Click the tabs above for videos about individual artists.

The History of Photography: An Introduction to themes and issues.
We are everywhere surrounded by photographs, from journalistic documents, to advertisements, to personal snapshots. We are so used to them, in fact, that we rarely think much about their meaning, or their making. Indeed, photos are such a prominent feature of modern life that, when pressed, we can barely imagine life without them. But such a time did exist, and it was not that long ago. As used to photographs as we are, most of us are ignorant of its brief history and the changes that it has wrought upon our society. Here are some things to think about.

Where do photographs come from? The earliest and little-known invention of photography can be traced to a Frenchman called Nicéphore Niépce (roughly pronounced Nee-ps), and his picture taken from his window at Le Gras, France, in 1827.

Niépce inserted a metal plate that he had rendered chemically light sensitive into a device called a camera obscura, then exposed the plate to light for a long time, and succeeded in fixing the shadowy view you see above. (The camera obscura is essentially a large box outfitted with a lens; it had been used as a reference for viewing and drawing for several centuries.)

Similar processes using a camera obscura and light sensitive materials improved upon the method by making crisper images achieved at a quicker rate. These methods were announced to the world in 1839: the calotype (invented by Henry Fox Talbot in England), and the daguerreotype (by Frenchman Louis-Jacques-Mandé Daguerre).


Daguerre, Rue du Temple, c. 1838
From that date on, photography would have a monumental impact on our self-conception and our world views.

Are photographs passive of active?
Usually, we think of photographs as a memory aid, or a conceptual/imaginative tool (think of the photographs in a tourist brochure, and where that takes your imagination, for example). But photographs do much more than simply document a moment or a thing in time, because they are themselves so influential. Photography manipulates how we see, and therefore, how we understand our world. Our senses of personal and public life, of what a family should look and therefore be like, of what historical events meant, of how nature differs from culture, or how “civilized” folk are different from “primitive” ones—are all to great lengths determined by photographs. The history of photography is fascinating because we can literally see how our understanding of these things changes over time, and from culture to culture.

Is photography Art?
Because photography is so linked to documentation, and since it involves chemistry and mechanical production and reproduction, one could argue that it belongs just as readily, in the history of science and technology as it does in art history. Indeed, for nearly the fist 20 years of its history, photos were definitely not considered art. It was felt that a photograph could be used by an artist as a reference, but photograph was not an artistic end in itself. (Photography has been used by realist and impressionist painters since the late-1800’s, most notably Thomas Eakins, Edgar Degas, and Paul Cézanne.) But, beginning in the mid-1850’s, a very small group of people started to promote the idea that a photograph could itself be a work of what they called “high art.” By the turn of the century, that idea started to take hold, thanks to the advocacy of so-called pictorialists, like Alfred Stieglitz.

Alfred Stieglitz, Flatiron, 1903.

Still, the effort was made to separate certain artistic photographs from everyday snaps, and therefore to elevate it to a higher cultural level. (For instance, Stieglitz gives his image a soft focus so it resembles impressionist pictures, and mimics certain aspects of Japanese prints in his image of the modern Flatiron building, above).

But, today, thanks to the development of modernism, our conception of art has changed drastically from what 19th-century viewers had in mind. From the mid-20th century on, art photography can look very ordinary, very much like a snap shot, or very much like a piece of documentation.

Substatntially, the “art” in photography is determined by intention of the photographer, and by the use of the photograph following its creation, how it is discussed by critics and historians, and how it is exhibited and conceived by its audience. These things are arguably just as important in determining whether or not it is “art” as any innate characteristic or quality of the work itself.

What to look for.
When looking at photographs, it is important to bear certain things in mind, and to ask yourself certain questions.

• Try to discern the kind of photo at which you are looking (Is it, for example, a steely, reflective and and small daguerreotype? Or a big, colorful, glossy cibachrome? Because technological resources and advancements change decade by decade, ascertaining the type of photograph will help to date the work, and partly explain how the work looks. Clues can be found in clarity, tonality, image size, picture support, and color.

• You should also be alert to the fact that the photographer starts by selecting a view, a person or a thing. This is the first editorial choice that the photographer makes, and it can be the most meaningful one.

• Photographers are likewise always concerned with light and with focus, and know that these things can drastically alter the mood of a picture.

• Details in photographs convince us of certain things—often without our being aware of them. A photographer will alter the setting, change the lighting, move a figure, or the position of the camera in order to sway the meaning or tenor of the image. Be mindful that the combination of things in the photograph are part of the “rhetoric” of the image. Rhetoric is the art of persuasion. If the subject is a person, ask yourself what type of person s/he seems to be. Then ask yourself why you think that. What are the cues—like setting, fashion, lighting and body language or facial expression—that lead you to your conclusion about who the person is. (For instance, in our culture, a figure shot barefoot wouldn’t be understood the same as would the same figure wearing shoes.)

• Also, try to find out whether the image was shot “straight” (captured pretty much in the camera, without much darkroom editing), or whether it has been heavily manipulated. The history of altering images by combining prints, negatives, and techniques dates back to the 1850’s. It is often difficult to tell by looking at the photograph whether it has been altered. If you determine it has been changed, ask yourself what the photographer’s intention was in combining, adding or eliminating cetrain details.