Introduction

1.1 Background Information

The term “straight photography” was coined by critic Sadakichi Hartmann in the magazine Camera Work in 1904. At the time, photographers tried to solve the problem that if photographs are objective rendering of what the camera sees, the photographer is merely a machine operator, not an artist (Marien, 2012). In the nineteenth century, to many art critics, photography “seemed to be an automatic process geared toward such strict verisimilitude that it eliminated the artist's role as creator and interpreter” (Marien, 2012). Waves of negative criticism provoked responses about how to create the aesthetics of photography. In the late nineteenth century, pictorialism emerged, as the first international photography movement. Pictorial photographs aimed to be “poetic, expressive, related to, and, in some cases derived from, the traditional arts in matters of content and meaning” (Bunnell, 1992). Characterized by blurry, out-of-focus styles (since some suggested that faulty images are more artful and suggestive than defining) and often making private life and landscape its subject, pictorialism involved labor-intensive craft, with lots of manipulation needed. With this practice, photography was gradually claimed the status of high art. 

However, critics soon began to suspect that the medium sold its soul for acceptance (Marien, 2012). Among them, Hartmann proposed that what distinguished photography from other art media was photography’s special relationship with reality. Any art media that consciously or unconsciously imitates other art media denies its own value as an art form. Straight aesthetic soon flourished, thanks to photographers including Paul Strand and Edward Weston. Their photographs featured sharp focus and rich tonality, embracing photography’s generic graphic qualities. 

What was more important with this transformation was that photography progressed from insular to supple and alert to variation (Galassi, 1995). For example, the tightly framed detail in Weston’s photographs gave way to the broad vista: natural landscapes became populated with telephones and automobiles. This trend continued to advance American modern photography, which fully blossomed in undisciplined vernacular subjects in the photographs of Walker Evans, Robert Frank, Stephen Shore, Robert Adams, etc. It is important to realize that “the photograph-as-a-work-of-art could look exactly like any other photograph -- and it could show us anything, from a torn movie poster to a graveyard overlooking a steel mill” (Galassi, 1995). 

When paring up a pictorial photograph of Edward Steichen in 1904 with a photograph of William Eggleston around 1971, it might be noted that the former one is injected with noticeable efforts and careful manipulation of the artist while the latter one seems merely a snapshot of his surroundings.        

Even the curator of William Eggleston’s exhibition John Szarkowski expressed that “It could be said--it doubtless has been said--that such pictures often bear a clear resemblance to the Kodachrome slides of the ubiquitous amateur next door” (Szarkowski, 1976). Certainly, when photography swept away the barrier that encircled modernist photography’s privileged subjects and broke free from the “superficial rhetoric of a particular style” (Galassi, 1995), a photograph can depict anything. It is a generosity that propelled modern photography. Szarkowski clarified that “The difference between the two is a matter of intelligence, imagination, intensity, precision, and coherence.” These are reflected in the photographer’s decision of where to point the camera, where to put the frames, and when to release the shutter (Szarkowski, 2007). 

It is interesting that the contemporary art world seems to be bothered by a similar question. People doubt that photographs made by “snapping surroundings” is too simple to be called art (Graham, 2010). Photographers like Cindy Sherman, Jeff Wall, and Thomas Demand are very much the exemplar of contemporary photography, greatly welcomed by galleries and museums. They weave subtle designs, carefully constructed scenes, and profound meanings into their works, communicating a lucid idea. Thomas Demand constructs his elaborate sculptural creations over many weeks before photographing them; Cindy Sherman develops, acts, and performs in her self-portraits (Graham, 2010). On the contrary, the creative process of “straight photography” seems just the process of pressing a shutter (Here, “straight photography” is more to describe photographs taken from the real world than to refer to its original meaning used by Hartmann). 

1.2 Significance and Summary of Project Research   

The goal of the research is to discuss whether “straight photography” in the contemporary art world is still relevant or, specifically, whether photographs taken from the real world are already outdated or worth further advancement. If photographs taken from the real world are marginalized in art galleries in favor of constructed photography like Jeff Wall and Cindy Sherman, is this partiality reasonable? And most importantly, this paper would investigate the question of how to describe the nature of the photographic creativity of “straight photography”. 

The significance of this paper is much about the photographers who still use “straight photography” in the cacophonous present. The neglect of “straight photography” narrows their options, deprives the public of great works, and denies the artists self-confidence that enables them to grow. Essentially, is to prevent people from seeing the visual art in narrow terms, a real issue that can be solved.

Partiality for constructed photographs and the reasons for it

“The position of photography from the world in the twenty-first century has changed,” English photographer Paul Graham wrote in the 2021 photography exhibition But Still, It Turns. “Photography from the world” he referred to here is “straight photography”. By saying that the position of “straight photography” has changed, he means that the art world nowadays prefers conceptual and constructed photography to photographs from the world. Graham openly criticized this problem, “there remains a sizeable part of the art world that simply does not get photography.” He said that the mainstream “gets artists who use photography to illustrate their ideas, installations, performances and concepts, who ‘deploy’ the medium as one of a range of artistic strategies to complete their work.”  The artists Graham indicated are namely Cindy Sherman, Jeff Wall, and Thomas Demand. As for the reasons for this partiality, Graham believes that in each case the handiwork of the artist is apparent: something was synthesized, staged, constructed, or performed. Consequently, the dealer can explain the creative processes to the client, the curator to the public, the art writer to their readers, etc. In contrast, the creative processes of photographs from the world are often misunderstood. Oftentimes, they are reduced to snapping surroundings. Yet as Graham pointed out, great photography often retains a simplicity and casualness about it that defies analysis or serious consideration.

Why successful “straight photography” seems so casual 

W. B. Yeats wrote in his poem:

“ I said, ‘A line will take us hours maybe; 

Yet if it does not seem a moment’s thought, 

our stitching and unstitching has been naught.”

(Yeats, 1957) 
He meant that it might take hours to write a single line of verse, but if the result doesn't seem totally spontaneous, all the drafting and erasing that went into it will amount to nothing. The same is true for photography. Walking back and forth, taking a few steps and peers, a photographer surveys an infinite number of angles and positions to get to an effective composition (Adams, 1977). The effective composition here is actually indicating the right relationship between all the shapes and lines: all components working together. It implies an order beyond itself when all imperfect fragments fit peacefully together. This scheme perfectly explains the photographs of William Eggelston, since often in photography, form and subject are defined simultaneously. If there is any difference between the two, a photograph's subject is not its starting point but its destination. In order to reach formal legitimacy and establish order, a photograph can work with any legitimate subject at hand, so subject matter sometimes ends up being something the photographer doesn’t initially select. It bears mentioning that this marks a difference “straight photography” has with other medium. For example, painters can freely dispose subjects, but “straight photographer” works within the possibilities the medium provides him (Szarkowski, 1976). And, unsurprisingly, Eggleston’s photographs turn out to be similar to any photograph taken by an amateur, perfectly casual. As said before, the difference between the two is a matter of intelligence, imagination, intensity, precision, and coherence. Specifically, Eggleston doesn’t focus on subjects matter, like water falls, sunsets, or rainbows, as most people do. Instead, he seeks formal coherence that is reached by careful decisions.

Indeed, this is an example of a revolutionary achievement of photography in the late twentieth century. It cannot be generalized to any “straight photographer.” Still, it perfectly illustrates how a photograph may seem casual but actually was reached through labor. Yeats also wrote: 

“For to articulate sweet sounds together

Is to work harder than all these, and yet

Be thought an idler by the noisy set

Of bankers, schoolmasters, and clergymen

The martyrs call the world.”

(Yeats, 1957)

Perhaps this speaks to the “straight photographers” who are misunderstood. They are called “idlers” , “snapshotters of environment” by the public, while they work hard to create beauty.   

Future development of straight photography

So, if “straight photography” is by no means inferior or outdated, what are the hope and future opportunities of this photography. Back in the twentieth century, many talented photographers worked for magazines and news journals. Often, their photographs are interpreted and thus limited by the news stories or other narratives. Using stories to explain what happens helps people to understand the world, since the reality is too confusing and ambiguous. However, if people use these narratives to interpret great photographs, which might seem lack of a definite meaning and appear casual, people extinguish the magic of those photographs, since they could have be interpreted in many different ways. Eventually, great self-evident photographic works become mere illustrations of news stories. 

Now, forums like magazines and periodicals have largely shrunk or shattered. Lost was not only a source of income and support but also the constraint: images are no longer bound by editorialized stories and narrative arcs. 

What do “straight photography” have that can replace narratives. Graham alluded to Olga Tokarcuk’s novel Flights: the author suggests that “constellation, not sequencing, carries truth.” It means that our real lives are like constellations or scattered clues, distributed, cannot be represented by one continuing story. Essentially, stories do not exist, and the world depicted in stories is not the real world. Therefore, “straight photography” strives to make the viewer feel the truthful life through scattered places and lives, concrete facts and random chance. In this way, people can better understand that our lives cannot be perfectly explained by stories people made up, and through these ambiguous and open-ended photographs, questions and puzzles left by the photographs viewers can better understand their lives and may create their own narratives.  

Conclusion

The art world’s partiality toward constructed and staged imagery is unreasonable at least according to Paul Graham and John Szarkowski. Graham criticized the phenomenon that curators and editors favored artworks with explicit creative processes and overlook “straight photography.” Graham pointed out the value of the photograph from the world and lighted the way for future development (Graham, 2010). Szarkowski’s explanation of the photographs of William Eggleston made us aware of the beauty of banal and how the unique characteristic of “straight photography” makes wonderful photographs look like casual snapshots (Szarkowski, 1976). 

The future of “straight photography” is gradually brightened, as great photographers contribute their works and more curators realize the magic of photography. Nowadays, our best photography artists are no longer bound by magazines and news journals. Instead, they put their ideas and insights into photo books. These readings may not carry social responsibilities or tell news stories like magazines and newspapers. Through this form of presenting the photographer’s ideas, “straight photography” may incite more imagination and allow freer interpretation. Exemplary works like ZZYZX by Gregory Halpern and A Shimmer of Possibility by Paul Graham are lighthouses to promising young photographers.  

The forms artists used to carry their idea is getting more and more diverse and imaginative in the contemporary world. However, we should not look down upon any art medium. Even if the medium is starting to disappoint people, there is still potential for revival and people need reflection. Paul Graham and many other photographers revived “straight photography”, proposed new possibilities to this medium, and suggested the reflection we should do. 

Reference

Marien, M. W. (2012). 100 ideas that changed photography. London: Laurence King.

Galassi, P., & Galassi, P. (1995). Two stories. American photography 1890-1965.

Eggleston, W., & Szarkowski, J. (1976). William Eggleston's guide. Museum of Modern Art.

Szarkowski, J. (2007). The photographer's eye. Museum of Modern Art.

Graham, P. (2010). The unreasonable apple. MoMA Photography Forum

Chéroux, C. (2021, March 29). What is the future of photography at moma? Aperture. 

Steichen, E. (1904). Moonrise—Mamaroneck, New York. photograph.

Eggleston, W. (1971). Tallahatchie County, Mississippi. photograph.  

Bunnell, P. C. (1992). Pictorial photography. Record of the Art Museum, Princeton University, 51(2), 11-2.

Yeats, W. B. (1957). Adam's curse. The Variorum Edition of the Poems of WB Yeats. Ed. Peter Allt and Russell K. Alspach. New York: Macmillan, 204-206.

Adams, R. (1977). denver: a Photographic Survey of the Metropolitan Area. Colorado Associated University Press.

Wow, what a wonderful, well researched article. I will have to think about the points that you have made. I am not sure that I agree with all of them but they are well presented and valid. I interpret your theme as a question that I struggle with about what is photograpic "art". I started to take up photography after retirement about 5 years ago so I am relatively new to "photography". I think I still look at photographs as I did before a more serious attempt at being artistic.

I suspect that many photographers view photo images differently from the general populace which might affect how different photographic genres are interpreted by the arbiters of photography, whoever they are. I was wowed by Ansel Adams when I first saw his work but all the photographic re-makes don't do much for me and I don't try to emulate that form. I tend to favor uniqueness of the image and the message or impact but I can't predict if those images will be thought of as artistic or will hold up to time. But thanks for the thought provoking ideas.

Thank you for a well thought out writeup on what the American West Coast Movement  / Straight Photography (Edward Weston, Ansel Adams and many others) did for photography versus the Pictorialists (Stiegltize, Steichen, etc.) on the American East Coast were doing.  Both groups had a profound impact on how modern photographers look at their subject and how to interpret them.

I'm not sure where the dividing line is between documenting a subject and it becoming art.  A good photograph, in either of these genres requires skill (the craft part of photography) and the creative side.   There are a lot of people out there claiming to be artists and whenever they get criticised on their work they hide under the "artisti's" cloak.

I'm not sure if some famous photographers started out thinking that their works would end up in a gallery with people coming in to look at their work.  I was at a Karsh exhibit this summer.  These were portraits taken for paying customers.  I very much doubt that early in his career he thought his work would be displayed in fine art collections...

My personal view of contemporary fine art photography is that much of what is coming out of the fine arts community is not to my taste.  The groupthink coming out of academia, the high end galleries (i.e. what the curators are showing) is confusing and sometimes downright strange.  I never saw the appeal of William Eggleston or Stephen Shore.  Others like Cindy Sherman or Diane Arbus seemed to be more interesting and refined; something I could connect with.

Hi All,

Can a documentary photo be art? A lot of major museums seem to think so. In the US there is no shortage of museums displaying B&W works of Robert Frank, Harry Callahan, etc. form the 1940's through the 1960's.

Art by composite, photo alteration photographers and abstract artists show that art has no or almost no rules. Maybe this is why some art is criticized. If someone does not like a piece of art, that is just an opinion. Art does not exist to please anyone.

Ultimately the public and the passage of time decide what art is. Art galleries are just an experiment on what they think the public will like.

Diane Arbus was documenting (taking photographs), Cindy Sherman was creating (making photographs).

Yet today, both are considered to have created art.

AL

Is a portrait art?  I visited a Karsh exhibition this summer which had over 100 of his works on display.  I remember going to an exhibition a number of years ago at a highly regarded gallery that had a show of Ansel Adams work (highly documentary) displayed along side Edward Burtynsky's work (also highly documentary).

The transition between documentation and art is quite fine.  Is Cindy Sherman's work art any more than what Diane Arbus created?  I don't think so.  What about Irving Penn - are his magazine covers just thinly disguised fashion photographs?  What about his collection of cigarette butt still life images; art?

DaVinci's famous Mona Lisa is just a portrait.  Or is it?  What about all of those Elvis paintings done on black velvet?

What is art?  Something in the eye of the beholder. I think (or fear).

Beautiful read. I appreciated the insights. Although i disagree with the final statement about not looking down on certain art forms. One in particular is Ai art... if you could even call it art.

 I've already seen countless people claiming to be "ai artists" when it takes literally no training or skill, you just type some words in and an algorithm mashes other people's existing art together to make something new.

Think about this scenario: a client needs a splash image for their website. They pull up an AI generator, type some words in, it pumps out something decent. It takes seconds as opposed to a long back and forth between comps, it costs nothing, and they don’t hire an artist. 

In the meantime, the aI is effectively using real artists’ works and styles that took them decades to develop, to kitbash shitty images against their will. Is it still stealing and blatant copying if the images are made from fragments of many art pieces sent through an algorithmic meat grinder? 

This is already happening in comic book creation, book cover creation, web building, graphic design. Artists are being passed on because it’s literally free to bust out some ai trash. 

People who can’t see that and keep vaguely supporting the movement are effectively signing off on the death of art and artists in regards to what I’ve explained.

I am a retired Pulmonary Physician, who used X-ray images (B&W images of your insides) for my work daily. "Imaging" in Medicine includes, X-ray, MRI, nuclear scan, PET scanning technology as well as Ultrasound and Pathology etc and requires visual skill and expetise. It was my due dilligence habit to look at the actual images and not to rely on just the reports. I enjoyed looking at Chest X-rays for diagnosis for my patients and as an exercise in itself and at conference. So, being a "visual" person, photography is a natural hobby. 

I have spent the last several years looking at photographs and other images both classical and modern and just posted on sites, to figure out "photography" similarly to figuring out X-rays. Photo images range from utilitarian documentation, to "Fine Art Photography", whatever that means. As a hobbyist I am trying to master image quality as well as understand and try to produce "Photographic Fine Art".  Commercial photo images (well good ones) tend to be technically excellent to please the customer and enhance the reputation of the Photographer. Some but not all of those images would be considered "Art Photos" and that is not necessary for successful photography by the photographer. Adding artistic composition, viewpoint or colors might actually hurt the commercial image.

So, if you are trying to understand art photography you are trying to understand art itself. I struggle to get it. I have looked at thousands of images. Here mostly curated and selected images and yet I would not pick many out as "art" but rather very well done photos. If you send an image here, your good opinion about your image is not universal. It is being subjectively judged by others who have a hard time separating the critical technique from artistic image. 

I have done curation here and struggle with: Great technical photo, checks all the boxes but I don't get visual interest, stimulation or inspiration etc. from the image. I keep seeing similar images and techinques: High contrast B&W with a single figure with a shadow; Landscapes by water with a broken boat, spiral staircases, Mountain reflections, Lighthouses, intentional motion. It makes me think that the eye of the photographer is trained to see images that are imprinted in the brain and that benchmark is used for current shots. Those shots also resonate with the curators and judges. Photographers of some genre are attuned to the images in their genre. I suspect that all photographers are seeking unique photos but are constrained by the opinions of other photographers that they feel have more,,,, expertise. I would love to have a panel of non-photogrphers look at work and make comments, non-technical comments. But judging on what my wife says in comment, they would be driven crazy. So, I don't get it.

William, I recently touched upon these things in a Magazine article,  it won't help much, but you might enjoy the read.

I've been trying to deconstruct the recipe to the secret sauce on 1x for over a year now. You've expressed the experience here quite well. It WILL drive you crazy looking for a "black and white" answer to the curation/publication process. There isn't one! There's no consistency in decision making, no rules, even thought there are many, they're not consistently followed, no rhyme nor reason to why this one and not that one,  why relatively the same images get published over and over and over.  I treat it as a game, and I have words I use, (can't type them here ! ;-) when I see my scores, but the process has forced me to step up my game and change how I see the world through the lens AND how I process my images.

I think where I've landed on it personally is that first and foremost I shoot for me, likes are nice, published/awarded even better. This site gives me the opportunity to "engage" with an immense community of photographers at all skill/creative levels. I get to pick and choose how I grow my skill/creativity if by no other means than through osmosis. When I see an image I like, I ask what makes this speak to me and then I keep those thoughts in mind when I go out on my photo walks. I think the most learning I've gotten here is improving my ability to "see" from a different perspective, break out of the confines of what I've been doing over and over and over, which has sort of been good enough, but not great. We all know what the definition of insanity is, yes? 

In my opinion photography will always have an element of being a spectator sport, especially when it comes to Fine Art. What I decided to decorate my walls with in terms of art is completely different from a european urban market perspective, hence all those shadowy figures on spiral staircase, or architectural structures we see here. One of the first photography tutorials I started watching was by Brian Peterson, that was along time ago, but he always ended his segments with encouragement and said "You keep shooting". and that's what I do! I get loads of likes on IG from people who I know and who's opinion I respect. That's enough for me, if I get the odd one published here, perfect!

I had lunch with a friend from our local photo club who hobbied in Photography for almost 40 years. Talking about photography he opined that he really enjoyed the commaraderie of our photo club as more a Photo Sharing experience, a community. It seemed that he had been in competitive photo clubs and liked the low key approach.; everyone likes everyone's photos. The images shown are pretty much the same thing over and over with some people getting better at the same thing. A few of us are "out of the box" image makers (my excuse is that I never learned about the rule of thirds). I am torn between thinking that I can aspire to "art", whatever that meens, rather than just show pictures to cooperative friends who won't critique too much or submit photos that could be published here, if I can figure out how.

I read Peter's essay and looked at the photos of Mr. C. Dan. Those are unique photos and I like that they are published and his other photos do not repeat over and over and they suggest a "commmentary" of sorts. They are what I would call "Edgy" and I aspire to a similar artistic bias. Are his images "art"? I can't say but uniqueness is a great start and an implied "story " or commentary appeals to me. One of my favorite images is "The Creation of Adam" in the Sistene Chapel ceiling; the two fingers almost touching. Single images that create such a powerful idea are incredibly hard to "capture" as we say in Photography. "Migrant Woman" and "Stearage" might be that good and all are sort of "edgy". Digital photography and composite photography have changed things so we can be "additive" artists as well as "subtractive".