- Sunday 19 May 2013
- My Account
- Logout
- Register
- Login
- News
-
Voices
-
Find by writer
- Yasmin Alibhai-Brown
- Rebecca Armstrong
- Memphis Barker
- Terence Blacker
- Chris Blackhurst
- David Blanchflower
- Archie Bland
- Ian Burrell
- Andrew Buncombe
- Ben Chu
- Patrick Cockburn
- Laura Davis
- Mary Dejevsky
- Grace Dent
- Robert Fisk
- Andrew Grice
- Philip Hensher
- Ian Herbert
- Howard Jacobson
- Ellen E Jones
- Alice Jones
- Owen Jones
- Emily Jupp
- Simon Kelner
- Dominic Lawson
- Donald Macintyre
- Lisa Markwell
- Comment
- Campaigns
- Debate
- Editorials
- Letters
- IV Drip
- Archive
- Our Voices
- Commentators
- Columnists
- Democracy 2015
- IV Drip Archive
-
Find by writer
- Sport
- Tech
- Life
- Property
- Arts & Ents
- Travel
- Money
- IndyBest
- Blogs
- Student
Tuesday 6 November 2012
News images are the Old Masters of our day
The new exhibition at the National Gallery asks - and answers - an intriguing question: can photography ever compete with the Old Masters?
The mark of a good idea is that you wonder why nobody has thought of it before. The National Gallery, London, is mounting its first ever photography exhibition, “Seduced by Art, photography past and present”. It tackles a subject that could have been examined at any time during the past 100 years – the influence of the Old Masters of painting on the pioneers of photography.
The show also asks an updated version of that question: what do today’s practitioners, who use the medium as an art form, make of these early beginnings? The National Gallery’s method is to pair Old Master paintings with Victorian or contemporary photographs. In making these interesting comparisons, the question is raised, for instance, whether any photograph of high society people at repose in their grand homes or in their grounds can compete with, say, Gainsborough’s “Mr and Mrs Andrews” (1750), who stare out from the painting at us with looks so haughty and scornful that I, for one, would have stammered to have addressed them in case my words were considered to be… well… plebeian. Even Martin Parr, the excellent British documentary photographer and photojournalist, with his shot of a self-possessed couple in their 1990s reception room, cannot get near Gainsborough’s power.
The National Gallery exhibition, however, substantially enhances the reputation of one of the early photographers, Julia Margaret Cameron. She shines in this company. Cameron did not take up photography until 1863, when she was 46. Being socially well-connected, she was able to do a series of portraits of the celebrities of her time – Charles Darwin, Alfred Tennyson and Robert Browning, for instance. However, the National Gallery puts her up against great 17th-century painters such as Guido Reni rather than Victorian notables. And when you remember how limited were the technical means at the disposal of Victorian photographers – essentially limited to adjusting the focus to produce hard or soft outlines, bringing out some portions of the image while de-emphasising others – you see how Cameron’s sheer artistry allowed her to hold her own in an unequal battle.
It is extraordinary given the array of sophisticated techniques they now have at their disposal but few of the contemporary photographers in the show do as well. Judging by its prominence, the curators are particularly proud of Maisie Broadhead’s 2010 photograph “Keep them sweet” (above) in which her sister, wearing angel’s wings and a laurel wreath, with two young children, models a pose that deliberately imitates the Louvre’s “Allegory of Wealth” by Simon Vouet (1635). But the comparison is embarrassing. Whereas the Vouet exudes energy, there is only torpor in the Broadhead. And where there is vigorous line in the former, there is but dull arrangement in the latter.
Even more striking is the contest between a Fantin-Latour still life of roses in a vase (1886) and Ori Gersht’s “Blow Up”, 2007. Indeed creating and photographing a mini-explosion seems to have been the only response that Gersht could find to the work of the 19th-century French painter. Gersht says he realised that while a photograph’s literalness can convey visual information quickly and efficiently, a painting communicates slowly and partially.
So he felt driven to speed everything up. First, he took a bouquet of flowers and froze them with liquid nitrogen so that they looked as if they had been killed off by frost. Next, he hid small explosive charges among the flowers. Then he detonated them so that the petals flew into the air as icy shards. Finally, he used a high-speed digital camera to record the explosion. And that is the image that one sees in the National Gallery show.
I don’t wish to be unduly negative about this interesting exhibition. I would be the happy owner of a number of the contemporary works. Among them is a “constructed landscape” by Beate Gütschow, which is really a seamless amalgam of details drawn from a variety of municipal parks, industrial sites and urban scenes with a haunting quality.
At the top of my list, however, are two big panoramic photographs by the former Newsweek photojournalist Luc Delahaye. The first shows the final stages of a meeting of Opec. Reporters have rushed up to the platform to question the officials running the meeting. They jostle and push, they strain to hear the officials’ comments, they raise their cameras and push forward their microphones, unconsciously forming a series of groups pressed against each other, which the curators describe as a “fluid scene of strikingly Baroque chiaroscuro”. That is as maybe, but it is a wonderful picture.
The second Delahaye is called “US bombing of Taliban Positions, 2001”. You see an empty landscape, scrubland with ditches and, in the distance, a range of hills. There is nothing else. No soldiers or civilians. No planes in the sky. Only plumes and clouds of smoke rising from exploding munitions indicate the presence of war. It is contemporary, it is eloquent and it owes nothing to precedent.
-
B-list scandals begin to take the shine off Barack Obama's halo
Rupert Cornwell -
The penis size study: How do British men fare?
Laura Davis -
The Daily Cartoon
-
Angelina Jolie's bravery has little to say to everywoman
Joan Smith -
It’s official: thanks to Stephen Hawking's Israel boycott, anti-Semitism is no more
Howard Jacobson
-
Angelina Jolie's bravery has little to say to everywoman
-
The Oxford child sex abuse case shows how the media talks in stereotypes but misses the big picture
-
'We failed to protect vulnerable children in the past, but attitudes are changing'
-
Offer voters the EU pizza and they'll spit it out
-
Syria has no reason to use chemical weapons
-
B-list scandals begin to take the shine off Barack Obama's halo
Get your summer started with British Military Fitness
BMF is the UK’s biggest and best loved outdoor fitness classes
Visit York
Find out what The Independent's resident travel expert has to say about one of the most beautiful small cities in the world
Enter the latest Independent competitions
Win anything from gadgets to five-star holidays on our competitions and offers page.
Business videos from commercial thought leaders
Watch the best in the business world give their insights into the world of business.
Andreas Whittam Smith
Get the best in opinion from Independent Voices, straight to your inbox every Thursday lunchtime.
Subscribe
Amol Rajan
A weekly update from the Editor
iJobs General
PHP/ Drupal Developer - £35k - WC
£30000 - £40000 per annum + BENS: Progressive Recruitment: Drupal Developer A ...
C# WEB DEVELOPER
£45000 - £50000 per annum + bens: Progressive Recruitment: C# WEB DEVELOPER Le...
WPF Developer (C#, VB.Net) - North East - 6 Months
£240 - £260 per day: Progressive Recruitment: WPF Developer (C#, VB.Net) North...
KS2 PPA teacher
£85 - £120 per day: Randstad Education Cheshire: KS2 teacher needed to do PPA ...
Day In a Page
The price of pacifism
Jason Isaacs: Groupies, theatre bores and James Bond
Sealand: 'Micronation' or illegal fortress?
Legend of James Hunt has set Hollywood hearts racing
Macklemore: 'I don't have moderation'
Don't be shy: Bill Granger's Sri Lankan recipes
Gordon Ramsay's worst nightmare: A restaurant he cannot save
