My review of ‘The Photograph and Australia’

In The Australian & New Zealand Journal of Art, Vol 15, No 2, 2015

The Photograph and Australia, curated by Judy Annear, Art Gallery of New South Wales 21 March — 8 June, 2015; Queensland Art Gallery 4 July — 11 October, 2015

There haven’t been enough books or exhibitions about photography and Australia, given that the medium is so popular and so fundamental to our visual culture, and given that it has left such rich resources in our museums, libraries and archives.[1] There was Jack Cato’s anecdotal The Story of the Camera in Australia, first published in 1955 but still in print in 1977. Then in 1988 the confluence of the bicentenary and the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the invention of the medium led to two further books to succeed Cato’s: Gael Newton’s Shades of Light: Photography and Australia, accompanied by a National Gallery of Australia exhibition, which linked Australian photography to international aesthetic narratives such as modernism; and Anne-Marie Willis’s Picturing Australia, which took a socio-critical approach to photography as a medium of power. Next came some institutional collection showcases, which used the idea of ‘Australia’ as a framing device.[2] Then, in 2007, Helen Ennis’s Photography and Australia used the medium, which she regarded as having ‘no singular or monolithic form’, to reflect on key themes in Australian society such as indigenous/settler interactions, the land, modernity, and our relationship to the rest of the world.

Now we have the Art Gallery of New South Wales’ The Photograph and Australia, like Shades of Light both a book and an exhibition. Unlike its predecessors it does not deal with Australian photography as an industry, or an aesthetic project, or a source of social power, or a national conversation. Instead, it deals with Australian photographs as ‘a phenomenon rather than simply a form[3]. It puts the ontology of the photograph, its special status as a ‘message without a code’, at the heart of its methodology. It embraces the multiplicity and ambiguity of the roles and meanings diverse photographs have had in Australia. The starting point for the project was the direct aesthetic, emotional and intellectual engagement of Judy Annear, the Curator of Photography at the AGNSW, with the thousands upon thousands of individual photographs she trawled through in museums, libraries, archives, and dealers. Although the exhibition will be seen at two art galleries, the AGNSW and the Queensland Art Gallery, the visual power of the show was not primarily derived from state and national art gallery collections, which have been defined by the careful choices made by their curators since they first began to collect photography forty or so years ago. Rather, the exhibition was driven by the resonance Annear found with unexpected finds from relatively ‘uncurated’ archives and libraries — diverse institutions that have been acquiring more photographs for much longer than galleries. The show’s fascination is driven by the sheer eccentricity of some of these finds which Annear has winkled out of the archival recesses, such as Thomas Hinton’s kinky federation patriotism in four cabinet card dioramas featuring Australian heraldry and him wearing a loincloth, or Henry Tillbrook’s environmental self portraiture, or even CEW Bean’s hand-scrawled trigonometric annotations across one of his views of the Gallipoli Peninsula.

The book (assiduously researched by Annear and her team, and complete with biographies, checklists, timelines and glossaries as well as contributed essays) is divided into five chapters, from ‘Time’ to ‘Transmission’. The exhibition hang at the AGNSW explored four themes — settler and Indigenous relations, exploration, portraiture, and transmission — through nine rooms, from ‘Self and image’, through ‘Critique’, to ‘Transmission’ (again). But nonetheless, from the point of view of the visitor, the exhibition tended to remain a series of separate encounters with different photographs. It was up to the viewer to discover and interpret their own finds. There was no conventional authorial, aesthetic or technical hierarchy within the exhibition. An image which had faded to being little more than a sepia smudge, such as Richard Daintree’s circa 1860 image of his son Alfred asleep in a cot, was nonetheless included in the show because it remained a powerful ‘phenomena’ of paternal love, and anticipated the family snap of the twentieth century. There were other Daintrees in the show, for instance his promotional images of Queensland which had been printed and thickly covered with oil paint in London, but there was no way of reconciling these entirely different images by the one person, one supremely private the other explicitly public, into anything like an artistic oeuvre. That was not what this show was about.

Something of the sense of the raw unmediated archive carries over into the installation itself, the overwhelming impression for the viewer as they strained to peer into photograph after photograph after photograph was quantity, there has simply never been a show in Australia with so many photographs in it. Of course the point is that photography has always been a medium of quantity, that is part of the phenomenon, but still Annear brooks her viewers no quarter. She commands her visitors to look equally at every photograph, from the postage stamp sized heads in a tintype album or commemorative photomosaic to the tiny detail caught in the corner of a Melvin Vaniman platinum-print panorama. After finally exiting the exhibition — and if they have seen it all they must inevitably have sore eyes and the beginnings of a headache — perhaps Annear’s ideal viewer will nonetheless feel the same sense of satisfaction that a historical researcher is familiar with feeling after a hard day’s slog in the archive: that although they feel that they are not much closer to understanding their topic they have nonetheless engaged with the brut stuff of history.

There are no reproductions or enlargements in the show. The experience of the exhibition was concentrated on photographs as physical things — daguerreotypes in cases, albumen prints in albums, mammoth collodion negatives on light boxes, and cartes de visite by the hundred. If this turn to the materiality of the photograph was welcome, and very much in keeping with recent scholarship in photography, what remains for future exhibitions to properly address is that photography was a retinal phenomenon, as well as a physical one. As I looked through the top of a glass case down to William Hetzer’s stereographs of Sydney from the late 1850s (alongside their cute little original storage box), how I longed to see them in a stereoscope, so the new buildings of Sydney would pop up in relief along the receding length of Macquarie Street as he intended. Other museums are able to contrive safe stereo viewers for stereographs, why not the AGNSW?

Nonetheless some pockets of the exhibition represented a profound privilege for the viewer. Literally thousands of daguerreotypes were taken in Australia, but 99% have disappeared. Only a handful of them remain identifiable, and most of those seemed to be in this exhibition. There were a whole family of George Goodman daguerreotypes, four Douglas Kilburn groups of aboriginal people reunited at last from the National Galleries of Victoria and Australia, a JW Newland daguerreotype from 1848 of a twinkle-eyed Sydney publican in an extremely loud check suit looking like he was just about to step into a Dickens novel, and many other delights. As we bent over the glass cases in the gloom trying to get a visual purchase on the slippery, silvery images below us, we were subjected to one of Annear’s curatorial flourishes. Ricky Maynard’s series Portrait of a Distant Land, 2005, and Tracey Moffat’s Beauties, 1994, invigilated us from up high on the walls, from the same place where ancestral portraits might be hung in a great hall.

In a similar inversion Annear used the work of other contemporary photographers to pivot the historical photographs into the present. In some rooms this strategy was effective. For instance Anne Ferran’s Lost to Worlds series of 2008 — almost abstract images of grass mounds on the site of an old convict female factory — worked very well on the end wall of the room called ‘Picturing the Colony’. They added an extra dimension of time elapsation to John Watt Beattie’s creepy images of Port Arthur and Charles Woolley’s melancholic images of the ‘last’ Tasmanian aborigines. However other contemporary photographers found themselves with nothing to say to the historic photographs around them. Rosemary Laing’s giant image of an upside-down house-frame, Eddie, 2010, certainly added a dramatic sense of scale to the ‘Critique’ room, but it was too caught up in its own conceptual manoeuvres to be able to dialogue with the other images. However in the next room, called ‘Technology and time’, the the mortal time of Sue Ford’s epic autobiography Self Portrait with Camera, 2008, resonated across the room with the cosmic time of James Short and Joseph Turner’s late nineteenth century astronomical photographs.

One theme that strongly ran through the show were the many images that complicated the standard picture of white/black relations we have received. Historians such as Jane Lydon (who has an essay in the book) and curators like Helen Ennis and Michael Aird (who also has an essay in the book) have already begun the task of taking the photography of aboriginal people beyond the victim/oppressor paradigm. This show continues that project with its many wonderfully complex images of the entanglement of black and white lives, such as those by the amateur John Hunter Kerr, made in some kind of collaboration with aboriginal people on his Victorian property, or the intimate mixture of races in the carefully posed mission portrait-groups by the anthropologist Walter Baldwin Spencer and the photographer Walter William Thwaites.

The Photograph and Australia is overwhelmingly about nineteenth century photography, radically displacing what have conventionally been seen, until now, to be the two key decades in defining the Australianness of Australian photography — the 1930s with it international modernism, and the 1970s with its national counter-culturalism. In an exhibition which eschews teleology these decades are still there, but crammed uncomfortably into the weakest room in the exhibition, the room called ‘Critique’, where the icons of Australian photography such as Carol Jerrems’s Vale Street and Max Dupain’s Sunbaker are given a curatorial détournement. For instance Cazneaux’s heroic The Spirit of Endurance tree, 1937, is clustered with two other small Cazneaux snaps of soil erosion.

Cartes de visite, those ubiquitous photographs glued onto visiting cards, which are usually quickly dealt with en masse by most photo histories, were the artefacts that ran through the veins of this show from beginning to end. Small, cheap, ubiquitous and easily transmitted, when they were first taken each carte de visite would have delivered a specific packet of emotional punch for their original sitter and original recipient, but now most cartes are cast adrift in history, nameless and ambiguous. However the carte, this exhibition implies, most presciently anticipates contemporary uses of photography in social media, while containing riches of historical ambiguity pressurized into each tiny frame. Even the show’s magical publicity image of an antipodean Alice reflected in a looking glass of water in Middle Harbour turns out to be just a tiny carte when we finally encounter it at the very end of the exhibition.

Cartes de visite returned in bulk in this final room, titled ‘Transmission’. Two hundred and twenty-seven of them are installed on a grid on wall, while on other walls kitsch postcards and photobooks intimate the coming of mass media. In the middle of the room is a computer installation and online work Compound Lens Project by contemporary artists Patrick Pound and Rowan McNaught. This installation has the herculean task of swinging the whole massive exhibition behind it and orienting it to the twenty-first century where photography is, of course, digital, virtual, exponential, archival, online, and tagged. Their cross platform installation might work very well in another context where viewers have the inclination to pay the necessary attention to its algorithmic searching, selection, and graphic filtering of online photographs, particularly when the conceptual and visual connections between these iterative processes are not immediately evident, but in this context there was not enough visual plenitude on offer to engage with visitors whose eyes and brains were already wearying.

Annear would be the first to say that this is not a definitive exhibition. Although carried out with intelligence, ambition, passion, an acute eye, and considerable curatorial flair, her vast exhibition nonetheless is but one scratch of the surface. However it proves just how much remains unscratched. There must be more books and exhibitions about photography and Australia in the future.

Disclaimer: The reviewer contributed an essay to the book, and discussed aspects of the exhibition with Judy Annear during her research phase.

[1] For more on the historiography of Australian photography see: ‘Agency and Authorship in Australian Photo Histories’, Catherine De Lorenzo, in Photography, History, Difference, edited by Tanya Sheehan and ‘Other Histories: Photography and Australia’, Helen Ennis, Journal of Art Historiography 4 (2011).

[2] At Home in Australia, Peter Conrad, National Gallery of Australia and Thames & Hudson, 2003. An Eye for Photography: The Camera in Australia, Alan Davies, Carlton, Miegunyah Press and State Library of New South Wales, 2004. Intersections: Photography, History and the National Library of Australia, Helen Ennis, National Library of Australia, 2004

[3] ‘Introduction’, The Photograph and Australia, Judy Annear, Art Gallery of New South Wales, 2015, p13.

 

Breasts

In the last week Facebook has banned the aged breasts in the background a photograph from 1999 posted by Ella Dreyfus, and the indigenous breasts from a traditional Aboriginal ceremony posted by Celeste Liddle. Both bans are of course absurd and offensive. But Facebook’s explanations are revealing. On the one hand it claims that ‘diversity is central to Facebook’s mission of creating a more open and connected world’, but on the other hand, it explains: ‘The reason we restrict the display of nudity is because some audiences within our global community may be sensitive to this type of content – particularly because of cultural background or age. In order to treat people fairly and respond to reports quickly, it is essential that we have policies in place that our global teams can apply uniformly and easily when reviewing content. As a result, our policies can sometimes be more blunt than we would like, and restrict content shared for legitimate purposes.’ Facebook’s mission is actually to circulate messages and images to as many consumers as possible, as rapidly as possible, so they can view ads. It may fantasise that it is something like a Habermasian public sphere, but on Facebook discursive relations are always subsumed in market relations. The connected world is a global market. (Plus, as Clementine Ford points out, Facebook HQ is still permeated by frat boy culture). Unfortunately, because of the ruthless efficiency of its image distribution model, for many artists and activists  it remains indispensable.

Ella Dreyfus, Age and Consent, 1999

Ella Dreyfus, Age and Consent, 1999

Chris Graham, Aboriginal Women at a Northern Territory public, 2016

Chris Graham, Aboriginal Women at a Northern Territory public ceremony, 2016

Won’t You Buy My Pretty Flowers?

Here is a new set of life model magic lantern slides I have just acquired. I love the twin perspectival vanishing points of the first painted backdrop, the photogrammed snow flurries in slide two, and the weirdly frozen Beckettian choreography of the passers-by in the final slide. They were made by Bamforth and Co after 1897 in the UK. The song originates from the US in 1877 and is by George W Persley, Arthur W French, George Clare. (Although interestingly it was re-published in 1887 under the names of the American stage actress Miss Jennie Calef and producer H. P. Danks, after they had used it in their play “Little Muffets” — a clear case of IP theft and copyright infringement.) Later Bamforth and Co. recycled the original shots as postcards with the choruses as printed captions. I’m looking forward to one day projecting these slides, perhaps life size and outside in an urban setting, accompanied by a singer, as part of our project Heritage in the Limelight: The Magic Lantern in Australia and the World.WYBMPF small 1

Underneath the gas light’s glitter,

Stands a fragile little girl;

Heedless of the night winds bitter,

As they round about her whirl.

While the thousands pass unheeding

In the evening’s waning hours;

Still she cries with tearful pleading,

Won’t you buy my pretty flowers?

Refrain.

There are many sad and weary

In this pleasant world of ours,

Crying in the night winds bitter.

Won’t you buy my pretty flowers?

WYBMPF small 2

Ever coming, ever going,

Men and women hurry by.

Heedless of the tear drops gleaming.

In her sad and wistful eyes.

While she stands there sadly sighing,

In the cold and dreary hours,

Listen to her sweet voice crying,

Won’t you buy my pretty flowers?

Refrain.

There are many sad and weary

In this pleasant world of ours,

Crying in the night winds bitter.

Won’t you buy my pretty flowers?

WYBMPF small 3

Not a loving word to cheer her.

From the passers by is heard;

Not a friend to linger near her,

With a heart by pity stirred.

On they rush the selfish thousands,

Seeking pleasure’s pleasant bowers;

None to hear with sad compassion,

Won’t you buy my pretty flowers?

Refrain.

There are many sad and weary

In this pleasant world of ours,

Crying in the night winds bitter.

Won’t you buy my pretty flowers?

The difficulties of producing a nineteenth century spirit photograph revealed with the help of Craig Tuffin and Lisa Clunie!

Last year I was enjoying watching the participants of the Alchemists Workshop make tintypes and salt prints at the ANU School of Art, which they were doing after having their minds blown by the early photography collection of the National Gallery of Australia. The highly knowledgable and highly generous Craig Tuffin, and the intelligent and light hearted Lisa Clunie, agreed to help me in riffing off a carte de visite of the Melbourne spiritualist Dr Walter Lindsey Richardson and a kneeling spirit, taken by the spirit photographer Frederick Hudson in London in 1873-4, and now in the collection of the National Gallery of Australia. I have previously written about this very important carte de visite, and its reception back in Australia. And I kind of thought I sort of knew how Hudson had made it. But it is only when you are confronted with the task of creating a similar image, under similar conditions and using wet collodion emulsion, as Hudson did (although he used collodion on glass, not metal as we did) that you realize the complexity of detail and organisation which Hudson needed to command. If the exposure was made on one wet plate, and if Richardson was to remain unaware of the presence of the human model for the incarnate spirit, then, while Richardson was detained, perhaps with chatter from an accomplice, in the small waiting room of Hudson’s suburban backyard glasshouse studio, the spirit must have been exposed, but against some kind of moveable black screen. Then both spirit and screen must have been removed out of sight before Richardson was invited to enter the glasshouse. The alternative is a negative sandwich, but to me the similar sharpness of both Richardson and the spirit does not suggest a sandwich.

Craig Tuffin, Lisa Clunie and Martyn Jolly, response to spirit photograph of Dr Richardson by Frederick Hudson, tintype, 2015

Craig Tuffin, Lisa Clunie and Martyn Jolly, response to spirit photograph of Dr Richardson by Frederick Hudson, tintype, 2015

Frederick Hudson, Spirit photograph of Dr Walter Lindsey Richard, carte de visite, 1873-74

Frederick Hudson, Spirit photograph of Dr Walter Lindsey Richardson, carte de visite, 1873-74. Collection: National Gallery of Australia

Man to Eat Rats once more

By far the most popular magic lantern slide of the nineteenth century was ‘Man Eating Rats’. Lanternists would even specifically promise it in their newspaper advertisements, so audiences knew they could go along and enjoy themselves making the requisite snoring and chomping and lip-smacking noises. I’ve had a copy of the slide for a while. But while the circulating rackwork rats worked perfectly, the sleeping man’s gluttonously bearded jaw was missing. Fortunately the ANU School of Art has a wealth of skill and knowledge and Waratah Lahy was able to paint me a  beautiful new jaw and beard (on a replacement piece of polycarbonate) which works perfectly. I’ll be showing it this Friday evening at the National Portrait Gallery in Canberra. I’ve also just brought a slipping slide of a phrenologist alternately examining a head of a ‘low’ type and a head of a ‘high’ type. Once again Australian National University historical expertise, through my colleague Alexandra Roginski, was able to provide me with actual phrenological readings from the period. So we’ll be performing this slide as well. There’ll be heaps of other slides, including The Gin Fiend.

'Man Eating Rats', hand painted and copperplate printed rackwork and slipping slide, c1890s.

‘Man Eating Rats’, hand painted and copperplate printed rackwork and slipping slide, c1890s.

'Phrenologist', hand painted and copperplate printed slipping slide, c1890s

‘Phrenologist’, hand painted and copperplate printed slipping slide, c1890s

'Phrenologist', hand painted and copperplate printed slipping slide, c1890s

‘Phrenologist’, hand painted and copperplate printed slipping slide, c1890s

History of Photography, The

The estimable Belinda Hungerford is doing a fabulous job researching and organising the archives of the Australian Centre for Photography. Her research led me to find, in the back of a cupboard, copies of a small booklet I produced with my students in 1990 (!). It was to accompany a show we put on at the ACP. Some students from back then are still doing important work in the field, I’m gratified to note. Reading through the anecdotes we collected back then it’s interesting that in that pre-digital period the minilab, now a lost site of visual profligacy and collective concatenation, served a not-dissimilar lubricious function to the ‘on-line’ environment now. If you want a copy of our booklet I’ll be glad to send you one, the price hasn’t changed in 25 years.

Australian Research Council funding for Heritage in the limelight: the magic lantern in Australia and the world

The ARC has funded a three year Discovery Project I will lead. The project aims to discover and analyse the large number of glass magic lantern slides that remain under-used in our public collections. International scholarship has recently begun to show that lantern slide shows were a ubiquitous, globalised and formative cultural experience. The project aims to explore the international reach and diversity of this globalised modernist apparatus from the Australian perspective. It plans to understand how diverse audiences affectively experienced these powerful forms of early media, and to develop ways for today’s Australians to re-experience their magic, invigorating and expanding our cultural heritage.

The team is Dr Martyn Jolly and Associate Professor Martin Thomas Australian National University; Professor Jane Lydon, University of Western Australia; Professor Nicolas Peterson and Professor Paul Pickering, Australian National University; Associate Professor Joe Kember, University of Exeter, UK.

With scholars like that we are guaranteed to find amazing material around Australia, and do wonderful things with it, in terms of identification, critical analysis and re-presentation. It’s also great that we will be working  with the European project A Million Pictures: Magic Lantern Slide Heritage as Artefacts in the Common European History of Learning. And I’m also looking forward to working even more with my friends from the lantern slide fraternity around Australia and the world. I can’t wait. I’m also really looking forward to picking up steam in my other ARC Discovery Project led by Dr Daniel Palmer, Monash University,’ Photography Curating in the Age of Photosharing’.

'In the Hurly Burly', detail from Salvation Army Melbourne War Cry, 1894

‘In the Hurly Burly’, detail from Salvation Army Melbourne War Cry, 1894

.

 

Holy City and Jack the Ripper

Holy City was the million-seller song of 1892. A little while ago, accompanied by a singer and pianist, I projected  my set of magic lantern slides, complete with double exposures and hand colouring, which were made to illustrate the song. Imagine my surprise this weekend when I read that its composer, the singer Michael Maybrick, has just been fingered as Jack the Ripper by the latest contribution to Ripperology, the 800 page They All Love Jack: Busting the Ripper (it’s all the fault of the Masons, apparently). If the book’s author, Bruce Robinson, is right, Maybrick had given up ripping a few years before he penned Holy City. I had always been fascinated by the song because of the way it took the trope of sublime religious vision, and reduced it to a nineteenth century opiated dream of travel. I had always been fascinated by my slides because they transcode the idea of the hallucinatory travelogue, as the dreamer takes a metaphysical Cook’s Tour to Heaven,  to the visual technology of the double exposure and the dissolve — presaging the transitive media of the twentieth century. But now it may also be an act of expiation by its author!

London Road film

It was wonderful to see  the film London Road the other day at the movies. It’s musical shot in the dourest of colours — even the flowers that finally bloomed at the end, after the neighbourhood serial killer had been banged up to rights, seemed to have the colours on their petals rationed as though it was still World War Two. The film was the adaption of a stage musical based on recordings of actual interviews with actual English residents in 2006 (which we finally heard over the end credits). The librettists had lovingly repeated and chorused each captured speech inflection, each glottal stop, each rising ‘yeah’ at the end of the sentence. It was a film that could only have been made in the UK.  It made me think of Nick Park’s claymation Creature Comforts, then further back through all the angry kitchen sink dramas of the fifties, then back through the Mass Observation Movement and finally to the GPO Film Unit of the 30s and 40s, with Humphrey Jennings’ wonderful stiff-upper-lip vox pops with stout fire wardens and  unflappable matrons. The title even echoes Jennings’ blitz masterpiece London Can Take It!. I came over all patriotic and I’m Australian!

London Road film

London Road film