Concerning the "Photography and Language" show at La Mamelle Arts Center and Camerawork Gallery in San Francisco. The exhibition is up until November 22, 1976.

Dear Mr. Thomas,

Just one comment about the "Photography and Language" exhibition. Being the first exhibition of the relationships between Photography and Language to be done with the emphasis on Photography, is it totally justified to curate the show in such a manner that it may actually misrepresent certain artists' work due to your decision to restrict entries to an 8 X 10 inch horizontal format I know that I felt a little galled at having to conform to your preconceptions of what the show was about and resented you using the exhibition as an excuse to "do a piece." When you curate a show, especially in this situation where much of the work shown has not had extensive visibility, you take a responsibility to show the work in its proper context without taking such curatorial liberties with the work. This is my objection to the format of the show. I admire your urge to put on unique exhibitions like "8 X 10" back in 1975, but in this instance the show purports to represent a certain direction within Photography, so can you justify from an historical point of view having the artists who participate restrict their entries to your format limitations?

Sincerely,
James Hugunin
Los Angeles

Dear Mr. Hugunin,

In reply to your letter of July 1, regarding the 8 X10 inch horizontal format for the "Photography and Language" exhibition held jointly at the Arts Center and Camerawork Gallery, let me begin by saying that I was not the author of the format. It is unfortunate that my '18 X 10" book should be the cause of erroneous identification. However, any policy involving the exhibit must have the unanimous consent of John Lamkin, Carl Loeffler and myself. So, if the format appears to be an "excuse to do a piece," this judgment must be shared by the three of us.

From my reading of your articles and publications which I admire for their analytical skills to define Photography as an intellectual medium, your comments expressing "preconceptions" and misrepresentation" came as a surprise to me.

Because of the experience during the West Coast Conceptual Photographers' exhibition which was designed to show a physical kind of photography using sequence, scale, and eccentric formats, we decided to find a strategy that would eliminate curatorial choices of "where do we hang this" and "how does this look" syndrome. In other words, even in the WCCP show we found ourselves relying on institutional sensibilities that in theory are deplorable. Let the galleries and museums worry about the history and other forms of aesthetic entertainment. It is our desire and business to create alternative structures that involve the highest form of risk. A risk circumscribed by artist and theoretician.

Within the format of the 8 X 10 inch horizontal print artists are free to send as many photographs as they deem necessary to complete their projects; they are free to send copies of original work because of installation procedures where unmounted prints will be stapled to the wall; or, to enable artists outside California to participate via the copy in that they can reduce non-transportable pieces to entities that can simply be mailed. How can this format be considered a manner that "may actually misrepresent certain artists' work"? If you mean eccentrically shaped photo pieces or hyperbolic objects are necessary for the serious investigation of the uses of photography and language, then of course this show will blow it. Even in the area of the object or aesthetic commodity whereby photography is currently supposed to represent the new bourgeois art market's need for inexpensive, "original" items, the choice of the 8 X 10 inch format is morally and politically defensible.

Therefore, the conditions and Policy of the "Photography and Language" exhibition make it possible to install work without subjective mediation, encourages the submission of work beyond a regional scope, neutralizes the fetishistic values of the object, equates an exhibition with theory, and finally provides a conceptual context where questions are not only related to the identity and meaning of the art, but of the artist also.

We are aware that many photographers will not participate because of the format. That is our gamble. We may end up with 3 pieces or 240 square inches to 4500 square feet of space, But if these so called Language artists took the time to think out the implications of the format they ought to understand that one more "hot" show will only satisfy personal exposure. These same artists will not feel comfortable in the show regardless of conditions.

Speaking now only for myself I don't see any need for producing a show that is compatible with the mentality that extends from Rochester to Carmel. The Romanticism of Photography is hardly the issue now.

I hope this information finds you in an indefatigable mood and I am grateful for your honesty and the material you have made available to the exhibition.

What we are doing is not predictable.

Very sincerely,
Lew Thomas
San Francisco