The hidden life of a photograph
A family group circa 1910. Photographer unidentified.
The complete history of photography can never be known. Writing about it for this blog has vividly brought that home to me. I have found myself going down so very many research rabbit holes - but have loved every diversion because there is always something new to discover. And, crucially, there are always new and often extraordinary images to be found; sometimes by chance, sometimes by actively hunting.
Camera fairs like the one we hold at Wolverhampton offer fascinating journeys into the history of photo technology; an obscure camera type; an esoteric lens; a weird and wonderful accessory... Table by table, dealer by dealer, we share our fascination for all this photographic paraphernalia.
But what value do you place on a photographic print? If the image is an original from one the famous photographers, a print can be worth a fortune. But you are going to have to go to an auction, gallery or specialised dealer to buy. Pause for a moment to look at an Avedon print recently auctioned from Sir Elton John's superb collection of great photographs - one of a series made directly from Avedon's original negative, it sold for $151,200...
Sir Elton's collection is pretty wonderful but unless you have a superstar fortune like his, you had better look elsewhere if you want to start collecting photographs. And this is where the joy of stalking camera fairs like Wolverhampton kicks in.
We live in a world awash with images - most of which are now on our phones or 'archived' in the neverland of the cloud - but for over 150 years photographs were printed on paper. And these images you can find in great quantities once you begin to look. Just don't expect to find an original Avedon.
In fact, the kind of pictures you are likely to find are the polar opposite of a collection like Sir Elton John's. The images we are looking for have a single unifying theme: they are the work of unknown photographers. And the finest of these images prove one thing: a 'great' anonymous photograph is entirely in the eye of the beholder; because without a famous name photographer attached, assessing the value of these photographs is a personal rather than a commercial judgement.
Each print you discover is most likely unique - and so, with the original negative long lost, you will have in your hand a genuine 'one-off'. When a really special image turns up, it should arguably have a higher value than a print made from the negative of one of the master photographers.
One of my treasured books (and the inspiration for hunting for images at Camera fairs) is Robert Flynn Johnson's 'Anonymous - enigmatic images from unknown photographers' published in 2005. By turns poignant, humorous, erotic, and disturbing, the subject is the human condition and each image is a unique artefact discovered by Flynn Johnson. Robert went on to publish another collection of images in a second volume - 'Being Human'.
I don't think any self-respecting photographer can live without these books. The images are extraordinary and are an object lesson in the true nature of photography - because it's a fact that luck can have as much of a role in capturing a great image as any professional intent.
The compelling images in Robert's books challenge you to ask: what is the real power of a photograph? What makes some images endure and others fade away? There is the snapshot; the story of our lives; the real world caught in two dimensional slices of time.
And then there are Great Photographs. Images that defy reality. And defy time.
But the photographer is not always known. A great photograph can also be an anonymous one.
This image from 'Anonymous' is completely wonderful and yet the photographer is unknown. The picture reminds me vividly of the work of the legendary Jaques Henri-Lartigue... But, unlike a Lartigue original, I am guessing that Robert Flynn Johnson found the image not in a fancy gallery but in one of the many flea markets and camera fairs that he has made his domain.
Is an anonymous photograph any lesser than one taken by a great photographer?
I think not.
And I'm sure most photographers would agree. Photography is a precise, technical medium. But it is also a game of chance. Cartier-Bresson said that- 'Your first ten thousand pictures are your worse' - and he always acknowledged that luck was always needed to capture the 'decisive moment'.
Look at this gallery of the work of anonymous photographers - many remind me vividly of the work of the great photographers.
This could have been taken by August Sander
And the following two images could have been taken by Mary Ellen Mark... Or Robert Frank
....And the image below could easily have been attributed to Henri Cartier-Bresson or maybe Robert Doisneau -
This image and the one below could have been taken by Walker Evans
I guess a great photographer is, by definition an experienced photographer - but a great image is still only caught when luck is on your side...
The odds of capturing a great image are just better if you are a professional; because of course, luck is where preparation meets opportunity.
But the fates have always left the door open for the 'lucky' anonymous photographer to capture something magical. The very many wonderful anonymous images Robert has discovered prove this absolutely. In this ocean of images we swim in, Robert is one of those few photographic 'beachcombers' dedicated to finding long-lost photographic treasures washed up on the shore.
...'Guy Whittaker' stares back at us from the distant shoreline of 1896. We know nothing of him except what he inscribed here. His image- 'DE ONLY PEBBLE ON DE BEACH' was found by Robert and is a personal favourite.
I guess we'll meet you on the other side, Guy.
In the meantime, at the next camera fair, take a break from the hardware and see what images can be discovered...
After all, a camera is just a camera but photographs are what drew us to photography in the first place.
blog copyright Matthew Whiteman March 2024