OCA preloader logo
Seduced? - The Open College of the Arts

To find out more details about the transfer to The Open University see A New Chapter for OCA.

Seduced? thumb

Seduced?

What makes a good study visit? This is a question which has been to the forefront of our minds this year as our programme has expanded and the number of students attending has increased. One thought that is that you do not necessarily need a good exhibition to support a good study visit. And I think that Friday’s visit to the National Gallery’s Seduced by Art exhibition reinforced this for me.
Now I don’t want to exaggerate. I do think the exhibition is worth visiting. It is just that the exhibition fails to deliver against expectations. When a major institution like the National Gallery turns its attention to the relationship between art and photography, I think we are entitled to expect an exhibition which is both comprehensive and intellectually challenging. What the Gallery has delivered is an exhibition which, in my opinion, tries to do too much and doesn’t go far enough. I am not sure it was necessary to try to explore both the relationship between Western Art and early photography and the relationship between the art canon and contemporary photography. Restricting the remit to just to the latter objective would have freed up gallery space to enable a more in-depth consideration. The gaps were glaring – amongst the internationally established photographers – no Cindy Sherman, no Elina Brotherus – and then there was the opportunity to bring newer names to our attention such as Victoria Hall.
So enough carping. What did work was the breathless and erudite gallop through the territory arranged by the gallery by Aliki Braine, which set a framework for discussion as we went round the exhibition and the time to concentrate on just a few works which have to be seen on the wall to be fully appreciated. Indeed one of the most interesting and unexpected angles for me was the way the exhibition prompted you to think about materiality – how in world awash with digital still images, practitioners are seeking to produce either physically unique objects such as Richard Learoyd’s Ilfochrome prints or works which slow you down and demand your time such Ori Gerhst’s unbearable video Big Bang – essentially a still photograph you know is going to explode but still flinch when it does (here in part)
Finally what is art photography if not the sum of a series of choices. A point made very amusingly by Masie Broadhead in her Ode to Hill and Adamson which I believe was commissioned for the exhibition.

Original image here.
 


Posted by author: Genevieve Sioka

31 thoughts on “Seduced?

  • I agree Gareth that it attempted to cover too much and in doing so, fell short. But having said that, I did enjoy it as a sort of ‘Cooks’ tour—if that makes sense. I think you may have gathered from what I said on Friday, that this relationship between ‘traditional’ art and contemporary photography is fast becoming a major interest of mine—and a way I think I see my work going at some stage.
    There were gaps as you have mentioned—I would have loved to have seen a couple by Joel-Peter Witkin—who was brought to my attention by a discussion on the OCA forum.
    But it was an enjoyable visit; good networking—and the inclusion of the lecture by Braine really useful for setting the scene. I’m off now to have a look at Victoria Hall!

  • I have to say that the Broadhead video is brilliant. It touches on so many of the concerns of art today and makes a serious comment in a witty, light-hearted way. Too often we are so po-faced when we try to make a serious point.

  • I enjoyed the visit very much as well and the talk by Aliki Braine sent me off with a good contextual foundation. As before I was also reminded how different it can be to see the actual photographs. There was Luc Delahaye of course but another example was Bettina von Zwhel’s ‘miniatures http://www.bettinavonzwehl.com/main.html‘. In the Exhibition catalogue/book they look more flat, with detail lost in the shadow, whereas in the gallery they glowed exquisitely in their glass cabinet.
    Thanks Gareth and Sharon

  • In my view, this exhibition was a rather one-sided view of the photography-painting debate and what is often regarded as the photography-art debate.
    While it was admitted that Delacroix used photographs to make some of his paintings, the exhibition was more concerned with the “debt” photography owed to painting. Painting would not be where it is today without photography if only because of the extent to which painters rely on photography for the marketing and sale of their work.
    The relationship between painting and photography is not as straight forward as this exhibition suggests (painters for instance adopted the approach of “cutting people in half” as the photographic frame sometimes does) and there was a feeling that the National Gallery was looking down it’s nose a little at “The Lesser Art”
    Am still writing my blog. There was so much to take in!!
    Thanks to the OCA for a stimulating visit; Aliki Braine’s introduction really helped to develop an understanding of the exhibition that transcended the opinionated views of journalists. Just wish we could have spent more time discussing what was on show!

    • It may be that the National Gallery are looking down their noses- I don’t know. The tables turned a while ago, though, and I think it is contemporary painting that is seen as the poor cousin of photography. Most contemporary art shows heavily feature photography in some form or other. I, for one, am looking forward to the day when the balance is seen as redressed so that painters and photographers can get on with their business without feeling superior/ inferior.

  • Too far away to participate to the study visits, I enjoy reading their accounts on the We Are OCA and Student’s blog… Thank you for posting this video which is very inspiring. I am working on this idea lately, and trying to translate it in photography, that sometimes seeing the strings and the virtuoso body movements of the “puppet-master” is something that can be as appealing and magical as seeing the “puppet” alone. This video illustrates very well this reflection…
    Thanks!

  • In a recently broadcast seminar on modern photography (I’ll try and find the link) Simon Baker suggests that the position of curator of photography at the Tate is in direct response to the value of photographs increasing – see this article by O’Hagan. I had previously wondered whether this ‘Seduction’ exhibition was in some way a nod to the Tate, and at last the commodification of art was respectable enough to elevate it to the National. It’s just about the money.
    That said there was plenty to inspire conversation, the first three hangings, Delacroix’s “The Death of Sardanapale” next to Jeff Wall’s “The Destroyed Room” and the Tom Hunter’s Death of Coltelli”. I wondered if it made any difference whether Jeff Wall was quoting Delacroix or Byron and why Hunter wanted to be so specific on the bare-chested girl which is a direct reference to the painting, when there were so many other details to draw from. Who was Coltelli – anyone know?
    I thought that there was a deal of contrivance in the way in which some the pieces were associated, particularly in the landscape section and a particular strength of evidence from the beginnings of photography, Cameron, Rejlander and Fenton that wasn’t needed in such abundance.
    Two things stand out for me, Helen Chadwick’s works “One Flesh’ and “Ruin”, both speaking of the cycle of mortality and life, another journey of discovery for me to embark on. The other was during the opening lecture when Braine, discussing the various genre’s at breakneck speed, gave us some thoughts on portraiture; Gainsborough’s “Mr and Mrs Andrews” that staple fodder on discussions of portraiture, the wealth of whom is spread across two thirds of the painting, before mentioning that the development of photography offered cheap portraits, cue next picture that of Martin Parr’s “Signs of the times, England 1991.”, now what should we connate by that association?
    I have to say that this study visit was well worth the time, the prints exhibited provided plenty of discussion points for me inside the gallery and plenty more to consider post the event. Thanks to Gareth and Sharon for organising.

    • RE your comments John …
      “discussing the various genre’s at breakneck speed” … yes, she hardly drew breath !!
      “next picture that of Martin Parr’s “Signs of the times, England 1991.” Braine mentioned the “upper middle class couple” but I wonder how she drew that conclusion – the staircase of the house lead out of the sitting room, there was no garden bar a rough lawn bordered by a wooden fence – I do not think these people looked very well off at all – hence what exactly was the relationship between Parr’s photo and the Gainsborough !??

      • Our first house, 1 Oakham Close was very similar to Parr’s depiction, but as I’ve never been accused of “upper” anything I also wondered about that.

        • perhaps another reminder of the way it is all too easy to project onto photographs what happens to be stirring in the unconscious … it was the only point where the speaker seemed to overstep the mark !?

  • Well I suppose I ought to offer some contribution! A lot of what has already been said is apt. However I feel a bit sorry for the National Gallery. At least they had some good contemporary photographers whose work IS in the fine art realm. They could have gone down the very illustrative /pictorial route or only those that replicated their precious paintings, but I think in some places they took a bold step. Remembering that it’s not Tate or MoMA we are talking about, I do think it is a (very tiny) step in the right direction. I personally tried to ignore all the frustrating limitations of photography and enjoyed seeing some of my favourite artist’s work lauded in the National Gallery for it’s own sake not for the sake of the painting it was (sometimes tenuously) linked to. One thing I thought was very much lacking was discussion around the content of the actual pictures, not just the content of the paintings. For example I am pretty sure Jeff Wall’s work goes beyond the connection to Delacroix and operates more as a sign of our times than the gallery were willing to suggest. However, I think Aliki did a fine job in presenting the case for photography and hopefully these talks and the public’s openness to photography will come on leaps and bounds as a result. I do hope they start collecting photography though and come and join us in the 21st Century.

  • Couldn’t attend the study visit, but actually went to the exhibition the day before. My detailed reactions are on my blog, but in essence I agree with Amano.
    Overall the exhibition seemed to be trying too hard to prove photography’s debt to the old masters and in doing so was , perhaps deliberately, disingenuous. Dijkstra has stated that the resemblance of her teenager image was a post-hoc rationalisation, and Delahaye specifically stated that there was no specific reference in his work. The inclusion of this last comment in the wall notes struck me as particularly incongruous – it felt like a “he would say that wouldn’t he?” sort of sneer.
    As I said on my blog, the tone of many of the photos, at least, was to lead us to question anything presented to us as the truth, and the premise of this exhibition is a clear case in point.

  • What Sewell’s article highlights for me is what , in my opinion, is the exhibiton’s main failing: it is foregrounding for us the Euro-centric nature of NG’s values. The National Gallery somehow cannot relate to anything outside its Euro-centric canon of fine art. It only wants to show how dependent on fine art photography is and that it can only make its entrance into the world of art by grovelling in through the floor below the basement: an upstairs/downstairs comparative rationale. I agree with Gareth – where are the new kids on the photographic block? Even the old ones must have been exposed to eastern or even middle eastern influences? Where are the eastern/middle eastern photographers? Does their (photographic) language get in the way? Go to the V&A & see their exhibition “Light from the middle east – new photography” where, ironically, there is a newspaper covered reclining-in-18thC-European-art-fashion nude self-portrait of 2003 by Raeda Saadeh entitled “Who will make me real?” – with any sensuality implied by the pose, obliterated by the harsh Palestinian reality reported in the newspaper. I find it really sad how fossilised Sewell’s views on art and education are given his standing in art history. To be charitable, I suppose he was trying to stir up a debate and publicity for photography – it has certainly provoked fiery responses in favour of photography!

  • In a bid to bring some happiness into this discussion I just had the following comments sent to me by one of my students. It’s her first study visit and I’m very pleased she found it a good experience.
    “I gained a great deal from Friday, the show was amazing and I really enjoyed listening to a real life art historian talk. It was great, left me wanting more for sure.
    I discovered more great photographers and it was fascinating exploring the connections between the old master painters and some of the photographers works. I left really wanting to know about the dye transfer process and indeed about other photographic processes. I loved the Evelyn Hofer picture and the timbre/tone of the image.
    My next project in the course is to photograph a still life so I was paying particular attention to how these great photographers were doing it. I like the concept of referring to other art in pictures. Not sure I know enough to try it myself but it’s something that interests me a lot.
    I feel I’m really discovering what I like and what themes Im attracted to, which will perhaps then lead onto influencing what I then photograph and how. ” Jasmina.
    Phew!

    • And to concur with Jasmina, I found it a very enjoyable and beneficial study day – one of the best I have been on. That I questioned the curation of the exhibition took nothing away from the benefit of the conversation and thoughts engendered. Thanks again Sharon and Gareth!

  • I found the study day valuable and enjoyable but feel the need to be objective.
    For instance, there was no mention of the use of the camera obscura by painters such as Caravaggio since this seems to be a bone of contention in the fine art world of painting.
    I have already thanked the OCA!

  • Dear Sharon, Jasmina and John, this post is titled “Seduced?” Since the exhibition was entitled “Seduced by art”, I understood the question in “Seduced?” to imply ‘by art’. OCA being the institution that it is, draws people of all ages & who have had a wide range of experiences. Simply because we criticise the event does not mean that our experiences or our contributions to the thread were negative. I thought that by adding my experience of British art institutions being Euro-centric, I was bringing a different angle to the discussion. I was questioning received wisdom & personally would rather tear down monuments than worship at their feet. This does not mean that I was not grateful for the study day or that I did not find it thought-provoking. I love the discoveries and the questioning!

  • I often side with Brian Sewell’s opinions based on his understanding of “art”, and I’m at worst neutral in agreeing with his opinion of the exhibition. Currently “art” is for me something that I can’t explain but I can recognise, at least my understanding of the term. There are as many paintings as photographs that don’t strike me as “art”, but when something calls to something in me that I also don’t understand or control, let’s call it my “soul”, then that deserves the label of “art”.
    I wasn’t able to attend the study day because it was on a working weekday so I went during the Christmas period accompanied by daughter and son, who had their own different opinions. I’ll write it up on my blog, but there was definitely “art” in my understanding, on show, both in paintings and in photographs. There were also several exhibits where I had to think “is this a photo or a painting?” before checking the date and the blurb alongside, and there was a lot of stuff that was just a record of just how things were in those days, yawn..
    No matter what Sewell thinks,an exploding still life is much more interesting than a bunch of old flowers with a two hundred pigs-arse hair bristle strokes per inch.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

> Next Post Can't make up my mind…

< Previous Post Lacock Study Visit

Back to blog listings