Photography Manifestos
Photography has always been an art of capture, the unique ability to captivate the viewer with a skillfully done shot, to enchant them with a single momentary instance, never to be repeated again. It could turn each fleeting second of life into a masterpiece for the viewer to revisit over and over again. Ever since photography was created as an art form, a vast number of schools of art have tried to encapsulate the purpose of photography, to encompass its meaning and goal with respect to art, culture, and self-expression of an individual. Among them were the Futurists, the Dadaists, the Surrealists, and Peter Henry Emerson, a representative of the 18th century photography. All these schools and their followers presented their own perspective as to various aspects of photography, from the process of its creation to its preferable content. The purpose of this essay is to determine whether their understanding is applicable to the photography of today and what it should constitute.
First of all, photography must not be subject to any boundaries. Nothing should restrict the photographer in his or her choice of the subject matter. Here we are in full agreement with Peter Henry Emerson, because it was he who insisted that a true artist must take on any aspect of nature that pleases him or her and try and interpret that aspect in conformity with their unique artistic expression (Emerson).
Second of all, photography must always appreciate the value of one momentary instance. It has the power to immortalize this very moment for years and ages to come, therefore a real photographer knows when one meaningful second could matter more than days or even years, and they must always be ready to secure this second on their camera.
Third, photography, as any art, must be authentic and come from within the artist. A photographer must always trust their gut and their artistic intuition instead of following an instruction or prescription imposed upon them by someone else, no matter how much of an expert this person might be. Emerson was very correct in saying that a photographer must be true to themselves, and their individuality will show itself in their work as a result (Emerson).
However, there is a point of his one finds hard to agree with. Emerson claims that the value of a picture is not proportionate to how much trouble and expense the photographer has to endure in order to obtain it (Emerson). Why would a picture of a rose in a quiet garden, no matter how aesthetically pleasing and masterfully shot, be worth the same as a picture of people running away from a tear gas attack by the police who came to violently shut down a peaceful protest? Certainly, a picture taken by someone willing to risk their life and well-being in order to capture that raw human emotion, their suffering, their plight, and most importantly – the truth – would be worth a thousand aesthetic roses.
Additionally, one must acknowledge that photography, as any art form, belongs, first and foremost, to its creator. Surely, any person is entitled to their opinion on an art piece, however, it is the author who must be satisfied with the picture they produced. Each time an artist creates something, they pour their very soul into this piece, they rip a part of themselves off and lay themselves bare for people to judge. And no matter the judgement, if a photographer feels fulfilled when looking at their creations, even when no one else does, it is a photo that has value. In this we agree with the Dadaists, who believed art to be a private affair, which the artists produce for themselves (Tzara).
On the other hand, the general nihilism of the Dadaists, their neglect of beauty and meaning in all things human makes it hard to sympathize with their attitude as to art. They claim that everything one looks at is false (Tzara), yet how can this be the case for photography that has the ability to capture the most genuine, most unrefined of human emotions, the mercilessness of nature, the wonderful beauty and terrible ugliness of the world around us? False? No, far from it, and one would go as far as to say it is the opposite.
Next, photography must always evolve. As any art evolves with each new age, photography must continuously seek new ways to explore the world, to make sure the vision of the world as it is today outlives the generation that created it and many that will come after.
Photography should not shy away from being magical and enchanting. As important as gritty realism is, there is always a place for a fairytale, a fantasy in our lives. Photography can and should be a means of harmless escapism for a person, a way to find oneself in a faraway land, see faraway people, experience something new. As the Surrealists rightfully said, there should be no boundaries for experience, and experiencing the world through photography is as valid as any other way.
What photography should not be, on the other hand, is the instrument of glorification of the monstrous and grotesque: of war, militarism, brutality, as the Futurists would want it to be. Photography should inform, educate, help us emphatize, provoke a thought and a change, but definitely not glorify the destruction.
However, we do second the Futurists on the notion that photography can and should also be fearless, full of energy and daring, should not shy away from the danger, from action, for there are few things in the world as beautiful as movement, rise and fall of all things living (Apollonio).
Photography, as any art, must always bring something new into the world. It is void of point and purpose if it is only a reiteration of things that have already been shown and instances that have been captured. “The Tetons and the Snake River” cannot be replicated, but there are plenty more mountains and rivers that could captivate both the author and the viewer as much, if not more.
Finally, photography must not shy away from cooperating with other art forms for the sake of creating something timeless and precious. Photography, music, film, painting – all art exists to facilitate itself and other kinds of art, and the more they intertwine with one another, the more it benefits culture.
Works Cited
Emerson, Peter Henry. “Hints on Art”, Classic Essays on Photography. 1980.
Tzara, Tristan. “Dada Manifesto”, 23 March 1918.
Apollonio, Umbro, ed. Documents of 20th Century Art: Futurist Manifestos. New York:
Viking Press, 1973. 19-24.
