Wednesday, 23 December 2009


The first major photography history book was published in 1937 by Beaumont Newhall, when photography became an important medium in publishing, art and people’s daily life, almost a century after Photography was invented in 1839. Since then, different books on histories of photography cropped up and so far dozens of history books on photography in similar or different aspects have been written and published. These books are different in structure, content and analysis. This essay focuses on two influential history books: Mary Warner Marien’s Photography: A Cultural History (2007) and Ian Jeffrey’s Photography: A Concise History (1981). The essay is organised to define the concept of history, explore the background of the authors and writings on history of photography, and discuss the comparison and contrast of the structure and contents of the two books.

History is sometimes taken for granted as truthful, neutral and authoritative. However any history is subject to critical analysis due to its intrinsic subjective character. Raymond Williams (1988) claims that ‘history’ as a word moved in 15th century from either an account of imaginary events or events supposed to be true to an account of past real events which is more than organized knowledge of the past. (p. 146). This past knowledge, which forms history, is supposed to be written by historians. Even if historians produce out of personal preference, readers are obliged to consider as general authoritative description, following habits formed from the past. Edward Hallett Carr (1961) maintains that there is such a vast quantity of information about the past that the historian always chooses the "facts" he or she decides to make use of. (cited in Hughes-Warrington, 2007, p. 26). Therefore, it is critical to understand whom the history is written for, who writes them and what value criteria authors use to define a history.

History of photography can be introduced in several themes such as technology development, specified topics, cultural and social background etc. Both books discourse history from a cultural and social point of view. Mary Warner Marien’s Photography A Culture History was drafted in 2002. She was then a deputy professor in Syracuse University. The purpose of her work is to ‘make readers gauge the medium’s manifold developments and appreciate the historical and cultural contexts in which photographers lived and worked’. (Marien, 2002, p. x). Ian Jeffery’s Photography A Concise History was first published in 1981. Jeffrey (1981) maintains that he focuses ‘on those photographers who have both sustained and supplemented photography’s dominant modes’. (p. 9). He was then a professor in Goldsmith College. While both authors have similar academic background, they published in years with a gap of almost 20 years. During the 20 years, society, politics, technology and culture had changed significantly and photography has entered a new epoch. Marien’s work of course covers more period than Jeffrey’s. However, setting aside this period coverage difference, there are many other differences in Marien’s and Jeffrey’s interpretations of photography history. The following sets out to explain the structure and content of the books, the methodologies of the writings, the contrast of the similar issues discussed, and dimensions one discuses and the other one does not.

Marien’s work includes 7 chapters strictly following the timeline: ‘The Origins of Photography (to 1839)’, ‘The Second Invention of Photography (1839-1854)’, ‘The Expanding Domain (1854-1880)’, ‘Photography in the Modern Age (1880-1918)’, ‘A New Vision (1918-1945)’, ‘Through the Lens of Culture (1945-1975)’, and ‘Convergences (1975-Present)’ plus ‘Epilogue’. Marien groups the 7 periods mainly according to major social and culture watershed changes in history. Jeffrey’s book contains 10 chapters: ‘Seeing Nature’, ‘Instantaneous Pictures’, ‘Documentary Meanings’, ‘Small Worlds’, ‘Truths beyond Appearance’, ‘Looking to the Future’, ‘American Society’, ‘The Human Condition’, and ‘Self-asserted, Self-absented’. While each one has a unitive theme, the 10 chapters develop in a chronological way albeit with occasional jumping around to maintain focused on each topic. Jeffrey obviously summarised the history out of his own understanding by grouping photographers and their works by the theme that he develops.

While Marien introduces the technical, social and political background before 1839, Jeffrey does not discuss the social, cultural, and scientific background before the invention of photography but starts directly from Fox Talbot. Marien also introduces the precursors and the inventors including Daguerre, Herschel and Talbot and analyses in depth the social and political background and reaction of the inventions.

Following the first chapter, Marien starts to discuss the forthcoming practical uses and social meanings which emerged in more than a decade. She introduces the photography usage in science including biology, anthropology and medicine, in recording events and war, expeditionary and travel and in portraiture. Jeffery introduces the period in two folds with two chapters. He focuses the photography with the function of seeing nature while critically explains the limit. Secondly he discusses the instantaneity of photography and elaborates further the problems and advantages in art, portraiture and topography.

In Marien’s chapter three, the ‘Expanding Domain (1854-1880)’, she explains the emerging popularity of photography. She delineates the photography popularity in the society, photography usage in war, survey and science. She also discusses art and photography and woman behind the camera. Writing on the same period, Jeffrey concentrates the documentary aspect of photography in only British and American photographers.

‘Modern Age (1880-1918)’ explains the technology and social background of the time and the interaction relationships. Marien discusses in depth the relationship art and photography, emerging usage of photography in publishing, and more application in science. In Jeffrey’s chapter named Truths beyond Appearance, he analyses the artist-photographers in Europe and United States around 1900.

Marien uses ‘A New vision (1918-1945)’ to introduce how the photojournalism started to enter into common usage, how photography pioneered in avant-garde art and how photography played an important role in science and World War II. Jeffrey, on the other hand, spends 4 chapters to introduce this period. ‘Looking into the Future’ lists a dozen of photographers, their works and reviews mainly in Europe between the two world wars. The photography style mainly includes documentary and surreal. Then Jeffrey introduces Sander, Atget, Stieglitz, Strand and Weston to focus on European society and American nature. He analyses American documentary photography and culture in the depression times in the next chapter by discussing how photography responded to economic crisis, war, industrialization and mass society during 1930 to 1950.

Marien, in the Chapter, ‘Through the Lens of Culture (1945-1975)’, elaborates the sea change in social and ideology internationally. Then she explains the development and interaction of photography as a medium in publishing and art with societies and cultures in different countries internationally. Jeffry analyses the new documentary pioneered by Frank and names his last chapter ‘Self-asserted, Self-absented’, which introduces from subjectivism to a self-denying photographic movement in the seventies.

Marien’s last Chapter, ‘Convergence (1975-Present)’ introduced and focused on globalisation, convergence of culture, value, ideology and convergence of photography with other forms of art. ‘The Epilogue’ based on the theme of beauty, science and nature to shed more lights into the photography’s future.

Mary Warner Marien’s Photography A Culture History has 528 pages with 600 illustrations (The First 2002 Edition). Ian Jeffery’s Photography A Concise History has 248 pages and 136 illustrations (The First 1982 Edition). Both works, according to its own publicity, claim that the books fulfill the need for a critical and cultural approach, rather than a technical one. Both authors used ‘A’ instead of ‘The’ on their title, which indicate their attitudes toward the definition of ‘history’. Both of them admit the difficulties and limits in writing an impartial history book on photography in each of the introductions. Marien (2002) admits she does have personal preference such as Doisneau’s photos taken in 1950’s, (p. x). and Jeffrey (1981) expresses concerns on how to choose photographic cannons. (pp. 7-9) Both Marien and Jeffrey do not elaborate further how her/his methodology is developed in selecting those photos out of the massive photo stock in history. To readers, those photos are simply authoritatively assumed of great dominance in history. While Marien takes an approach more focused into the context of a number of layers including society, culture, politics, science and art; Jeffrey maintains the classical approach to introduce in depth the masters and categorised them and their works into different theme.

Based on these methods and structures, the way of their discourse differs. Marien strictly follows the timeline because each period offers similar social, cultural and technology background to photography and to photographers during that time. Jeffrey selects a number of themes, under which he introduces and analyses the works chosen. Marien devotes a high percentage of space to explore extensively and broadly on social and cultural background. Jeffrey analyses the social, cultural and technology background very briefly but in a focused way.

Marien’s work explored extensively and internationally including Mexico, Latin America, Africa, Russia and Asia, although she is mindful that she has not mentioned much the photography in India and China; while Jeffrey’s work hardly mentions any other country than Europe and United States. Marien’s work pays much attention to female ones by setting out special sections such as ‘Women behind the Camera’, ‘Women in the Pictorial Movement’ and ‘Feminism and Postmodern Photography’. However, Jeffrey’s work is overwhelmingly concerned with male practitioners.
Marien also discusses family and vernacular photography in reasonable depth as an important aspect of photographic cultural and social history, but Jeffrey fails to discuss at all.

While Marien endeavours to include a number of photos with contexts of magazines covers or advertisement, Jeffrey’s illustrations include none of the kind but just single photo. While Marien explored thoroughly photography montage and mixed media techniques, Jeffrey fails to discuss in depth these issues. There are more areas where Marien has discussed but Jeffrey has not mentioned. Marien’s maintains good criteria that anything related photography’s culture history is worth discussing. For example, some photography related art forms such as pop, conceptual and installation art are discussed excellently in her work to explore the interrelationships between photography and art. Jeffrey’s book does not mention this area.

‘Art is a public production’. (Wolff, 1981, p. 1). Photography, as a new form in art, publishing and people’s daily life, is a new subject with more than 170 years history permeating into so many area of our life, culture and society hence it is impossible to create a history book that covers all aspects. It is understandable that a concise history with only 248 pages of A3 size book can not cover everything in detailed manner as Marien’s 528 pages A4 sized book. Even with such a volume, Marien (2002) also consent in her introduction that she has not mined photographic archives of business and industry, the history of advertising photography. (p. x). Both books discusses well in depth in their own kinds. Marien’s work explores and shows an extensive prospect of culture, society and the world and Jeffrey’s book sheds new lights into photography and culture within his chosen 10 themes. While Marien’s book flows smoothly seamlessly of the development of photography in our cultural background, Jeffrey’s work brings forth a number of important fragments within the development of photography. Marien’s history can also be considered another kind of fragments presentation of photography history in the history due to the subjective characteristics of history writing. Jeffrey’s history then could be considered the fragments of fragments in the history of photography. I read Jeffrey’s book first before I started Marien’s book. Marien’s excellent discourse of background of culture, society and other photographer’s work enables me understand Jeffrey’s work to another level. There is no ‘the’ history. All history books inter-relate real history and author’s own knowledge and understanding. It is reader’s choice to understand different approach of historians and to interpret, interact and weave by using one’s own mind to weave one’s own history.

Hughes-Warrington, Marnie, (2007). Fifty Key Thinkers On History. London: Routledge.
Jeffrey, Ian, (1981). Photography A Concise History. London: Thames & Hudson.
Marien, Mary Warner, (2002). Photography A Cultural History. London: Laurence King.
Williams, Raymond, (1988). Keywords. London: Fontana.
Wolff, Janet, (1981). The Social Production of Art. London: Macmillan Education.

Saturday, 19 December 2009


Untitled Absence-Presence
Critical Reflection 2009

The 31 photos in the first class in October were inspiring. I had split absence and presence in meaning but the presentation completely changed my ideology that contradicted concepts can be embodied in the same situation and can create a strong inter-related engagement. I undertook an initial research and concluded that photographically representational absence is a form of presence.

I searched for any images with absence presence theme but images found mainly include traces of the past and some formalist fine art work.

I then brainstormed and shortlisted 4 concepts: human/nature, surveillance, billboard and manikin. I evaluated trial shootings myself and consulted with Ulrike Leyens whose comments enlightened my concept greatly. Finally I decided to shoot manikin with a theme on the ambiguity of realness and artificialness.

I visited all major high streets in London and shot with formulated layout to keep visual coherence. I used wide aperture in shooting and high contrast in printing to to convey the realness of these manikins. I reinforced the visual coherence in editing and finalised with five frames. In the post production stage, Rachel Cunningham introduced some manikin works by Roger Mavity and Valerie Belin. Their works strengthened my committment to the concept of this project - ambiguity.
(Scanned from Fibre Prints)

Sunday, 13 December 2009


(Retouching Demonstration)

(The Hot Iron & Wax Paper)

(Mounting Press)



Ulrike showed us how to mount and retouch. After finishing printing last Thursday, I finished my production on Friday by doing mounting, cutting and retouching. The works are far from perfection, but due to time and skill constraint, I had to finish this way. I bought black mounting board from art shop on campus, considered different alternatives of mounting and decided to make a no-boarder mounting. First of all, to stick photo, fibre paper and mount board by a hot iron. Then, I wrapped the mounted stuff with wax paper and tucked it into the mounting machine for 3 minutes. They look very neat afterwards. After cutting to the expected size (not an easy job to make all 5 mounted prints to the same dimension), I tried to retouch to get rid of the dust spot and other defects in the prints. It was hard to match the right shade! Anyway, I finished everything! Next stage is to organise my introduction and workbook and to submit next Friday the 18th!

Saturday, 5 December 2009


(J1.15 classroom, 2009)

We had an editing session yesterday. Each one was give other people’s photo and choose 5-7. I was given Michal’s 28 photos. His topic is about a disappearing river in London, which run well 100 years ago but now covered with urban structures. I choose 7 according to subjects and storyline. In discussion, Ulrike took a different approach and picked 5 and instantly I noticed they are of a better choice. She emphasizes on visual coherence. The 5 shots she chose have similar composition with horizon in the middle and space in front and residential house in the back, though they only depicts residential house rather than road, space, land and building, which what I tried to convey. As the topic is conceptual engaging already, it makes a better argument with these 5 shots. It is stronger to form a series to pass this conception this way. I wanted to convey many things but end up with weak and messy photography rhetoric. The visual coherence!

She also emphasized that the context (on a museum wall, in a book, or…) is very important for edit. We discussed my works. An easy consensus was made with 5 shots chosen.

More haste, less speed. I can not understand this any more today. I tried to print everything but end up with not a single satisfied one. What I should have done is to print each one to its perfection, then move to the next… It seems I might have to make do with these prints, as next Friday is our last chance for print.

Tuesday, 1 December 2009


(Courtesy: Ed Ruscha; John Baldessari.)

I took one day off. No reading on Visual Culture and no shooting on Absence/Presence. I went to Tate Modern to see Pure Beauty by John Baldessari, which David Campany strongly recommended. The whole show is highly conceptual with clever usage of texts, image appropriation, and strong montage and juxtapositions. He does not take un-necessary photos but just utilise what he can find and then create his own signifiers. The signifier. This is the idea and tool of my photography. I should always find a concept, and then look for signifier to achieve my own photo, rather than take the camera and seek saccharine scenes randomly unless there is a good reason.

I visited the sculpture by Miroslaw Balka in turbine hall. Without reading any introduction, I walked around it and entered into this sublime cold iron box of darkness. The first perception is the gothic atmosphere, in which I felt overwhelmingly overshadowed by the thick darkness. It was amazing that in the darkness I could still saw subtle shades of other visitors. As I walked further, some more shadows came into presence out of nowhere like magic. It seemed everything was submerged by the darkness but it was not as more shadows just came around you walking into and out of the box. I like the atmosphere created by the coldness and darkness. You are not sure whether you would like to walk a step further, but you just adventure more. You think you can not see but you can see little by little more and more. Suddenly you turned back, wow, a fantastic scene of the entrance with tiny peoples’ silhouette against the sublime tall background of the grey turbine hall. I found this piece of sculpture amazing, refreshing my mind with darkness and the sudden presence of flickering sublime brightness, quite thought provoking.

By chance I watched a short film documenting Balka. Then I understand it originally is the symbolised Nazi holocaust. Thousands of Jewish were put into iron train box and carried to the camp for death. Balka is quite cool Arte Povera artist. I quite like his approach and his sensitive artistic mind documented in the film. Then I went to Hayward Gellery and finished my day with the loud Ed Ruscha show.

Saturday, 28 November 2009


Rachel asked us to discuss our developed idea and show our work in progress on Friday. She gave me the names of two artists who did some projects on manikin. I will check them up a little bit later. I found other classmates did very thorough research work, such as what the background of the issue is, who else did similar projects, etc. I plan to get my research going further next week.

I developed the third film with a surprising peace of mind. Everything flowed so naturally. It was successfully developed. I am quite happy about it. This is the film shot last Sunday. Then I printed contact sheets and selected quite a few frames to print on resin. I now have a very clear approach – to select the manikin that looks real. I printed around 20 frames and then filter the ones that look artificial. I finally shortlisted around 10 shots for final 5 fibre prints. The printing was fast but there are always white speckles etc. Hopefully I could handle them in fibre printing. This second film shot for manikin has better shots than the first. I think it is because after the first roll, I streamlined my format and criteria in selecting scenes. I think I have covered most of London area. It will difficult to spot more manikins in London at the time being. Hopefully I can finish the project with these two rolls of film.

Monday, 23 November 2009


(Piccadilly, London 2009)

After the printing last Friday, I would like to use similarly gorgeous looking female models portrait for the project. I went to central London on Sunday and planned to re-shoot on portrait layout rather than landscape. Torrential rain poured down heavily. I was lucky to be in my car and shot a few in Piccadilly. I am always fascinated by scenes in rain especially behind wet glasses. Anyway, formalist now should not occupy my mind; it is the conceptual aspect that should arrest my photography. I made a long walk observing and looking for the right dolls to shoot. I made a few shots eventually before it got dark around 3:30pm.

I had a tutorial with Ulrike last Friday. She tried to enlighten me why I am doing the project of the dolls, what my philosophy is, what I would like to convey to viewers. I am still contemplating these issues. Originally I just wanted to show the real side of the artificial world constructed by commercial world. I wanted to show another side of reality. The look of the dolls in my photos needs to seem real. I am not quite sure if I have achieved this on Sunday’s shooting. At the same time, I need to explore the thoughts behind the project idea.

Saturday, 21 November 2009


We were instructed to choose studio, tutorial, or darkroom on Friday 20th of Nov. I chose tutorial and darkroom. Bought print paper resin and fibre.
I was nervous again in dark room. I needed to develop the Ilford Pan F 50 shot during the last 2 weekends. Fortunately my colleague teamed up with me. She’s so good and well prepared with all parameter data jotted down. Developer/fixer/stopper/water/agent/dryer = 8/1/6/20/0.5/15. Successful!
Then I rushed to printing room as I really needed to get one or two proper fibre print for the project. Submission time (mid Dec) is approaching. I never printed any proper one last time though not for the project.
After examining the whole roll, I started from the one taken in Next. Tester on resin first!
3.5 contrast, 1's interval, 5.6 aperture, seemed 2's proper exposed. When blowing up this frame, I mistakenly used 11 aperture, but the resin paper print looked fine. There was a hair like blemish on the face so I dedusted the film accordingly. I did a tester on fibre and concluded 2.5's for the exposure. After exposure, developer/stopper/fixer/water/dryer 2/1.5/6/30/15, the print looked fine. (Fibre print scan.)
I then tried to print a contact. Never did right in the past! Using the same parameter, I exposed, but it was over done. Again, tester first. I found that exposure time need to be bit shorter than the blow up therefore I adjusted 1 stop aperture. By chance I adjusted the height of the light and exposed at the same condition. Failure again. Because this time light was higher, under-exposed! Anyway, eventually did it right.

I tried to find the 2nd fibre print for the project so I did a few resin printing first. I finally decide to print this one, as it seemed has similar atmosphere with the previous one. (Resin print scan.)
Using the same parameter, I exposed on a fibre. God! Wasted. It was under exposed and the shades around nose area does not come out properly. For every frame, even in the same roll, I need to do a tester! Now I understood! I then adjusted one stop aperture and printed another one. Fine this time. The dryer was broken. I had to keep it in the darkroom for drying when I left hence I couldn't scan it today.

I stayed in the printing dark room for more than 3 hours till 19:35. It was rewarding this time with a few properly printed photos, though I am still nervous. The lessons I learned:
1. Contact printing and film printing parameter are not the same. Same condition, contact need less time.
2. Fibre print need more exposure than resin one.
3. When height of light changes, tester!
4. For each frame even from same roll of film, tester!
5. Fibre and resin, of course, tester for each!

I noticed that the Ilford Pan F 50 grain is really small. When I used magnifying glass to focus, it was hard. As the photos I took are dolls made out of plastic in shopping windows, if I had printed with proper exposure, then the texture of the face would appear very obvious and spectator can tell instantly it is a dummy doll rather than a real people. I under exposed, then the face's texture is not obvious and looked reasonably real at first glance. In the future, if I would like to get the full texture, I need to proper expose or even over do a bit. Anyway, I am happy that I under exposed the photos and it gave a good black and white contrast as well, which added a little dramatic ambience to the scene.

For these two shots, the first boy doll is a little spooky maybe because of the lighting and obviously it is artificial. For the second lady doll, it looked real at first glance, then it get recognised it is artificial. I would like to produce a series that could fool spectator at first sight at least, so not quite sure of the boy doll one, though I really like it personally.

(Camera: FM3A; Lens: Nikkor 50mm 1.2)

Monday, 16 November 2009


(Westfield, London, 2009)

(Hammersmith Station, London, 2009)

Shop Windows
The weekend was not productive at all technically speaking. I couldn’t find enough shop windows with good real like models. Following up the thematic consideration, I come up with the following theme ideas:
Kids - portraitures of boys and girls, the innocence.
Fashion ladies - cool and gorgeous girls, the beauty.
Blurred - soft blurred focus to create real but dream like atmosphere.

Not enough bill boards in London as well. I have been considering to shoot from an angel where few people notice in daily life. However, Stephan Gill’s works are so original that I found it is so difficult to supersede. I observed quite a few billboards but has no clue how to shoot as the billboards are now electric controlled, neat, tidy and efficient. Everything is covered well so one can see nothing from the surface but the normal panel, which is difficult to create tension or contrast to the colourful advertisement showed. I took a smiling face out of a rum advertisement in Hammersmith tube station. I originally thought to shoot many smiling faces and use the advertisement name as the title, but couldn’t find enough smiling faces. The smiling faces are not generic picture language in today’s advertising environment, it seems.

Friday, 13 November 2009


(Group Work: Alex, Michal, Peter, Silvio & me; London 2009)
(Sitter: Michal; London, 2009) - My first trial 'heroic'

(Sitter: Michal; London, 2009)- My second trial 'heroic'

Our assignment was to take 5 shots portraiture in studio single light (modelling, spot, softbox, controlled by Elinchrom Classic 3000) by Hasselblad with Polaroid. Alex, Silvio, Michal and Peter in my group. The five themes are sinister/mysterious, soft even beauty, heroic, classic and backlit. Equipment not that complicated than it seemed, though I was still bit nervous. I directed the heroic one.

I had been considering which one of the absence/presence idea to follow so I printed contacts and showed to Ulrike. She verified what I expected. Sometimes, I have some thoughts but in vague and not sure, and it is nice to get someone’s comment to strengthen those ideas. Yes, she said that human/nature idea was quite literal which I thought exactly the same. She seemed kind of prefer that shopping window project, well, it is my favourite as well. However, I really need to make some theme. She suggests I might need to get cooperation from shop to make the model more real. This is something dodgy. How can I get help from Harrods?? Regarding the billboard traces, she thinks there is potential. The camera one, it is too literal now – with many photos of camera, though the topic ‘surveillance’ is quite a good one with space to explore. I am really grateful for her comments which are like some light in the darkness. Next step is to improve the current shooting.

For human/nature, scrap it. Lucky that I scrap now otherwise have to go to Canary Wharf to take urban landscape tomorrow, unlucky spend hours last week shooting rail roads and Richmond. For window, need to develop some theme and make it more real. How? For billboard traces, need to find another angle to go beyond the common visual experience. For camera, really need to make it more conceptual not taking literal cameras of cliché. Hard! Tomorrow need to shoot, but tonight has no clue what to do. Seems all previous plan need to be changed. How to go beyond the meaning is the key to photography!

Thursday, 12 November 2009


(Regent St., London 2009)


(Sheen Common, London, 2009)


(Kings Cross Station, London 2009)


(A4, Chiswick, London 2009)

BACK DATE - 20091106

BACK DATE - 20091030

BACK DATE - 20091020

BACK DATE - 20091016

BACK DATE - 20091012

BACK DATE - 20091008


I am always reluctant to new things especially technology. I prefer a primitive life style as it gives me more time and space to enjoy the end rather than the means. However, as time goes by the world around permeates through me slowly, I come to realise that my ideology is changing. I decided today to use this 'magic medium' to jot down my thoughts on the fleeting moments of fragments of my life. It is my visual diary, starting from 2009 in London, England. It will document my development in photography from scratch to... hopefully.