I was fascinated with Benjamins Essay, A Short History of Photography, especially with regards to comments on Hill, Blossfeldt, Atget, and Sanders, and in conjunction with the topic of “What is an archive”, in the essay by Paul Ricoer.
Benjamin points out that Hill’s photographs, “unpretentious makeshifts meant for internal use” are what he was remembered for, more than his paintings, originally taking up photography to create reference images for the artwork. Interestingly, Blossfeldt, an art professor in Berlin had originally created his striking collection of plant photographs as teaching aids for his classes. His goal was to show how all forms in art come from nature. Passionate, if not obsessed, as he produced 6000 of them over a 30 year period. Both of them, created a huge “archive” of photographs with social, scientific and artistic significance, although neither one of them had that original intention. Perhaps this is partly what Ricour might be referring to when he states in his essay, “the most valuable traces are the ones not intended for our information?
Unlike Hill and Blossfeldt whose work was originally meant for personal use, Atget and Sanders had larger goals in mind, from the outset.
Ricour states that an Archive must exhibit three characteristic; An organized body of documents, some type of an institutional body, and the goal of conserving or preserving the documents. Given that criteria, can the bodies of work by the above artists be considered archives in and of themselves? How does a personal collection of work by the artist fit the criteria of an “institutional body.” Does a large important body of work that has been carefully organized, and with the goal of being preserved not become an Archive unless it is placed into legitimate Institution through an “authorized deposit”?
Kirk
No comments:
Post a Comment