Rosalind Krauss (Kraus, 2018) compares two versions of one photo O Sullivan’s Tufa Domes. She prefers the first version with its mystery and ephemeral feel. She describes the second version which has all the detail restored as being banal.

However once she considers the use of the second version being for a scientific journal the second version has to have the extra detail to show the structure of the portrayed volcanic strata. So the user dictates what the photo portrays. The discursive space is within the frame.

The next discursive frame is the gallery/museum. However whilst the two are similar they do have differences. The Gallery shows art, The museum shows academic photos however the wall space is virtually the same.

Work displayed in the gallery is deemed to be worthy whilst other work not. The work was made to fit to get on the wall so developed a clear language. This language is clearly in my sketch, learnt from all landscape pictures I have looked at. Work in Museums tends to document with an analytical eye on matte paper for science and exploration it gets a little flat in appearance.

This flatness stopped landscape being art, Peter Galassi (MoMA, 1981) said “The object is to show that photography was not a bastard left by science on the doorstep of art. It is a legitimate child of the western pictorial tradition.” Krauss and Galassi think landscape is worthy in its own right.

Describing it as needing to move from analytical to synthetic so getting away from the technical aspects of the chemistry and documenting the view in a straight way., but to look think and show the emotion in the landscape so create art.

However O Sullivan’s (Getty Library, 1867) work was not shown in galleries he had to show it via Stereoscopic viewers. Over 500,000 were sold with 100;000 views to look at so this popular medium was a great place to showcase his work.

It is interesting to note that at this time 1850s the term landscape wasn’t used but view was. Work was still needed to gain acceptance in the art world. this was the start of it.

The essay made me realise that I have a way to go get to this level of writing. However I would like to write more like this but keep my personal voice. The piece was thought provoking and made me think of the struggle the early photographers had getting work accepted as art.

My father has a stereoscopic camera and viewer I must borrow it sometime to better understand the process.

Work Cited

Galassi, Peter. “Photography:  Painting and the Invention of Photograph.” The Museum of Modern Art, 1981, 11–18. Kraus, Rosalind. “Photography’s Discursive Spaces: Landscape/View.” Art Journal 42, no. 4 (1982): 311–19. O Sullivan, Timothy. Tula Domes. 1867. Silver Gelatin, 22.4×27.8cm. Getty Library.