FYI ~ the Group f64 manifesto
Wednesday, January 24, 2007 at 10:16AM Thanks to Steve Durbin for the link to this.
The name of this Group is derived from a diaphragm number of the photographic lens. It signifies to a large extent the qualities of clearness and definition of the photographic image which is an important element in the work of members of this Group.
The chief object of the Group is to present in frequent shows what it considers the best contemporary photography of the West; in addition to the showing of the work of its members, it will include prints from other photographers who evidence tendencies in their work similar to that of the Group.
Group f/64 is not pretending to cover the entire of photography or to indicate through its selection of members any deprecating opinion of the photographers who are not included in its shows. There are great number of serious workers in photography whose style and technique does not relate to the metier of the Group.
Group f/64 limits its members and invitational names to those workers who are striving to define photography as an art form by simple and direct presentation through purely photographic methods. The Group will show no work at any time that does not conform to its standards of pure photography. Pure photography is defined as possessing no qualities of technique, composition or idea, derivative of any other art form. The production of the "Pictorialist," on the other hand, indicates a devotion to principles of art which are directly related to painting and the graphic arts.
The members of Group f/64 believe that photography, as an art form, must develop along lines defined by the actualities and limitations of the photographic medium, and must always remain independent of ideological conventions of art and aesthetics that are reminiscent of a period and culture antedating the growth of the medium itself.
The Group will appreciate information regarding any serious work in photography that has escaped its attention, and is favorable towards establishing itself as a Forum of Modern Photography.
FEATURED COMMENT: Frank Winters wrote (in part); "...This is the photo club mentality at its source..."
publisher's response: Frank, if I understand you correctly, you are right in stating that the Group f64 manifesto - which was considered completely revolutionary in 1932 - has become, in some ways, the camera club cliche manifesto of today. However, it must be understood/judged against the prevelent photographic paradigm of 1932. It really was a watershed moment in the medium's history.
And, I might add, that I am favorably disposed towards the tenet that photography, as an art form, must develop along lines defined by the actualities and limitations of the photographic medium. I have long been an advocate of photography by photographers who exploit and use the medium's formal characteristics - those qualities that establish photography as a unique form of artistic expression.
Reader Comments (4)
Mark,
This GroupF64 Manifesto is as bad as any and worse than most. This is the photo club mentality at its source. We have inherited what Cartier-Bresson called a fetish for sharpness aka pure photography from this group. We need to get beyond being hung up on technical excellence and back to photography as an artist's tool.I like Ansel's early work as much or more than his grand vistas. (Museum of Art Boston had a great retrospective exhibit a year or so ago).
BTW -- I don't think your work would be accepted by GroupF64, do you?
Frank
I don't think your work would be accepted by GroupF64, do you?
I hope not.
In 1932 Henri Cartier-Bresson was 24 and just starting one of his most productive periods. No manifesto -- he wrote his later on in 1952 -- he just started to take photos.
Of course his style was quick, quick, quick. His manifesto if you can call it that was "The Decisive Moment." This book, one of the best photography books ever according to many including me, was called "Photos Taken on the Run" when it was first published in French.
So we have two ground breaking photographers taking very different approaches. I say they are both admirable and worth study. For me the GroupF64 Manifesto is of historic value only (as you suggest). But many in the photo clubs are still following this. Its a pity because this attitude tends to spoil much of the fun!
Is it really possible to separate photography from other visual media completely. In my mind the language will always be the same, or at least intertwined. I'm not sure there is such a thing as a purely photographic method.