-
ADD TIME NEWS
- MOBILE APPS
- NEWSLETTERS
Snap Judgments

Unidentified/ 1950s — Photo: National Gallery of Art
Incredibly, I'm back on the road again, again. (Didn't I just get home?) I'll be checking back in tomorrow. But before I leave town I wanted to offer a comment or two on "The Art of the American Snapshot, 1888-1978," a new show at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, which I caught an early look at a few weeks ago.
This is a show that needed to be done, not merely to trace the development of home photography from the introduction of the Kodak camera in 1888, but to remind us all that the snapshot was the crucial contribution to the universal image bank from which so much of subsequent art is drawn. What it fed into in particular was the great postwar photographic revolution of Robert Frank, Garry Winogrand, Lee Friedlander, William Eggleston, etc., etc.
They all worked with better cameras, mostly 33mms, but with a vision rendered cockeyed by their immersion in images from the primordial ooze of photographic folk art — birthday party pictures, kids playing in the yard, people holding cakes, goofing for the camera, whatever. The awkward poses in the typical snapshot, the vacant expressions, the odd juxtapositions of a head with a tree, it was all the stuff of a new kind of picture, one that unknowingly broke all the rules because the people who took them didn't know what the rules were, or even that there were any. Even Diane Arbus, with her grave and weighty portraits taken with a twin-lens Rolleiflex — no Instamatics for her — owes some of the strangeness to in her work to the demotic weirdness of the people she would have seen in snapshots all her life.
The National Gallery show, which was curated by Sarah Greenough and Diane Waggoner, has a wonderfully weird and funny (in all senses) selection of snaps. I only wish it had been possible to combine them in later galleries with a few examples of Winogrand, Friedlander and so on, to show how an anti-aesthetic developed into, well, an aesthetic. It may not have been possible to do that with this show because it's drawn entirely from the holdings of a single collector, Robert E. Jackson. But it stands on its own as a great adventure into the terra incognita that is us.
-
1
The Getty, here in Los Angeles, had a similarly interesting show on this subject a few years back - http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/close_to_home/
Most Popular »
- Best of the Decade: Sci-Fi Movies
- Is Harry Reid Burning Out?
- How Will Obama Pay For Stimulus 2.1? (or 3.0, 3.1, whatever you want to call it)
- The Health Reform Abortion Wars, Part Deux
- "How Will Dave Ever Make Fun of Sex Scandals Again?"
- War of the Supermen: Q&A With Matt Idelson
- Why Wells Fargo isn't paying back TARP
- Quinnipiac: Obama Gets Bump on Afghanistan
- Economists Growing More Wary of the Senate Health Bill
- How to Outsmart a Debt Collector
- The Truth Behind the Leaked Climate-Change E-Mails
- Mexico Witness Protection: Corrupt Program, New Killings
- Tiger Woods Must Face His Fans' Moral Outrage
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- Taiwan: World's Lowest Birthrate Could Affect Society
- Creating Jobs: Can Obama Government Boost Employment?
- How Strong Is the Evidence Against Amanda Knox?
- U.S. Doesn't Know Where bin Laden Is; Time to Let Go
- Humanure: Goodbye, Toilets. Hello, Extreme Composting
- Study: Parents' Sex Talks with Kids Happening Too Late













RSS