Grouping

It is unusual to see a photograph presented alone – that is, with no other photographs around it; most photographs are presented in groups. These groupings can be artist-, curator-, or collector-generated.  Large-scale photographs are sometimes the exception to this rule, but even these are mostly seen with smaller photographs alongside, providing foil through both scale and “punch.” (Groupings are to be distinguished from series, whose purpose is to illustrate a photographic idea through a contained number of prints.)

We group photographs by highlighting common elements – photographer or photographers, the image content, chronology, formal characteristics, scale, time period, or simply, idea.  While other forms of art are also grouped in these ways, it is less uncommon to see them alone. Why then do we usually find photographs presented in groups?

First, there is the ease of reproduction. The idea of an “original” photograph is often disputed – it is difficult to make the case for one print over another when both have come from an “original” negative.  Without a definite, unique original, photographs can be reproduced ad infinitum with no (physical) damage to the legitimacy of any one copy. Most photographers limit the production of their images based on inherent economic principles of supply and demand, but with multiple “originals” of the same image they become easier to distribute.  Put simply, there are more of each photograph.  This increase in quantity results in easier access and therefore less difficulty in obtaining them. Photographs are presented in groups because it’s easier to find more of them.

Secondly, the conventional size of photographs plays a role.  Each new generation of photographers have pushed the technological limits of scale, but in general photographs have remained the same basic size.  The most popular size of film in recent decades has been 35mm, which has limited enlarging capabilities.  Though there are obvious and notable exceptions, in most cases, it takes more photographs to fill a wall than paintings. A byproduct of this is that a spectator can more easily connect a number of elements visually when they are smaller, meaning that the conventional scale of most photographs offers a clearer view of the whole of a body of work.

Lastly, we can attribute photography’s grouping tendency to it’s long struggle to gain recognition in the world of fine arts.  Due to reasons mostly inherent to the characteristics of the medium, photography will likely never gain the universal respect awarded to its (as Michel Frizot puts it) “omnipresent reference point” – painting.  Therefore, in the attempt to compile “equally” valued collections of artwork,  more weight is given to paintings than photographs, and so the latter is presented in greater quantity. The photo-painting exchange rate is dramatically in favor of paintings.

Is this tendency toward grouping necessarily a positive or negative one? I think not. As with most trends in the world of photography, the significance lies not with what the issue is, but how we deal with it.  Our culture has become accustomed to seeing photographs grouped together – those creating work now will determine how that affects the future of the medium.

TMW

Advertisement