Mavericks of Color Photography at Philly Museum of Art
It is strange how long it took color photography to come into its own. Now that the photography world is awash in color prints of one kind or another, it's difficult to conceive a time when color was strictly equated with tourist photos and crass commercialism. Actually, that hasn't changed. But art photography now is a strictly color business, and the Philidelphia Museum of Art has ransacked its collection to show some prime examples of the medium's pioneers.
Apples, Great Spruce Head Island, Maine, 1942 by Eliot Porter
In some ways it almost seems that William Eggleston single handedly brought respectability to color. This show rectifies that misconception with its inclusion of even earlier pioneers Eliot Porter and William Christenberry. Porter started his work with nature photography in the 40s and stands out from this crew as more of a technician, objectively cataloging birds and plants but pushing the limits of both his color film and flash technology. The others combined the vivid psuedo realism of color with a focus on the vernacular and the Bruegel-esque everyday - both unwelcome in an art world more concerned with art as a concept than a tangible thing.
Through Nov. 27 at Philadelphia Museum of Art
"But art photography now is a strictly color business"...
Are you being literal here? I'd surely hope not, but I assume you're just generalizing.
Yes, an overgeneralization. Perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully and said "an overwhelmingly color business." Yes, B&W art work is still being done (you're a living example) but it isn't given the same attention it once was. While we see prominent b&w shows from time to time, color appears to have gained the upper hand, at least for now.
Ah, I see. I wonder if that's just regionally, though. Granted, Texas isn't the cultural center of the US or anything, but it seems a large number of shows I've come across haven't been more predominantly color (or, I suppose, black and white, for that matter). At least not enough to make it seem like that was the case. But it seems trends make their way from the East and West to the center eventually, and it might just be a sign of things to come.
This site is an excellent read, btw. Thanks.
You don't think that the work of Eliot Porter & William Christenberry required the work of William Eggleston (or someone like him) to assume importance? I've seen the other early color work before, and I still think that color was brought to respectability with William Eggleston. Those other guys were just not that great. No?
Honestly, I'd have to a bit more research on Eggleston to answer that question. In general, I'm skeptical about assigning breakthroughs to individuals since its always difficult to see who influenced them and whose shoulders they're standing on.
When I was looking into Porter and Christenberry, I had the same response as you. Basically, "eh." But that's my reaction to a lot of work that's laying the ground for later exploitation. And I think its hard to put ourselves back in the mindset of what it was like when early photographers were exploring how to use color. Since I work in the Web biz, the best I can compare it to is looking back on Web sites built in '95 and '96. By current explectations, they suck, even though at the time I was constantly impressed by new stuff getting put up on the Web. It's so hard to recapture the sense of wonder.