© Copyright 2003 by the
Photography Criticism CyberArchive. All rights reserved. photocriticism.com |
|
This printout is for reference only.
Reproduction and distribution of multiple copies prohibited. |
Archive texts:
Photography Criticism
"A Response to Mark Power: Letter to the Editor" (1996)
Author's Note:
Gored Ox and Sacred Cow Dept.: In a fall '95 issue of the New York Observer I published a front-page essay explaining why I refused to review Untitled, Aperture's monograph based on photographs of developmentally disabled people made in 1969-71 by the late Diane Arbus. To date, the only responses in print to my critique of this project have been Janet Malcolm's brief comment in The New York Review of Books, a lengthier argument by Anthony Georgieff that appeared in European Photography, and a long diatribe from Mark Power, former photography critic for The Washington Post. Both writers make essentially the same arguments, so my responses to them overlap. Power's piece has made two appearances so far -- one version in the May '96 issue of Photo Metro, where my essay had already appeared, and a later version in the Spring '96 issue of The Photo Review, accompanying a reprint of my original essay. If you want to find the full text of Power's commentary (it's not on-line anywhere), seek out either or both of those publications. Meanwhile, here's my response to Power's diatribe. -- A. D. C.
The Photo Review
To the Editor:
Let me get this straight: for (a) suggesting that the subjects of photographs have rights, moral and legal, that sometimes supersede the impulses and desires of photographers, for (b) proposing that the photographer is the primary determinant of what constitutes his/her body of work, and for (c) arguing that imagery never officially approved for public presentation by a photographer should therefore be identified and treated as study material and not conflated with work so approved, I deserve to be called a "censor," a confrere of Clarence Thomas, an "ideologue," "doctrinaire," and someone who chronically "smear[s] . . . the medium's greatest artists." Those schooled in debate have a name for that tactic: argumentum ad hominem.
I'd no idea Mark Power held me in such low esteem. That's his privilege. Mine is to exercise the right to correct his various misstatements of fact. Such as:
So much for errors of fact.
Regarding Power's sneering description of me as "photography's professional scold": Damn straight, pal. I can live with all three of those terms, separately and in tandem. Carve 'em on my tombstone.
Power's incapacity for close reasoning prevents him from recognizing that the passage he quotes from Doon Arbus -- "for [Diane Arbus] the beauty of the photograph originated in the thing itself . . . as she once said, 'A photograph has to be of something and what it's of is always more remarkable than the photograph'" -- and his analogizing of this work to Lewis Hine's muckraking use of photography as evidence directly contradicts his own earlier (and ludicrous) assertion that photographs merely refer to their subjects in "the same way that Picasso's "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" refers to several women from Avignon . . . " Certainly the photographer filters the world before the lens through both the physical apparatus of the medium and his or her own sensibility. But photographic description and painterly description are hardly identical. This is why photographs such as Hine's could function as legal evidence, and still do, while paintings never have -- and why pictures like Arbus's could be used for identification purposes, while "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" could not.
Power asserts that "A proof [print]'s very survival comprises a de facto approval. If a preliminary print of any kind survives, that is a 'stamp of approval' unless the artist specifically indicates otherwise either by destroying the image (and negative) or by indicating in writing that the image in question is not representative." This means that any image of which any photographer has made a work print of any quality for any purpose that has not been destroyed (along with its negative!) or disavowed in writing is as fully authenticated by that photographer -- and, therefore, as qualified for posthumous inclusion in his or her body of work -- as those images he or she approved for exhibition or publication. I know of no responsible curator, critic, or historian of photography (nor, for that matter, of any other medium), past or present, who would find that notion anything less than ridiculous and unsupportable. I know hundreds of photographers who would object vehemently to that bizarre proposition. I wouldn't be surprised if Power hears from some of them; a few may actually make their opinions known in print.
Power repeatedly snipes and jeers at me by calling me a "moralist," and accuses me of "moralizing." My Webster's defines the verb moralize thus:
v.t. 1. To explain in a moral sense; to draw a moral from. 2. Archaic. To furnish with moral lessons. 3. To render morally better; as, efforts to moralize business. -- v.i. To make moral reflections.
Of moralist, it says, 1. One who moralizes; a teacher or student of morals. 2. One who leads a moral life.
If this describes me accurately, I'm profoundly gratified, and deeply complimented. In any case, it certainly specifies my aspirations. Power's use of this term as a pejorative speaks volumes about his own character. In any case, whether or not artists are "moralists," they remain citizens like the rest of us, members of society with legal, ethical and moral responsibilities that their choice of profession does not obviate. I defer here to the late Clement Greenberg, writing almost half a century ago: "I am sick of the art-adoration that prevails among cultured people, more in our time than in any other: that art silliness which condones almost any moral or intellectual failing on the artist's part as long as he or she seems a successful artist. It is still justifiable to demand that he be a successful human being before anything else, even if at the cost of his art." ("The Question of the Pound Award," 1949.)
If even the President of the United States is not above the law, then neither are artists. That equality before the law is the very premise of democracy. Power doesn't much like democracy, as he makes clear; he wants the whims of an art elite to outweigh the legal rights of the developmentally disabled and any others chosen to serve as convenient lens fodder. He wants artists -- among whom, needless to say, he includes himself -- treated like royalty, exalted and worshipped and permitted to do as they please. Not so long as I have a voice, and a vote.
Indeed, Power (himself a photographer) makes it clear that he believes photographers are not just royalty, but are endowed with god-like powers that entitle them to god-like privileges. He writes, approvingly, "I'm certain that if the only barrier to the revelation of a powerful image was the lack of a signed release [Arbus] would've printed the image anyway, moral contract or no" (a speculation for which he supplies no supporting evidence); opines that Arbus "made a few schizophrenics [sic] immortal" by "[giving them] the gift of transcending the narrow boundaries of fact, time and place"; asserts that "There are occasions when legal issues [concerning the rights of photographers' living human subjects] are transcended by a higher moral imperative [of making Art]"; and announces that "the right of privacy pales beside the necessity of ensuring that great art sees the light of day."
Reread those last two quotes carefully; therein lies a key concept. These represent Power's first and second steps down a most slippery slope. Power doesn't just stop there, because he can't -- the slide is inexorable; indeed, in a middle version of his screed, written before the one he published in The Photo Review, he went even further, revealing the naked face of his fundamental belief system: "Human rights pale beside the necessity of seeing that great art sees the light of day." (Emphasis mine.)
Really? Understand this: It's no coincidence that Power wrote all three of those variant versions. Those ideas are consequent to each other, they form a most logical and inevitable progression. Believe the first, and the second and third come easy. Then it's just a short hop from that demented conviction to Bruno Mussolini getting his esthetic jollies by relishing from the cockpit of his warplane the floral patterns generated by exploding Ethiopians. I believe, to the contrary, that the making and public presentation of art, no matter how great anyone considers that art to be, does not ever take priority over acknowledging, respecting and observing fundamental human rights. I am convinced that to claim otherwise is to step squarely into the camp of something I am old-fashioned enough to call evil.
Normally, I would scruple at citing thus an unpublished and subsequently revised version of an author's text, believing such to be privileged and private unless made public by the author. In this case, it seems only appropriate to make an exception; and, as that's playing by Power's own ground rules, he's surely in no position to object, as to do so would be hypocritical in the extreme. I feel privileged to stand here, on the record, in public opposition to Power's malignant, reprehensible philosophy, and would be delighted to debate him face to face on this specific issue. The Corcoran School of Art in Washington, D.C., where he has taught since 1971, would make an appropriate forum for such a confrontation. Perhaps its students, faculty and administration will see fit to arrange such an opportunity, for which I volunteer my services free of charge. But I doubt it. Where such irrationality and amorality have nested comfortably and held sway for a quarter-century, reason and ethics are rarely welcome.
If I found myself talking dangerously megalomanic trash like Power's in print, I'd expect to be perceived by my fellow citizens as a blatant little fascist and one sick puppy. I didn't anticipate that my essay would evoke this evidence, especially from such an unexpected source, but I'm certainly glad it's out on the table for all to see and be warned by. That's especially important because I believe Power articulates the unstated attitudes of many if not all of those who endorse this project, and in doing so lays bare their underlying beliefs.
Arrogant ubermensch attitudes like this give photography, and photographers, a bad name. Our democracy, in its infinite wisdom, permits people like Power -- who promulgates the beliefs that the ends of art justify any means regardless of who pays the price, and that artists are above the law -- to blather hysterically in public forums and even to teach our young. And, as a staunch democrat who relishes "breathing the air around Tom Paine," I readily go along with that. However, rebutting such morally and intellectually retarded drivel appeals to me even less than shooting fish in barrels. I've made my position clear. So has Power. There is no common ground. Take your pick. Take very seriously the act of doing so.
Finally, as it's Power's considered opinion that this Arbus essay is "not . . . the first time" that my "contentious argument paints all the right issues with the wrong doctrinaire brush and . . . smears one of the medium's greatest artists," I'd say he has just accepted a professional obligation to name the "ideology" and the "doctrines" to which he insinuates I subscribe, to identify the other unnamed great artists I've "smeared," and to explain why in all these years he's never been able to screw up his courage to call me out on these purported excesses.
-- A. D. Coleman
This letter originally appeared in The Photo Review (1996). © Copyright 1996 by A. D. Coleman. All rights reserved. For reprint permissions contact Image/World Syndication Services, POB 040078, Staten Island, NY 10304-0002 USA;T/F (718) 447-3091, imageworld@nearbycafe.com.
For citation purposes, the specific online source for this text is: