becomes a bridge between the inside and the outside that it reflects, which creates a connection between discrete spaces. This two sided relation grew much more complicated as the camera obscura became the basis of the photographic apparatus initially mostly used in a closed space. On one hand the primal camera obscura became a small, compact mechanism to use to capture a scene; on the other hand, the principal of the camera obscura got adapted to the design of the photographic studio because of the required light in both spaces. As the apparatus became more portable and digital, the certain necessities of the studio decreased, so the photographers were no longer confined to closed spaces allowing them to work with the sunlight directly and not behind the glass structure.
In the process of capturing a scene, whether it is a closed photographic studio or an open “uncontrolled” street, the photographer designs the scene. They choose the things that are inside and outside the frame by controlling the space they inhabit. The photographer represents the process, the space, and their photographic identity in the end product.121 In this regard, studying how and why the photographer designs the mise-en-scène is a crucial start in understanding the artistic intentions in the production set and the agency of the photographer.
3.3 Creating a Mise-en-Scène in the Studio
In the process of creating an image, the photographer decides whether they want to create a casual-snapshot image or an
121 See: Rachel Esner, Sandra Kisters and Ann-Sophie Lehmann, “Introduction” in
Hiding, Making – Showing Creation: The Studio from Turner to Tacita Dean, (2013): pp. 9-13.
5 1
intentional-staged image. These two different approaches indicates the extent of the photographers’ control in the production space, furthermore the represented mise-en-scène in the image.
Considering the limitations of the medium of photography in the 19th century, the photographers could only play with the certain apparatuses inside the glass cage. As the medium changed, however, the capabilities of the photographers expanded to involve more artificial means and spaces, which can be designed entirely from scratch.
Beginning with the camera obscura, manipulating light was the main concern while designing the camera, and this concern became a major criterion in the design of the photographic studio. With the introduction of the commercial camera, the use of photographic studios became a necessity, and the architectural design of the studios aimed to maximize the light inside the studio in order to illuminate in the best way possible the subject in front of the camera.
The architectural design of the first studios were based on the glass and iron structures widely used in the nineteenth-century in structures such as greenhouses, grand exhibition spaces, market halls and railway stations. These structures were usually situated on the top floors of buildings to get the maximum amount of light needed to capture a well-lit portrait.122 There are various types of studios, in which the roof or size changes, yet the most efficient ones used sloped roofs, and to be specific, an angle of forty-five
122 See: Quentin Bajac, “Part Three: The Photographer’s Studio, 1845-75” in The Invention of Photography: The First Fifty Years, (2002): pp. 51-70.
5 2
degrees.
123 To ensure these conditions, the rooftops of cities, like Paris and London where the medium peaked, transformed into glass-iron photographic portrait studios.124 Inside the glass cage, the photographer had the ability to control the production space, regarding the light and climate, and the displayed space, which is represented inside the frame of the image.125 The photographic studios provided open spaces full of light and artificial means such as sets and props for manipulation.126 These spatial aspects contributed to the tension between the realistic representation of the camera and the fictional scenarios created by the photographer.127
Besides the structural design of the studios, the photographers also tried to design certain apparatuses to let the sunlight inside the studio in the most efficient ways possible. As the photographers
123 In the “A Manual of Photographic Manipulation,” Lake Price goes into the details of the apparatuses and the spaces that are used in the process of creating an image. In the Glass Studio chapter, Price explains some of the necessities in the studio by mentioning his experience in a photographic studio. See: Lake Price, “The Glass Studio,” in A Manual of Photographic Manipulation: Treating of the Practice of the Art, and Its Various Applications to Nature, (1868), pp. 68-75.
124 In his essay Georges Méliès’s “Glass House,” Brian Jacobson analyses Méliès’s studio where he produces his films. Jacobson mentions the similarities of Méliès’s studio and photographic studios, as both cinema and photography work together with the architectural aspects of the space they inhabit in the process of producing. In this thesis, I take reference from Jacobson’s essay by moreoverly focusing on his analyses of photographic studios. For more information see: Brian Jacobson, “Georges Méliès’s ‘Glass House:’ Cineplasiticity for a Human-Built World,” in Studios before the System: Architecture, Technology, and the Emergence of Cinematic Space, (2015): p: 55-86.
125 See: Ibid p. 62.
126 See: Ibid.
127 “In each medium, the artificiality of the studio provided the basis for indexical reproductions of unreal productions, the results of which struck a delicate balance between realism and artifice.”
See quote: Ibid.
5 3
experimented with the relationship between light and image, they began to realize that the properly directed light on the subject rather than illuminating the whole space results in better end-products.
128 Black and white blinds or colored glasses were used in order to control the light.129 Some of the photographers even designed their own systems for lighting issues. As an example, in the first photographic portrait studio, Alexander S. Wolcott invented a system of lights by using mirrors outside the room’s window, in order to create a balanced lighting for his subject.130
As the used apparatuses were limited in the nineteenth-century, we can speak of two main objects in the “glass cage” studio: the camera and the chair on which the customer sits.131 The large format camera is positioned in a way that receives light from
128 See: Henry Robinson Robinson, “Chapter 1: Various Forms of Studios,” in The Studio and What to Do in it, (1891): p. 2.
129 See: Lake Price, “The Glass Studio,” in A Manual of Photographic Manipulation: Treating of the Practice of the Art, and Its Various Applications to Nature, (1868), pp. 68-75.
130 This design shows his similar approach in designing his “mirror camera.”
“.., and one that presented a remarkable internal architecture, embodying precocious thinking on lighting and extending the structure of the camera to the room’s organization.”
See quote: François Brunet, “Wolcott, Alexander Simon and Johnson, John (active 1839-1844),” in Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, (2007): p. 1502.
“Two large mirrors, hanging over the street from the third floor, directed light into the studio. Sunlight bounced from the lower mirror onto the upper mirror and was then reflected through a rack of glass bottles, filled with a blue solution of copper sulphate to filled the bright sunlight, allowing the sitter to endure the long exposures.”
See quote: Robert Hirsch, “The Daguerreotype: Image and Object,” in Seizing the Light: A Social & Aesthetic History of Photography, 3rd Edition, (2013): p. 32.
131 See: John Hannavy, “Studio Design and Construction (1840-1900), in Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, (2007): pp. 1355-1357.
5 4
behind, so that the light hits the subject (customer) directly. Given the long exposure times needed at the time, the chair had stabilizers for the customer’s head to not move.132 One sitter described this long and tormented experience as:
“[He sat] for eight minutes, with strong sunlight shining on his face and tears trickling down his cheeks while … the operator promenaded the room with watch in hand, calling out the time every five seconds, till the fountains of his eyes were dry.”133
Figure 9: Display of the Photographic Studio Equipment, 1865. Tintype, 1/4 plate, hand-colored, Cornell University Library. Source: http://www.luminous-lint.com/app/vexhibit/_THEME_19thc_Studio_Interiors_01/6/11/2635502447515265438167/
Richard Beard’s studio has the earliest visual representation.134 In this illustration it can be seen that the camera is located on a shelf, and that there are two cameras. Keeping in mind the exposure
132 See: Quentin Bajac, “Part Two Copper, Paper, Glass, 1840-55” in The Invention of Photography: The First Fifty Years, (2002): pp. 31-50.
133 Robert Hirsch quoted this from American Journal of Photography, 1861, 42. See quote: Robert Hirsch, “The Daguerreotype: Image and Object,” in Seizing the Light: A Social & Aesthetic History of Photography, 3rd Edition, (2013): p. 32.
134 See: John Hannavy, “Studio Design and Construction (1840-1900), in Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, (2007): pp. 1355-1357.
5 5
time and the long process of setting the camera, working with two cameras is more time efficient both for the photographer and the customer.
135 The customer is sitting on the “execution chair,” waiting to be photographed under the direct lights.136
Figure 10: George Cruikshank's cartoon representing Richard Beard making a daguerreotype at the Royal Polytechnic Institution in London, in 1842. Source (describing the illustration): John Hannavy, “Studio Design and Construction (1840-1900), in Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, (2007): p. 1355. Image source: https://www.photohistory-sussex.co.uk/Sussexearly
In the early examples of the photographic studio, the need for a closed interior space was compensated by the use of background sets to imitate the outdoor atmosphere. The use of a painted studio was introduced by Antoine Claudet, in his British patent in 1841:
“When the daguerreotype process was originally applied to portrait taking it was necessary to place behind the sitter some plain background or neutral tints in order that the outlines of the figures should be delineated and brought out. I have now improved this by applying behind the sitter some backgrounds of painted scenery
135 See: Ibid.
136 See: Ibid. Referring to this set-up, the comedians at that time compare the customer chair to an execution chair. See: Quentin Bajac, “Part Two Copper, Paper, Glass, 1840-55” in The Invention of Photography: The First Fifty Years, (2002): p. 34.
5 6
representing landscapes, interiors of apartments, and other representations adapted to the taste and habits of the sitter or to his profession.”
137
Figure 11: Small glazed studio, in 1863; with a background behind the sitter's chair. Published in "Traité Général De Photographie" by D.V. Monckhoven (Paris: Librairie de Victor Masson et Fils, 1863). Source: http://www.luminous-lint.com/app/vexhibit/_THEME_19thc_Studio_Interiors_01/6/45/33458132348343325864109/
This use of painted sets as backgrounds can be associated with portrait photography’s desire to imitate the customs and conventions of portrait painting. The painter can use outdoors or they can use their imagination to create a colorful and interesting background while creating the image, however the photographer had no other choice but to take an image of what is already in front of them. In the constructed reality of the staged production, the photographer creates a tableau – “a historical form of the picture that privileged the depiction of dramatic action” - in a similar manner to that of a painter.138 In this sense, photographers use certain backgrounds and props to construct a scene in the space of
137 See quote: John Hannavy, “Studio Design and Construction (1840-1900), in Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, (2007): p. 1356.
138 The quote of the tableau description is from David Green and Joanna Lowry’s article. Green and Lowry refers to the historical associations to explain the tableau, from Roland Barthes perspective. See: David Green and Joanna Lowry, “Photography, cinema and medium as social practice,” Visual Studies, 24:2, (2009): p. 133.
5 7
production, a process that is modeled on the conventions of painting. This creation of photographic tableaux go back to the nineteenth-century, with the imitation of scenes from the prominent works of art or literature.
139
Figure 12: Tableau of Xie Kitchin as the Damsel in distress and St George and the Dragon by Lewis Caroll. The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles. Source: Stephen Petersen, “Tableau,” in Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, (2007): pp. 1373-1375.
The first example of a photograph with a constructed set-up is the Hippolyte Bayard’s Autoportrait en noyé (Self Portrait as a Drowned Man) from 1840. It is a photograph of Bayard posing as a man who committed suicide, which was a sarcastic way of showing his ignored inventions beside the praised inventions of Louis-Jacques-Mandé Daguerre. This staged image’s story was explained through the “suicide note” on the back of the image. This image represents the possibility of constructing a scene in the photograph by designing the mise-en-scène in the photographic studio. As it was the first example of a staged image – which goes back to the invention of the photography - it shows that the “truthfulness” of the medium has always been altered by the photographer’s artistic agency.
139 See: Stephen Petersen, “Tableaux,” in Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, (2007): pp. 1373-1375.
5 8
Figure 13: Hippolyte Bayard, Autoportrait en noyé (Self Portrait as a Drowned Man), in 1840, from University of California, San Diego.
Figure 14: Hippolyte Bayard, Autoportrait en noyé (Self Portrait as a Drowned Man) (verso), in 1840, from University of California, San Diego.140 Source: https://www.artstor.org/2018/09/12/fake-news-the-drowning-of-hippolyte-bayard/
However, with the technological developments of apparatuses and the shift from analog to digital, the photographer had more opportunities to change the atmosphere of the set and create more dramatic tableaux. With the photographer’s interventions to the architectural aspects of the studio - as the certain necessities of the space dissolved with the use of artificial light and etc. - the control of the photographer expanded beyond the mechanical and automatic capabilities of photography. This control over the space
140 In the suicide letter it says;
“The corpse which you see here is that of M. Bayard, inventor of the process that has just been shown to you, or the wonderful results of which you will soon see. As far as I know, this inventive and indefatigable experimenter has been occupied for about three years with the perfection of his discovery. The Academy, the King, and all those who have seen his pictures admired them as you do at this very moment, although he himself considers them still imperfect. This has brought him much honor but not a single sou. The government, which has supported M. Daguerre more than is necessary, declared itself unable to do anything for M. Bayard, and the unhappy man threw himself into the water in despair. Oh, human fickleness! For a long time, artists, scientists, and the press took interest in him, but now that he has been lying in the morgue for days, no-one has recognized him or claimed him! Ladies and gentlemen, let’s talk of something else so that your sense of smell is not upset, for as you have probably noticed, the face and hands have already started to decompose.”
See: https://www.artstor.org/2018/09/12/fake-news-the-drowning-of-hippolyte-bayard/
5 9
of the production set mixed the objectivity of the image with the “subjective self-expression” of the photographer, which created a unique tableau compared to painting.
141 Preceding the automatic process of executing the moment by pressing the shutter button, the performative process of the photographer adds to the intentionality aspect in the end-product.142 The “mise-en-scène of the photographic situation” becomes the evidence of the agency of its designer: the photographer.143
Stepping outside the studio environment, the streets became a set that can be altered by the photographers using the advantages of the mobile and digital apparatuses. Although this natural set is more overtly used by the street photographers - who are associated with straight photography - some photographers act like a film director shooting a scene in the open and seemingly
141 In here Scotty Walden discusses the theories regarding straight photography. Walden points out Paul Strand’s thoughts about the subjective aspect that comes with the photographer’s own expression in straight photography. I believe this could also apply to the nature of the stage photography. For more information see: Scott Walden, “Photographic Theory,” in Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set, (2006): p. 1246.
142 In this thesis, although I analyze staged photography, I am not particularly analyzing genre of portrait photography, nor photography’s that are specifically based on the subject of human. In Richard Shusterman, Photography as Performative Performance article, Shusterman analyzed the performative process in the making of an image in the production process. He analyses the relationship between the photographer and subject, and how they interact and effect each other in the photographic set space. In this thesis, I refer to Shusterman’s thoughts not on the performance of the photographer nor the subject, but on the performative process of designing the mise-en-scène in production set.
See: Richard Shusterman, “Photography as Performative Process,” (2012): pp. 67-77.
143 See: Ibid.
6 0
“uncontrolled” city space.144 The process of designing this natural set is same as the closed set, yet there are external factors like the public life in the city, the city furniture and the cars, which can be controlled only to a certain degree. There is also the weather conditions, which affects the day of shooting depending on the wanted atmosphere in the photograph. The question of whether the street photographs are a product of straight photography or a “directorial photography” may arise, though, mostly, the constructed mise-en-scène gives itself away when carefully studying the image.145
As two approaches to the design of the production set, the casual and the intentional representational strategies add different types of meanings to the image. If we consider Roland Barthes’ theories about the meaning of the image, we might be able to say that the staged photography gains a connotated meaning to a greater extent than casual photography. According to Barthes, this meaning is added to the image by the choices of the framing, distance, lighting, focus and speed. These elements concern authorial decisions whether we are dealing with snapshot or “time-exposure” photography. Yet, the set of the staged photography - in addition to these choices of setting the scene in the casual photograph - features more elements to be decided by the photographer. In the making of the constructed tableau, the photographer’s performative process becomes much more visible and closer to the performance of the painter in terms of the
144 See: Patricia Leighten, “Critical Attitudes toward Overtly Manipulated Photography in the 20th Century,” (1977): pp. 133-138.
145 See: Nancy Yakimoski, “Constructed Reality,” in Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, (2007): pp. 319-323.
6 1
creation of the background, placement of the props and direction of the subject.
At this point, Walter Benjamin’s argument of “pictorial reproduction” can be questioned; as the mechanical aspect of the medium comes from the nature of the camera, not the bearer of the camera. Benjamin rightly argues that the apparatus of the medium of photography emancipated the production of an image from the skills of a hand by mechanizing the process. Yet this argument overlooks the photographer’s other contribution to the making of the image than the pressing of the shutter button. Like Benjamin, Patrick Maynard also underlines the capabilities of the camera by emphasizing “process over product,” to underline the automatic processes of the camera, and how it only allows nature to depict itself. However, in staged photography, there is the process of choosing the certain props, characters, space, and light, which reveals the certain choices of the photographer in the end product.
Roger Scruton’s idea of the “ideal painting” and “ideal photograph” becomes relevant to this discussion to the extent that these ideals, according to him, represent different types of involvement of their artists. As Scruton puts it, the ideal painting depicts the intentions of its painter, whereas the ideal photograph is an image of a thing, which does not show the intentions of its photographer. Yet again, although the photograph mirrors the “real world,” it is a world inside a frame, which is composed by the photographer. Inside this represented frame, the refined reality is conceived by the certain choices that adds coded-iconic messages to the image. In the highly controlled environment of the production set, the act of the photographer becomes closer to the act of the painter in a painting
6 2
studio. By designing a set for the image, the medium begins to resemble painting putting even the destruction of aura by the medium into question. By creating “painterly” and “cinematographic” images, staged photography involves a level of intention as closely possible as that of painting.
For analyzing the specific details of a production set, and its level of representation of its photographer; the study case will be Gregory Crewdson, a prominent photographer who designs movie-like sets for his photographs. By studying Crewdson’s process of creating a certain atmosphere in the production set, I will expand the discussion about the mise-en-scène of the photographic studio.
3.4 The Case Study: Gregory Crewdson
Gregory Crewdson is one of the prominent photographers among those who use the medium of photography to express his narratives in designed environments. The domestic space of suburban American life is the main theme of his works, which he depicts both in natural and artificial sets. Crewdson’s conscious choice of space, props, and actors in the production process, and his control over the mise-en-scène of the tableau in the postproduction process resembles the process of a painting being painted in a studio or a film shooting process in a film studio. Whether on location or in a soundstage, Crewdson and his crew of over one hundred people, work closely on the mise-en-scène by micromanaging every single detail to capture the perfect moment.146 Some aspects like weather and natural light cannot be
146 To analyze the production process of Gregory Crewdson’ photographic works, I use the documentary Brief Encounters, directed by Ben Shapiro. My analyses -mostly- based on the visual information from this documentary. See: Gregory Crewdson: Brief Encounters, Dir. Ben Shapiro, (2012).
6 3
controlled in the on-location sets, in contrast to the artificial sets where everything can be controlled, yet Crewdson is able to design his ideal outdoor-mise-en-scène by working with a big production team, and also he benefits from the manipulation tactics in the digital post-production process when the control in the production process is not sufficient enough.
Crewdson’s photographs generate a photographic language in between documentary photography (considering its theme of domestic life) and cinematographic photography (considering its design process). The narratives in the photographs depicts contrasting feelings of loneliness, beauty, sadness, desire, and anxiety of the people in the American suburbs. In this sense, Crewdson’s choice of local people to become actors in his works implies a certain degree of authenticity that is seen in documentary photography. Designing a certain environment through theatrical lights and colors to depict people’s emotions, on the other hand, adds a dramatic effect to the domestic narrative, which creates the cinematographic aspect of the images. As an end-product, Crewdson’s photographic images uniquely capture the combination of the local and real, with artificial and designed.
As Crewdson explains, he usually starts off by imagining a scene, a frame, which he later on constructs in the real world.147 He says that he is influenced by painters such as Edward Hopper and Raymond Carver, and directors such as Alfred Hitchcock, Steven Spielberg and David Lynch in the process of creating his uniquely designed images. These spaces feature dramatic lighting and are
147 See: Gregory Crewdson, “Gregory Crewdson,” in Inside the Studio: Two Decades of Talks with Artists in New York, (2004): p. 279.
6 4
photographed from a captivating perspective.
148 These images somehow capture both “familiar and mysterious” scenes in one particular moment.149 The physical aspects of the actors and the spaces of home interiors generate the sense of familiarity, whereas the choreographed light and the obscure situations involving the actors and the narrative create the mystery in the images. In movies, the mysterious plot line uncovers itself as the movie continues, yet in the medium of photography there is only “one moment” to represent, so the curiosity of the spectator is never answered through the image.150
Figure 15: Gregory Crewdson, Untitled (Brief Encounter) from the series Beneath the Roses, (2006). Digital carbon print, 144.8 x 223.5 cm, Gagosian Gallery. Source: Gregory Crewdson: Brief Encounters, Dir. Ben Shapiro, (2012).
148 In his interview to Nowness, Gregory Crewdson talks about his desire to create certain ambiences, and his inspirations to such scenes. See: Photographers in Focus: Gregory Crewdson, Nowness, (2017).
149 See: Ibid.
150 See: Ibid.
6 5
To analyze the mise-en-scène in the production process of Crewdson’s photographs, I will study an image from the series “Beneath the Roses” named Untitled (Brief Encounter), with the help of the documentary Brief Encounters that is directed by Ben Shapiro.
151 Through the analysis of this photograph, I will emphasize Crewdson’s design process and the architectural aspects of the set environment. I will also mention his post-production process of manipulating images of a scene to create one perfect tableau, and one of his exhibition’s mise-en-scène in which the images are part of a unique narrative.
At first glance, the image may seem like a straight-street photograph, capturing the frozen movement of a calm street. Regarding the mechanic act of the camera, this can be considered “snapshot” photography, however, the frame is very much constructed by the photographer, which creates the tension between the intentionality and automatism.152
Shooting on a street in Arlington, Massachusetts, Crewdson was -fortunately- able to catch a real snow storm coming. If this wasn’t the case, they would have used artificial snow to set the scene. Benefiting from the natural weather and a closed street, Crewdson designed a narrative taking place on a snowy street that involves the peculiar encounter of three people; one inside a car, one on the sidewalk and one inside a restaurant on the street. This “casual” looking street was obsessively planned from its traffic signs and
151 This documentary has its soundtrack, which increases the cinematic aspect of the photographic series. As I listen to the album, it made me wonder how it would feel like if I could listen to it as I visit the exhibition.
152 See: David Green and Joanna Lowry, “Photography, cinema and medium as social practice,” (2009): p. 133.
6 6
lights, to interior spaces of the restaurant and car, to the car’s snow trail.
As the crew was waiting for the snow, they prepared the street by removing some of the signs that disrupted Crewdson’s desired camera angle. By removing the traffic signs with writing on it, Crewdson eliminated the unintentional linguistic messages inside the frame; and he added a linguistic message on the marquee –on the right side of the image- that both reference the narrative of the image and David Lean’s movie Brief Encounters.
These small but effective spatial details were important to create the intended frame, yet the lighting is the prominent element that set the mysterious atmosphere to the scene. Given that the snow is a natural occurrence it can be considered the toughest part to get right. Yet the most challenging aspect of this image was the lighting. Since the photograph was shot in the controlled environment of a studio, Crewdson and his team had to figure out the perfect harmony of the natural light, the traffic lights and the 76 studio lights. The traffic lights were arranged so the light would be yellow, the set lights were placed through over half a mile distance, providing just enough light to not overshadow the natural sky-light at 4:30 p.m., but still make an impact on the atmosphere.
On the day of the snow, the interior design of the restaurant was changed for it to show enough of the woman sitting on the booth. In front of the woman, there is a table prepared for her, which has a meal and flower on it. As for the car on the street, the snow on the car and its trail on the snow was designed carefully. Unfortunately, because of the street light issue, a truck came and
6 7
left a trail behind it; which the team tried to cover with the snow outside the frame and tried to match the color of the snow on the road. However, the rest of the matching colors and contouring had be done in the post-production process.
Figure 16: A still from the documentary Brief Encounters, showing the crew removing the traffic signs.
Figure 17: A still from the documentary Brief Encounters, showing the crew removing the traffic signs.
Source: Gregory Crewdson: Brief Encounters, Dir. Ben Shapiro, (2012).
Figure 18: A still from the documentary Brief Encounters, showing the crew rearranging the interior of the restaurant.
Figure 19: A still from the documentary Brief Encounters, showing the crew deciding on the costume of the man inside the car.
Source: Gregory Crewdson: Brief Encounters, Dir. Ben Shapiro, (2012).
Following the architectural design, the actors were dressed in their costumes and placed on their mark. Crewdson, acting like a director, gave cues on how they should place their arms and legs, which way their heads should lean, and what expression they should have on their faces. This process resembles an actor getting
6 8
prepared to act, though these three actors got ready to just pose for the image, like the models of a painter.
After the frame was designed, Crewdson took his place behind-the-scene, not behind the camera but right beside it where he can clearly see the street. After the scene was captured more than one time, the actors were then free to move, the team to walk around the snow, and the lights were turned off. Crewdson explains that on the production set of Brief Encounter, when the shooting was done and as the street got darker he knew that it was the last image of the series Beneath the Roses, that this was the image that completed this body of work.
Figure 20: A still from the documentary Brief Encounters, showing Crewdson and his team using a large-format analog camera. Source: Gregory Crewdson: Brief Encounters, Dir. Ben Shapiro, (2012).
Yet, the work was not done regarding the mise-en-scène of the image. The control over the spatial organization in the set continued in the digital phase of the production. Although this is a linear process from shooting to photograph, to read the image as a whole, the spectator must go back and forth through the mise-en-scènes of the set and the mise-en-scène of the image.
6 9
In Crewdson’s practice, the post-production process helps to achieve the ideal end product that represents the moment that Crewdson endeavor to produce in the set. Usually about 40 to 50 frames are shot to transform the frozen moment into a perfect tableau. By digitally manipulating the images and juxtaposing frames that depicts the perfect light, color, position, expression, etc, Crewdson and his crew create the flawless photograph. In this case, the snow and the balance between each light element are the things that are the most edited in the digital space.
Figure 21: A still from the documentary Brief Encounters, showing Gregory Crewdson in the exhibition space deciding the layout. Source: Gregory Crewdson: Brief Encounters, Dir. Ben Shapiro, (2012).
After the digital manipulations, they print images to once again check it for the mise-en-scène inside the frame, and making sure its perfect when it is exhibited. The constructedness of the images continues in the mise-en-scène of the exhibition space. As the series follow a specific narrative, the layout of the images plays a crucial role to represent the agency of the photographer. In the documentary, we can see Crewdson in the exhibition space, wandering around and deciding the sequence of the fifty large-scale images. He acts like a spectator in the exhibition, and designs the experience of the viewer. Considering Crewdson’s involvement
7 0
in the processes from the production to post-production to exhibition, the intentional connection of the mise-en-scènes of these spaces can be seen.
7 1
CHAPTER 4
THE IMAGE
4.1 A Space for the Image
The medium of photography has a distinctive way of transforming a three-dimensional world into a two-dimensional object. In the production process of an image, the photographer deals with a spatial environment and through the apparatus of the camera, they fit this three-dimensional space into a flat frame. In this process, it seems as if the image reduces the dimensionality of a scene, though it can be argued that the “thingness” of the captured scene is higher in the image.153 This material aspect of the image shows itself mostly in the post-production process, through which the “thingness” of the image becomes visible when compared to its abstract state in the production process. The materiality of the image in the post-production process, however, becomes more abstract by eliminating the “thingness” with the changed from analog to digital manipulation techniques and apparatuses.
153 In his essay Thing Theory, Bill Brown questions the materiality of particular objects in specific situations. As Brown discusses, the “thingness” of items changed with their gained functions in new circumstances. In this thesis, I reference Brown in the way that photography changes the thingness of its subject and object. Julia Breitbach also discusses photography’s materiality from the perspective of Brown’s thing theory. For more information see: Bill Brown, “Thing Theory,” Critical Inquiry, 28:1, (2001): pp. 1-22; Julia Breitbach, “The Photo-as-thing,” European Journal of English Studies, 15:1, (2011): pp. 31-43.
7 2
After the image is taken in the production set, the post-production process starts, as the photographer reviews the images and begins to construct the space in the image. With the mechanical apparatus of the camera, the image to some extent transparently represents the scene of the “real world”, however, a new space is created in the image with the photographer’s manipulated composition. This newly created frame is then studied in the post-production process. In the beginning of the history of photography the darkroom, which is a special space for developing and printing images, was used to manipulate the images. The photographer played with materials in the darkroom to alter the image by grabbing it, the “thing.” However, with the digitalization of the medium, computers and software started to dominate the post-production process. This annihilated the “thingness” of the image to a great extent and turned it into a virtual and untouchable “thing.”
The shift from using an actual space to a virtual space for creating a mise-en-scène in the image sparked various opinions about its effect on the artistic aspect of the medium. In the dark room, processes involving actual materials such as the image itself, the chemicals and the enlarger render the post-production process a craft of the photographer. This redesigning of the image by hand is mostly compared to the attitude of the painter, given that both the photographer and the painter consciously construct the mise-en-scène inside the frame. In the digital age, the photographer started to use computers and software -such as Lightroom, Photoshop and Camera-Raw- to manipulate their images. With this technological development, the materiality involved in the handling of the image in the post-production process disappeared, as the image is no longer in the hands of the photographer, in a literal sense. In this regard, the craftiness of the manipulation process also dissolved,
7 3
which brought the questions of automatism in the process; constituting similar concerns as the ones regarding the camera’s mechanical aspects. Even though the materiality of the process diminishes, the control of the photographer nevertheless expanded with the digital apparatuses. With the technical advantages of the virtual space, the photographer have more means to create “painterly photographs” seamlessly; in which the “craftiness” of the digital manipulation can be questioned.
To discuss further the intentionality in the making of the mise-en-scène of the image in the post-production process, the history of manipulation from 19th century to early 21st century will be analyzed in relation the photographer’s control over the image.
4.2 From Darkroom to Lightroom
Photographic manipulation is an intervention to a photographic image by adjusting elements such as the light, color and composition. After taking a photograph with the certain manipulation techniques presented by the camera and the apparatuses - like lenses, filters, and artificial light -, the post-production process provides a wider range of editing techniques and tools for the photographer to create their desired tableaux. From the traditional darkroom processes of dodging, burning, masking and cutting to digital software tools of Lightroom and Photoshop, the history of manipulation in the post-production process presented various ways to the photographer to alter the mise-en-scène in the image.
7 4
Figure 22: The photograph of the naturally lit darkroom studio of George Bacon Wood, in 1887, from The Library o Company of Philadelphia. Source: Kenneth Finkel, “The Darkroom Studio” in History of Photography, 8:2, (1984): p. 76.
In the late 19th century, the needed “dark” room to hide the substance from the light developed from a space to prepare and develop the materials, subsequently to printing and processing chamber for the photographer.154 It was important at that time to build the darkroom in a close distance to the glass studio to prevent the possibility of damage in-between the production and post-production processes.155 The phrase of “dark-room” or “dark chamber” came from the realization of the need of a dark atmosphere in all processes of producing a photograph.156 However, Antoine Claudet and his patent in 1841 revealed that the
154 See: John Hannavy, “Darkroom and Developing Chamber,” in Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, (2007): pp. 382-383.
155 See: Lake Price, “The Glass Studio,” in A Manual of Photographic Manipulation: Treating of the Practice of the Art, and Its Various Applications to Nature, (1868), p. 75.
156 See: John Hannavy, “Darkroom and Developing Chamber,” in Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, (2007): pp. 382-383.
7 5
darkroom can be lit with various colors of light, even though Claudet prefered red light,
157 which is still used in the darkrooms:
“performing all the operations upon the plates which were formerly carried on in the dark now in a room lighted through the media of various colours, such as red, orange, green and yellow, but red I prefer, which, having very little effect upon the plates covered with the sensitive coating, allows the operator to see how to perform the work without being obliged as before to remain in a dark room.”158
In this case, apart from the red light, which can only be on during the latter process, the darkroom needs to be pitch black, as opposed to the photographic studio, which needs all the light that it could possibly get. It is an unfortunate requirement, considering that so much happens inside this dark room as it is the place for developing the image. Therefore, in the “operating room” the photographer needs to be organized in order to find their way in the dark.159
The photographer uses various chemicals in their process of developing and printing an image. There are six necessities in the darkroom: “a source of water, a light tight environment, proper ventilation, a dust-free environment for film drying, electricity,
157 See: Ibid.
158 See: Ibid, p. 383.
159 I refer to Lake Price, as he uses the term “operation room” instead of darkroom, and explains the spatial requirements of the room. See: Lake Price, “The Operation Room,” in A Manual of Photographic Manipulation: Treating of the Practice of the Art, and Its Various Applications to Nature, (1868), pp. 75-78.
7 6
adequate space.”
160 For this reason there are many shelves and cupboards to store the liquids and systemize the act of the photographer during the process in the dark.161 As the post-production process consists of several steps, there are stations for different procedures. The photographer follows this order to create an image: loading the film, film development – using developer solutions, stop bath solution, and fixer solution -, film washing, film drying, contact printing, exposing the paper, paper development – again using solutions -, paper washing, print drying and print finishing. It is optimal if the space is designed according to this sequences of acts for the photographer to work efficiently in the darkroom.
The essential steps for film and print processing to create an end product includes: chemical mixing, film processing, the making of proof sheets, the enlarging process, print process, fixing, drying and mounting.162 Manipulations begin during the film developing process by changing variables of time, temperature and chemicals.163 The film processing is followed by the processes of development, stop bath, fixing, washing and drying in the dark for obtaining negatives. All of these steps of the printing process enable a wide range of different manipulations.164 In the enlarging exposure process, the photographer can use techniques of dodging
160 See: Steve Anchell, “Planning a Darkroom,” in the Darkroom Cookbook, (2008): p. 1.
161 See: Ibid.
162 See: Tricia Louvar, “Darkroom,” in Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set, (2006): pp. 358-361.
163 See: Jennifer Headley, “Manipulation,” in Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set, (2006): pp. 1006-1007.
164 See: Tricia Louvar, “Darkroom,” in Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set, (2006): pp. 358-361.
7 7
(removing the intensity of light or the time of the exposure to decrease density), burning-in (adding the intensity of light or the time of the exposure to increase density), masking (blocking out an unwanted part of the image) cropping (simply selecting certain parts of the image for exposure) to construct the final and “flawless” photograph.165
Figure 23: Plan drawing of a darkroom Source: See: Lake Price, “Operation Room,” in A Manual of Photographic Manipulation: Treating of the Practice of the Art, and Its Various Applications to Nature, (1868), p. 77.
165 See: Jennifer Headley, “Manipulation,” in Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set, (2006): pp. 1006-1007.
See: M. Kathryn Shields, “Masking,” in Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set, (2006): pp. 1014-1016.
7 8
Figure 24: Photograph of a darkroom showing the enlargers, the sink, and other apparatuses. Source: Steve Anchell, “Planning a Darkroom,” in the Darkroom Cookbook, (2008): p. 2.
Figure 25: Diagram of a darkroom. Source: Steve Anchell, “Planning a Darkroom,” in the Darkroom Cookbook, (2008): p. 6.
7 9
Given the special materials utilized in the film processing and print processing, we might assume that the darkroom needs to be a fixed and permanent space. However, as the camera and apparatuses became mobile, the darkroom had to catch up with this portability. In 1854, Roger Fenton used a converted van as a mobile darkroom for his journeys. Portable darkrooms within wheeled vehicles subsequently became popularized.
166
Figure 26: Portable darkroom in 1873, In "The Silver Sunbeam (Eighth edition)" by J. Towler (New York: E.& H.T. Anthony & Co., 1873), p.472. Source: http://www.luminous-lint.com/app/vexhibit/_THEME2_19thc_Itinerant_photographers_01/6/56/298551887296345232695303408/
Figure 27: A mobile darkroom. Source: Dennis Curtin & Joe DeMaio, “Introduction,” in The Darkroom Handbook: A Complete Guide to the Best Design, Construction and Equipment, (1979): p. vii.
As the printing and processing chamber, the darkroom is the space for the photographer to play with the image’s certain aspects. However, the very first manipulations to the material photographs started after the processes in the darkroom. These first interventions to the image concerned the lack of color in the
166 See: John Hannavy, “Darkroom and Developing Chamber,” in Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, (2007): pp. 382-383.
8 0
daguerreotype images.
167 As the photographs did not represent the colorfulness of real life, the photographers acted as painters by hand-coloring the photographic image.168 This manipulation technique was not embraced quickly by the portrait photographers in the beginning, though it became an extra money-making service for the photographers as the hand-tinting became popular with the public.169
The colorists who took charge of coloring the photographs were miniaturist painters before this “easier and quicker” work whereby they efficiently traced the portraits.170 The process of coloring starts with the colorist tracing the portrait on a glass, followed by making paper stencils for the colors.171 The dry powder color mixed with gum Arabic was either shaken over the stencil or applied with a fine camel-hair brush; then to fix the gum Arabic to the plate, the colorists would breathe on the plate.172
This photo-montage technique was mostly used as a way to change the background, or a pattern of a fabric, or the mimics of the
167 See: Laura Claudet, “Colouring by Hand,” in Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, (2007): pp. 322-323.
168 See: Ibid.
169 See: Ibid.
170 “There can be no doubt whatever that the miniature painter’s ‘vocation’ is gone…By the old system of miniature painting about a score of sittings were necessary…while now by means of photography, only one sitting of half an hour is necessary in order to produce the most elaborate and finished miniature.” See quote: Ibid, p.322.
171 See: Ibid, pp. 322-323.
172 See: Ibid.
8 1
customer.173 One of the popular manipulation techniques was to make visible the customer’s jewelry.174 This was done by either highlighting the jewelries with real gold, or the scratching of the image to reveal the silver on the plate.175 In 1842, Richard Beard patented coloring Daguerreotypes, and he used this technique in his studio in London.176 One of Beard’s colored daguerreotypes was the portrait of a young girl, which displays a girl in front of a sky-like background.
Figure 28: Richard Beard, The Portrait of a Young Girl, in 1842-1850. Source: Mutual Art website; https://www.mutualart.com/Artwork/PORTRAIT-OF-A-YOUNG-GIRL/2C0B8496E624AE31E1A30E973A65131B
173 See: Diane E. Forsberg, “Painters and Photography,” in Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, (2007): pp. 1044-1048.
174 See: Ibid.
175 See: Ibid.
176 See: Ibid.
8 2
Antoine Francois Jean Claudet was one of the photographers who used hand-coloring technique in the early days of photography.177 He was tinting the images while using painted backdrops to create more depth in the photographs.178 The portrait of Mrs. Andrew Pritchard in 1847 is an example of A. Claudet’s works, which shows the tinted dress of Mrs. Pritchard, and her highlighted jewelry in front of a painted landscape.179 In this respect, this earliest manipulation technique of photography involved concerns with spatial representation within the image to the extent that it made more visible and added depth to painted or real backgrounds of photographic images.
Figure 29: Antoine Francois Jean Claudet, The Portrait of Mrs. Andrew Pritchard, in Morocco, in 1847. Source: Victoria and Albert Museum website; https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O1075390/mrs-andrew-pritchard-morocco-daguerreotype-antoine-claudet/
177 See: Laura Claudet, “Colouring by Hand,” in Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, (2007): pp. 322-323.
178 See: Ibid.
179 See: Ibid.
8 3
There were some attempts to create colored daguerreotypes, though it was in 1861 when James Clark Maxwell produced the first colored image.180 Maxwell used three black and white transparencies, which he projected onto a screen with red, green and blue filters to create a superimposed image with colors.181
Figure 30: James Clerk Maxwell, the first color photograph of a tartan ribbon, (1861). Vivex print in 1937, from original negatives. Source: Robert Hirsch, “New Ways of Visualizing Time and Space,” in Seizing the Light: A Social Aesthetic History of Photography, (2017): p. 182.
In a similar manner to Maxwell’s technique of the superimposition of images, the photographers used multiple images to create a new image either by superimposing or gluing them. Negative films were used in this superimposition process. By cutting and selecting and gathering certain parts of the photographs, the photographer
180 See: Ibid.
181 See: Robert Hirsch, “New Ways of Visualizing Time and Space,” in Seizing the Light: A Social Aesthetic History of Photography, (2017): pp. 165-190.
8 4
designed a new composition; and then they re-photographed the images to create a new photographic image.
182 The basis of the multiple printing (projecting various negatives onto one sheet of paper) technique is based on the William Henry Fox Talbot’s negative/positive paper process.183 During the multiple printing process, the photographer uses different levels of dodging, burning and masking with different images to design a coherent composition.184
Figure 31: Johann Carl Enslen, the photomontage of Jesus Christ and an oak leaf, (1839). Source: Victoria and Albert Museum website. https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O1405221/photograph-enslen-johann-carl/
182 See: Robert Hirsch, “Photomontage and Collage,” in Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, (2007): pp. 1123-1124.
183 For more information about the calotype process see: John Hannavy, “Talbot, William Henry Fox”, in Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography (2007): p. 1378.
184 For more information see: Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set, (2006):
Jenny Allred Redmann, “Burning-in,” pp. 181-182,
Roy Baum, “Cropping,” pp. 347-348.
Tricia Louvar, “Darkroom,” pp. 358-361,
Jenny Allred Redmann, “Dodging,” pp. 410-411,
Jenny Allred Redmann, “Enlarger,” pp. 442-444.
Christye Sisson, “Exposure,” pp.470-472.
M. Kathryn Shields, “Masking,” pp. 1014-1016.
8 5
The first ever known superimposed image was created by Johann Carl Enslen by using this technique of multiple printing, which combined images of the face of Christ and an oak leaf in 1839.
185 Enslen was a painter, who heard about Talbot’s process and experimented with different photographic processes, which resulted in manipulating the images and him inventing photomontage.186
Figure 32: Man Ray, a photomontage named "Observatory Time - The Lovers", (1934). Source: https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/152809561_man-ray-observatory-time-the-lovers-1934
In the montage or photo-collage technique - although they may be distinctively different from each other, they are similar in terms of their relation to the issue of manipulation - different images come together with respect to the intended narrative of the photographer.187 In contrast to superimposing, the “cut and paste”
185 See: Robert Hirsch, “Multiple Printing, Combination Printing, and Multiple Exposure,” in Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, (2007): pp. 960-962.
186 See: Ibid.
187 See: Scarlet Higgins, “Montage,” in Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set, (2006): pp. 1073-1077.
8 6
process of photomontage makes the manipulation more visible, given that it contains multiple images glued to each other by hand. The Dadaist artist Man Ray was one of the prominent photographers who used photomontage in his work. In his photomontage “Observatory Time – The Lovers,” different images, which were composed to materialize the mise-en-scène of a surreal landscape are distinguishable.
With the introduction of Adobe Photoshop in 1988, manipulating the color, light, size, and composition of the image became easier owing to the mechanical aid of a computer. Regardless of the camera (analog or digital) that is used in the production process, with the digital software, the photographer can interfere into the negatives and the positives of the photographic image. It becomes a considerably quick and efficient process to crop, to fix the “mistakes” in the image like low or high exposure, the color, the red eye, and the un-wanted things inside the frame with the use of the softwares such as Lighroom (2006), Photoshop and Camera Raw (2003, an extension of Photoshop.)
Figure 33: Screenshot of Lightroom Software.
8 7
Figure 34: Screenshot of Photoshop Software.
As the digital equivalent of the darkroom, Lightroom - a wordplay to refer to its traditional origin – is used for basic manipulations to the photographic image. It is a software for the photographers to adjust certain elements to produce an “ideal” image. However, Lighroom is mostly used for the computerized version of dodging and burning-in, and also for color correction. To create photographic collages and photomontages by cropping, masking, cutting, and superimposing, Photoshop is a more suitable option. As the software works in layers, mirroring to some extent the superimposition process in the darkroom; the photographer can use these layers to import various images to create a single end-product by digitalized multiple printing.
With the use of “computerized darkroom”188, there is no need for an “actual” space to edit the image in the post-production process.
188 Tricia Louvar uses the term “computerized darkroom” while referring to the software for digital manipulating. See: Tricia Louvar, “Darkroom,” in Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set, (2006): pp. 358-361.
8 8
With the inventions of laptop and smart phones, the nomadic state of the photographer further increased; so did the debates about the automatism in the editing process. Certain advantages of mobility and portability, which make the post-production process easier and quicker, constitute the basis of questions on the digital manipulation’s level of the artistic value represented in the end-product. While the digital darkroom to a certain extent automate the post-production process, the tools that are used in the software are the same as the traditional darkroom; so it remains open to question whether there is any real difference between the actual and artificial space and their effect on the end-product. To analyze the photographer’s control over the constructed image, it is important to analyze the process of the photographer creating a mise-en-scène within the image using analog darkroom and digital software editing techniques.
4.3 Creating a Mise-en-scène in the Image
After photographing the staged tableau in the production set, the post-production process begins. Although the photographic set is designed and arranged to capture the intentional frame, there can be some aspects that are impossible to carry out in the mise-en-scène of the set. At this point, the photographer uses manipulating techniques to re-construct the photographic tableaux in the editing space. It is possible for the photographer to just shoot the image, and use commercial labs to print the photographs, however, a considerable part of “making” an image happens in the post-production process.189 In this regard, to create the ideal tableau, photographer has to interact with the image themselves. With the
189 See: Tricia Louvar, “Darkroom,” in Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set, (2006): pp. 358-361.
8 9
new digital technologies, it may seem like there is a visible gap between the analog manipulations and digital manipulations, however, the analog editing techniques have a long history of changing the reality in photography.
The assigned objectivity in the medium of photography was challenged since the nineteenth-century with the subjective processes of editing. Lady Eastlake (Elizabeth Rigby) was perhaps the first person to write about the connection between photography and art from the perspective of photography’s purported objectivity.190 In her essay Photography published in 1857, Lady Eastlake argues that the machinery aspect of photography is mixed with the artistic agency by giving the example of the colored portraits:
“Portraits, as is evident to any thinking mind, and as photography now proves, belong to that class of facts wanted by numbers who know and care nothing about their value as works of art. For this want, even of the most abject kind, was, whether as regards correctness, promptitude, or price, utterly inadequate. These ends are not only now attained, but, even in an artistic sense, attained far better than before. The coloured portraits to which we have alluded are a most satisfactory coalition between the artist and the machine.”191
Beginning with this essay the history of photographic theory have produced various arguments regarding the presumed objectivity and photographer’s ability to alter it by analyzing the manipulated images. One of the first and mostly known and interpreted examples of manipulated images dates back to 1857. The
190 See: Scott Walden, “Photographic Theory,” in Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set, (2006): pp. 1245-1251.
191 See: Lady Elizabeth Eastlake, “Photography,” London Quarterly Review (1857): pp. 442-468.
9 0
photograph was created by Oscar G. Rejlander and was called The Two Ways of Life. Rejlander used combination printing technique to construct his desired tableau.
192 The way he approached the design of the frame resembles the act of a painter; as Rejlander planned beforehand the tableau by making sketches, hiring models, and using various backgrounds and props to set the scene.193 As the name gives away, the image depicts the allegory of choices leading two different ways of life, and this is staged through the representation of two young men guided by a bearded wise-old man.194
Figure 35: Oscar Gustav Rejlander, a version of the image "Two Way of Life,” (1857). Re-printed by J. Dudley Johnston in 1920s. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Source:https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/294822#:~:text=The%20Two%20Ways%20of%20Life,onto%20the%20stage%20of%20life.
192 See: Robert Hirsch, “Multiple Printing, Combination Printing, and Multiple Exposure,” in Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, (2007): pp. 960-962.
193 Rejlander is actually a painter, who was also interested in the medium of photography. Regarding his original profession, the painter-like approach to photography can be understood better. See: Ibid.
194 See: Ibid.
9 1
Figure 36: Oscar Gustav Rejlander, another version of the image "Two Way of Life,” (1857). Moderna Museet, Stockholm.
Source:https://www.modernamuseet.se/stockholm/en/exhibitions/oscar-gustave-rejlander1/
On the right side Rejlander created the life with virtue, and on the left side the life with vice.195 The young man who got away from the hand of the sage is moving towards to the immorality, and other young man who stayed close to the sage chose the path of grace.196 To create this mise-en-scène, Rejlander captured each model individually, and then combined these more than thirty negatives into a single unusually large print of 16x13 inches; which made the image more remarkable for the viewer.197 It was first exhibited in Manchester Art Treasures Exhibition in 1857 and met
195 See: Peter Smith and Carolyn Lefley, “Chapter 4 The Constructed Photograph,” in Rethinking Photography: Histories, Theories and Education, (2016): pp. 115-116.
196 See: Ibid.
197 See: Robert Hirsch, “Multiple Printing, Combination Printing, and Multiple Exposure,” in Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, (2007): pp. 960-962.
9 2
with its viewers.198 However, there was not only one version of this image, but Rejlander probably made more than nine different versions in which he used different negatives of people and backgrounds to change the mise en-scene.199 In this way, although the initial narrative stayed the same, the expression of the story changed.
Inspired from Rejlander’s image, Henry Peach Robinson also produced a manipulated image by combination printing in 1858.200 Robinson’s image Fading Away was made out of five negatives displaying a girl on her deathbed, and her mother, sister, and fiancée in a Victorian atmosphere.201
Figure 37: Peach Robinson, “Fading Away by Henry Peach Robinson,” (1858). Source: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/302289
198 See: Lori Pauli, “Rejlander’s Two Ways of Life – Part 1,” in National Gallery of Canada’s youtube channel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1JwFEHAOxg
199 Lori Pauli explains that there are four or five stills that survived to this day. See: Ibid.
200 See: Ibid.
201 See: Ibid.
9 3
As the medium of photography was commonly considered to represent nothing but the truth, this scene that Robinson captured was found rather indecent considering the lack of privacy on such a mourning scene.
202 Robinson depicted the girl’s inevitable fate “brutally honest” by showing her sister and mother beside her bed mourning and her fiancée (probably) in sorrow looking outside the windows. Thus, Robinson explained that his model was well and healthy, and he was simply trying to represent how she and her loved ones would look if she was close to death.203
Disregarding the artistic processes of Rejlander and Robinson’s, people argued that these images were going against the nature of photography by disrupting the truthfulness of the image on the grounds that mechanical process renders impossible the elevation of the medium’s artistic aspect to the level of painting. 204 The photographers were seen not as artists like painters, but more as workers who use a mechanical apparatus. Therefore, rather than creating a scene, they were believed to only steal a moment automatically with the camera.205
Even though there were controversies regarding the artistic agency in the manipulated images, the public seemed to enjoy the constructed reality in these images regardless attested by the success of the early commercial photographic studios. These studios offered services of collage and photomontage to create
202 See: Ibid.
203 See: Ibid.
204 See: Ibid.
205 See: Ibid.
9 4
such required scenes for the customers.
206 They mostly produced staged photographs with certain costumes and props in the studio, later on editing these photographs with combination printing and collaging them into a fabricated scene.207
Figure 38: Hannah Höch, “Untitled (Large Hand Over Woman's Head),” in 1930. "MashUp: The Birth of Modern Culture" at Vancouver Art Gallery. Source: https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-hannah-hoch-artist
In the twentieth century, photographers excessively used manipulation techniques to construct artistic images, rather than succumbing to the assumptions about the nature of the truthfulness of the medium.208 With the art movements, such as Constructivism, Dadaism and Surrealism, artists challenged the traditional expectations of photography by means of not only technical possibilities but also by creating composite images that
206 See: Nancy Yakimoski, “Constructed Reality,” in Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set, (2006): p. 320.
207 See: Ibid.
208 See: Ibid.
9 5
defied logical visual coherence.
209 Artists such as Alexander Rodchenko, Vladimir Tatlin, Marchel Duchamp, Hannah Höch, and Barbara Kruger were some of the influential examples in this era to use collage and photomontage in their images to construct absurd tableaus.
Apart from the techniques involving the juxtaposition of photographs in the printing process, the darkroom techniques in the developing process also played a crucial role in the twentieth century. Dodging, burning, and retouching the captured scenes allowed photographers to enhance the mise-en-scène in the image. Ansel Adams was one of the prominent photographers to use darkroom techniques to manipulate his images to add dramatic expressions into the photographic scene. Adams developed a technique with his collaborator Fred Archer called the Zone System, which is a photographic technique for arranging the optimal exposure and development.210 This system allowed Adams to create scenes with grand detail, scale, texture and tone, which let him alter the image not by changing the narrative, but by technically beautifying the mise-en-scène of the image.211 As an example, Adams captured the image “Cathedral Peal and Lake” by a film camera that enables to store all the details in the scene. He, then, manipulated the photograph in the darkroom by exposing the image part by part with different light and dark values. Through this process, Adams controlled the sharpness and the black-and-white balance in the image.
209 See: Ibid.
210 See: Marco Merkli, “Adams, Ansel,” in Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set, (2006): pp. 10-11.
211 See: Ibid.
9 6
Figure 39: Ansel Adams, “Cathedral Peak and Lake,” in Yosmite National Park California, (1960). Source: https://www.holdenluntz.com/magazine/new-arrivals/ansel-adams-cathedral-peak-and-lake/
With the digitalization of the post-production process in the 1980s, the manipulations became much easier and quicker, as the digital apparatuses eliminated the actual manual labor. Indeed, the photographer worked on the images manually through the aid of computer, yet the physicality of the labor considerably diminished with the mouse being the only apparatus in use. As the craftiness of the process is not “really” visible, the use of the digital software made the end-product more seamless. The photographer no longer deals with material images for montaging, instead the computer provides an immaterialized space for manipulating.212 In this regard the post-production process came closer to the act of painting by digitally constructing the pictorial tableau. The digital apparatuses make it seem like the photographer is in more control
212 See: Hal Foster, "2001," in Art Since 1900: Modernism, Antimodernism, Postmodernism, (2004): p. 773.
9 7
over the mise-en-scène of the image, which in a way decreases the truthfulness of the medium, yet increases its artistic agency.
213
John Berger discusses these matters of truthfulness and representation in the medium by saying that the comparison between photography and other fine arts is unnecessary as they refer to different things.214 According to Berger, the composition of a photograph is mostly analyzed for deciding whether it is a good or bad photograph, though this understanding is only accurate for the photographs that are imitating paintings.215 He continues to argue that constructing the photographic set or the image in the post-production process is against the nature of photography.216
On one hand, this assumption is understandable, considering the transparent relationship that photography creates with the world, as it captures the scene as it is; the manipulation techniques destroy the truthfulness of the time and space that the image is supposed to represent. On the other hand, through this process, the artistic agency of the photographer involved in the medium’s given processes increases, so does the image’s artistic value. In
213 See: Matthew Biro, "From Analogue to Digital Photography: Bernd and Hilla Becher and Andreas Gursky," History of Photography, 36:3, (2012): pp. 353-366.
214 See: John Berger, “Understanding a Photograph,” in Understanding a Photograph, (2013): p. 22.
215 See: Ibid.
216 “Painting is an art of arrangement: therefore it is reasonable to demand that there is some kind of order in what is arranged. Every relation between forms in a painting is to some degree adaptable to the painter’s purpose. This is not the case with photography. (Unless we include those absurd studio works in which the photographer arranges every detail of his subject before he takes the picture.) Composition in the profound, formative sense of the word cannot enter into photography.”
See quote: Ibid.
9 8
this regard, it can be argued that the manipulated image lost its photographic value of objectivity by gaining the artistic subjectivity of its photographer. As Diarmuid Costello and Margaret Iversen discuss, this unique relationship created a new medium of art combining photography and painting.
217 This in-between medium has its examples in the images that are constructed in the darkroom with analog techniques, yet the digitally manipulated images display the difference between a straight photograph and a pictorial photograph in a more distinctive way.218 Thus with the digital and mechanical transformation of the apparatuses the truthfulness and objectivity are appointed more to analog processes, whereas the falsehood and subjectivity seem to be attributed to the digital photography.219 To a certain point, this distinction may be true, as the digital manipulation tools create smoother and seamless end-products, considering that the editing occurs in a digital environment in which the photographer can explore and change details that cannot be possible to see in the darkroom.220 Yet again, as Matthew Biro argues, it is essential not
217 See: Diarmuid Costello and Margaret Iversen, “Introduction: Photography between Art History and Philosophy,” Critical Inquiry, 38:4, (2012): pp. 679-693.
218 See: Patricia D. Leighten, “Critical Attitudes toward Overtly Manipulated Photography in the 20th Century,” Art Journal, 37:2, (1977): pp. 133-138.
219 “For this reason, asking why we often still see ‘truth’ and ‘objectivity’ in analogue photographic practices – and why we ascribe ‘untruth’ and ‘subjectivism’ to digital photography – continues to be of pressing concern, for what at first appears to be a clear-cut distinction between analogue and digital photography soon turns out to be far less cleanly divided.”
See quote: Matthew Biro, "From Analogue to Digital Photography: Bernd and Hilla Becher and Andreas Gursky," History of Photography, 36:3, (2012): p. 353.
220 See: Hal Foster, "2001," in Art Since 1900: Modernism, Antimodernism, Postmodernism, (2004): p. 773.
9 9
to distinguish the analog from its seeming counterpart digital as exact opposites.221
Whether analog or digital, the apparatuses are only aids for the photographer to create their ideal tableaux. In this regard, Patrick Maynard’s statement of “process over product,” which emphasizes the role of the camera in the process of making an image, can be discussed. It is not to argue that the end-product comes before the process, yet by means of process, Maynard emphasizes the automatic act of the camera. Although the mechanical apparatus plays a crucial role in the process, Maynard’s argument disregards the intentional performance of the photographer in both the production and the post-production processes. Diarmuid Costello and Margaret Iversen challenge such a history of photographic theory and its search for the thing we called photograph, by asking the question “what counts as a photograph, photography, or a photographic process?”222 With this question, Costello and Iversen analyze the arguments of Kendall Walton and Roger Scruton about the representational aspect of the medium. Walton and Scruton claims that photography is a transparent medium, which cannot represent anything unreal, to the extent that the automation of the camera dominates the medium. However, the manipulations in the post-production process breaks this transparency of the image by generating a constructed truth. As Patricia Leighten argues, “the point of the photomontage is not, simply, create a visual lie, but to
221 See: Matthew Biro, "From Analogue to Digital Photography: Bernd and Hilla Becher and Andreas Gursky," History of Photography, 36:3, (2012): pp. 353-366.
222 See: Diarmuid Costello and Margaret Iversen, "Introduction: Photography between Art History and Philosophy,” Critical Inquiry, 38:4 (2012): p. 683.
10 0
elicit a psychic truth.”223 Thus from this point of view, the truthfulness in the image still remains under the filtered reality of the photographer.
To analyze the process of designing the mise-en-scène in the post-production, the case study will be Jeff Wall; who is a known photographer for his digitally constructed images. By studying Wall’s steps of creating a narrative in the editing space, the back and forth relationship between the control over the production space –the set- and the post-production space –the computerized darkroom- can be analyzed; and the arguments about the represented artistic intentions in the end-product can be further discussed.
4.4 The Case Study: Jeff Wall
Jeff Wall’s attitude in the production process of a photograph is similar to that of Gregory Crewdson. They both design the mise-en-scène of the moment they are going to capture, yet Wall’s works differ in their contextual aspects. Wall’s works, like Crewdson’s, are in-between documentary and cinematographic styles as well; however, as texts they are more overtly interpreted as documentary photographs. Wall’s practice often restages iconic paintings in new environments or reappraises well-known spaces to challenge conventional assumptions and generate new meanings. In his works, the composition of the space, the props, and the actors are controlled by Wall, but the actors’ performances are
223 See: Patricia D. Leighten, “Critical Attitudes toward Overtly Manipulated Photography in the 20th Century,” Art Journal, 37:2, (1977): p. 136.
10 1
natural.224 During the acts of people in a scene, Wall searches for the perfect moment to shoot; in this regard his approach to record the space and time resembles snapshot photography.225 The tension between intentionality and causality in the production process of the photograph renders apt the term “near documentary” to describe Wall’s images. Through planned execution in a controlled environment, Wall creates a composition merging staged and snapshot photography. The cinematographic effect of the image that emerges within the controlled set environment blurs with the documentary-like context of the image; but in the exhibition space, the spatial context of the image gain cinematographic aspects again due to its representation in a large-scaled, back-lighted light-box. This back and forth between poles of agency and automatism, causality and intentionality, documentary and cinematography creates the unique reading of the mise-en-scène in Wall’s photographs.
To analyze the spatial and contextual aspects of Wall’s images, I will study the image Morning Cleaning, Mies van der Rohe Foundation, Barcelona. Here, the meaning mainly depends on textual strategies of the laborious production and post-production processes of the image that allows a new reading of a prominent modern structure, the German pavilion in Barcelona, designed by Mies van der Rohe and Lily Reich. This pavilion was originally built for the Exposicion Internacional in Barcelona in 1929; later on it was destroyed, and reconstructed in 1986.226 It has an open plan
224 See: Anna Guilló, "Jean-François Chevrier and Jeff Wall: A Critical Stance," Critique d’art, 29, (2007): pp. 1-3.
225 See: Ibid.
226 See: Fundació Mies van der Rohe Barcelona, https://miesbcn.com/the-pavilion/ 29.06.12
10 2
with a grid system that blurs the distinction between interior and exterior with non-structural glass and marble walls. The composition of the walls on the interior continues in the exterior space with marble walls, which enclose the reflection pool that enrich the relationship between interior and exterior by creating a visual connection. These modern architectural elements are completed with the modern furniture (Barcelona chair) that sits on the black carpet, with the red curtain hung in front of the glass wall, and with the sculpture, by Georg Kolbe called Dawn
227 placed on the left corner of the pool.
Figure 40: Jeff Wall, Morning Cleaning, Mies van der Rohe Foundation, Barcelona, 1999. Transparency in 4.0 light-box, 187 x 351 cm. Source: See: Michael Fried, "Jeff Wall, Wittgenstein, and the Everyday," Critical Inquiry, 33:3, (2007): pp. 507-508.
Wall framed Morning Cleaning in a way that depicts all of the crucial architectural elements of the German Pavilion from a unique point of view. The pavilion in itself lets the visitor experience the structure through the frames created by walls. Wall, on the other hand, designs an additional frame that encompasses the different spatial frames in a mise-en-abyme effect to analyze the architecture.
227 See: Ibid.
10 3
One of the first things that is noticed in Morning Cleaning is the pavilion’s unique column near the center of the image. It is a dominant element that, in a sense, separates the image into two frames, structuring not just the pavilion but also Wall’s image. The right and left side of the image depict two walls with different material aspects. The glass wall on the right creates its own frame by reflecting both inside and outside. If the spectator analyzes closely this glass wall, they can see the reflections of the Barcelona chair, red curtain, and a car that is parked outside.228 This subtle depiction of the street via the glass wall mirrors the spatial relationship between the interior and exterior designed by Mies.
The transparency of the glass wall is dominant in the center of the image, which lets the viewer see the white-green marble wall, the reflective pool, and the sculpture placed on the pool. Here, the morning sunlight creates a connection between elements like the marble wall and the sculpture. The shadow of the female figure, which seems to raise her hands up to the air to block the sunlight that comes to her, hits the white-green marble wall.
Beside the modern figure named Dawn, there is another figure –the main figure- that stands out in the image: the man doing the morning cleaning, Alejandro. The column divides into two the space between these two figures, which creates an interesting mirror effect in the image. Both the sculpture and the man are the inhabitants of the pavilion and have their own roles within this space. As mentioned above, Wall plans the execution time in a controlled environment, even though he does not direct the actors’
228 In Jeff Wall, Wittgenstein, and the Everyday, Michael Fried analyzes Wall’s photographic works spatially and contextually, including Morning Cleaning. See: Michael Fried, "Jeff Wall, Wittgenstein, and the Everyday," Critical Inquiry, 33:3, (2007): pp. 495-526.
10 4
movement; and this approach is the same in Morning Cleaning. Wall himself explains his approach as:
“Cleaning is mysterious, since it is the labor that erases itself if it is successful. The man in the picture is the real cleaner. The picture is documentary in the sense that that’s exactly what he would be doing at that moment of the day. It’s what I call ‘near documentary’. Although I arranged the picture and worked in collaboration with the cleaner, the picture resembles very closely what a snapshot made at that moment would show.”229
Wall’s intentional decision to shoot the pavilion in the morning sunlight, when the cleaner is cleaning the modern glass wall, adds another narrative to this modernist icon.230 While the German Pavilion presents itself as nothing but perfect and clean by default to its visitors and viewers of its iconic images, Wall’s image exposes the maintenance labor needed to upkeep this context. Such a revelation that subverts the iconic image of the pavilion adds a documentary aspect to the photograph albeit one very different than the usual images that document modern architecture.
In this image, Wall wanted to capture the morning sunlight, and to capture the perfect light, he spent about two weeks for shooting.231 The shadow and light are important aspects of this image: the
229 See quote in: Craig Burnett, “Morning Cleaning, Mies Van der Rohe Foundation, Barcelona 1999,” in Jeff Wall, (2005): p. 90.
230 Wall has more photographic works that evolve around maintenance; such as Volunteer (1996) displaying a man mopping a kitchen floor, and Housekeeping (1996) displaying a newly cleaned hotel room and a chambermaid leaving by the door.
231 In his essay, Michael Fried shares his personal conversation with Jeff Wall, in which Wall explains the laborious production process of Morning Cleaning. See: Michael Fried, "Jeff Wall, Wittgenstein, and the Everyday," Critical Inquiry, 33:3, (2007): pp. 495-526.
10 5
sunlight hits the walls and the floor, yet it does not reach the cleaner. This detail allowed Wall to depict the pavilion in a perfect light and the cleaner in perfect -but more natural- position separately and juxtapose them in the post-production process.
232
As Wall explains in his Contacts episode, in 1983-84 he was aware that the digital image was coming, and that he was going to experiment with it.233 He argues that with the introduction of the digital photomontage, photography has changed.234 With this point of view, Wall began to digitally manipulate his images in the eighties, and this image of Barcelona Pavillion is also a production of a photomontage process. As Wall explains the reason of his choice of digital manipulation, he explains how he shot this frame in summer, when the brightness levels inside and outside were different, so he could later adjust the exposure either regarding the interior elements or the exterior elements.235 Wall realized that he could not capture his desired light in the interior and the exterior with the same exposure, along with the perfect pose of Alejandro; thus he had to capture the scene with different exposures and then juxtapose the images digitally in the post-production.236
232 See: Ibid.
233 Contacts is a collection of documentaries about contemporary photographers. Each episode focuses on one photographer and their work. In one episode, Jeff Wall talks about his direction to photography, his inspirations, and his works. See: Marie Dominique Dhelsing and Alain Fleischer, “Contacts: Episode on Jeff Wall,” (2000).
234 See: Ibid.
235 In his essay, Michael Fried shares his personal conversation with Jeff Wall, in which Wall explains the laborious production process of Morning Cleaning. See: Michael Fried, "Jeff Wall, Wittgenstein, and the Everyday," Critical Inquiry, 33:3, (2007): pp. 515-516.
236 See: Ibid.
10 6
As Wall explains, during the shooting process each morning they got ready at 6 and shot between 7 and 8 since the best time to shoot the interior walls with the perfect amount of reflected sunlight in the interior was to shoot was seven minutes after 7 am.
237 In this seven minutes Alejandro began the process of washing, though Wall shot him again after the seven minutes, focusing on the act of cleaning with different aperture than the main interior shots.238 After all the test shootings, the processes of going through the takes and the preparations, the whole production process lasted about four weeks. As Wall says, the digital post-production of this image was done in ten days in Vancouver, few months after the shooting.239
Figure 41: A still from the video In the Studio: Jeff Wall, showing Wall and his colleague working on a print. Source: Jeff Wall, “In the Studio: Jeff Wall.” Retrieved from White Cube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqsDAtYKCrI. (2022).
237 See: Ibid.
238 See: Ibid.
239 See: Ibid.
10 7
Wall talks about his studio in Vancouver as his laboratory where he prints his images.240 During the transitional period from chemical printing to digital printing, he used both techniques to print his images in large-scale, yet he argues that digital color printing is more efficient in the ways in which one can edit an image closer to the eyesight.241
Figure 42: A still from the video Jeff Wall at Glenstone Museum, showing the lights of the light-boxes opening one by one. Source: Jeff Wall, “Jeff Wall at Glenstone Museum.” Retrieved from Glenstone Museum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-bqdh3laas. (2022).
After laborious work in the post-production, Wall exhibits his images in a not so conventional photographic display style. As he originally comes from the medium of painting, he desired to showcase his images in the same manner of painting, by printing them in large-scales.242 Inspired from the backlighted advertisements, Wall decided to exhibit his images in large-light-boxes, which illuminates the images from their backs, and make
240 In the video of White Cube, Jeff Wall talks about his studio, and how he used to go to commercial labs for printing his images before opening his studio. See: Jeff Wall, “In the Studio: Jeff Wall,” in White Cube’s YouTube channel, (2022).
241 See: Ibid.
242 See: Marie Dominique Dhelsing and Alain Fleischer, “Contacts: Episode on Jeff Wall,” (2000).
10 8
them more cinematographic.
243 With this approach the materiality of the photographic images increases in the mise-en-scène of the exhibition space.
243 See: Ibid.
10 9
CHAPTER 5
THE MUSEUM
5.1 A Space for the Viewer
One of the possible last stops of photograph’s journey is the space where it meets with its viewer: the exhibition space.244 After the photographer deals with the images both in the production and in the post-production processes, they prepare the photographic images to be viewed in a certain layout. This engagement with the viewer can be arranged in more casual settings of art festivals and fairs, or it can be designed in the institutional spaces of art galleries and museums.
It has been a difficult journey for the medium of photography to find its rightful place in the museums and art galleries as a work of art beside the mediums of painting and sculpture. Since the beginning of the history of photography, as the medium itself was considered an automatic act of the mechanical apparatus, the photographic image’s artistic qualities were questioned. Given its skeptical relation with art, its slow and gradual encounter with the context of art exhibition is predictable. Yet, as the medium was
244 It is not the desired destination for all photographers and their images. As there are other ways to display images, such as making a photo-book, or posting them on the internet. In Chapter 5, I will be focusing on the museum space, however, photographers can also exhibit their images at more “unconventional” spaces compared the institutional space of museum, such as art festivals and fairs, pop-up galleries, etc.
11 0
considered a revolutionary invention, inventors and societies wanted to show and promote the new technological apparatuses by public exhibitions geared toward mass audiences. With time, as the medium got the attention of the art world, photography exhibitions have earned their place in the museums for the medium’s artistic value.
If we think of museums as meeting places for the viewer and the art works, the museum curators become a mediator between visitors and the objects on display.245 In this communication, the curators design a certain narrative, with the works that they choose and the way they create a layout in the museum space. Yet, strolling through an exhibition of artworks become a unique experience for each visitor regardless of a curator’s narrative. This tangled web of perceptions is seen in the photographic exhibitions as well. Whether the photographer (or the curator) themselves create a certain story through the order of the images, the viewer studies the images with a personal agenda by creating their own story-line. Therefore, as Sheldon Annis explains, the works in a museum space can be studied and interpreted from various points of view, compared to a film or a book.246
Although Annis’ analysis is accurate to a certain point, we may ask whether the new medium of art of “painterly photography” or “cinematographic photography” break this casual and improvised
245 See: Sheldon Annis, “The Museum as a Staging Ground for Symbolic Action,” XXXVII:3, (1986): pp. 168-171.
246 “As a kind of text that projects symbols and is meant to be read, interpreted, or experienced, a museum has its own set of qualities. Unlike a film, a book, or a painting, the museum’s symbols are approachable from many directions (literally) and in an almost infinite number of sequences and combinations.”
See quote: Ibid, p. 168.
11 1
narrative of the viewer in the museum space. Suppose the exhibited series of photographic images are placed with the photographer’s artistic narrative; do the images gain a chronological order, like a film or a book, in which they direct the viewer in that mise-en-scène?
In order to question the involvement of the photographer in the process of creating a mise-en-scène in the exhibition space, it is crucial to study the history of museums, and the history of photographic exhibitions.
5.2 From a Library to MOMA
As the Extraordinary General Assembly of ICOM (International Council of Museums) approved, definition of a museum is:
“… a not-for-profit, permanent institution in the service of society that researches, collects, conserves, interprets and exhibits tangible and intangible heritage. Open to the public, accessible and inclusive, museums foster diversity and sustainability. They operate and communicate ethically, professionally and with the participation of communities, offering varied experiences for education, enjoyment, reflection and knowledge sharing.”247
Based on this explanation it seems that museums as modern institutions are mostly associated with the public buildings of communication and exhibition. However, the concept of the “museum” was originally detached from the idea of a building, but
247 It is ICOM’S latest museum definition, which is approved in 24 August 2022 by the Extraordinary General Assembly of ICOM, from ICOM’s website. See: https://icom.museum/en/resources/standards-guidelines/museum-definition/
11 2
was rather connected to the idea of collecting.
248 From the mythological sense of sacred place - for a university or a philosophical academy - to a modern sense of institutions, museums transformed ways of collecting and displaying.
The third century BC can be considered the beginning of the formation of the museum space.249 In the Hellenistic world, the cult site of Museum of Alexandria was the public space for gathering and studying.250 Although it was a cultural center, there exist no evidence of material collections in the sense of contemporary museums.251 As an outcome of the wars, collecting paintings and sculptures emerged in Roman times and these were displayed in public spaces such as gardens, temples, etc.252 Private spaces like villas were also used for exhibition purposes in Roman times, however, the drastic change from public to private spaces of display occurred in the Renaissance.253 Individuality replaced the collectivity in the exhibition process, given the wealthy people’s use of private residences and palaces to show their collected antiquities not only because of their historical but also their artistic values.254 In this period, new understandings began to be applied to the
248 See: Kali Tzortzi, “The Museum as a Kind of Building,” in Museum Space: When Architecture Meets Museology, (2015), p. 11.
249 See: Ibid p.12.
250 I am regarding this site as a gathering and studying space because the Museum was built alongside a Library as a cultural center in the Hellenistic world. There were also botanical and zoological parks, and rooms for anatomical and astronomical studies. See: Ibid p.12.
251 See: Ibid.
252 See: Ibid.
253 See: Ibid p.13.
254 See: Ibid.
11 3
concept of a museum space like patron, visitor, and the specifically designed space for display.
255 In the 16th century, as the urge to travel and collect ascended, the need for an “expository space” arose.256 The practice of “cabinets of curiosities” emerged to display several object, souvenirs, and collectibles from different parts of the world.257 In the 17th – 18th centuries, another shift reversing the tendencies during the Renaissance period displaced exhibition spaces from private quarters back to the public realm.258 Universities, academies and religious spaces like churches became spaces to display the collections to the public.259 Continuing the idea from the Renaissance, in the 18th century there existing specifically designed buildings for displaying collections260 In the planned layout of these buildings, there existed various rooms dedicated to different types of collections such as antiquities, natural objects, paintings and sculptures.261 In the 19th century this conscious design took a step further and an architectural typology for museums was established.262 Yet, there were some conflicts regarding the architectural design. As the relationship between the building and the displayed items is unique in the museum space, it was an important to decide whether the building would have a design that stands out – with ornaments- or a design that would
255 See: Ibid.
256 See: Ibid. 14.
257 See: Ibid.
258 See: Ibid p.15.
259 See: Ibid.
260 See: Ibid p.17.
261 See: Ibid.
262 See: Ibid p. 20.
11 4
confine itself to the background – with only functional features. From the end of the 19th century to beginning of the 20th century, the free and flexible museum layout was accepted by most of the architects.263 The interior of the museum space transformed from simple geometric plans to the free plan to allow flexibility for various and rotating exhibition designs.264 Since the half of the 20th century, various modern and contemporary approaches have been proposed regarding the exterior and interior museum design.265 As the displayed items were more overtly modern artworks, the exhibition spaces transformed accordingly to create a flexible white space, where the visitors are able to create their own path and experiences with in the designed mise-en-scène of the museum space.266
While the architectural design changed and varied throughout years in relation to exhibition tendencies, the display strategies and displayed items also adapted to the spatial environment of the exhibition space.267 In the period between 16th and 18th centuries, the organization and arrangement of the objects followed a certain order to create a “script to be read;” not in a scientific sequence, but a display suitable for the collection.268 From the beginning of the late 18th century to 19th century organizing objects in a linear-
263 See: Ibid p.22.
264 See: Ibid.
265 See: Ibid pp. 23-35.
266 See: Ibid p.25.
267 See: Kali Tzortzi, “Chapter 2: The Display as Presentation in Space,” in Museum Space: When Architecture Meets Museology, (2015), p. 43.
268 Kali Tzortzi quotes Eilean Hopper-Greenhill’s Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge while explaining the display strategies in the cabinet of curiosities. See: Ibid pp. 43-44.
11 5
historical order and separating them into rooms to avoid the distraction of the visitor became the leading approach.269 In the 20th century the display attitude came close to the 16th-18th centuries, with the exhibition design less attuned to scientific-lecturing than storytelling.270 As the architectural style shifted from ornamental to modern, the works started to be displayed with abstract backgrounds that provide a simple order for the viewer to see the works in a careful and calm contemplative mode.271 Museum of Modern Art in New York (MoMA) with its white walls and flexible space for exhibitions, became a prominent example of this twentieth century approach to display.272 Being the first museum to exhibit merely modern art is what initially made MoMA more special in the museum world.273 MoMA exhibitions did not only feature “painting, sculpture, drawings and prints” – the accepted fine arts - but also “architecture, design, photography and film.”274 However the history of photographic exhibition goes way back from MoMA, to the first years of the medium.
Following the fine arts’ steps, the medium of photography wanted its own place in the museum space, though it took a while for photography to earn its way to be called an “art.” The urge to exhibit photography started with the production of the photographic images but the aim was mainly to announce the
269 See: Ibid pp. 45-49.
270 See: Ibid p. 50.
271 See: Ibid.
272 See: Ibid.
273 See: Kali Tzortzi, “The Museum as a Kind of Building,” in Museum Space: When Architecture Meets Museology, (2015), p. 24.
274 See: Ibid.
11 6
scientific invention. In the 19th century, various groups, photographic societies, studios, institutes, and museums exhibited photography both as a scientific invention and an artistic medium.275 Photography gained popularity through these diverse international exhibitions with different purposes and audiences.276 Thus, I analyze some prominent museums, galleries and photographic exhibitions to create an efficient framework for my thesis.
Beginning in 1839, the same year that the invention of daguerreotype was announced, Louis-Jacques-Mandé Daguerre planned to exhibit around forty prints, to prove the text information about the invention.277 However, with the influence of François Arago, –a scientist and a politician- Daguerre announced the invention of photography on 7 January 1839 without displaying the prints and risking the invention being copied or inspiring other inventors.278 Yet, it did not stop William Henry Fox Talbot, who read this news, from showing his “photogenic drawings,” which he has been working on since 1834.279 In this process Talbot also got in touch with Arago for a presentation at Royal Society, yet before that, he contacted Michael Faraday – a professor giving popular lectures - to organize an exhibition in the library after Faraday’s announcement of the inventions of both Daguerre and Talbot in the
275 See: Sarah Bassnett, “Exhibitions of Photography,” in Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, (2007): p. 508.
276 See: Ibid.
277 See: Paul-Louis Roubert, “First Visions: The Invention of Photography,” in Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography, (2014): p. 19.
278 See: Ibid.
279 See: Ibid p. 20.
11 7
lecture.280 In the history of photography, this exhibition is considered the first public photographic exhibition, introducing the “new science” of photography.281
Figure 43: William Henry Fox Talbot, “The English Vine (Bryonia Dioica),” around 1839. Source: Science Museum Group selection, https://www.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/what-was-on/fox-talbot-dawn-photograph#&gid=1&pid=1
Hippolyte Bayard was the third person to join Daguerre and Talbot, yet he approached photography with a different perspective. Even though lacking the scientific knowledge of Daguerre and Talbot, Bayard was determined to get involved with photography and he also reached Arago to announce his process on paper, the “direct positive.”282 Focused on Daguerre and Talbot, however, Arago
280 See: Ibid.
281 In his essay, Roubert quotes Vernon Heath, a photographer and one of the viewers in the first exhibition. Heath describes his experience as:
“Mr. Faraday invited his audience to inspect the specimen displayed in the library of this institution, and I, being one of those who did so, was from that moment in heart and spirit a disciple of the new science – Photography.”
See quote: Ibid p. 21.
282 See: Ibid p.24.
11 8
disregarded Bayard’s different process, and arranged an exhibition for Daguerre to display daguerreotype products instead.
283
Figure 44: Louis-Jacques-Mandé Daguerre, Interior of a Cabinet of Curiosities, 1839. Source: Paul-Louis Roubert, “First Visions: The Invention of Photography,” in Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography, (2014): p. 29.
In the beginning of 1839 and earthquake hit the island of Martinique, and Bayard saw this as an opportunity to pursue his artistic interest.284 Under the cause of donation many events were planned, and one of them was an auctioned exhibition of ancient and modern works of art.285 Bayard gave about 206 works of photogenic drawings created on paper with a camera obscura, which is different from Daguerre’s process of producing a photographic image.286 With this auction, Bayard had a chance to reach the wider public audience, which earned him a place in the standard histories of photography.287 Despite the descriptive exhibitions of Daguerre and Talbot and the pictorial exhibition of
283 See: Ibid pp. 24-25.
284 See: Ibid p. 27.
285 See: Ibid p. 28.
286 See: Ibid p.29.
287 See: Ibid p. 33.
11 9
Bayard, critics initially refused to acknowledge photography’s relation to science or art.
288 Yet, Bayard’s photographic exhibition can be considered an important way to associate photography with an artistic agency, as he represented himself a photographer rather than an inventor.289
Figure 45: Sales room at an auction house on the Rue des Jeûneurs, from Edmond Texier, Tableau de Pairs, 2 vols. in 1853, Pairs: Paulin et Chevalier. Bibliothèque Nationale de France. Source: Paul-Louis Roubert, “First Visions: The Invention of Photography,” in Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography, (2014): p. 29.
Figure 46: Hippolyte Bayard, Allegory of Fame, direct positive, in 1839. Collection of Société Française de Photographie. Source: Paul-Louis Roubert, “First Visions: The Invention of Photography,” in Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography, (2014): p. 31.
After these initial foray into photographic exhibition, the Great Exhibition of 1851 provided an important opportunity to showcase photography alongside the technological achievements of the 19th century.290 In this “first great international exhibition of photography,” there was not a specific section for the medium, yet
288 See: Ibid p. 31.
289 See: Ibid p. 33.
290 See: Gerry Badger, “The Most Remarkable Discovery of Modern Times’: Three Photographic Exhibitions in 1850s London,” in Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography, (2014): p. 38.
12 0
images were distributed around the venue for general display.
291 It can be considered a unique case, as not painting but sculpture, engraving and photography were considered “half science, half art” and were accepted to be exhibited.292
Figure 47: Interior of Crystal Palace during the Great Exhibition of 1851. Source: Gerry Badger, “The Most Remarkable Discovery of Modern Times’: Three Photographic Exhibitions in 1850s London,” in Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography, (2014): p. 38
Comparing to the success of the representation of French photography, British photography was under-represented, even though the exhibition was located in London.293 With this defeat, in 1852 the British began preparing to form the first exhibition merely for photography’s art and science aspects at the Society of the Arts
291 See: Ibid p. 42.
292 See: Ibid.
293 See: Ibid.
12 1
in London.
294 With this exhibition, displaying 76 photographers and over 800 images –mostly British- the British photography gained its rightful place in the discussion of photographic medium.295
As an extension of the processes in London, Henry Cole, who was an important figure in the making of the Great Exhibition, conceived a new cultural center in London that largely focused on science and the applied arts and photography was the medium that suited the best to this desire.296 Under the directorship of Cole, the Museum of Manufactures opened in 1852, and started their artistic collections of photographs in 1856. Even before that photography was a part of one of its exhibitions in 1855.297 In this year, the museum found its final site, where it still exist and opened under the name of the South Kensington Museum – now known as the Victoria and Albert Museum - in 1857.298 One year after the opening, the museum hosted an exhibition that was also exhibited in the Photographic Society and the Société Française de Photographie at the same time.299 It was the first international photographic exhibition to be organized in a museum, and it was photographed by Charles Thurston Thompson, the official photographer of the South Kensington Museum.300 After photography’s positive effect on the museum, the directors of the
294 See: Ibid p. 45.
295 See: Ibid pp. 45-46.
296 See: Ibid p. 46.
297 See: Ibid pp. 46-48.
298 See: Ibid p.49.
299 See: Ibid.
300 See: Ibid p. 54.
12 2
International Exhibition regulated at the South Kensington Museum decided that photography can be considered as an independent art.
301
Figure 48: Charles Thurston Thompson, Exhibition of the Photographic Society of London and the Société Française de Photographie at the South Kensington Museum, in 1858. Victoria and Albert Museum, London. Source: Gerry Badger, “The Most Remarkable Discovery of Modern Times’: Three Photographic Exhibitions in 1850s London,” in Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography, (2014): p. 55.
Moving forward to 1900s, Alfred Stieglitz became an important figure in the photographic exhibition world. With many professions such as a photographer and editor, Stieglitz was also the publisher of Camera Work (1903-1917) – a photographic journal aiming to justify photography’s place in the realm of fine art- and founder of the gallery 291 – a gathering point for the artists.302 The gallery was named after its location at the 291 Fifth Avenue, New York City; where fine arts exhibition viewers, more overtly photography lovers, went to see modern art exhibitions free-of-charge.303
301 See: Ibid p. 56.
302 Before the Camera Work magazine and 291, Stieglitz was vice-president of the Camera Club of New York, and an editor at the Camera Notes journal in 1897. See: Alessandra Mauro, “Alfred Stieglitz and 291,” in Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography, (2014): p. 102 and p. 112.
303 See: Ibid pp. 104-105.
12 3
Figure 49: The Little Galleries of the Photo-Secession: opening exhibition, in 1905. Camera Work No: 14. Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Source: Alessandra Mauro, “Alfred Stieglitz and 291,” in Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography, (2014): p. 106.
The first exhibition named the Little Galleries of the Photo-Secession was held in 1905 at the 291 and displayed 39 images by the members of the Photo-Secession. This was the beginning of many other successful photographic exhibitions and has served as a model until today.304 With 291, Stieglitz proved that it was possible to create an environment for heated discussions about modern art by solely organizing modern art exhibitions.305
In the context of early twentieth-century Europe, Germany was becoming a crucial part of the photographic world. In 1929 Deutscher Werkbund (German Industrial Confederation) – an association founded in 1907 to stimulate the cooperation between art, technology and industry - organized an exhibition called Film
304 See: Ibid p. 106. Photo-Secession was a group of photographers gathered in early 20th century to establish photography’s place alongside other fine arts. Some of the members were: Alfred Stieglitz, Edward Steichen, Gertrude Kasebier, Clarence H. White, Joseph T. Keiley, Alvin Langdon Coburn, Frank Eugene, and Annie W. Brigman. For more information about Photo-Secession see: Leone E. Zimlich, “Photo-Secession,” in Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set, (2006): pp. 1229-1233; and Nuno Pinheiro, “Photo-Secessionists” in Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set, (2006): pp. 1234-1238.
305 See: Alessandra Mauro, “Alfred Stieglitz and 291,” in Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography, (2014): p. 111.
12 4
und Foto: Internationale Ausstellung des Deutscher Werkbunds (Film and Photography: International Exhibition of the Deutscher Werkbund) in Stuttgart.
306
Figure 50: The exhibition poster for the Film und Foto exhibition, in 1929, Stuttgart. Gift of the Lauder Foundation, Leonard and Evelyn Lauder Fund/MoMA/Scala. Source: Francesco Zanot, “The Film un Foto Exhibition in 1929,” in Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography, (2014): p. 136.
Gustav Stotz, the director of the Württenburg branch of the Deutscher Werkbund, invited three of his colleagues to work together on this exhibiton: Hans Hildebrandt (an art historian), Bernhard Pankok (a professor of architecture), and Jan Tshichold (a graphic designer).307 This was the first international exhibition to display the medium of photography as a part of society’s tools for communication without necessarily focusing on its scientific and artistic qualities. In the 1920s straight photography, genre to pictorialist photography became a more fashionable style, which also influenced the Werkbund exhibition’s inclinations.308 There were over 1000 photographs placed in a series of 13 rooms with different themes on various genres and techniques of photography
306 See: Francesco Zanot, “The Film un Foto Exhibition in 1929,” in Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography, (2014): p. 133.
307 See: Ibid.
308 See: Ibid p. 133 and p. 129.
12 5
- and even specific rooms for manipulated images from all over the world.
309
At the end of the 1920’s, after the Photo-Secessionists, Camera Work and 291, a new institution was getting ready to enter the art world, more specifically the modern art world. In 1929 the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) was founded in New York, and since then it has been an important center for photography.310 In its first years, it was located in temporary rented places, and then it move to bigger buildings on 53rd street.311 In the first years of its opening, MoMA did not have its separate departments for photography or film, however, the first two exhibitions at the new location displayed an interest in photography.312 It was Alfred H. Barr, the director of MoMA, who included departments such as photography and film after his travel to Europe where he got influenced by the European avant-garde.313 After his travels, Barr wanted to exhibit photography as an independent art and to achieve this he got help from Lincoln Kirstein, who directed the Walker Evans exhibition in 1933, the first one-person photography show in MoMA.314 Kirstein’s donation of Evan’s prints opened the way of donations and
309 See: Ibid pp. 133-134.
310 See: Daniel Friedman, “The Museum of Modern Art of New York,” in Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set, (2006): pp. 1102-1103.
311 See: Ibid p. 1103.
312 See: Ibid.
313 See: Ibid.
314 See: Ibid p. 1104. However, this exhibition is not consider as the first photographic exhibition, because it was an addition show to Edward Hopper’s painting exhibition. For more information see: https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/2061
12 6
collection of photographic prints in MoMA’s archives, even before the department was founded.
315
Although there were many organized photographic exhibitions at the MoMA, specifically four directors of photography differentiated in the way they exhibit photography in a museum space. Beaumont Newhall started his profession at the MoMA as a librarian – a post that gave him the chance to get involved in the relationship between the museum and photography.316 After curating photographic exhibitions between 1936 and 1940, the first curatorial department of photography of a museum was established in 1940 and Newhall was asked to become the director of this newly established section.317 His aim was to establish the MoMA as a focal center where photography’s aesthetic aspects can be discussed and shown to the public.318
Under Newhall’s directorship, Edward Steichen guest-curated the Road to War exhibition in 1942.319 Later on, in 1946, Steichen was offered to step up as the new director of photography without the knowledge of Newhalll. The directors of the museum planned that he would stay as a historian, yet Newhall stepped down.320 As one the founding member of Photo-Secession, Steichen reflected his
315 James Thrall Soby and David McAlpin were the other two big donaters, beside Lincoln Kirstein. See: Ibid.
316 See: Ibid.
317 See: Ibid.
318 See Newhall’s announcement in ibid.
319 See: Daniel Friedman, “The Museum of Modern Art of New York,” in Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set, (2006): pp. 1102-1105.
320 See: Ibid.
12 7
aesthetic and artistic concerns in the exhibitions that he organized at the MoMA, and helped broaden the museum’s audience.321
Unlike what happened before, Steichen hand-picked the next director, John Szarkowski in 1962.322 Under Szarkowski’s directorship, the MoMA has reached its photographic peak by organizing about 160 photographic exhibitions.323 Szarkowski approached photographic exhibition design with a different attitude than that of Steichen to the extent that he assumed a more analytical perspective rather than an aesthetic one.324
After Szarkowski stepped down, he placed Peter Galassi, who was a curator at MoMA since 1974, became the new director of photography in 1992.325 His curatorial approach was mainly to portray photography as an original strand of pictorial tradition that was born from the pictorial syntax.326
In the following chapter, I will analyze the influential design choices of 291, the layout design of the Film und Foto exhibition, and the different ways of displaying images in the four landmark exhibitions
321 See: Ibid pp.1105-1106.
322 See: Ibid p. 1106.
323 See: Alessia Tagliaventi, “Photography at MoMA: Four Landmark Exhibitions” in Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography, (2014): p. 188.
324 See: Ibid 188-189.
325 See: Daniel Friedman, “The Museum of Modern Art of New York,” in Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set, (2006): pp. 1102-1107.
326 See: Christopher Phillips, “The Judgement Seat of Photography,” October, Vol: 2, (1982): p. 62.
12 8
of four directors of photography at MoMA to better analyze the photography’s spatial aspects in the mise-en-scène of museum space.
5.3 Creating a Mise-en-scène in the Exhibition Space
The immaterial image in the production process becomes a “thing” in the post-production process, yet the thingness of a photograph becomes more visible in the exhibition process, for not only the photographer but also for the viewer. As the medium of photography found its place in spaces of exhibition, the curators tried various display strategies more often than not according to the aesthetic style of their period. As the medium transformed, and more people became interested in its artistic aspects, photographers and curators began to design the mise-en-scène in the exhibition space. In this subchapter, I will focus on three examples of galleries and/or exhibitions that are previously mentioned: the 291 gallery, Film und Foto exhibition, and four exhibitions at the MoMA under the four different directorship. These examples will create a complete framework of the transformation of modern photographic display style throughout the years.
Some of the prominent styles of the “modern” representation of photography, which are still used to this day, came from Alfred Stieglitz’s gallery. One of the specific spatial aspects of the MoMA, it’s white walls, was originally inspired from the use of pale-colored cloth to cover the walls of 291.327 The ways in which Stieglitz treated the positioning and proportions of the images were also an unconventional approaches at the time, as his aim was to treat
327 See: Alessandra Mauro, “Alfred Stieglitz and 291,” in Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography, (2014): p. 108.
12 9
images equally by arranging them in groups and putting them in formalized, thin, square, black or white frames.
328 Stieglitz’s choice of displaying images in unified frames and in-between spaces made them stand out in the minimally decorated exhibition space, which in a way allowed more space to viewers’ for contemplative and critical observation.329 For Stieglitz, the mise-en-scène of the exhibition space, including the lighting, the organization of the images, and their order and proportions played a crucial part in the way the exhibition became a cognitive experience for the viewer.330 As these spatial design choices worked in a popular gallery and got good contemporaneous reviews, they became a model for the modern style of photographic display.331
Figure 51: The Little Galleries of the Photo-Secession: opening exhibition, in 1905. Camera Work No: 14. Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Source: Alessandra Mauro, “Alfred Stieglitz and 291,” in Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography, (2014): p. 106.
328 See: Ibid pp. 108-109.
329 See: Ibid.
330 See: Ibid.
331 See: Ibid.
13 0
Figure 52: A photograph of 1st room in the Film und Foto exhibition, displaying Sasha Stone and Cami's prints.
Source: Francesco Zanot, “The Film un Foto Exhibition in 1929,” in Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography,” (2014): p. 13
Figure 53: A photograph of 3rd room in the Film und Foto exhibition, displaying John Heartfield's photomontages.
Source: Francesco Zanot, “The Film un Foto Exhibition in 1929,” in Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography,” (2014): p. 136.
Following 291’s exhibitions, another modernist photographic exhibition, the 1929 Film und Foto exhibition organized by Deutscher Werkbund in Städtischen Ausstellungshallen, Stuttgart, became highly influential. The exhibition layout was a linear one with an introductory space – both in an architectural and a contextual sense - that led to thirteen rooms, each assigned to a different artist, process, theme, genre and country.332 At the time, it was commonplace to design a linear and explanatory exhibition for the history of photography. Yet the thematic, technical, and methodological interests of this exhibition made it special as there were rooms that solely displayed the techniques of photomontage, photographic propaganda, and photographic advertising.333
As the artists and the genre of the images changed the display styles changed to better represent the works. In general, the
332 See: Francesco Zanot, “The Film un Foto Exhibition in 1929,” in Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography, (2014): p. 133.
333 See: Ibid pp. 133-134.
13 1
exhibition featured finely designed scaffolds that were used to utilize the space as efficiently as possible given that considering there were over 1000 photographs.
334 These scaffolds were used as a way to standardize and arrange the display in a geometrical plan. In Sasha Stone and Cami’s exhibition in room 1 and 2, curated by László Moholy-Nagy, for instance, scaffolds were used along the walls.335 Images were also spread around the walls of the gallery and put in glass cages in several rooms to break the linear stroll of the viewer. Such was the case in John Heartfiled’s exhibition in the 3rd room where his photomontages were displayed on the walls and in the glass cages in a more haphazard way to be compatible with the thematic context.336 As a result, this exhibition showcased the different approaches to the medium of photography by using the display space in ways that carefully considered the exhibited materials.
The four directors of Museum of Modern Art of New York and their four landmark exhibition are great examples to furthermore discuss the different styles of displaying photographs. These four directors –Beaumont Newhall, Edward Steichen, John Szarkowski and Peter Galassi- designed different narratives for the exhibition and created different styles of experiences for the viewers’. As Quentin Bajac puts it; Newhall designed a historical exhibition by displaying photographs as “precious objects,” Steichen used photographs as a mess media tool for communication, Szarkowski took a more
334 In his essay Zervigón analyzes the Film und Foto exhibition, but especially he focuses on the third room, which displayed the photomontages of John Heartfield. For more information about Heartfield’s works and exhibition see: Andrés Mario Zervigón, “The Peripatetic Viewer at Heartfield's ‘Film und Foto’ Exhibition Room,” October, Vol: 150, (2014): p. 27.
335 See: Ibid.
336 See: Ibid p. 28.
13 2
artistic approach in the way he exhibited the images, and Galassi treated photography as a contemporary art by displaying photographs in bigger formats.
337
In 1936, as a librarian at MoMA, Beaumont Newhall was offered to curate an exhibition, which was eventually titled Photography 1839-1937.338 It was focused on the various developments of the medium by displaying different methods and photographic images.339 The mise-en-scène of the exhibition was designed in a didactic style for the viewers who wanted to learn about the transformations of photographic technologies and techniques.340 Newhall selected 841 images, alongside photographs from magazines, advertisements and scientific images. All of the works were placed over the four floors of the museum.341 In this then uncommon scale for a photography exhibition, the images were grouped and put on large panels, creating a peripatetic-chronological journey for its viewers. In-between the groupings, apparatuses were placed to showcase the technological changes of
337 Alessandra Mauro interviewed Quentin Bajac on the topic of curating photography. In one of the question regarding his own involvement and approach in the process of selecting work for a museum, Bajac references these four directors of MoMA. See: Alessandra Mauro, “Deviations from the Norm: Curating Photographs in the Internet Age,” in Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography, (2014): p. 9.
338 See: Daniel Friedman, “The Museum of Modern Art of New York,” in Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set, (2006): p. 1104.
339 See: Alessia Tagliaventi, “Photography at MoMA: Four Landmark Exhibitions” in Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography, (2014): p. 149.
340 See: Ibid p. 152.
341 See: Ibid.
13 3
the photographic tools.342 To increase the understanding of each period different images and apparatuses belonged, several “atmosphere rooms” were built; such as a room for daguerreotype – with brown painted walls displaying cases for calotype, – with dark blue painted walls and blue light for cornices - and contemporary French photography, – with green-grey painted walls and images were framed with glass plates.343 As MoMA’s first photographic exhibition, this set an example for many more to come, and led to the foundation of the first department of photography in museum history.344
Figure 54: A photograph of the exhibition Photography 1839-1937, in 1937, New York. Source: Museum of Modern Art’s website: https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/2088?installation_image_index=114
Figure 55: A photograph from the Photography 1839-1937 exhibition, showing a large-format camera and images on the wall, in 1937, New York. Source: Museum of Modern Art’s website: https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/2088?installation_image_index=41
In 1942, under the directorship of Edward Steichen, the exhibition Road to Victory opened; with the help from Herbert Bayer - a
342 See: Ibid p. 153.
343 See: Ibid p. 155.
344 See: Ibid p. 158.
13 4
Bauhaus graphic designer who to designed the exhibition’s dynamic mise-en-scène.
345 The exhibition revolved around the theme of national defense; which underlined the functional aspect of photography. This functional understanding of photography was unlike Newhall’s style of treating the exhibition as a didactic experience.346 According to Bayer, an exhibition had to be close to the spectator in a way that would affect them, which is similar to the ideology behind advertisement.347 Given this desired control over the journey of the viewers, the exhibition was designed carefully to direct the experience of the spectator by leading them through a carefully planned layout.348 In his diagram, Bayer depicted the extended vision of a viewer in an exhibition space.349 In this drawing, the images were displayed not directly on the wall, but in a slightly angled manner to interact with the viewer and expand their vision.350 The placement of the objects were organized according to the movement of the viewer, which substituted the ambiguity in the open exhibition space by designing a controlled environment for the “spectator’s gaze, movements and reactions.”351 As a result, Steichen and Bayer created a three-dimensional panorama for the viewer to experience the then
345 See: Ibid p. 167.
346 See: Ibid p. 166.
347 See: Ibid p. 171.
348 See: Ibid.
349 See: Christopher Phillips, “The Judgement Seat of Photography,” October, Vol: 2, (1982): pp. 42-43.
350 See: Ibid p.45.
351 I quote Tagliaventi’s analyses of the relationship between the exhibition and the spectator, see: Ibid.
13 5
unfamiliar subject of war.
352 From a different perspective than Newhall’s ambition for photography’s establishment as fine-art, Steichen approach photography as a mass-media capable of reaching bigger audiences, which he successfully achieved in the Road to Victory exhibition.353
Figure 56: Herbert Bayer, diagram of the "field of vision," in 1935. Source: https://redmuseum.church/en/bayer-extended-field-of-vision
Figure 57: A photograph of a maquette of the Road to Victory exhibition, in 1942. Source: https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/3038?installation_image_index=3
In opposition to Steichen’s idea of photography’s role as a communicative medium, John Szarkowski wanted to weaken that connection by rediscovering the aesthetic aspect of the medium, yet not in the same way as Newhall who tried to establish photography as a “high” art.354 Szarkowski tried to create a place for discussion so that photography could gain and secure its own aesthetic nature.355 With these intentions, Szarkowski organized
352 See: Ibid.
353 See: Ibid.
354 See: Ibid pp. 53-54.
355 See: Ibid.
13 6
the New Documents exhibition, which opened in 1967.356 It showed three prominent documentary photographers: Diane Arbus, Lee Friedlander and Gary Winogrand.357 Szarkowski explained his choice of these photographers by saying that these artists unite not in style but the subject matter of their image, as they represent a world to gaze into.358 Set up on the ground floor, the exhibition was dominated mostly by Arbus’ images, whereas Winogrand and Firedlander’s images were put together on a large wall.359 Arbus’ images were –mostly- in square format, whereas Winogrand and Firedlander’s photographs were rectangular; and all of them were framed in thin boxes, which made the frame almost invisible. 360 In comparison to the Road of Victory, New Documents brought out the aesthetic concerns of the medium, and the black-and-white images, the thin frames and the more “modern” layout design lets the viewer stop and analyze each image in a contemplative mode.
In 1991, Peter Galassi became the director of the department of photography, however, he was a curator in the department since 1974; and one of the prominent exhibitions that he organized took
356 See: Alessia Tagliaventi, “Photography at MoMA: Four Landmark Exhibitions” in Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography, (2014): p. 193.
357 See: Ibid.
358 See exhibition’s press release in MoMA’s website: https://www.moma.org/documents/moma_press-release_391564.pdf?_ga=2.119039433.1985729392.1690035098-1884688544.1685520042
359See: Alessia Tagliaventi, “Photography at MoMA: Four Landmark Exhibitions” in Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography, (2014): p. 194.
360 See: Ibid.
13 7
place in 1981, called Before Photography.
361 It was an exhibition that brought together paintings and drawings – made half a century before 1839, the invention of photography - and early photographs.362 Galassi aimed to show the emergence of a new pictorial syntax in the exhibited paintings.363 He argue that this search for an image that “selects but not compose,” created a base for the invention of the new medium of photography.364 With this interdisciplinary approach to a photographic exhibition, Galassi signaled his aim to design more exhibitions based on contemporary concerns and methods at MoMA.
Figure 58: A photograph of room dedicated to Diane Arbus in the New Documents exhibition, in 1967, New York. Source: https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/3487?installation_image_index=6
361 See: Daniel Friedman, “The Museum of Modern Art of New York,” in Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set, (2006): p. 1104.
362 See exhibition’s press release in 1981: https://www.moma.org/documents/moma_press-release_327303.pdf?_ga=2.147932791.1985729392.1690035098-1884688544.1685520042
363 See: Ibid.
364 See: Ibid.
13 8
To exemplify his contemporary exhibition designs – and for the sake of this thesis’ argument about exhibiting large size photographs – a discussion of Galassi’s Andreas Gursky exhibition in 2001 is important. It was the first retrospective exhibition of Gursky’s images in USA, and Galassi exhibited this contemporary photographer’s large-colored images taken from 1984 to 2001, capturing contemporary subjects.
365
Figure 59: A photograph of the exhibition Andreas Gursky, in 2001, MoMA, New York. Source: https://www.moma.org/calendar/exhibitions/170?installation_image_index=56
Gursky is from the Düsseldorf école and was a student of Bernd and Hilla Becher, who were conceptual photographers and had a unique way of capturing outmoded and discarded industrial structures.366 They were also professors of many other contemporary photographers that work in large scale, such as Candida Höfer, Thomas Ruff and Thomas Struth. Working with large format cameras allowed Gursky -and the other
365 See exhibition’s press release in 2001: https://www.moma.org/documents/moma_press-release_387045.pdf?_ga=2.116064710.1985729392.1690035098-1884688544.1685520042
366 For more information about Bernd and Hilla Becher see: Maren Polte, “Becher, Bernd and Hilla,” in Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set, (2006): pp. 111-113.
13 9
photographers- to print them also in large format, which increased the area the images occupied in an exhibition space. As the curator for the Gursky exhibition, Galassi created a balanced mise-en-scène in the third floor of MoMA that the viewer can move around, and analyze these large prints’ details from different angles.
From Newhall to Galassi, as the medium of photography largely moved into the digital realm, the display strategies and styles changed. The apparatuses that are used in the production and post-production processes transformed, which made it possible to increase the size of the photographic prints. About this late-1970’s understanding of displaying photographs in large scale and its domain in the exhibition space, Jean-François Chevrier argues that the images challenges the spectator’s “confrontational experience” of “appropriation and projection,” and transforms it to more “received and consumed” process.367 Through the design of the mise-en-scène in the exhibition space, the photographer –and the curator- estimate the possible journeys of the visitor and creates a narrative in this context. Regarding the large and pictorial images, this attempt to constitute a narrative in the exhibition can become a more natural process, because of the mise-en-scène inside the image becomes a part of the mise-en-scène of the exhibition space. This mise-en-abyme structure, which is to some extent composed by the photographer tends to form a cinematic sequence in the exhibition where images follow each other in a certain order.
The involvement of the photographer in the process of designing the mise-en-scène of the exhibition deepens the contentious discussions about the intentionality in the medium of photography.
367 See: Jean-François Chevrier, “The Adventures of the Picture Form in the History of Photography,” in The Last Picture Show: Artists Using Photography, 1960–1982, (2003): p. 116.
14 0
The contemporary photographers, who use large prints in their exhibition, to some extent represent their agency in the production and post-production process to create their desired tableaux; which they try to continue in the exhibition process to make the viewer experience their images in the way that they narrate. As the materiality and the dimensions of the photographic image comes closer to the display style of a painting, the aesthetic inclinations of the medium also comes closer to painting. In this regard, the aura of the image can become a part of the discussion. According to Walter Benjamin, photography lack the cult value, by being a reproducible medium, instead it has the exhibition value. Although an image is still reproducible, the unique printing and the display techniques of the photographer makes that specific exhibition original and unique. So in this sense, we may ask whether the designed mise-en-scène of the “time exposure” (intentional, controlled, representational and contemporary) photography, which is exhibited in large-scale formats, also has a certain degree of cult value.
To discuss the intentional mise-en-scène in the exhibition space the case study will be Thomas Struth and his image from the Museum Photographs series. I will analyze Struth’s unique way of capturing a scene in a museum space and exhibiting it in a museum space, which creates a new type of value that can be discussed.
5.4 The Case Study: Thomas Struth
The relationship between the photograph and the exhibition space changed with the digital developments in the medium of
14 1
photography.
368 The intentionality in the contextual process of an image, continued with the spatial process of using large, back-lighted, light-boxes to display the images. When presented in a cinematographic manner, the material features of the images and the exhibition spaces affect the reading of Crewdson and Wall’s photographs.369 Thomas Struth, on the other hand, merges the contextual (display space) and textual aspects of the images to create a new mise-en-scène by taking the exhibition space as his subject matter. To analyze the relation between the text of the image and its new narrative within the exhibition context, Struth’s Museum Photographs series presents a unique case study.
Figure 60: A still from the Photographer Thomas Struth: Culture Defends the Freedom of Mind, showing Thomas Struth hanging a print in his studio in Berlin. Source: Thomas Struth, Photographer Thomas Struth: Culture Defends the Freedom of Mind | Louisiana Channel. Retrieved from Louisiana Channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk_Ep9_5lWc, (2022)
In 1973 Struth started as a painter student of Peter Kleeman and Gerhard Richter, and worked with photographs to develop his
368 In Museum Photography and Museum Prose, Julian Stallabrass studies the relationship between the medium of photography and museum space. As Stallabrass examines, the digitalization of the medium adds cinematic aspect to the image, which makes the photograph gain its own space in the museum. See: Julian Stallabrass, "Museum Photography and Museum Prose," New Left Review 65, (2010): pp. 93-125.
369 See: Ibid.
14 2
paintings.
370 After realizing that the medium of photography was a better suit for him, he became a part of the Düsseldorf Ecole, which emerged in the 1980s under the professorship of Bernd and Hilla Becher.371 Along with Struth; Axel Hütte, Andreas Gursky, Thomas Ruff and Candida Höfer were students of this ecole. Bechers disseminated this contemporary contextual and spatial style of monumentalizing subjects like architecture, nature and technology to exhibit them in the manner of a painting.372 Thus, these prominent representatives of the “New German Photography” have a style in common to display their painterly compositions in colored large scale format.373
The subject of the “museum” became a part of Struth’s works beginning in the late 1980s, with his project Naples and Rome.374 While he was living and working in Italy, the restoration process of paintings caught Struth’s attention culminating in the image Restorers in San Lorenzo Maggiore.375 The relationship between large-scaled paintings and the spectator inspired Struth to capture the museum’s atmosphere using a large format camera.376 The Louvre (Paris), the Kunsthistorisches Museum (Vienna), the
370 See: Jocelyn Philips, “Thomas Struth,” in Collect Contemporary Photography, (2012): pp. 170-173.
371 See: Ibid; Maren Polte, “Becher, Bernd and Hilla,” in Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set, (2006): pp. 111-113.
372 See: Ibid.
373 See: Dominic Molon, “Conceptual Photography,” in Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set, (2006): p. 306.
374 See: "Naples and Rome." http://www.thomasstruth32.com/smallsize/photographs/naples_and_rome/index.html. 29 06 2021.
375 See: Ibid.
376 See: Ibid.
14 3
National Gallery (London), the Rijksmuseum (Amsterdam) and the Art Institute of Chicago are some of the locations that Struth chose to depict the interaction between the museum space, the artwork, and the spectator.
Struth’s agency plays a significant role in creating the ideal tableau to depict the dense visual and material interactions occurring at the museums. To shoot the perfect moment, Struth often positions himself behind the camera waiting for the visual composition that he wants to capture in a snapshot manner.377 However, in some of the photographs, he also designs the mise-en-scène of the production space to produce the coherent narrative that he aims.
The Museum Photographs generate a unique communication between the past and the present, the viewer and the viewed, and the museum space and the exhibition space inasmuch as the spectator, who is looking at Struth’s images, to some extent, reiterates the relationship transpiring in the photographs.378 In this regard, the image can be read as a mirrored window, through which the spectator can look at a moment in the past, while also mirroring the image in the present. This mise-en-abyme effect in the display of Museum Photographs differs from the usual relations created in the exhibition space given that his photographs both textually and spatially connect with the exhibition space.379
377 See: "Museum Photographs 1." http://www.thomasstruth32.com/smallsize/photographs/museum_photographs_1/index.html#. 29 06 2021.
378 In Thomas Struth Retrospective, Steven Skopik reviews the book Thomas Struth: 1977-2002. In this regard, Skopik analyzes Struth’s Museum Photographs, and his approach to capture the images. See: Steven Skopik, "Thomas Struth Retrospective," History of Photography, 27:3, (2003): pp. 302-303.
379 In Photography en abyme, Craig Owens examines the mise-en-abyme aspect of the medium of photography, associating it with mirror. In Double Exposure:
14 4
To form a continuity with the production process of Crewdson and Wall, here, I will analyze the image Pergamon Museum 1, from the Museum Photographs 2 series. Unlike the other photographs from this series, which depict the movements and the expressions of the spectators in a natural setting; Pergamon Museum 1 is a staged photograph.380
Figure 61: Thomas Struth, Pergamon Museum 1, Berlin, 2001. Cat. 8001, Chromogenic print, 197.4 x 284.5 cm. Exhibited in KHZ, KND, MSP.
Multiplexing of Signals and Time in the Photography of Thomas Struth, Dana Liljegren uses the term “mise-en-abyme” while analyzing Thomas Struth’s images. In this paper, I, too, use this term, though I juxtapose Owen’s analyses with Liljegren’s analyses to form new discussions. See: Craig Owens, "Photography ‘en abyme’," October, Vol.5, Photography, (1978): 73-88; Danan Liljegren, "Double Exposure: Multiplexing of Signals and Time in the Photography of Thomas Struth," Graduate Journal of Visual and Material Culture, Issue 5, (2012): pp. 1-16.
380 In his book Why Photography Matters as Art as never Before, Michael Fried analyzes Thomas Struth’s Museum Photographs series. He divides his analyses into three parts, regarding the three series of images; and one of them is the six photographs of Pergamon Museum. As Fried explains, these images stand out not just by its theatricality, but also being the only images that do not include paintings. For more analyses see: Michael Fried, “Thomas Struth’s Museum Photographs,” in Why Photography Matters as Art as never before, (2008): pp. 115-142.
14 5
Source: Thomas Struth’s official website: https://www.thomasstruth32.com/smallsize/photographs/museum_photographs_2/index.html
As, in the case of the other Museum Photographs, Struth wanted to capture the interaction between the visitors and the artifacts in the Pergamon Museum. However, after few attempts to shoot the visitors in natural setting, in 2001, Struth decided to choreograph the scene that he envisioned.381 This “stagey version” of documentary photography resembles Wall’s technique of “near documentary,” rather than the cinematographic images of Crewdson.382 Similar to Wall’s approach, Struth does not interfere with the spatial context (as it must be hard to do so in a museum space); yet he designs a controlled scene to be photographed in a carefully planned manner.
The choreography in Pergamon Museum 1 is similar to the natural setting in other images in Museum Photographs (like Louvre 1, National Gallery 1, Art Institute of Chicago 1, Galleria dell’Accademia 1). Through the design of a spontaneous-like mise-en-scène that accords with the rest of the series, Struth creates a coherent narrative in the series as well as in the possible display of these photographs side-by-side in an exhibition space. A spectator, while looking at the series of images of the visitors (who are looking at the artworks-artifacts), might not notice the distinction of the Pergamon Museum images. Yet, the particular display of these photographs in large-scale format in an exhibition space reveals certain details of the mise-en-scène that might otherwise
381 See: Ibid.
382 Julian Stallabrass uses the term “stagey” while describing the images of Jeff Wall. I use this term for Struth, considering Wall and Struth has same approach, as they both design mise-en-scènes that have documentary aspects. See: Julian Stallabrass, "Museum Photography and Museum Prose," New Left Review, 65, (2010): p. 98.
14 6
go unnoticed. In Pergamon Museum 1, the first and second layers of the visitors seem natural, as they interact with each other and with the artifacts in a spontaneous way. But, a closer study of the visitors on the stairs discloses that the image is staged, as sitting on the stairs is not allowed in the Pergamon Museum under normal circumstances.383 The realization of this aspect might prompt the spectator in the exhibition space to analyze the other images once again to, perhaps, see a detail that might reveal a similar staged element.
Figure 62: A still from the Kunst nach 1945: Thomas Struth video, showing a viewer examining the Louvre 3 image from far.
Figure 63: A still from the Kunst nach 1945: Thomas Struth video, showing a viewer examining the Louvre 3 image up-closely
Source: Thomas Struth, Kunst nach 1945: Thomas Struth. Retrieved from Stadel Museum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rokqt9yRTI, (2017).
In its representation of the constructed and performative aspects of the experiences of the visitor in the museum, Pergamon Museum 1 is a significant photograph that asks the museum spectators to question and reconsider the socially coded and disciplinary nature of the appropriate museum conduct. Here, the anachronic relationship between the museum space in the image and the
383 See: Charles Wylie, "Pergamon Museum 1, Berlin: General Description." https://collections.dma.org/artwork/5324986. 29 06 2021.
14 7
exhibition space of the image creates a complex superimposition of the representation of a space and the experience of a space.
384 Through the mise-en-scène of the image, Struth to some extent affects the behaviors of the spectators in the exhibition space. In other words, the text of the image plays a role in the construction of the mise-en-scène of the exhibition with its intricate relations between actors, displayed images, and spatial environment.
Figure 64: Thomas Struth, National Gallery 2, (2001), London, Cat. 8021, Chromogenic print. 148,0 x 170,4 cm. Exhibited: KHZ, KND, WGI, MSP. Source: Thomas Struth’s official website: https://www.thomasstruth32.com/smallsize/photographs/museum_photographs_2/index.html
As a series, Museum Photographs are displayed in Struth’s desired sequence. Although there is not a specific storyline to these images that create a chronological order, Struth arranges them according to the interaction between the spectator in the image and the spectator in the exhibition. In this respect, both of the spectators
384 In Seeing for the First and Last Time in Thomas Struth’s Museum Photographs, Miranda Baxter analyzes Struth’s museum images, and uses the term “anachronism” to emphasize the connection between there-then (of the image) and here-now (of the exhibition space). See: Miranda Baxter, "Seeing for the First and Last Time in Thomas Struth's Museum Photographs," Photographies, (2014): p. 209.
14 8
become the decisive part of the created mise-en-scène of the exhibition space. The narrative journey of the spectator in the exhibition consists of different the relationships unfolding between the crowded spaces of museums, artworks, and spectators (like themselves) and ends with the image called National Gallery 2 – not a space shot from a large perspective – and one painting but no spectators with a more still and silent manner.
385 This photograph without a crowd that mirrors the spectator in the exhibition space concludes the voyeuristic possibilities that previous images provided the viewers and prepares them to leave the exhibition.
385 In Financial Time’s video on Thomas Struth, Francis Hodgson (photography critic) walks through Struth’s solo show at London’s Whitechapel Gallery. While looking at the images of Museum Photographs series, Hodgson talks about the image National Gallery 2, and how it is intended to be the “conclusion” image of this series. See: Francis Hodgson, Thomas Struth - An Objective Photographer? FT.com. Retrieved from Financial Times: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_BDdBBRnhw&t=94s
14 9
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
The aim of this thesis was to question the still on-going debates about the automatism, agency and intentionality in the medium of photography and analyze the three spaces of photographic production, texts, and exhibition in relation to the photographer’s way of inhabiting and controlling these spaces in the light of prominent photographic theories. Through researching the histories of these spaces, I analyzed the transformation of the architectural designs in the changing period of analog to digital. I tried to highlight photographer’s control over the mise-en-scène of these spaces by studying the design choices they make in order to create their perfect tableaux and exhibit them with a certain narrative. By discussing the degree of control of the spatial and contextual features in the processes of producing and exhibiting, I question the theories about the relationship between the assigned automatism of the medium and the represented agency of the photographer. To exemplify my arguments, I presented three photographers – Gregory Crewdson, Jeff Wall, Thomas Struth -, who specifically work closely to produce their perfect tableaux and exhibit them with a designed photographic display style. I did not select these photographers to assign each them to one of the spaces, but because they all excessively design their production set, the text of the image and the layout of the exhibition space, in a way that connects these three spaces’ mise-en-scènes.
15 0
In the process of analyzing the architectural histories of the photographic studio, the space of the image, and the photographic exhibition, the prominent question of whether the medium of photography is automatic or intentional is discussed. In the chapter that focuses on the historical transformation of the production sets, I argued that the photographers’ aim to create an efficient place for capturing an image with a designed mise-en-scène defines the agency behind the mechanical act of the camera. By studying photographers’ design processes in the production space - such as choosing the subject, the place, the props, the actors and their gestures and mimics, the light, the frame, etc. – we can analyze the transmission of photographer’s intentions to the image. The case studies of Gregory Crewdson, Jeff Wall and Thomas Struth show the different styles of control in the photographic set. Crewdson designs all the possible features that can be controlled from the trail of the snow to the actors’ gestures, whereas Wall and Struth design the architectural aspects of a scene and let the actors to their act in their own way. This difference in the degree of control transmitted into the images, yet the near-documentary photographs hide their designed mise-en-scène and make the audience question the extent of the causality and intentionality in the image. Whereas the cinematographic photographs – like Crewdson’s – give away its choreographed production with the spatial and contextual elements in the image.
Despite this endeavors to create the desired scene in the production process, it does not always represented in the image in the way that photographer has imagined; or the desired scene can only occur to some extent in the production set, which will conclude itself in the post-production process. In this respect, in the chapter that analyzes the architectural space of the analog and
15 1
digital darkrooms, I focused on the ways that the photographers’ use these places to manipulate the text of the image. By studying the photographic space in the image in relation to its production process, we can discuss a new perspective to study the mise-en-scène of the image. As the photographer edits the image to finalize the design of the scene, which they could not achieve in the production set, creates this back-and-forth process between these spaces. In certain situations, - such as capturing an image in a bad lighting, that has unwanted objects in the frame, etc. - the photographer plans forehead in the production set that they have to edit the mise-en-scène of the image in the post-production space and plans their actions in the set accordingly to the post process. Gregory Crewdson’ Untitled (Brief Encounter) is an example for this, as he was aware that the color of snow and the balance between the natural and artificial light would be edited in the post-production process. In other situations, - such as test shootings - the photographer uses the (analog or digital) darkroom to plan and manipulate the production set to create the desired tableau. Jeff Wall and Thomas Struth used this back-and-forth process in their works of Morning Cleaning, Mies van der Rohe Foundation and Pergamon Museum 1. Wall used test shooting to decide how many images he should use in order to create the end-product, and how he should expose each of them regarding the different light densities. With this approach he was able to control his production process in the set regarding his actions in the post-production process. Struth not actually used test shooting in the way that Struth benefited it; he was not satisfied with the end-product, which made him go back to the set (the Pergamon Museum) years later and shoot a choreographed scene to achieve his perfect tableau.
15 2
The design of the photographs in the production and post-production processes finalizes with them being displayed in the exhibition space. In the chapter dedicated to the history of photographic exhibitions and their designed mise-en-scène, I analyzed the firsts in the medium and how the medium of photography entered the museum space along with other fine arts. Throughout the years of exhibiting images, the unique display style of photographic works emerged, and each photographer and curator approached with different strategies. As the medium digitize, the sizes and techniques of showcasing images varied, and the photographer got a chance to get more involved in the way that their images exhibited. Considering Crewdson’s images, the way he exhibits them in large-scale increases the cinematographic aspect of the images. As Crewdson produces images in series, he showcase the narratives of the images in a certain sequence to create a storyline for the spectator in the exhibition space. Thus, the journey of the viewer is designed to a certain degree by Crewdson. In Wall’s case, there is no specific series of images, yet the theme of near-documentary can be seen in all of his images. His unique way of exhibiting images in backlit light-boxes, which is inspired from the display of advertisement, adds the cinematographic feature to the semi-designed scenes. As the spectator views these large, luminous images their act of moving closer and farther to the frames increases the interaction between the photographic image, the exhibition space, and the spectator. In Struth’s case, the spatial and contextual features of the images - specifically the Museum Photographs series - speaks in a different way than Crewdson and Wall’s images. The created mise-en-abyme in the exhibition space by displaying the spectators in a museum space, Struth designes a peculiar relationship between the spectators and the spaces of museum and exhibition.
15 3
Analyses of the mise-en-scènes of the photographic works of Gregory Crewdson, Jeff Wall, and Thomas Struth introduce a new angle to the debates on the tension between causality-intentionality, analog-digital, and agency-automatism in the philosophy of photography. All three photographers control the mise-en-scènes of the sets, texts, and exhibition spaces in different degrees. We can see that these photographers design their images in a back-and-forth process (rather than a linear one) with concerns regarding the spaces of production, text, and exhibition influencing decisions at each reciprocal stage. As in the cases of Wall and Struth the process of creating an image goes back and forth between the production set and the post-production process. In Crewdson’s series – as he explains – the layout of the exhibition occurs in the process of producing the images. With these examples, we can argue that the photographer connects these three spaces to create a complete narrative.
With this thesis I argue that the photographers’ agency starts in the set environment and continues to the exhibition space, yet it is not always represented on the same level in the text of the image. While the mise-en-scène of the set, the image, and exhibition can be read separately, in the end, they gather around the narrative generated by the photographer. Through this spatial connection of the spaces, the analyses of the relationship between photography and space can be enriched. As the architectural history of these spaces are mostly analyzed separately and detached from the design perspective of the photographer, I aim to create a new spatial perspective to approach the medium of photography.
As this thesis argue, analyzing the histories of the photographic sets, texts, and exhibition spaces regarding the photographers’
15 4
involvement in the process of designing a mise-en-scène, creates a framework to study these spaces as a whole. The case studies discussing the photographs of Crewdson, Wall, and Struth, prepared a base to analyze these processes, however, looking into the series of these photographers can open up new discussions on how they inhabit and control these spaces. Withal, in the future studies other contemporary artists that have similar style as Crewdson, Wall, and Struth - such as Candida Höfer, Andreas Gursky, Thomas Ruff, etc. – can be analyzed as well. Considering the rich history of each space of production set, text of the image, and the exhibition space, there remains more to be analyzed. Lastly, I hope that this study will become a base for future studies on the mise-en-scène of photographic production and exhibition.
15 5
REFERENCES
Anchell, S. (2008). Planning a Darkroom. In S. Anchell, The Darkroom Cookbook (pp. 1-14). London: Focal Press.
Annis, S. (1986). The Museum as a Staging Ground for Symbolic Action. Museum, XXXVII:3, 168-171.
Armstrong, C. (2012). Automatism and Agency Intertwined: A Spectrum of Photographic Intentionality. Critical Inquiry, 705-726.
Atkinson, A. (2006). Camera: Digital. In L. Warren, Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set (pp. 217-219). New York: Routledge.
Badger, G. (2014). ‘The Most Remarkable Discovery of Modern Times’: Three Photographic Exhibitions in 1850s London. In A. Mauro, Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography (pp. 36-59). London: Thames & Hudson.
Badger, G. (2014). The Genius of Photography: How Photography has Changed Our Lives. London: Quadrille.
Bajac, Q. (2002). Part One 1839, The Birth of Photography? In Q. Bajac, The Invention of Photography: The First Fifty Years (pp. 13-30). London: Thames & Hudson.
Bajac, Q. (2002). Part Three The Photographer's Studio, 1845-75. In Q. Bajac, The Invention of Photography: The First Fifthy Years (pp. 51-70). London: Thames & Hudson.
Bajac, Q. (2002). Part Two Copper, Paper, Glass, 1840-55. In Q. Bajac, The Invention of Photography: The First Fifty Years (pp. 31-50). London: Thames & Hudson.
Banks, R. (2008). Gregory Crewdson: Beneath the Roses; Essay by Russel Banks. In R. Banks, & G. Crewdson, Beneath the Roses (p. 6). New York: Abrams.
Barnes, M. (2010). Traces: A Short History of Camera-less Photography. In M. Barnes, Shadow Catchers : Camera-less Photography (pp. 10-18). London: V&A Merrell.
Barthes, R. (1977). The Rhetoric of the Image. In Image-Music-Text (pp. 32-51). London: Wm. Collins Sons and Co.
15 6
Bassnett, S. (2007). Exhibitions of Photography. In J. Hannavy, Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography (pp. 508-509). New York: Routledge.
Baum, R. (2006). Cropping. In L. Warren, Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set (pp. 347-348). New York: Routledge.
Baxter, M. (2014). Seeing for the First and Last Time in Thomas Struth's Museum Photographs. Photographies, 201-216.
Benjamin, W. (2010). The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility. Grey Room, 39, 11-37.
Benyamin, J. (2001). "Stuff": Gregory Crewdson's Gaze Upon the Domestic Sublime. Thresholds, 23, 64-67.
Berger, J. (2013). Understanding a Photograph. In J. Berger, & G. Dyer, Understanding a Photograph (pp. 20-25). New York: Aperture.
Biro, M. (2012). From Analogue to Digital Photography: Bernd and Hilla Becher and Andreas Gursky. History of Photography, 36:3, 353-366.
Blatt, A. J. (2009). Phototextuality: Photography, Fiction, Criticism. Visual Studies, 24:2, 108-121.
Born, G. (1998). Public Museums, Museum Photography, and the Limits of Reflexivity: An Essay on the Exhibition Camera Obscured: Photographic Documentation and the Public Museum. Journal of Material Culture, 3 (2), 223-254.
Breitbach, J. (2011). The Photo-as-thing. European Journal of English Studies, 15:1, 31-43.
Brown, B. (2001). Thing Theory. Critical Inquiry, 28:1, 1-22.
Brückle, W. (2009). Almost Merovingian: On Jeff Wall's Relation to Nearly Everything. Art History, 32:5, 977-995.
Brunet, F. (2007). Wolcott, Alexander Simon and Johnson, John (active 1839-1844). In J. Hannavy, Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography (pp. 1501-1502). New York: Routledge.
Burnett, C. (2005). Morning Cleaning, Mies Van der Rohe Foundation, Barcelona 1999. In C. Burnett, Jef Wall (pp. 90-94). London: Tate Publishing.
Callender, R. (2007). Scientific Photography. In J. Hannavy, Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography (pp. 1255-1258). New York: Routledge.
Chang, C. (2002). Gregory Crewdson. Film Comment, 38:2, 17.
Chevrier, J.-F. (2003). The Adventures of the Picture Form in the History of Photography, trans. Michael Gilson. In D. Fogle, The Last Picture Show: Artists Using Photography, 1960-1982 (pp. 113-128). Minneapolis: Walker Art Center.
Clarke, G. (1997). "What Is a Photograph?". In The Photograph (pp. 11-25).
15 7
Claudet, L. (2007). Colouring by Hand. In J. Hannavy, Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography (pp. 322-323). New York: Routledge.
Colomina, B. (1988). Architectureproduction. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
Colomina, B. (1996). Privacy and Publicity: Modern Architecture as Mass Media. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Costello, D., & Iversen, M. (2012). Introduction: Photography between Art History and Philosophy. Critical Inquiry, 38:4, 679-693.
Costello, D., & Phillips, D. M. (2009). Automatism, Casuality and Realism: Foundational Problems in the Philosophy of Photography. Philosophy Compass, 4(1), 1-21.
Crewdson, G. (2004). Gregory Crewdson. In e. J. Richards, Inside the Studio: Two Decades of Talks with Artists in New York (pp. 278-281). New York: Independent Curators International.
Crewdson, G. (2017, 09 11). Photograhers in Focus: Gregory Crewdson. Retrieved from Nowness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpIRm5BsXeE&t=89s
Cruz, E. G. (2020). Chapter 30 Mobile Street Photography. In L. Hjorth, A. de Souza e Silva, & K. Lanson, The Routledge Companion to Mobile Media Art (pp. 324-334). New York: Routledge.
Currie, G. (1991). Photography, Painting and Perception. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 49:1, 23-29.
Curtin, D., & DeMario, J. (1979). Introduction to the Darkroom. In D. Curtin, & J. DeMario, The Darkroom Handbook: A Complete Guide to the Best Design, Construction and Equipment (pp. vi-vii). New York: Curtin & London.
de Duve, T. (1978). Time Exposure and Snapshot: The Photograph as Paradox. October, Vol. 5, Photography, 113-125.
Dhelsing, M. D., & Fleischer, A. (Directors). (2000). Contacts - Episode on Jeff Wall [Motion Picture].
Duttlinger, C. (2008). Imaginary Encounters: Walter Benjamin and the Aura of Photography. Poetics Today, 29 (1), 79-101.
Eastlake, L. E. (1857). Photography. London Quarterly Review, 442-468.
Eder, J. M. (1978). Chapter XXIV Joseph Nicephore Niepce’s Death in 1833. In J. M. Eder, History of Photography (pp. 226-229). New York: Dover Publications.
Elsaesser, T. (2018). The Architectural Postcard: Photography, Cinema, and Modernist Mass Media. Grey Room, 70, 80–101.
15 8
Esner, R., Kisters, S., & Lehmann, A.-S. (2013). Hiding Making - Showing Creation: The Studio from Turner to Tacita Dean. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Esner, R., Kisters, S., & Lehmann, A.-S. (2013). Introduction. In Hiding Making - Showing Creation: The Studio from Turner to Tavita Dean (pp. 9-13). Amsterdam University Press.
Finkel, K. (1984). The Darkroom Studio. History of Photography, 8:2, 76.
Forsberg, D. E. (2007). Painters and Photography. In J. Hannavy, Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography (pp. 1044-1048). New York: Routledge.
Foster, H. (2004). 1980. In H. Foster, R. Krauss, Y.-A. Bois, B. H. Buchloh, & D. Joselit, Art Since 1900: Modernism, Antimodernism, Postmodernism (pp. 688-691). London: Thames & Hudson.
Foster, H. (2004). 2001. In H. Foster, R. Krauss, Y.-A. Bois, B. H. Buchloh, & D. Joselit, Art Since 1900: Modernism, Antimodernism, Postmodernism (pp. 773-777). London: Thames & Hudson.
Fried, M. (2007). Jeff Wall, Wittgenstein, and the Everyday. Critical Inquiry, 33:3, 495-526.
Fried, M. (2008). Thomas Struth's Museum Photographs. In M. Fried, Why Photography Matters as Art as never Before (pp. 115-142). New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Friedman, D. (2006). The Museum of Modern Art of New York. In L. Warren, Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set (pp. 1102-1109). New York: Routledge.
Galassi, P. (1981). Before Photography. In P. Galassi, Before Photography: Painting and the Invention of Photography (pp. 11-32). New York: The Museum of Modern Art.
Garrison, J., & Krejcarek, P. (2017). Gregory Crewdson's Twilight: Domesticity, Liminality, Sensuality, Photography and Culture. Photography & Culture, 10:3, 233-246.
Gernsheim, H., & Gernsheim, A. (1965). The Invention of Photography. In H. Gernsheim, & A. Gernsheim, A Concise History of Photography (pp. 8-28). New York: Grosset & Dunlap.
Green, D., & Lowry, J. (2009). Photography, Cinema and Medium as Social Practice. Visual Studies, 24:2, 132-142.
Guilló, A. (2007). Jean-François Chevrier and Jeff Wall: A Critical Stance. Critique d'art, 29.
15 9
Hannavy, J. (2007). Beard, Richard. In J. Hannavy, Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography (pp. 126-127). New York: Routledge.
Hannavy, J. (2007). Darkroom and Developing Chamber. In J. Hannavy, Encyclopedia of Nineteenth_Century Photography (pp. 382-383). New York: Routledge.
Hannavy, J. (2007). Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography. New York: Routledge.
Hannavy, J. (2007). Studio Design and Construction (1840-1900). In J. Hannavy, Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography (pp. 1355-1357). New York: Routledge.
Hannavy, J. (2007). Talbot, William Henry Fox. In J. Hannavy, Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography (pp. 1376-1379). New York: Routledge.
Harding, C. (2007). Camera Design: 5 Portable Hand Cameras (1880-1900). In J. Hannavy, Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography (pp. 249-251). New York: Routledge.
Harding, C. (2007). Roll Film. In J. Hannavy, Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography (pp. 1206-1208). New York: Routledge.
Headley, J. (2006). Manipulation. In L. Warren, Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set (pp. 1006-1007). New York: Routledge.
Higgins, S. (2006). Montage. In L. Warren, Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set (pp. 1073-1077). New York: Routledge.
Higgot, A., & Wray, T. (2016). Introduction: Architectural and Photographic Constructs. In A. Higgot, & T. Wray, Camera Constructs: Photography, Architecture and the Modern City (pp. 1-22). Abingdon, New York: Routledge.
Hirsch, R. (2007). Multiple Printing, Combination Printing, and Multiple Exposure. In J. Hannavy, Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography (pp. 960-962). New York: Routledge.
Hirsch, R. (2007). Photomontage and Collage. In J. Hannavy, Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography (pp. 1123-1124). New York: Routledge.
Hirsch, R. (2017). Chapter 1 Advancing Towards Photography: The Rise of the Reproduction. In R. Hirsch, Seizing the Light: A Social & Aesthetic History of Photography, 3rd Edition (pp. 1-26). New York: Routledge.
Hirsch, R. (2017). New Ways of Visualizing Time and Space. In R. Hirsch, Seizing the Light: A Social & Aesthetic History of Photography, 3rd Edition (pp. 165-190). New York: Routledge.
16 0
Hirsch, R. (2017). The Daguerreotype: Image and Object. In R. Hirsch, Seizing the Light: A Social & Aesthetic History of Photography, 3rd Edition (pp. 27-50). New York: Routledge.
Hodgson, F. (2011, 09 02). Thomas Struth - An Objective Photographer? FT.com. Retrieved from Financial Times: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_BDdBBRnhw&t=94s
Jacobson, B. R. (2015). Georges Méliès’s “Glass House”: Cineplasticity for a Human-Built World. In B. R. Jacobson, Studios Before the System: Architecture, Technology, and the Emergence of Cinematic Space (pp. 55-86). New York: Columbia University Press.
Johnson, C. M. (2004). “Each Button, Button-Hole, and Every Fold”: Dress in the American Daguerreotype Portrait. The Journal of the Costume Society of America, Volume 31 - Issue 1, 25-35.
Kloehn, P. (2006). History of Photography Nineteenth-Century Foundations. In L. Warren, Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3 Volume-Set (pp. 703-711). New York: Routledge.
Knight, D. (1984). Roland Barthes: The Corpus and the Corps. Poetics Today, 5:4, Representation In Modern Fiction, 831-837.
Leighten, P. D. (1977-1978). Critical Attitudes towards Overly Manipulated Photography in the 20th Century. Art Journal, 37:2, 133-138.
Liljegren, D. (2012). Double Exposure: Multiplexing of Signals and Time in the Photography of Thomas Struth. Shift, Graduate Journal of Visual and Material Culture, Issue 5, 1-16.
Louvar, T. (2006). Darkroom. In L. Warren, Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set (pp. 358-361). New York: Routledge.
Louvar, T. (2006). Darkroom. In L. Warren, Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set (pp. 358-361). New York: Routledge.
Mauro, A. (2014). Alfred Stieglitz and 291. In A. Mauro, Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography (pp. 100-127). London: Thames & Hudson.
Mauron, A. (2014). Deviations from the Norm: Curating Photographs in the Internet Age - Interview with Quentin Bajac. In A. Mauron, Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography (pp. 8-15). London: Thames & Hudson.
Maynard, P. (1997). The Engine of Visualization: Thinking through Photography. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Melin, W. E. (1986). Photography and the Recording Process in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Leonardo, 19:1, 53-60.
16 1
Merkli, M. (2006). Adams, Ansel. In L. Warren, Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set (pp. 9-14). New York: Routledge.
Niépce, J. N. (2023, March 20). The Earliest Photograph by Niépce. Retrieved April 25, 2023, from World History Encyclopedia: https://www.worldhistory.org/image/17208/the-earliest-photograph-by-niepce/
Owens, C. (1978). Photography "en abyme". October, Vol.5, Photography, 73-88.
Pauli, L. (2018). Rejlander's Two Ways of Life - Part 1. Retrieved from National Gallery of Canada!s Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1JwFEHAOxg
Pelizzari, M. A., & Scrivano, P. (2011). Intersection of Photography and Architecture - Introduction. Visual Resources, 27:2, 107-112.
Petersen, S. (2007). Tableaux. In J. Hannavy, Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography (pp. 1373-1375). New York: Routledge.
Philips, J. (2012). Thomas Struth. In J. Philips, Collect Contemporary Photography (pp. 170-173). London: Thames & Hudson.
Phillips, C. (1982). The Judgement Seat of Photography. October, Vol. 22, 27-63.
Pinheiro, N. (2006). Photo-Secessionists. In L. Warren, Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set (pp. 1234-1238). New York: Routledge.
Pollack, P. (1977). Part One The Beginnings of Photography. In P. Pollack, The Picture History of Photography: From the Earliest Beginnings to the Present Day (pp. 11-30). New York: Henry N. Abrams, Inc.
Pollack, P. (1977). Part Two Master of the Nineteenth Century. In P. Pollack, The Picture History of Photography: From the Earliest Beginnings to the Present Day (pp. 31-76). New York: Henry N. Abrams, Inc.
Pollack, P. (1977). The Picture History of Photography: From the Earliest Beginnings to the Present Day. New York: Henry N. Abrams, Inc.
Polte, M. (2006). Becher, Bernd and Hilla. In L. Waren, Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set (pp. 111-113). New York: Routledge.
Price, L. (1868). The Glass Studio. In L. Price, A Manual of Photographic Manipulation: Treating of the Practice of the Art, and Its Various Applications to Nature (pp. 68-75). London: J.Churchill & Sons.
16 2
Price, L. (1868). The Operating Room. In L. Price, A Manual of Photographic Manipulation: Treating of the Practice of the Art, and Its Various Applications to Nature (pp. 75-78). London: J. Churchill & Sons.
Pritchard, M. (2007). Camera Design 4 (1850-1900). In J. Hannavy, Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography (pp. 248-249). New York: Routledge.
Redmann, J. A. (2006). Burning-in. In L. Warren, Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set (pp. 181-182). New York: Routledge.
Redmann, J. A. (2006). Dodging. In L. Warren, Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set (pp. 410-411). New York: Routledge.
Redmann, J. A. (2006). Enlarger. In L. Warren, Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set (pp. 442-444). New York: Routledge.
Robinson, H. P. (1891). Chapter 1: Various Forms of Studios. In H. P. Robinson, The Studio and What to Do in it (pp. 1-12). London: Piper & Carter.
Roubert, P.-L. (2014). The Invention of Photography. In A. Mauro, Photoshow: Landmark Exhibitions that Defined the History of Photography (pp. 17-35). London: Thames & Hudson.
Scruton, R. (1981). Photography and Representation. Critical Inquiry, 7:3, 577-603.
Shapiro, B. (Director). (2012). Gregory Crewdson: Brief Encounters [Motion Picture].
Shields, M. K. (2006). Masking. In L. Warren, Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set (pp. 1014-1016). New York: Routledge.
Shusterman, R. (2012). Photography as Performative Process. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 70:1, 67-77.
Sisson, C. (2006). Exposure. In L. Warren, Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set (pp. 470-472). New York: Routledge.
Skopik, S. (2003). Thomas Struth Retrospective. History of Photography, 27:3, 302-303.
Smith, P., & Lefley, C. (2016). Chapter 4 The Constructed Photograph. In P. Smith, & C. Lefley, Rethinking Photography: Histories, Theories and Education (pp. 12-134). New York: Routledge.
Sontag, S. (1977). Susan Sontag. In E. P. Janis, & W. MacNeil, Photography within the Humanities (pp. 110-121). Danbury, New Hampshire: Addison House Publishers.
Stallabrass, J. (2010). Museum Photography and Museum Prose. New Left Review, 65, 93-125.
16 3
Struth, T. (2017, 05 24). Kunst nach 1945: Thomas Struth. Retrieved from Stadel Museum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rokqt9yRTI
Struth, T. (2022, 11 24). Photographer Thomas Struth: Culture Defends the Freedom of Mind | Louisiana Channel. Retrieved from Louisiana Channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk_Ep9_5lWc
Tagliaventi, A. (2014). Photography at MoMA: Four Landmark Exhibitions. In A. Mauro, Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography (pp. 148-199). London: Thames & Hudson.
Tzortzi, K. (2015). Chapter 2: The Display as Presentation in Space. In K. Tzortzi, Museum Space: When Architecture Meets Museology (pp. 43-80). London, New York: Routledge.
Tzortzi, K. (2015). The Museum as a Kind of Building. In K. Tzortzi, Museum Space: When Architecture Meets Museology (pp. 11-42). London, New York: Routledge.
Wagner, M. (2013). Chapter 1 Studio Matters: Materials, Instruments and Artistic Process. In R. Esner, S. Kisters, & A.-S. Lehmann, Hiding Making - Showing Creation: The Studio from Turner to Tacita Dean (pp. 15-30). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Walden, S. (2006). Photographic Theory. In L. Warren, Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set (pp. 1245-1251). New York: Routledge.
Wall, J. (2012). Conceptual, Postconceptual, Nonconceptual: Photography and the Depictive Arts. Critical Inquiry, 38:4, 694-704.
Wall, J. (2019, 07 24). Photographers in Focus: Jeff Wall. Retrieved from Nowness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtmUPQFEJrs
Wall, J. (2022, 10 22). In the Studio: Jeff Wall I White Cube. Retrieved from White Cube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqsDAtYKCrI
Wall, J. (2022, 01 15). Jeff Wall at Glenstone Museum. Retrieved from Glenstone Museum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-bqdh3laas
Walton, K. L. (1984). Transparent Pictures: On the Nature of Photographic Realism. Critical Inquiry, 11:2, 246-277.
Warren, L. (2006). Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set. New York: Routledge.
Yakimoski, N. (2006). Constructed Reality. In L. Warren, Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set (pp. 319-323). New York: Routledge.
16 4
Zanot, F. (2014). The Film und Foto Exhibition in 1929. In A. Mauro, Photoshow: Landmark exhibitions that defined the history of photography (pp. 128-147). London: Thames & Hudson.
Zervigón, A. M. (2014). The Peripatetic Viewer at Heartfield's "Film und Foto" Exhibition Room. October, Vol: 150, 27-48.
Zimlich, L. E. (2006). Photo-Secession. In L. Warren, Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, 3-Volume Set (pp. 1229-1233). New York: Routledge.
Zimmerman, C. (2014). Photographic Architecture in the Twentieth Century. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
16 5
APPENDICES
A.CURRICULUM VITAE
Name-Surname: Zeynep Eda GÖNEN Place and Year of Birth:
-(2011-2015) Kadir Has Anatolian High School
-(2015-2019) Kadir Has University – Bachelor ofArchitecture, Department of Architecture
-(2020-2023) Middle East Technical University –Master of Arts, Department of History of Architecture
Areas of Special Interest:
History of Photography
Modern Architecture
Postmodern and Contemporary Film and Video
Professional Experience:
-(2017 summer) TT Architecture
As an intern in construction site
-(2018 summer) Mars Architects
As an intern in architectural office
-(2019-2021) Mixed-Media
As an architect
-(2023-…) Onagore Design and Publishing
As an architect, a curatorial fellow and a researcher
16 6
B. TURKISH SUMMARY / TÜRKÇE ÖZET
Fotoğraf, dünya ile fotoğrafçı arasında bağlantıyı oluşturan ve sanatçının failliğini yansıtan özgün bir görsel sanat formudur. Fotoğrafın felsefesi, mecradaki otomatizm, faillilik ve kasıtlılık konularını araştırır. Fotoğrafın dijitalleşmesi, dijital kameraların ve düzenleme programlarının ortaya çıkmasıyla resim ve fotoğraf arasındaki karşılaştırma derinleştirmiştir. Fotoğrafın; üretim setiyle, görüntü içindeki temsil alanıyla ve sergi alanıyla ilişkisi çok önemlidir. Fotoğrafçı, imaj ve bu mekanlar arasında bir aracı olarak hareket eder. Bu nedenle setin, imaj içindeki kurgunun ve sergi alanının mekânsal yönü de fotoğrafçının niyetini anlamada önemli bir rol oynar.
Bu tez, fotoğrafın felsefi kuramlarını kullanarak fotoğraf stüdyosu, görüntü ve müze/galeri mekânının mizansenlerini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Tez, fotoğrafçının bu üç alandaki eylemine ve mizansen üzerindeki etkisine odaklanarak fotoğraf ve mekân arasındaki ilişkiyi araştırmaktadır. Bu çalışma, analog fotoğraftan dijital fotoğrafa geçiş sürecini inceleyerek ve fotoğraf teknolojilerinin dönüşümünü göz önünde bulundurarak fotoğrafların mekânsal ve bağlamsal detaylarını daha iyi anlamayı amaçlıyor. Tez, bu ilişkiyi örneklendirmek adına Gregory Crewdson, Jeff Wall ve Thomas Struth’un fotoğraf çalışmalarına odaklanıyor.
Fotoğraf felsefesi, "Fotoğraf nedir?" sorusu başta olmak üzere 20. yüzyıldan bu yana fotoğrafın değerlerini sorgulayan bir dal olmuştur. Fotoğrafın teknolojilerini sorgulamak, mecrayı anlamak için önemli bir yöntemdir, çünkü yaratma eyleminin ve mecranın
16 7
sürecinin daha ayrıntılı bir analizine olanak tanır. Medyumdaki faillik tartışması, otomatik aygıtın "kullanıcısı" ile görüntünün "yaratıcısı" arasındaki farktan ortaya çıkarır ve fotoğrafın temsili yönünü sorgulamak için önemlidir.
Fotoğrafın doğuşundan bu yana, mucitler görüntü üretmenin çeşitli yollarını ortaya koymuş, fotoğrafçılık terimleri de buna bağlı olarak evrim geçirmiştir. Nicéphore Niépce tarafından icat edilen Heliografi, görüntü oluşturmak için güneş ışığını kullanan erken bir deneydir. Bu görüntü oluşturma süreci medyumdaki faillik eksikliğinin altını çizmekte ve fotoğrafın sanat dünyasındaki yerine ilişkin endişeleri arttırmaktadır. Fotoğrafın kabul edilen "yeniden üretim" yönü, özellikle de resim gibi temsili bir araçla karşılaştırıldığında, onun uygun bir sanat aracı olarak kabul edilmesini tartışmalı hale getirmiştir.
Fotoğraf felsefesi, resim ve fotoğraf arasındaki farkları tartışılırken mecranın yeniden üretilebilirliğine odaklanır. Resimde fırça, boya ve el kullanılırken, fotoğrafta kamera, lens ve göz kullanılır. Mekanik yeniden üretim süreci otomasyon ve özgünlük sorunlarını beraberinde getirirken, bir sanat eserinin aurası zaman ve mekândaki eşsiz varlığını kaybeder.
Dijital fotoğrafçılık, fotografik temsildeki faillik ve kontrol konularını daha karmaşık hale getirdiğinden, bir fotoğrafın üretiminde yer alan kasıtlılık resimden daha karmaşıktır. "İdeal resmin" konuya olduğu gibi yaklaştığını ve ressamın niyetlerinin resimde görülmesine izin verdiği savunulur. Buna karşılık, bir grup teorist "ideal” fotoğrafın bir şeyin görüntüsü ve fotoğrafçının müdahalesini incelemeyi imkansız kılan bir ürün olduğunu öne sürer. Sonuç
16 8
olarak, fotoğrafın temsili bir sanat değil, kasıtsız ve sıradan bir araç olduğu kabul edilir.
Diğer bir grup teorist tarafından ise fotoğraf makinesi ve fotoğrafçının konuya bakarken farklı şeyleri tasvir ettiği ve fotoğrafın temsili bir sanat olduğu çünkü bizimle dünya arasında bir araç olarak görev gördüğü savunulur. Resimlerin ressamın yorumu nedeniyle kasıtlı temsiller olduğunu, fotoğrafların ise kameranın dünyayı otomatik olarak yakalama süreci nedeniyle doğal temsiller olduğu öne sürülür. Gerçek öznenin algılanışı ile fotoğrafın algılanışı farklı şeylere işaret eder ki bu da fotoğrafın mekânsal bağlamı, gerçekçi görüntünün farklı mekânlarda sergilenmesine ve algılanmasına olanak tanıyarak gerçekçi temsilin hareketliliğini yaratır.
Zamanla olan ilişkisi de fotoğrafın kendine özgü bir yönüdür, çünkü belirli bir mekânı ve anı temsil eder. Anlık görüntü ve tasarlanmış görüntü arasındaki zaman ve mekan farkı medyumdaki failliğin farklı düzeylerde yansıtıldığı iki stil olarak görülebilir. Fotoğrafın dijitalleşmesi, fotoğrafçıların görüntüleri manipüle etmesini, özellikle de resim yapmaya benzer bir şekilde görüntüdeki eylemliliği temsil eden sahnelenmiş fotoğrafçılığı kolaylaştırmıştır ve faillik düzeyinin imaja daha çok aktarılmasını sağlamıştır. Görüntünün unsurları, özellikle de mizanseni, temsil edilecek bir fikir için dikkatle tasarlandığından, fotoğrafçının failliği güçlenir.
Anlaşılanın aksine, niyet ve faillik kavramları tamamen zıt değildir. Aygıtın otomatizmi ve fotoğrafçının failliği birbirine bağlıdır. Fotoğrafçının, özellikle belirli bir mizansenin üretiminde ve/veya üretim sonrası düzenleme sürecindeki müdahillik düzeyi, özellikle
16 9
analog muadiliyle karşılaştırıldığında, dijital fotoğraftaki faillik derecesini artırır.
Dijital fotoğraf ortamı plastik nitelikleriyle sanat alanına analog ile karşılaştırıldığında daha da yaklaştıkça, fotoğrafta nesnellik ve öznellik ile ilgili sorular ortaya çıkabilir. Bununla birlikte, görüntünün "doğruluğu" yalnızca belirli bir aygıtın kullanımına değil, aynı zamanda fotoğrafçının özellikle belirli bir mizansenin üretilmesi ve/veya post prodüksiyon düzenleme sürecine katılım düzeyine de bağlıdır. Post-prodüksiyonda dijital olarak sahnelenen fotoğrafın mekânsal bağlamı, analog formata kıyasla çok daha müdahil olunabildiği için fotoğrafçının failliğini yansıtmada önemli bir rol oynar. Bir görüntünün somutluğu, post-prodüksiyon aşamasından sonra sergi alanındaki ölçeği ve mekânsal bağlamı göz önünde bulundurulduğunda daha da artar ve bu nedenle maddesel olarak resim sanatına yaklaşır.
Fotoğraf, mimarların binalarını temsil etmelerine ve ortamdan ilham almalarına olanak tanıdığı için mimariyle uzun süredir devam eden bir ilişkiye sahiptir. Nicéphore Niépce tarafından 1826 yılında çekilen ve bilinen ilk fotoğraf olan görüntü, Niépce'in Saint-Loup-de-Varennes, Fransa'daki stüdyosundan mimari bir manzarayı tasvir etmektedir. Fotoğrafın bulunmasından itibaren, medyumun üç boyutlu bir mimari mekânı iki boyutlu bir nesneye dönüştürme yeteneği, fotoğraf ve mimarlık arasındaki ilişkinin önemli bir yönü olmuştur.
Fotoğrafın mimari üzerindeki etkisi başlıca yirminci yüzyıl modern mimarisi üzerinden tartışılmaktadır. Fotoğraf, mimari yapıların mekâna özgülüğünü dönüştürerek onları hareketli ve erişilebilir hale getirmiştir. Fotografik görüntünün düzlüğü, modernist
17 0
mimarların tasarım seçimlerini etkileyerek onları fotoğrafla iyi temsil edilen binalar tasarlamaya itmiştir.
Fotoğraf aracı sadece mimariyi yakalamakla kalmaz, aynı zamanda onu özel şekillerde içinde barındırır. Fotoğrafçı, bir görüntüyü yakaladığı andan sergilediği ana kadar çeşitli mekânsal bağlamlarla ilgilenir. Bu tez, görüntünün benzersiz bir ilişki kurduğu üç ana mekâna odaklanmaktadır: fotoğraf stüdyosu, görüntünün kendi içindeki mekânı ve müze/galeri mekânı. Çalışma, fotoğrafçı ile bu mekânlar arasındaki kasıtlı ya da otomatik ilişkileri sorgulamaktadır.
Bir görüntünün yaratılma süreci, genellikle cam bir yapı olan fotoğraf stüdyosu, üretim setinde başlar. Stüdyodan sonra post prodüksiyon sürecinde fotoğrafçı, üretim sürecinde tam olarak ulaşılamayan ancak görüntünün mizansenini etkilemeye devam eden "mükemmel tabloları" yaratmak için manipülasyon tekniklerini kullanır. Son olarak, görüntü maddeselliğini müze/galeri mekânında kazanır ve fotoğrafçı görüntü ile müze/galeri mekânı arasındaki iletişimi tasarlar. Bu çalışma, fotoğrafçının fotoğraf aygıtlarıyla bir mekânda imaj oluşturmaya ve sergilemeye çalışırken yarattığı mekansal bağlantıların izlerini sorgulamayı amaçlıyor.
Fotoğraf stüdyosu, bir resim stüdyosuna benzer şekilde, kullanılan aparatlara yer sağlar ve fotoğrafçıların çektikleri karenin tasarımını kontrol etmelerine olanak tanır. Bir laboratuvar, sahne ve sanat eseri işlevi görerek istenilen ortamı yaratmalarına olanak tanır. Teknoloji geliştikçe, fotoğrafçılar kapalı stüdyolardan doğal setlerde çalışma imkanı kazandı. Bu değişim mizansendeki niyetliliği ve görüntüdeki failliğin daha farklı analiz edilmesine yol açtı.
17 1
Fotoğrafçılık, dünyanın gerçek ve şeffaf bir temsilini yaratmaya yönelik uzun süredir devam eden bir arzu olmuştur; sanatçılar ve bilim insanları bir sahnenin gerçekliğini yansıtmanın yollarını icat etmeyi amaçlamıştır. Fotoğraf ve ışık arasındaki büyülü ilişki, kimyasal ve optik olmak üzere iki ana tarihsel buluşa dayanır. Kimyasal tarih öncesi, güneş ışığının belirli kimyasallar üzerindeki etkisinin keşfiyle ortaya çıkarken, optik tarih öncesi camera obscura'nın icadına kadar bin yıl geriye gider. Fotoğrafın tarihi, ışığın kimyasal ve optik ilkelerine odaklanan hem resmi hem de gayri resmi mucitleri ve icatları içerir. İlk fotoğraf en yaygın olarak 1826'da camera obscura kullanarak ilk kalıcı fotoğrafı yaratan Joseph-Nicéphore Niépce'e atfedilmiştir. Louis-Jaques-Mandé Daguerre ve Nicéphore Niépce ortaklığı, ışık ve kimyasallarla kalıcı bir görüntü yaratmaya odaklanmış, Niépce ilk fotoğrafı çekmiş ve Daguerre 1837'ye kadar süreci mükemmelleştirmiştir. Fotoğrafın kullanımı arttıkça, fotoğrafçıların çalışmak için özel bir alana olan ihtiyacı da artmıştır.
İlk fotoğraf stüdyoları 19. yüzyılda New York ve Londra'da ortaya çıktı ve öncelikle portre stüdyoları olarak hizmet verdi. Hava koşullarından etkilenmeden görüntü üretmek için cam yapılar kullanan bu stüdyolar, hızlı ve uygun fiyatlı portreler oluşturmak için popülerdi. Alexander S. Wolcott ve John Johnson tarafından icat edilen aynalı kamera, çalışma süresini kısalttı ve plakaya yansıyan ışığı en üst düzeye çıkardı. Yapay ışığın, film rulolarının, kompakt-mobil kameraların ve dijitalleşmenin devreye girmesi, fotoğrafçıların stüdyolarını sokaklara taşımasına imkan verdi. Kamusal yaşamı görsel olarak temsil etme arzusu resimle başladı ve fotoğrafçılık geliştikçe hızlı ve etkili bir opsiyon haline geldi. Fotoğraf makineleri daha hafif hale geldikçe foto muhabirliği ve sokak fotoğrafçılığı türü popülerlik kazandı.
17 2
Fotoğraf makinesi aksesuarları zaman içinde gelişti. Elde taşınan kameralar 1870-80'lerde Thomas Bolas ve William Schmid'in "dedektif kamerası" gibi icatları popüler hale geldi. Kodak fotoğraf makinesi ve film ruloları popülerdi, ancak Leica 35mm fotoğraf makinesi 1920'lerde sokak fotoğrafçılığı stiline öncülük etti. Dijital kameralar 20. yüzyılın sonlarında analog kameraların yerini aldı. Bu, dijital fotoğraf makinelerinin sokak fotoğrafçıları da dahil olmak üzere profesyonel kullanıcılar tarafından benimsenmesine yol açtı. Fotoğraf ve mekân arasındaki ilişki camera obscura'dan sokak fotoğrafçılığına evrilmiş, fotoğrafçılar yaşadıkları mekânı kontrol ederek sahneler tasarlamışlardır. Fotoğrafçıların sanatsal niyetlerini ve failliklerini anlamak, süreci ve son ürünü anlamak için çok önemlidir.
19.yüzyılda fotoğrafçılar, görüntülerinde bir mizansen yaratmakiçin sıradan anlık görüntüler ve kasıtlı olarak sahnelenmişgörüntüler oluşturmaya odaklandı. Stüdyoların mimari tasarımı,ışığı en üst düzeye çıkarmayı ve kamera önündeki özneyiaydınlatmayı amaçlıyordu. İlk stüdyolar, eğimli çatıları vemanipülasyon için yapay araçları olan cam ve demir yapılaradayanıyordu. Işık ve yapay araçlar için açık alanlar sağlayanstüdyolar, kameranın gerçekçi temsili ile fotoğrafçı tarafındanyaratılan kurgusal senaryolar arasında gerilim yaratıyordu. İlkfotografik portre stüdyosunda ışığı kontrol etmek için siyah beyazjaluziler ya da renkli camlar kullanılıyordu. Cam kafes stüdyosu, birkamera ve müşterinin oturması için bir sandalyeden oluşuyordu vemüşterinin başının hareket etmesini önlemek için sabitleyicilerbulunuyordu.
Antoine Claudet tarafından 1841'de tanıtılan arka planlı fotoğraf stüdyosu, portrelerde dış mekan atmosferlerini taklit etmek için
17 3
kullanıldı. Arka plan olarak boyalı setlerin kullanılması, portre resim geleneklerini taklit etme arzusunu yansıtmaktadır. Fotoğrafçılar, üretim alanında dramatik sahneler yaratmak için resme benzer fotografik tablolar oluşturuyorlardı. Sahnelenmiş bir görüntünün ilk örneği, Hippolyte Bayard'ın Autoportrait en noyé'sidir ve sanatçının sanatsal failliğini gösterir. Teknolojik gelişmeler ve analogdan dijitale geçişle birlikte fotoğrafçılar atmosferi değiştirmek ve daha dramatik tablolar yaratmak için daha fazla fırsat elde etti. Bu durum benzersiz bir fotografik "mizansen" oluşturulmasına ortam sağlayarak fotoğrafçının failliğini ve nihai ürünün kasıtlılığını arttırmıştır.
Sokak fotoğrafçılığı, mobil ve dijital aygıtlar kullanan fotoğrafçılar tarafından belli bir düzeye kadar kontrol edilebilen doğal bir set sağlar. Bazı fotoğrafçılar film yönetmenleri gibi hareket ederek kontrolsüz şehir alanlarında kontrollü sahneler yaratır. Bu doğal seti tasarlama süreci gündelik fotoğrafçılığa benzer, ancak kamusal yaşam, mobilyalar ve hava koşulları gibi dış faktörler çekim gününü etkiler. Kurgulanan mizansen görüntüye anlamını verir. Hem gündelik hem de kasıtlı temsil stratejileri görüntüye farklı anlamlar katar. Bir prodüksiyon setinde fotoğrafçının eylemi, "ressamca" ve "sinematografik" görüntüler yaratarak, bir resim stüdyosundaki ressamın eylemine daha yakın hale gelir.
Fotoğrafta üretim setine örnek olarak Gregory Crewdson, Amerikan banliyö yaşamının ev içi mekânlarına odaklanarak tasarlanmış ortamlarda anlatılar yaratan tanınmış bir fotoğrafçıdır. Çalışmaları bilinçli mekân, sahne ve oyuncu seçimini ve tabloların mizanseni üzerindeki kontrolünü içerir. Crewdson'ın fotoğrafları yerel ile gerçeğin, yapay ile tasarlanmış unsurların birleşimini yakalar. Görüntüleri, belgesel ve sinematografik fotoğrafçılığı
17 4
harmanlayarak yalnızlık, güzellik, hüzün, arzu ve endişe gibi zıt duyguları tasvir eder. Crewdson'ın tasarım süreci, Edward Hopper ve Raymond Carver gibi ressamlar ve Alfred Hitchcock, Steven Spielberg ve David Lynch gibi yönetmenlerden etkilenerek sahneleri ve kareleri hayal etmeyi içerir. Fotoğrafları, hem tanıdık hem de gizemli sahneleri yakalayarak izleyiciler için benzersiz ve büyüleyici bir deneyim yaratır.
Brief Encounters belgeselinde görüldüğü gibi Gregory Crewdson ve ekibi, Untitled (Biref Encounter) imajını oluşturmak için birtakım mekansal düzenlemeler yaparak caddeyi çekime hazırlamıştır. Kontrollü bir ortamda çekildiği için ışıklandırma en zorlayıcı unsur olmuştur. Crewdson ve ekibi doğal ışık, trafik ışıkları ve stüdyo ışıklarının mükemmel uyumunu bulmak zorunda kalmıştır. Restoranın iç tasarımı ve sokaktaki araba da dikkatle tasarlanmıştır. Crewdson bir yönetmen gibi hareket ederek oyunculara ipuçları vermiş ve görüntü için poz vermelerini sağlamıştır. Post prodüksiyon süreci Crewdson'ın mükemmel mizanseni yaratmak için görüntüleri manipüle etmesi ve kareleri yan yana getirmesiyle devam eder. Sergi mekânının mizanseni de Crewdson’ın failliğini temsil etmede önemli bir rol oynar. Belgesel, Crewdson'ın sergi mekânında izleyicinin deneyimini tasarlarken gösterir.
Fotoğraf, üretim süreci boyunca üç boyutlu bir dünyayı iki boyutlu bir nesneye dönüştürür. Kamera görüntünün "maddeliğini" ortadan kaldırdığı için görüntünün maddeselliği post-prodüksiyon sürecinde daha somut hale gelir. Post prodüksiyon sürecinde gerçek mekandan dijital mekana geçiş, fotoğrafın sanatsal yönü üzerindeki etkisi konusunda tartışmalara yol açmıştır. Dijital çağ, post prodüksiyon sürecine dahil olan maddeselliğin ortadan kalkmasına yol açarak medyumdaki otomatizm soruların artışına neden
17 5
olmuştur. Bununla birlikte, fotoğrafçının kontrolü dijital araçlarla artmata devam etmekte hatta "ressamca fotoğrafların" daha kusursuz bir şekilde yaratılmasına olanak sağlamaktadır.
Fotografik manipülasyon, bir fotoğraftaki ışık, renk ve kompozisyon gibi unsurların ayarlanmasını içerir. Post prodüksiyon süreci, fotoğrafçıların istedikleri tabloyu yaratmaları için çeşitli düzenleme teknikleri ve araçları sunar. Karanlık oda 19. yüzyılın sonlarında işlenmemiş imajı ışıktan korumak için gerekliydi. Karanlık bir atmosfer, uygun havalandırma, film kurutma için tozsuz bir ortam ve elektrik için yeterli alan gerektiriyordu. Post prodüksiyon süreci filmin yüklenmesi, filmin banyo edilmesi, filmin kurutulması, kontak baskı, kağıdın pozlanması, kağıdın banyo edilmesi, baskının kurutulması ve baskının sonlandırması gibi çeşitli adımları içerir. Film ve baskı işleme süreci kimyasal karıştırma, film işleme, baskı, sabitleme, kurutma ve montaj gibi süreçler içerir. Manipülasyonlar film banyo işlemi sırasında başlar. Baskı süreci, yakma, maskeleme ve kırpma gibi çeşitli manipülasyonlara olanak tanır. Karanlık oda, bir baskı ve işleme odası olarak zaman içinde gelişmiştir. Fotoğrafta ilk manipülasyonlar, dagerotiplerin elle renklendirilmesi ve foto-montaj teknikleri gibi karanlık oda süreçlerinden önce başlamıştır. Richard Beard 1842'de Daguerreotype'ları renklendirmenin patentini almıştır ve Antoine Francois Jean Claudet fotoğrafçılığın ilk günlerinde görüntülerde daha fazla derinlik ve uzamsal temsil yaratmak için elle renklendirme tekniklerini kullanmıştır. 1861 yılında James Clark Maxwell, üç siyah-beyaz asetat kullanarak ilk renkli görüntüyü üretmiştir. Johann Carl Enslen, 1839'da İsa ve meşe yaprağı görüntülerini birleştirerek bir nevi fotomontajı icat etmiştir. Adobe Photoshop 1988'de renk, ışık, boyut ve kompozisyonun dijital olarak manipüle edilmesini sağlayarak fotoğrafçıların negatifleri ve pozitifleri manipüle etmesini
17 6
kolaylaştırdı. Lighroom, Photoshop ve Camera Raw karanlık odanın dijital versiyonlarıdır ve fotoğrafçıların kırpma, hataları düzeltme ve kolajlar ve fotomontajlar oluşturmasında kolaylık tanır. Ancak dijital manipülasyonun kullanımı, nihai ürünün sanatsal değeri hakkında soru işaretleri doğurmaktadır. Analog karanlık oda ve dijital karanlık odada görüntü içinde bir mizansen yaratma sürecini analiz etmek, fotoğrafçının inşa edilen görüntü üzerindeki kontrolünü anlamak için çok önemlidir.
Post prodüksiyon süreci, kurgu alanında fotografik tabloları yeniden inşa etmek için manipülasyon tekniklerinin kullanılmasını içerir. Bu süreç, fotoğrafın nesnelliğine on dokuzuncu yüzyıldan itibaren meydan okumuştur. Manipüle edilmiş görüntülerin bilinen ilk örneklerinden biri Oscar G. Rejlander'in bir mizansen yaratmak için kombinasyon baskı tekniğini kullandığı "The Two Ways of Life" adlı çalışmasıdır. Manipüle edilmiş görüntülerdeki sanatsal failliğe ilişkin tartışmalara rağmen, erken dönem ticari fotoğraf stüdyolarının başarısının da gösterdiği gibi, halk bu görüntülerdeki kurgulanmış gerçeklikten keyif almıştır. Yirminci yüzyılda fotoğrafçılar sanatsal görüntüler oluşturmak için manipülasyon tekniklerini aşırı seviyelerde kullandılar ve mantıksal görsel tutarlılığa meydan okuyan kompozit görüntüler yaratarak fotoğrafın geleneksel beklentilerine meydan okudular. Alexander Rodchenko, Vladimir Tatlin, Marchel Duchamp, Hannah Höch ve Barbara Kruger gibi etkili sanatçılar, absürd tablolar oluşturmak için görüntülerinde kolaj ve fotomontaj kullandı. Yirminci yüzyılda karanlık oda teknikleri, fotoğrafçıların görüntülerinin mizansenini geliştirmelerine olanak tanıyarak geliştirme sürecinde çok önemli bir rol oynamıştır. 1980'lerde post prodüksiyon sürecinin dijitalleşmesi manipülasyonları daha kolay ve hızlı hale getirerek son ürünün daha kusursuz olmasını sağlamıştır. Bu durum fotoğraf ve resmi birleştiren yeni bir sanat ortamının doğmasına yol açmış, dijital
17 7
olarak manipüle edilen görüntüler anlık fotoğraf ile resimsel fotoğraf arasındaki farkı daha belirgin bir şekilde ortaya koymuştur. Bununla birlikte, fotoğrafın doğruluğu ve nesnelliği daha çok analog süreçlere atfedilirken, sahtelik ve öznellik dijital fotoğrafa atfedilmektedir. Fotoğraf makinesi ile post prodüksiyon süreci arasındaki ilişki karmaşık bir ilişkidir ve görüntüdeki doğruluk hala fotoğrafçının filtrelenmiş gerçekliği altında kalmaktadır.
Jeff Wall'un fotoğrafçılığı, Gregory Crewdson'ınki gibi, belgesel ve sinematografik tarzların bir karışımıdır. Wall'un işleri genellikle ikonik resimleri yeni ortamlarda yeniden canlandırır ya da bilinen mekânları yeniden değerlendirerek geleneksel varsayımlara meydan okur ve yeni anlamlar üretir. Wall'un mekânı ve zamanı kaydetme yaklaşımı anlık fotoğrafçılığı andırıyor, lakin doğalllık içindeki kurgulanmış ortam “belgesele yakın” bir görüntü çıkmasını sağlıyor. Bir örnek olarak Morning Cleaning imajı kontrollü bir ortamda sahnelense de çerçeve içerisinde kalan temizlikçinin hareketlerini serbest bırakarak ratlantısallığı da bu kurguyla harmanlamıştır. Görüntü, Mies van der Rohe ve Lily Reich tarafından tasarlanan Barselona'daki Alman pavyonunun açık planını, taşıyıcı olmayan cam ve mermer duvarlarını ve bir yansıma havuzunu gösteriyor. Wall'un pavyonu sabah güneşi altında çekmeye yönelik kasıtlı kararı, bu modern yapının bilinmeyen bir yüzü olan “temizlik” saatini göstererek fotoğrafa belgesel boyutunu katıyor. Wall, farklı pozlamalar yakalamak ve post prodüksiyonda görüntüleri yan yana getirmek için dijital manipülasyonu kullanıyor. Bu dijital post-prodüksiyon sürecinde mükemmel bir mizansen hazırladıktan sonra imgelerini büyük lightbox’larda sergileyerek sergi mekânında imgelerin maddeselliğini artırır.
17 8
Fotoğraf, başlangıçta otomatik mekanik bir medyum olarak görüldüğü için müzelerde ve sanat galerilerinde hak ettiği yeri bulmakta zorlanmıştır. Ancak devrim niteliğinde bir buluş olarak fotoğraf insanların dikkatini çekmiş ve müzedeki yerini ilk senelerinde kazanmıştır. Fotoğrafın, bilimsel bir araçtan bir sanat eseri olarak sergilenmesine kadar olan yolculuk farklı sergileme teknikleri kullanılmasına neden olmuştur. Çağdaş bir yaklaşım olan "ressamca fotoğrafçılık" ya da "sinematografik fotoğrafçılık” müze/galeri alanında bir resim kadar maddeselliiği yakalayan bir stil olmasından dolayı önceki sergileme stillerine kıyasla sergileme mekanıyla daha farklı bir ilişki kurar. Fotoğrafçının sergi alanında bir mizansen yaratmadaki rolünü sorgulamak için müzelerin ve fotoğraf sergilerinin tarihini incelemek gerekir.
Müzeler, somut ve somut olmayan mirası araştıran, toplayan, koruyan, yorumlayan ve sergileyen, kâr amacı gütmeyen kurumlardır. Etik, profesyonel ve toplum katılımıyla faaliyet göstererek çeşitliliği ve sürdürülebilirliği teşvik ederler. Müze kavramı M.Ö. üçüncü yüzyılda, Helenistik İskenderiye Müzesi'nin bir kültür merkezi haline gelmesiyle başlamıştır. Rönesans döneminde özel alanlardan kamusal alanlara geçiş yaşanmış; üniversiteler, akademiler ve dini mekânlar koleksiyonların sergilendiği alanlar haline gelmiştir. 18. yüzyılda koleksiyonların sergilenmesi için özel olarak tasarlanmış binalar geliştirilirken, 19. yüzyılda serbest ve esnek bir müze düzeni benimsenmiştir. 20. yüzyılda süslemeli tasarımlardan modern tasarımlara geçilmiş, eserler daha düşündürücü bir deneyim için soyut arka planlarla sergilenmiştir. New York'taki Modern Sanat Müzesi (MoMA), sadece resim, heykel, çizim değil; baskı, mimari tasarım, fotoğraf ve film eserlerine yer veren yirminci yüzyıl sergileme yaklaşımının önemli bir örneğidir. 1839 yılında Louis-Jacques-Mandé Daguerre,
17 9
kopyalanacağı ya da diğer mucitlere ilham vereceği korkusuyla baskıları sergilemeden fotoğrafın icadını duyurmuştur. 1834'ten beri fotojenik çizimler üzerinde çalışan William Henry Fox Talbot çalışmalarını Daguerre’den önce bir ünviersitenin kütüphanesinde sergilemiştir. Daguerre ve Talbot'a katılan üçüncü kişi olan Hippolyte Bayard ise fotoğrafçılığa farklı bir bakış açısıyla yaklaşmıştır. Bayard'ın kağıt üzerine camera obscura ile yapılmış fotojenik çizimleriyle katıldığı antik ve modern sanat eserlerinden oluşan açık artırmalı sergi, ona fotoğrafçılık tarihinde bir yer kazandırmıştır. 1851'deki Great Exhibition, 19. yüzyılın teknolojik başarılarının yanı sıra fotoğraf da sergilenmiştir ve İngiliz fotoğrafçılığı heykel ve gravür ile birlikte vitrine çıkarılmıştır. Henry Cole, Londra'da büyük ölçüde bilim ve uygulamalı sanatlara odaklanan yeni bir kültür merkezi tasarlamıştır ve fotoğraf bu arzuya en uygun araç olarak müzedeki yerini almıştır. Günümüzde Victoria ve Albert Müzesi olarak bilinen South Kensington Müzesi, 1857 yılında bir müzede düzenlenen ilk uluslararası fotoğraf sergisi olan bir sergiye ev sahipliği yapmıştır. Fotoğraf sergisi dünyasının önde gelen isimlerinden Alfred Stieglitz, 1905 yılında sanatçılar için bir buluşma noktası haline gelen 291 galeriyi kurmuştur. 1905'te düzenlenen The Little Galleries of the Photo-Secession sergisinde Photo-Secession üyelerinin fotoğrafları sergilenmiştir. 1929'da kurulan Deutscher Werkbund, Stuttgart'ta Film und Foto adlı uluslararası bir sergi düzenleyerek fotoğrafın bilimsel ve sanatsal niteliklerine odaklanmadan toplumun iletişim araçlarıdan bir parça olarak sergilenmiştir. Modern Sanat Müzesi (MoMA) 1929 yılında kuruldu ve o zamandan beri fotoğrafçılık için önemli bir merkez olmuştur MoMA'daki dört fotoğraf direktörü, fotoğrafı bir müze mekânında sergileme yaklaşımlarında farklılaşmışlardır. Beaumont Newhall, Edward Steichen, John Szarkowski ve Peter Galassi, müze
18 0
mekânlarında fotoğrafın mekânsal yönlerinin geliştirilmesine katkıda bulunmuştur.
Fotografik imge üretimi çeşitli aygıtlar ve teknikler içerir ve fotoğrafın maddeselliği sergileme sürecinde daha görünür hale gelir. Mecra geliştikçe, küratörler ve fotoğrafçılar sergi alanlarındaki mizanseni tasarlamaya başlamıştır. Alfred Stieglitz'in 291 isimli galerisi, soluk renkli kumaştan esinlenen beyaz duvarlarıyla fotoğrafın modernist temsillerini tanıtmıştı. Deutscher Werkbund tarafından düzenlenen 1929 Film und Foto sergisi, doğrusal düzeni ve tematik, teknik ve metodolojik yaklaşımıyla ilgi çekici ve kendinden sonrakileri etkileyen bir sergi olmuştu. Bu sergide, alanı verimli bir şekilde kullanmak için ince iskeleler tasarlanmış ve fotoğrafçılığa farklı yaklaşımları oda oda sergilenmişti. New York Modern Sanat Müzesi'nin dört yöneticisi, Beaumont Newhall, Edward Steichen, John Szarkowski ve Peter Galassi, sergileri için farklı anlatılar ve deneyim tarzları tasarlamıştı. 1936 yılında MoMA'da kütüphaneci olarak çalışan Beaumont Newhall, Photography 1839-1937 başlıklı bir serginin küratörlüğünü üstlenmişti. Sergide, fotoğraf yöntemlerinin ve görüntülerinin gelişimine odaklanmış ve dört kat boyunca 841 görüntü sergilenmişti. Sergi, teknolojik değişimleri gösteren aparatlarla didaktik bir tarzda tasarlanmıştı. 1942 yılında Edward Steichen, Herbert Bayer tarafından tasarlanan ve fotoğrafın işlevsel yönünü vurgulayan Road to Victory sergisini açtı. John Szarkowski ise bir tartışma ortamı yaratarak fotoğrafın estetik yönünü yeniden keşfetmeyi amaçlamıştı. 1967'de açılan New Documents sergisinde üç önemli belgesel fotoğrafçı, Diane Arbus, Lee Friedlander ve Gary Winogrand, konularını ve görüntülerini düşünceli bir tarzda sergilemişti. Peter Galassi, Szarkowski’den sonra 1991 ve 2011 arası fotoğraf bölümünün direktörü olarak sergiler düzenlemişti,
18 1
lakin 1974’ten itibaren küratör olarak MoMA’da çalışmıştı. Galassi'nin 1981'de düzenlediği Before Photography sergisi, fotoğrafın icadından yarım yüzyıl önce yapılmış resim ve desenleri fotoğraf ile birlikte sergilemişti. Galassi'nin fotoğrafa disiplinlerarası yaklaşımı MoMA'da daha çağdaş sergilerin düzenlenmesine yol açmıştı. 2001 yılında açtığı Andreas Gursky sergisi, Gursky'nin 1984'ten 2001'e kadar ürettiği büyük renkli fotoğraflarını sergilemişti. Serginin, fotoğrafçının da dahil olduğu mizansen tasarımı, izleyicinin "kendine mal etme ve yansıtma" şeklindeki "çatışmacı deneyimine" meydan okuyarak onu daha "alımlanan ve tüketilen" bir sürece dönüştürür. Sergi mekânlarındaki kasıtlı mizansen, fotoğrafçının üretim ve üretim sonrası süreçteki failliğini temsil ettiği için kült bir değere de sahip olabilir.
Fotoğraflar ve sergi mekânları arasındaki ilişki, fotoğrafçılıktaki dijital gelişmelerle birlikte evrim geçirdi. Bir ressamlık öğrencisi olan Thomas Struth, yeni bir mizansen yaratmak için görüntülerin bağlamsal ve metinsel yönlerini birleştirmiştir. Struth'un benzersiz bir çalışması olan Museum Photographs serisi, müze mekânları, sanat eseri ve izleyici arasındaki etkileşime odaklanıyor. Struth'un failliği, yoğun görsel ve maddi etkileşimleri yakalayarak ideal tablonun yaratılmasında kendini gösteriyor. Görüntüler, geçmiş ve bugün arasındaki ilişkiyi yansıtan bir aynalı pencere olarak okunabilir. Museum Photographs 2 serisindeki Pergamon Museum 1 imajında Struth, Pergamon Müzesi'nde ziyaretçiler ve eserler arasındaki etkileşime odaklanıyor. Struth, Wall'un belgesele yakın yaklaşımını anımsatırcasına, mekânsal bağlama müdahale etmeden sahnenin koreografisini tasarlamıştır. Bu serideki fotoğrafların bir sergi mekânında büyük ölçekte sergilenmesi, mizansenin belirli ayrıntılarını ortaya çıkararak izleyiciyi benzer sahnelenmiş unsurları görmek için diğer görüntüleri analiz etmeye sevk eder. Müze
18 2
mekânı ile sergi mekânı arasındaki anakronik ilişki, bir mekânın temsili ile bir mekânın deneyiminin karmaşık bir şekilde üst üste bindirilmesine yol açar.
Bu tez, fotoğrafta otomatizm, faillik ve niyetlilik tartışmalarını, üretim, metin ve sergileme alanlarını analiz ederek incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Analogdan dijitale geçiş sürecinde mimari tasarımların dönüşümünü ve fotoğrafçıların bu mekânlardaki mizansen kontrolü incelenmiştir. Bu çalışma, mükemmel tablolarını üretmek ve bunları tasarlanmış bir fotografik sergileme tarzıyla sergilemek için yakın çalışan üç fotoğrafçıyı, Gregory Crewdson, Jeff Wall ve Thomas Struth'u tanıtmıştır. Çalışma, fotoğrafçıların konu, mekân, sahne, oyuncu ve ışık seçimi gibi üretim seti üzerindeki kontrollerinin, niyetlerinin görüntüye aktarımını etkilediğini ortaya koymuştur. Görüntüdeki fotografik alanda, görüntü metnini manipüle etmek için analog ve dijital karanlık odaların kullanımlarını incelemiştir. Bu ileri geri süreç, fotoğrafçıların üretim süreçlerini ve üretim sonrası eylemlerini kontrol etmelerine olanak tanıyarak benzersiz ve karmaşık görsel temsiller ortaya çıkarır. Fotoğraf sergilerinin ve mizansenlerinin tarihi, fotoğrafçıların ve küratörlerin farklı stratejiler benimsemesiyle zaman içinde gelişmiştir. Gregory Crewdson, Jeff Wall ve Thomas Struth, fotoğrafta nedensellik, niyetlilik, analog-dijital ve faillik-otomatizm arasındaki gerilim tartışmalarına katkıda bulunur. Setlerin, metinlerin ve sergi alanlarının mizansenlerini farklı derecelerde kontrol ederler ve karşılıklı her aşamada kararları etkilerler. Fotoğrafçıların failliği set ortamında başlar ve sergi mekânına kadar devam ederek bütünlüklü bir anlatı oluşturur. Fotoğraf setlerinin, metinlerin ve sergi mekânlarının tarihçelerini analiz etmek, bu mekânları ve fotoğrafçılar tarafından üretilen anlatıyı incelemek için bir çerçeve sağlayabilir.
18 3