3
4- Reality, integrated in an artistic concept
Example: During a period of approximately 30 years, the photographers
Bernd and Hilla Becher have photographed structures of German indu-
strial history threatened by demolition, such as water towers, furnaces,
gasometers or half-timbered houses of the Siegerland. The documentary
work is consolidated in panels of six, nine or twelve parts of one typology.
Unlike the above-mentioned example, no extension of time is achieved
here, but a series of typologically similar objects threatened by demoliti-
on are shown. The concept shows a reality which has already been trans-
formed into history at the time of its publishing.
Art and photography have been discussed for 150 years. In this context,
the notion that photography is not art is equally as absurd as the notion
that painting is art. After all, both are technical performances in order to
bring a picture onto a surface. Photography can be the greatest ima-
ginable kitsch, while painting can be the worst scribble. For both means
of creating an image, the artistic quality originates from the height of
creativity, and this creativity is perceived differently. The fact that a pho-
tographer generally needs less time for the creation of an artistically po-
werful image than a painter is rather an argument in favour of photogra-
phy. One cannot fail to acknowledge an impressive picture only with the
argument that it took less time to create than a painting. In principle, it is
not relevant how an image which impresses us has been created. The im-
portant issue is what of its content reaches the viewer.
One of the arguments against photography as an artistic discipline that is
often mentioned is the claim of photography’s insufficient originality. Ac-
cording to this argument, photography is only reproductive art, if any-
thing – on the other hand, paintings are solitary products of artistic crea-
tion. However, it is sometimes forgotten that while van Gogh’s
Wheat
Field with Crows
or Vermeer’s
Girl with a Pearl Earring
only exist once as
originals, these paintings have been reproduced millions of times as po-
sters or book illustrations – not to mention Dietz replicas and the pro-
ducts of modern Chinese painting factories. Most oil paintings, waterco-
lours and drawings are not available to us as originals, but we know them
from books, and the same applies to the works of photography. Thus, the-
re is hardly any difference between both disciplines, at least in receptive
practice. It also seems that this way of distribution of art is fully accepted.
But when a photographer does not limit the edition or declares an editi-
on of more than 25, gallery owners and collectors often look down on
this, as the term art signifies a certain concept of value. However, as is
known, lasting value in art results from
demand for a limited supply
. It is
only when the work of art is desired by a certain number of potential buy-
ers that it gains an identifiable value for everyone. For example, this con-
clusion is seen commercially in the limitation of editions of prints and
photographs while advertising for them at the same time. At this point, it
becomes evident that not only the artistic achievement makes a picture
into a work of art, but also the aura with which it is surrounded – not to
mention marketed.
This aura is promoted and maintained by the “image-makers”, by the gal-
lery owners and also by the museums. They are the ones who determine
which artist to invest in or not, and they in themselves constitute the es-
sential selection criteria and mechanisms for steering what is “in” in art.
The photographic wall picture is not unchallenged. On the one hand, it
has to face competition from paintings, drawings and graphic design,
and on the other hand, it has to compete with posters. Soon, a further
