Chapter 6: Photography as Art

The role of photography within the world of what we consider 'art' is quite interesting. It seems as if the works that people have produced in the past, even that which we today recognize as being quite revolutionary or beautiful, was not accepted as art until recently, rather it was still part of this mechanical process from which a photograph is produced. I don't really come from a background of art history and still couldn't tell you the difference between a modern or post-modern work, but I think there are still some interesting questions that can be asked even by the ignorant.

There are a couple of chapters which focus on both feminist art and black art, and how they have grown within the community and photography. These sections were only briefly touched upon, but still, does the labeling of such a piece of work as 'feminist' or 'black' art have a destructive connotation to them, as it separates an 'us' from 'them'? Of course, people who are women or African American certainly have to deal with different issues every day that the rest wouldn't have to encounter, but is this still counter-productive for their movements? And who labels these as specific types of art? Is it the artist themselves or more often is it a label placed on them from the external world?

The second question I have is about the role of curators for the art world. "It has been suggested that curators more often act more as 'creators'" (Wells:301) Even though much or art exists outside of the galleries and museums today, the museum is still often seen as being the location where an artist has reached his or her epitome, and that they have been accepted within this new social circle or true artists. If this is then controlled by the curators more often than not, who might even direct the photographers to bring them something specific by funding them, where does the power or aesthetic of the art lie? Can we say that it comes from the artist and their abilities? Or do these curators slice down other works by truly talented people who are simply not respected or don't fulfill the desires and notions of these people in control of what enters the gallery? What message does this send to rising photographers, should they strive for museum status or does that simply make them a part of the status quo?